Check out the advanced-stats glossary here. Below, a unique review of last year's team, a unit-by-unit breakdown of this year's roster, the full 2016 schedule with win projections for each game, and more.

1. Pasadena is getting further in the rear view

It has to raise the hackles of Wisconsin fans. One of the most common narratives in college football now is that the Big Ten West stinks, that it's another SEC East or Big 12 North, loaded with mediocre teams and inferior to its counterpart (in this case, the Ohio State-, Michigan State-, and Michigan-loaded East).

Iowa getting destroyed in last year's Rose Bowl didn't do the division any favors, nor did Wisconsin getting erased by Ohio State in the 2014 Big Ten title game.

It wasn't exactly ages ago that Wisconsin was helping to burnish the Big Ten's image. Ohio State was on probation, Michigan State hadn't taken the leap, Penn State was crumbling, Michigan was struggling, and Nebraska was losing four games per year. But here were the Badgers, finishing in the top 10 in back-to-back seasons, finishing the 2010 regular season as perhaps the hottest, scariest team in the country, and going to three straight Rose Bowls. Until Ohio State fully emerged under Urban Meyer, Wisconsin was possibly the conference's closest thing to a flagship, for a few years.

And now the Badgers are part of the black-sheep division. That can't sit well, especially since they have still managed to go 21-6 over the past two seasons, beating Auburn and USC in the process.

The short version (Jeff Hanisch-USA TODAY Sports)



2016 projected wins: 6.3



Projected S&P+ ranking: 37 (6 in Big Ten)



5-year recruiting ranking: 34 (6 in Big Ten)



Biggest strength: The defensive front should be dynamite again, one of the best in the conference.



Biggest question mark: Do the Badgers have a quarterback? It's kind of an important position.



Biggest 2016 game: at Iowa (Oct. 22). The first half of the season is a death march, but the second half will determine final standing.



Summary: Wisconsin had its worst offense and best defense in years last fall, and while the offense should rebound, the Badgers' schedule should prevent them from properly breaking in a new QB and challenging for the Big Ten West. 6.3: 37 (6 in Big Ten): 34 (6 in Big Ten): The defensive front should be dynamite again, one of the best in the conference.: Do the Badgers have a quarterback? It's kind of an important position.: at Iowa (Oct. 22). The first half of the season is a death march, but the second half will determine final standing.Wisconsin had its worst offense and best defense in years last fall, and while the offense should rebound, the Badgers' schedule should prevent them from properly breaking in a new QB and challenging for the Big Ten West.

Still, there's no question that UW has slipped. In fact, using F/+ ratings (as you see in the chart below), the Badgers have regressed for four consecutive years.

The offense went from elite under Russell Wilson and Montee Ball (600-plus points in 2011) to solid for three years, to downright mediocre or worse. The defense has slowly improved, but not enough to offset offensive losses.

Wisconsin remains a solid team -- 25th in F/+ in 2014, 32nd in 2015 -- but has lost the cutting edge they built and maintained at the beginning of this decade.

So how do you get that back, at least in the short term?

Get healthy. 2015 was supposed to be Corey Clement's year; after doing a stellar job of backing up Melvin Gordon, Clement suffered an ankle injury that kept him out of most of the year. He gained 949 yards as a backup in 2014, then 221 as the presumptive starter last fall. Four-star freshman Taiwan Deal got hurt, too, meaning the feature-back carries went from a former walk-on cornerback, Dare Ogunbowale. Gordon, he was not.

Find a quarterback. Joel Stave was far from great, but underrated. A poor man's Kevin Hogan, if you will. With minimal run game to lean on, Stave put together some efficient passing numbers; Wisconsin ranked 16th in Passing Success Rate+ last year! There were no big plays, but he moved the chains. And now he's gone, leaving a little-used veteran (Bart Houston) and a redshirt freshman (Alex Hornibrook). You can do better than Stave at QB, but it's not guaranteed.

Hope your new defensive coordinator sticks. Justin Wilcox's output has been strangely inconsistent. He has engineered four top-25 (per Def. S&P+) defenses over the last eight years, peaking at 11th at Boise State in 2008 and 14th at Tennessee in 2011, but he's had random duds, and he couldn't get things figured out in moving from a 4-3 to a 3-4 at USC the last two seasons. At Wisconsin, he inherits personnel that clicked beautifully in 2015 under Dave Aranda, now LSU's defensive coordinator.

Win some close games. You're going to be in a lot of them. No matter what adjective we use to discuss the quality of the Big Ten West, there are a lot of teams packed together. That means close games. The Badgers are given between a 40 and 61 percent chance of winning in five of nine conference games, with two likely wins (Illinois, at Purdue) and two likely losses (at Michigan State, at Michigan). Navigate the waters as Iowa did last year, and you'll be fine.

Maintain confidence. Within the first five weeks, Wisconsin will have played LSU at Lambeau Field and gone to Ann Arbor and East Lansing. And then the Badgers host Ohio State. There are wins on the second half of the slate. Survive until then.

This is probably too much to ask. Paul Chryst's second year will probably feature a better team and a worse record.

This is Bill C's daily preview series, working its way through every 2016 team. Catch up on the Big Ten so far!

Record: 10-3 | Adj. Record: 9-4 | Final F/+ Rk: 32 | Final S&P+ Rk: 31 Date Opponent Opp. F/+ Rk Score W-L Percentile

Performance Win

Expectancy vs. S&P+ Performance

vs. Vegas 5-Sep vs. Alabama 1 17-35 L 21% 0% -7.6 -6.0 12-Sep Miami-OH 113 58-0 W 96% 100% +24.8 +26.0 19-Sep Troy 90 28-3 W 96% 100% -7.8 -10.0 26-Sep Hawaii 120 28-0 W 85% 100% -3.4 +3.5 3-Oct Iowa 38 6-10 L 69% 75% -13.7 -11.0 10-Oct at Nebraska 36 23-21 W 49% 49% +0.0 +3.0 17-Oct Purdue 93 24-7 W 90% 100% +0.2 -7.0 24-Oct at Illinois 65 24-13 W 55% 68% +12.2 +4.5 31-Oct Rutgers 101 48-10 W 97% 100% +11.8 +17.5 7-Nov at Maryland 76 31-24 W 33% 42% -7.2 -4.5 21-Nov Northwestern 52 7-13 L 25% 13% -17.1 -16.0 28-Nov at Minnesota 55 31-21 W 77% 94% +11.4 +7.5 30-Dec vs. USC 17 23-21 W 58% 63% +5.1 +5.0

Category Offense Rk Defense Rk S&P+ 26.4 83 16.0 8 Points Per Game 26.8 81 13.7 1

2. No Plan B

Everybody has better results against awful teams than good ones. But not everybody performs better against those bad ones. Once you've adjusted for opponents, you'll see that some teams underachieve against bad teams and overachieve against good ones.

Wisconsin did not. The Badgers dominated bad opponents as much as just about anybody. But be it athleticism, health, or a lack of a Plan B, they couldn't do much against teams with a pulse.

Wisconsin vs. F/+ top 80 :

Record: 5-3 | Average percentile performance: 48% (~top 65) | Yards per play: Opp 4.9, UW 4.7 (-0.2)

: Record: 5-3 | Average percentile performance: 48% (~top 65) | Yards per play: Opp 4.9, UW 4.7 (-0.2) Wisconsin vs. dregs:

Record: 5-0 | Average percentile performance: 93% (~top 9) | Yards per play: UW 6.2, Opp 3.5 (+2.7)

Average score against Miami (Ohio), Troy, Hawaii, Purdue, and Rutgers: Wisconsin 37, Opponent 4. In the past we'd have maybe expected more from the Badger offense, but bad opponents couldn't even think about moving the football. None of these five opponents gained more than 255 yards, and three gained fewer than 170.

The defense really only had two bad games -- Alabama averaged 7.6 yards per play, while Illinois averaged 6.0 (Wisconsin was a little lucky to only allow 13 points in that game). But the offense was mostly hapless against other opponents. The Badgers scored six points against Iowa, seven against Northwestern, and 17 against Alabama. They topped 24 points only against Maryland (which barely qualified for the "with a pulse" group) and Minnesota.

Wisconsin! With a shaky run game and unreliable offense! Never thought I'd see the day!

Offense

Q1 Rk 104 1st Down Rk 70 Q2 Rk 8 2nd Down Rk 88 Q3 Rk 56 3rd Down Rk 47 Q4 Rk 102

3. The big plays vanished

Joe Rudolph has just about the most B1G résumé imaginable. He was a graduate assistant and strength coordinator under Jim Tressel at Ohio State. He was Nebraska tight ends coach for a year, then Wisconsin tight ends coach for four under Bret Bielema. And while Pitt isn't a Big Ten team, the Panthers might as well have been under Chryst. They ran the ball almost exclusively on standard downs, went even more run-heavy when up big, played at one of the slowest tempos in the country, and executed efficiently. A lack of big plays did them in at times, but you could see why Chryst brought Rudolph to Madison.

Playing run-heavy ball works a lot better if you can run.

Following the loss of three All-Americans (Gordon and linemen Rob Havenstein and Kyle Costigan), it was fair to presume that the Wisconsin run game would fall off a little bit. But this was more than a little bit. Wisconsin had ranked 10th in Rushing S&P+ in 2014, fourth in Rushing IsoPPP+ (which measures the magnitude of successful plays). In 2015: 97th and 93rd, respectively.

This was a nightmare. The line was still pretty good (17th in stuff rate, 20th in power success rate) but either couldn't hold blocks or didn't have the backs to burst through the holes. Deal showed efficiency potential but did almost nothing from a big-play perspective, and Ogunbowale was neither particularly efficient nor explosive.

Stave completed 66 percent of his passes with a 145.2 passer rating on first downs; with such an unreliable run game, the Badgers had to lean on Stave more than expected. That worked out alright with decent receiving options in Alex Erickson, Robert Wheelwright, and Ogunbowale. But none of those guys were big-play threats, and while efficiency suffered a little bit, explosiveness suffered a lot: Wisconsin was sixth in the country with 41 plays of 30-plus yards in 2014 and sank to 118th (16) in 2015. You think that might make a difference in your ability to score?

Note: players in bold below are 2016 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Comp Att Yards TD INT Comp

Rate Sacks Sack Rate Yards/

Att. Joel Stave 225 370 2687 11 11 60.8% 21 5.4% 6.5 Bart Houston 6'4, 232 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.9175 27 47 281 3 2 57.4% 3 6.0% 5.3 Alex Hornibrook 6'4, 216 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8281 Karé Lyles 6'2, 208 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8463

4. Present vs. future

It felt like Stave was around for 16 years. Stave started for a good portion of Wisconsin's last Rose Bowl season (2012), threw for nearly 2,500 yards in 2013, battled both injury and Tanner McEvoy in 2014 and struggled (113.2 passer rating), then found himself without a run game to lean on in 2015 while throwing for almost 2,700 yards. When he was healthy and had a sturdy running back to lean on, he was a perfectly solid quarterback for what Wisconsin wanted to do with the ball. He was at once underrated and replaceable.

Of course, even for replaceable quarterbacks, you need someone to replace them. And in 2016, it appears the battle is between a once well-regarded senior (Bart Houston, a 247 four-star in high school) and the Next Big Thing of sorts, lefty redshirt Alex Hornibrook.

Chryst and Rudolph have an interesting choice in 2016. Hornibrook was evidently the most impressive in spring ball, but ... again, Wisconsin gets LSU, Michigan State, Michigan, and Ohio State in the first half of the season. Do you lean on Houston early, perhaps sacrificing a high ceiling for a higher floor and hoping that he has enough experience and veteran-osity to avoid total collapse? Or do you say, "Hornibrook's better -- let's begin his four-year run as a starter right now," and hope that this death march leads to him learning instead of imploding?

On paper, it's easy to say you go with the guy who's better. If that's Hornibrook, so be it. But even with the tough start, Wisconsin could find itself in the Big Ten West race well into November if it wins a couple of tossup games.

Running Back

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Rushes Yards TD Yards/

Carry Hlt Yds/

Opp. Opp.

Rate Fumbles Fum.

Lost Dare Ogunbowale RB 5'11, 201 Sr. NR NR 194 819 7 4.2 3.8 34.5% 0 0 Taiwan Deal RB 6'1, 217 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8789 117 503 6 4.3 2.1 37.6% 0 0 Alec Ingold FB 6'2, 241 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7893 49 131 6 2.7 4.5 18.4% 1 0 Corey Clement RB 5'11, 214 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9308 48 221 5 4.6 6.1 31.3% 1 0 Tanner McEvoy WR 17 132 2 7.8 7.5 52.9% 1 1 Joel Stave QB 12 26 1 2.2 5.1 16.7% 5 3 Derek Watt FB 9 45 0 5.0 4.5 33.3% 0 0 Alex Erickson WR 7 111 0 15.9 18.4 57.1% 3 1 Reggie Love WR 6'3, 220 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8316 7 38 0 5.4 3.4 57.1% 0 0 Caleb Kinlaw RB 7 30 0 4.3 2.5 28.6% 0 0 Leon Jacobs FB 6'2, 235 Sr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8066 Austin Ramesh FB 6'1, 250 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8613 Bradrick Shaw RB 6'1, 210 RSFr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.8779 Sam Brodner RB 5'10, 210 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8501



Receiving Corps

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Targets Catches Yards Catch Rate Target

Rate Yds/

Target %SD Success

Rate IsoPPP Alex Erickson WR 128 77 978 60.2% 32.1% 7.6 60.9% 53.1% 1.28 Dare Ogunbowale RB 5'11, 201 Sr. NR NR 50 36 299 72.0% 12.5% 6.0 48.0% 46.0% 1.20 Robert Wheelwright WR 6'3, 203 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8855 49 32 416 65.3% 12.3% 8.5 67.3% 59.2% 1.30 Troy Fumagalli TE 6'6, 251 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8044 46 28 313 60.9% 11.5% 6.8 45.7% 41.3% 1.64 Jazz Peavy WR 6'0, 182 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8059 30 20 268 66.7% 7.5% 8.9 30.0% 50.0% 1.71 Tanner McEvoy WR 22 10 109 45.5% 5.5% 5.0 45.5% 36.4% 1.32 Austin Traylor TE 20 14 210 70.0% 5.0% 10.5 50.0% 65.0% 1.73 Derek Watt FB 16 15 139 93.8% 4.0% 8.7 81.3% 68.8% 1.08 Reggie Love WR 6'3, 220 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8316 11 4 55 36.4% 2.8% 5.0 63.6% 18.2% 2.81 Jordan Fredrick WR 9 7 81 77.8% 2.3% 9.0 33.3% 55.6% 1.48 Eric Steffes TE 6'5, 263 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) NR 7 3 50 42.9% 1.8% 7.1 85.7% 42.9% 1.49 George Rushing WR 6'1, 191 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8467 5 1 10 20.0% 1.3% 2.0 60.0% 20.0% 0.72 Krenwick Sanders WR 6'2, 212 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8740 Kyle Penniston TE 6'4, 237 RSFr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8893 David Edwards TE 6'7, 254 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8767 AJ Taylor WR 6'0, 190 Fr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9070 Jake Hescock TE 6'7, 240 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8597 Quintez Cephus WR 6'2, 190 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8557

4. Have QB, will travel

If quarterback is stable, the rest of the offense should rebound. Clement is awesome when healthy, another year of development should help Deal, redshirt freshman Bradrick Shaw is waiting in the wings, and Ogunbowale is if nothing else a known quantity. And while the line was juggled around quite a bit, five of eight players who started games return. The line also adds former Division III star Ryan Ramczyk to the mix, and he's apparently fitting in quite well.

The receiving corps returns Wheelwright, tight end Troy Fumagalli, and a high-upside guy in junior Jazz Peavy. Youngsters like receiver AJ Taylor and tight end Kyle Penniston could find a spot in the rotation, too.

It's easy to like the skill unit and line.

Offensive Line

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. 2015 Starts Career Starts Honors/Notes Tyler Marz LT 13 40 2015 2nd All-Big Ten Dan Voltz LG 6'3, 301 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9528 7 27 Michael Deiter C 6'6, 318 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8329 13 13 Micah Kapoi LG 6'3, 323 So. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7819 10 10 Beau Benzschawel RG 6'6, 306 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8145 8 8 Walker Williams RG

7 7 Hayden Biegel RT

4 4 Jacob Maxwell RT 6'6, 319 So. 2 stars (5.3) 0.7874 3 3 Logan Schmidt LG 6'4, 310 Sr. NR NR 0 0 Brett Connors C 6'6, 312 So. NR NR 0 0 Ryan Ramczyk

(UW-Stevens Pt.) LT 6'6, 308 Jr. NR NR 0 0 George Panos OL 6'5, 317 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8849 0 0 Jon Dietzen LG 6'6, 332 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8898



Kevin Estes OL 6'5, 251 RSFr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8822



David Moorman OL 6'5, 295 RSFr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8798



Cole Van Lanen OL 6'5, 280 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9343



Patrick Kasl OL 6'6, 280 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8716







SIGN UP FOR OUR COLLEGE FOOTBALL NEWSLETTER Get all kinds of college football stories, rumors, game coverage, and Jim Harbaugh oddity in your inbox every day. Email:

Defense

Q1 Rk 7 1st Down Rk 8 Q2 Rk 41 2nd Down Rk 15 Q3 Rk 4 3rd Down Rk 5 Q4 Rk 18

6. Minimal transition issues

The head coach handoff from Gary Andersen to Chryst was made a little bit smoother by the fact that Chryst was able to keep Dave Aranda. Aranda fielded his best defense yet in 2015, which allowed Wisconsin to win 10 games despite a cratering offense.

In 2016, the offense will probably rebound. Great. So what about the Aranda-less defense? LSU pulled Aranda away, and Chryst replaced him with Wilcox.

Wilcox struggled at USC (by USC standards, anyway) but if part was a problem with converting from a 4-3 to a 3-4, that won't be an issue for him in Madison. Wisconsin returns its top three tacklers on the line and five of the top six linebackers. Depth was a bit of an issue, as evidenced by Wisconsin's in-half regression -- seventh in Q1 S&P+ and fourth in Q3, then 41st in Q2 and 18th in Q4 -- and that's not guaranteed to improve. But experience in the starting lineup is strong.

USC's defense was efficient for the most part in 2015, especially against the run. The Trojans' problems came in defending the pass; a volatile young secondary suffered too many breakdowns to be trustworthy, and a good pass rush didn't help out quite enough. Looking at who does and doesn't return, it's possible we're describing the Badgers' defense in the same manner this fall.

Defensive Line

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Chikwe Obasih DE 6'3, 268 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8869 13 30.0 5.0% 5.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 Conor Sheehy DE 6'4, 290 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8857 13 19.5 3.2% 3.0 2.0 0 1 0 0 Alec James DE 6'3, 267 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8728 12 12.0 2.0% 2.0 0.0 0 1 0 0 Arthur Goldberg DE

11 11.0 1.8% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Jake Keefer DE 13 4.5 0.7% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Olive Sagapolu NT 6'2, 333 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8522 13 4.0 0.7% 1.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Billy Hirschfeld DE 6'6, 280 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8731 4 2.5 0.4% 1.0 0.0 0 1 0 0 Jeremy Patterson NT 6'3, 340 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8635 Zander Neuville DE 6'5, 258 So. NR NR Kraig Howe DE 6'3, 261 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8472 Gunnar Roberge NT 6'4, 296 RSFr. NR NR Garrett Rand DE 6'2, 280 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9219 Isaiahh Loudermilk DE 6'7, 270 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8593



















Linebackers

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR T.J. Edwards ILB 6'1, 239 So. 3 stars (5.5) 0.7631 13 62.5 10.3% 6.5 0.0 0 4 1 0 Joe Schobert OLB 13 59.0 9.7% 19.5 9.5 1 2 5 0 Vince Biegel OLB 6'4, 242 Sr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9360 13 48.5 8.0% 14.0 8.0 0 0 0 0 Jack Cichy ILB 6'2, 221 Jr. NR NR 13 46.0 7.6% 8.0 5.0 0 4 0 0 Chris Orr ILB 6'0, 227 So. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8069 10 35.0 5.8% 2.0 0.5 0 2 0 0 Ryan Connelly ILB 6'3, 233 So. NR NR 12 11.5 1.9% 1.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Leon Jacobs ILB

4 7.5 1.2% 2.0 0.5 0 0 0 0 T.J. Watt OLB 6'5, 243 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8592 13 6.0 1.0% 1.5 0.0 0 3 0 0 Jesse Hayes OLB 13 5.0 0.8% 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 0 Garret Dooley OLB 6'3, 245 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8687 11 1.5 0.2% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Zack Baun OLB 6'3, 225 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8429 Nick Thomas ILB 6'2, 228 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8194 Ty DeForest ILB 6'0, 233 RSFr. NR NR Noah Burks OLB 6'3, 221 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8724 Griffin Grady OLB 6'2, 205 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8719



















7. Another Watt

The Badgers are absolutely stocked at inside linebacker and defensive end and will be for the foreseeable future. The line features no seniors, and the ILB depth chart is manned by sophomores T.J. Edwards, Chris Orr, and Ryan Connelly and junior Jack Cichy.

At the very least, there's size at tackle, where sophomores Olive Sagapolu and Jeremy Patterson pack 673 yards between them. But they're sophomores, and they combined for 4 tackles last season.

Meanwhile, the single biggest loss in the front seven comes at OLB, where Joe Schobert was stationed last year. He and Vince Biegel combined for 17.5 sacks, which sets a high bar for Schobert's likely replacement, T.J. Watt. (Yes, of THAT Watt family.) If he can approach Schobert's standard, this will again be a fantastic front seven.

Secondary

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2016

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Michael Caputo SS 13 50.5 8.3% 1 0.5 2 8 2 0 Darius Hillary CB 13 36.0 5.9% 1.5 0 0 6 0 0 Tanner McEvoy FS 13 34.5 5.7% 2 1 6 6 0 0 Derrick Tindal CB 5'11, 175 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8215 12 25.0 4.1% 0.5 0 0 5 0 0 Sojourn Shelton CB 5'9, 173 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8672 13 24.5 4.0% 0 0 1 7 1 0 D'Cota Dixon SS 5'10, 202 Jr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8453 13 13.5 2.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 Natrell Jamerson CB 6'0, 187 Jr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8414 13 12.0 2.0% 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 Leo Musso FS 5'10, 186 Sr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.7793 13 6.5 1.1% 0 0 2 1 0 0 Joe Ferguson S 6'1, 195 Jr. 2 stars (5.2) 0.7000 12 6.0 1.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arrington Farrar S 6'2, 208 So. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8994 12 5.5 0.9% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Keelon Brookins S 5'11, 220 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8524 11 2.0 0.3% 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lubern Figaro S 6'0, 185 Jr. 2 stars (5.3) 0.8306 Titus Booker CB 5'11, 192 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8587 Eric Burrell S 6'0, 180 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8863



















8. Play-making play preventers

Michael Caputo and McEvoy were rare quantities at safety. The two combined for three tackles for loss, eight interceptions, and 14 breakups last year, showing both play-making, ball-hawking ability and outstanding big-play prevention. They will be missed.

While Wisconsin can probably overcome the loss of corner Darius Hillary just because of depth (Derrick Tindal, Sojourn Shelton, and Natrell Jamerson have all been around a while), the safety position is a question mark. But at least there are upperclassmen; this entire unit is basically made of juniors and seniors.

Special Teams

Punter Ht, Wt 2016

Year Punts Avg TB FC I20 FC/I20

Ratio Drew Meyer 69 39.7 10 18 19 53.6%

Kicker Ht, Wt 2016

Year Kickoffs Avg TB OOB TB% Andrew Endicott 5'9, 175 Sr. 36 60.0 9 2 25.0% Jack Russell 26 54.5 3 0 11.5%

Place-Kicker Ht, Wt 2016

Year PAT FG

(0-39) Pct FG

(40+) Pct Rafael Gaglianone 5'11, 230 Jr. 40-40 10-13 76.9% 8-14 57.1% Jack Russell 2-2 0-0 N/A 0-0 N/A

Returner Pos. Ht, Wt 2016

Year Returns Avg. TD Natrell Jamerson KR 6'0, 187 Jr. 20 22.4 1 Derek Straus KR 3 11.7 0 Alex Erickson PR 24 7.3 0 Sojourn Shelton PR 5'9, 173 Sr. 3 8.7 0

Category Rk Special Teams S&P+ 90 Field Goal Efficiency 75 Punt Return Success Rate 18 Kick Return Success Rate 74 Punt Success Rate 81 Kickoff Success Rate 94

9. Hit or miss

Good: Natrell Jamerson is an explosive, if not incredibly consistent, kick returner. He's back.

Good: Rafael Gaglianone has a big field goal leg. He's back.

Bad: Alex Erickson was a steady, efficient punt returner. He's gone.

Bad: Kickoffs were an issue, both because of distance and coverage. This could be more of a noticeable issue if Wisconsin is actually scoring more (and therefore kicking off more).

A mixed bag in special teams, I'd say.

2016 Schedule Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability 3-Sep vs. LSU 2 -16.2 18% 10-Sep Akron 97 18.2 85% 17-Sep Georgia State 105 20.9 89% 24-Sep at Michigan State 22 -8.8 31% 1-Oct at Michigan 6 -14.5 20% 15-Oct Ohio State 14 -4.6 40% 22-Oct at Iowa 38 -3.4 42% 29-Oct Nebraska 26 0.2 50% 5-Nov at Northwestern 46 -0.4 49% 12-Nov Illinois 76 11.4 74% 19-Nov at Purdue 88 7.9 68% 26-Nov Minnesota 42 4.7 61% Projected wins: 6.3

Five-Year F/+ Rk 32.6% (15) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 33 / 34 2015 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* 3 / -1.3 2015 TO Luck/Game +1.5 Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 44% (34%, 54%) 2015 Second-order wins (difference) 9.0 (1.0)

10. Survive, then advance

There's something to be said for winning 10 games in an off-year, as Wisconsin did last year. Still, the Badgers were clearly below the standard they had set.

That should change in 2016. I'm betting the offense improves more than the defense regresses, and despite S&P+ projections, I figure the odds are good that Wisconsin's product improves overall. But a) it probably won't improve by a ton, and b) holy moly, this schedule is rugged. Opposing fanbases have complained about Wisconsin's scheduling luck through the years; you can't do that this year.

The journey is going to be tricky, and the massively front-loaded schedule makes it hard to know what's coming in the second half of the year. If Wisconsin can survive through the Ohio State game with confidence intact, the Badgers can challenge for eight or nine wins (probably eight). But if injuries pile up, or if the quarterback position goes from question mark to emergency, then ... honestly, this could be the first bowl-free season in Madison since 2001.

I'm not worried about Wisconsin's overall trajectory. The coaching staff is fine, the talent level is fine, and Wisconsin's not going to fall out of the top 40 in year-to-year production. But if or when there's a rebound coming, it's hard to say it's going to be in 2016.