Utah’s Tale Of Two Halves Doom Them Against Mississippi State
Dec 13, 2025, 10:27 PM | Updated: Dec 14, 2025, 12:33 pm
Dec 13, 2025; Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; Mississippi State Bulldogs forward Brandon Walker (4) goes to the basket against Utah Utes forward Kendyl Sanders (13) and forward Keanu Dawes (8) during the first half at Delta Center. Mandatory Credit: Rob Gray-Imagn Images
(8)
SALT LAKE CITY —Mississippi State stunned Utah in Salt Lake City, rallying past the Runnin’ Utes 82–74 in a neutral-site contest at the Delta Center. It was a tale of two halves for Alex Jensen’s squad — and unfortunately for Utah, it flipped violently after the break.
Behind decisive defensive adjustments that completely disrupted Utah’s offensive rhythm, the Bulldogs erased a double-digit deficit and walked out with the win in a game that ultimately swung on turnovers, pressure defense, and late-game execution.
Utah opened the night with one of its most encouraging stretches of basketball this season, building a 17-point first-half lead and heading into the locker room up 42–32. The first 20 minutes showcased real progress — defensive intensity, confident shot-making, and composure.
The second half, however, unraveled quickly and ultimately left an overwhelmingly sour taste in the mouth of everyone “Utah” tonight.
Here are the takeaways from tonights game
Utah’s Second-Half Offense Went Cold
After a first half where Utah’s defense set the tone and the Utes operated with some offensive balance, the second half revealed a glaring weakness: Utah couldn’t sustain offensive momentum when Mississippi State changed its defensive look.
MSU flipped the script after intermission, leaning heavily into full-court pressure and extended half-court traps that peeled Utah’s ball-handlers out of their sets and forced rushed decisions.
Instead of fluid entry passes and purposeful spacing, Utah’s offense turned into one-on-one dribbling and late-clock kickouts, the exact scenario where shot quality plummets.
The result? Utah’s efficient halfcourt movement unraveled — they went through stretches without meaningful offense, struggled to get into their preferred actions, and repeatedly coughed up the ball against pressure that was more aggressive and better timed than in the first 20 minutes.
Mississippi State’s defensive tweak didn’t just create turnovers; it ushered Utah out of its game plan, turning what had been a controlled attack into fragmented possessions that ultimately helped MSU seize and hold the lead.
Alex Jensen’s Defense Was Effective (But Not Perfect)
Utah’s early defensive effort was real and impactful. The Utes forced rushed possessions, protected the paint, and controlled tempo well enough to build a commanding lead. At halftime, Mississippi State sat at 41% shooting, visibly uncomfortable and out of rhythm.
That wasn’t accidental. Jensen switched defenses throughout the first half. Utah played with high on-ball pressure, aggressively blitzed pick-and-roll ball handlers, and trapped hard on the wings and near the sidelines, forcing Mississippi State to initiate offense farther from the basket than it wanted.
Behind those traps, Utah rotated well enough to shrink driving lanes and bait the Bulldogs into early-clock decisions. It was disruptive, layered, and decisive — exactly the kind of defense that fuels confidence and momentum.
Utah cleaned the glass reasonably well, too, finishing with 41 rebounds, including 10 offensive boards that helped them score 11 second-chance points. That hustle was a huge part of Jensen’s defensive statement early.
But when Mississippi State flipped the tempo after intermission, Utah’s pressure wasn’t as disruptive — MSU hit enough shots (especially in the paint and on timely looks) to stay in striking distance. Then, as MSU’s defensive pressure ramped up towards the finish line, their offensive success became easier and easier. Utah did not defend with the same intensity, nor schematics.
McHenry & Brown Were Productive — But Utah Needed More Than Two Engines
Don McHenry (29 points) and Terrence Brown (22 points) carried Utah offensively. They had to carry Utah because almost nobody else consistently scored.
The supporting cast simply didn’t show up consistently enough. Outside of Keanu Dawes’ 7 points and 4 rebounds, Utah received minimal offensive impact elsewhere, finishing with just 12 bench points compared to Mississippi State’s 39.
Utah shot 8-of-22 from three, which is fine on paper, but context matters: in the second half — the half that actually decided the game — Utah plummeted to 2-of-12 from three (17%).
Brown and McHenry were everything to Utah’s impressive first half. When Mississippi State adjusted in the second half, Utah’s perimeter scoring vanished. McHenry and Brown did their best to keep the Utes in it, but once MSU forced the ball out of their hands or wore them down, Utah had no third or fourth scoring option or plan.
That imbalance decided the night.
Utah’s Chronic Issue Reappears
Turnovers & Rhythm
The second-half collapse wasn’t mysterious. Mississippi State amped up its defensive pressure, and Utah immediately unraveled. MSU turned Utah’s mistakes into 13 points off turnovers compared to Utah’s measly 4. That’s not just a margin — that’s a game-tilting structural flaw.
Worse, while Utah managed a solid 42-point first half, it followed with a 32-point second half as MSU throttled their rhythm. Utah finished with a per-possession efficiency of 0.970, while Mississippi State posted an absurd 1.515 PPP in the second half. That’s not losing the thread — that’s losing the whole screenplay.
Pressure once again exposed Utah’s predictable ball-handling hierarchy and slow-developing sets. Opponents smell this weakness, and MSU attacked it relentlessly.
Rebounding & Second Chances
The story of the glass was simple: Utah needed to dominate it to compensate for MSU’s shot creation. They didn’t. The Bulldogs out-rebounded Utah 45–41, with 23 defensive rebounds that shut down Utah’s ability to generate extra looks.
Even worse, Utah created only 2 second-chance points in the entire second half while MSU had 3 — a small number, but a dagger when combined with MSU shooting 61% from the field and 43% from three after halftime. When your opponent is that efficient, you can’t afford to lose even one offensive rebound battle.
This is where Utah needed Dawes’ physicality to change the game — and while his individual line was strong, the team performance didn’t match it.
The Offensive Roller Coaster
Utah’s shooting numbers scream inconsistency. After a crisp first half, Utah’s second half dipped to:
-
37% FG (10-27)
-
17% from three (2-12)
-
Possessions frequently ending in late-clock, low-quality attempts
Meanwhile, Mississippi State exploded:
-
19-of-31 FG (61%)
-
6-of-14 from three (43%)
-
86% at the line
This wasn’t a case of “shots not falling.” It was a systematic breakdown of process under pressure. Utah’s offense flattened out, MSU’s confidence ballooned, and every possession after the 12-minute mark looked like a scramble.
You can get away with streakiness against mid-majors. Against a physical, disciplined roster like Mississippi State? Not a chance.
Late-Game Composure — or the Lack of It
The final five minutes told the story.
Utah produced multiple empty possessions, including three turnovers in the final four minutes, as Mississippi State’s pressure completely dictated the terms. A stripped drive. A lost ball against the press. A loose ball off the knee turnover late. Each one turned into points the other way.
Mississippi State closed with poise, patience, and balance. Utah closed with fatigue and forced shots.
When the moment demanded structure, Mississippi State trusted its system. Utah hoped its stars could rescue it. They couldn’t.
The Bottom Line
The box score shows a clear separation Utah didn’t just get edged — they were out-executed, out-adjusted, and out-toughed when it mattered. The Utes showed flashes, but the hard numbers show why they lost:
- MSU: 50 second-half points | Utah: 32
- MSU: 61% FG in 2nd half | Utah: 37%
- MSU: +27 bench scoring
- MSU: +8 points off turnovers
- MSU: 1.515 PPP | Utah: 0.970 PPP
Utah’s defense showed promise early, Dawes and McHenry carried the load, and there were stretches worth building on — but the sustained, disciplined basketball required to beat a tournament-level opponent wasn’t there.
This performance was revealing — and the film will be brutally honest. If Utah wants to climb out of the “almost” tier, the second-half trends in this box score cannot keep repeating.
