Wisconsin Football 2025

[yourout]

2 minutes ago, homer said:

Curt Cignetti took over an Indiana team that had gone 3 - 24 in conference the prior three seasons and took them to the playoffs. I really don't think the Badgers were worse off than the Hoosiers when Tom Allen departed. Obviously those are different programs, schedules, situations etc and you can't always expect a one year turnaround but this team has not improved since Fickell started.

Quite the opposite. They continue to get worse and nobody could accuse them of being well coached but under athletic. 

And maybe under athletic but they are certainly poorly coached.

[yourout]

Copied this from BVille

T: Terminate

E: Employee

A: After

M: Maryland

[yourout]

2 hours ago, nate82 said:

I still believe Fickell has at least one more year and possibly two.  The Badgers are still trying to dig themselves out of the hole PC left them in.  If they could have kept Bielema that would have been the best outcome.

All UW had to do was pay the coordinators more.  UW definitely could have afforded that.

If they go winless the rest of the way looking like this..... he is toast.

[JosephC]

Listening to some radio, and it's just like listening to Chicago radio last Sunday night.  Badger football has sunk to Bear level of bad.

[yourout]

Future generations will revile T.E.A.M. just like VEER.

[HarryDoyle]

 

[HarryDoyle]

 

[wildcat83]

3 hours ago, LouisEly said:

I don't agree with this.  The schools that people use as examples have benefited from easy schedules.  

Indiana got torched in the two games last year that they played against good teams.  They weren't that good.

Arizona State lost to Cincinnati last year and this year they lost at Mississippi State where their starting QB went 10-22 for 82 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs.  UWs backup QB did that against Alabama.

Deion brought his own luggage.  He hasn't beaten a good team yet and started this season 1-2.

If by "boosters" you mean Larry Ellison shelling out $10M for the #1 QB recruit in the country at the behest of his sugar baby, or Phil Knight shelling out $40M to fund his alma matter, yes, but UW doesn't have any of those boosters.

Syracuse, Northwestern, TCU all have had 10 win seasons with a first year coach following a losing season.  There’s not a lot of sustained success there I’ll admit that, but quick turnarounds can happen with the portal.  It does not need to be a 3-4 year rebuild process like it needed to be before the portal.

[yourout]

Wrong thread.

[LouisEly]

25 minutes ago, wildcat83 said:

Syracuse, Northwestern, TCU all have had 10 win seasons with a first year coach following a losing season.

The best Northwestern has done in the NIL era is 8-5 in 2023; they played two ranked teams and lost both games.  They went 4-8 the next year and are 1-2 so far this year.

TCU has oil money and Jesus money coming out of their rear ends.  

[wallus]

We are tanking for a top draft pick right?

[wildcat83]

37 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

The best Northwestern has done in the NIL era is 8-5 in 2023; they played two ranked teams and lost both games.  They went 4-8 the next year and are 1-2 so far this year.

TCU has oil money and Jesus money coming out of their rear ends.  

Yea, my bad on Northwestern.  I thought they were better than that in 23.  Still a quick spin to go from 1-11 to 8-5.  If the Badgers found a way to get to 8 wins next year the presumptive new coach would probably get a statue.  Northwestern does have an even bigger academic draw than WI does though.

[JosephC]

One thing that still bugs me about McIntosh and the Fickell hire, and this never seems to get brought up, is how small the number of candidates for the job was.  it's been widely reported that McIntosh only considered 4 people for that job: Fickell, Aranda, Leonhard and Leipold.  On top of that, it was also reported that Leipold was basically given a courtesy interview, and wasn't a serious candidate.

Nobody ever seems to talk about how ridiculous it was to cast that small of a net for a school like Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is a Big 10 school.  This wasn't a bad team, they finished that "poor" season with a 7-6 record.  It's not like the new coach would take over a Purdue team that had gone 13-25 over the last three years.  The previous coach, the coach prior to that, the coach prior to that and the coach prior to that had all been successful.  The number of alumni is huge and they were/are in the process of throwing significant money into facilities.  USA Today's salary database has Fickell with the 18th best salary in football (for 2024),  Wisconsin isn't a crap job.

So McIntosh does not consider any coordinators from top programs.  He only looks at one candidate from a non-power 5 (now 4) school.  He doesn't consider anyone from the NFL.  I would love to see the list of people who had submitted applications, and I have little doubt that there are some names there that the fanbase would love to see on the sidelines.  And as for anybody who thinks it would be pointless since he only really wanted Fickell, I'll just point out the Rooney rule in the NFL.  The Rooney rule was not implemented to force anybody to hire a minority.  But it is there to force decision makers to at least give at least one minority a solid look because, upon solid examination, that decision maker may just decide a minority that he wouldn't have considered is actually the best person for the job.  McIntosh may have had his favorite when entering the process, but once into the process he should have been looking at a minimum of 10-12 candidates with a completely open mind.  The approach of Fickell, then Aranda and if neither I'll just settle for Leonard was complete amateur crap.  

[yourout]

Austin Liebried

Kid from Mount Horeb is red shirt freshman on Indiana's O-Line. 

Second team I think.

https://iuhoosiers.com/sports/football/roster/austin-leibfried/18937

[yourout]

Dupe.

[LouisEly]

12 minutes ago, JosephC said:

One thing that still bugs me about McIntosh and the Fickell hire, and this never seems to get brought up, is how small the number of candidates for the job was. 

I'd be willing to bet that's the norm when a coach is fired in-season now, and that's due to the portal window.  If you are going to bring anyone in from the portal you need to have a coach in place ASAP.  And kids are going to bail if they don't know who the coach is going to be.  

Between the first signing date for recruits in December and the portal window you can't have a prolonged coaching search anymore.

And I don't think there's anyone in the NFL who wants to go to the circus that is college football right now.

[BrewerFan]

49 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

I'd be willing to bet that's the norm when a coach is fired in-season now, and that's due to the portal window.  If you are going to bring anyone in from the portal you need to have a coach in place ASAP.  And kids are going to bail if they don't know who the coach is going to be.  

Between the first signing date for recruits in December and the portal window you can't have a prolonged coaching search anymore.

And I don't think there's anyone in the NFL who wants to go to the circus that is college football right now.

I think there's a little re-writing history here. 

1-I'm not going to mock people who thought Fickell was the best hire. If you're doing "off-season grades," it seemed like a no-brainer. He took Cincy and recruited incredibly well, he took them to the CFB Playoffs and they were competitive. Seemed like he and Longo could be the guys to take us into this NIL era. Maybe the "Cap" will help, but... I doubt it. 

2-I see comments about the "hole left them in," and... that also doesn't make sense to me. He was fired 4 seasons ago. We played most of '22 without him, Fickel has had 3 full recruiting classes and we appear to be going the wrong way. 

But this isn't the NFL. You're bringing in 5th year starters at QB. You have the transfer portal. You don't need 4-5 years to turn a College program around and even if you did... they're going the wrong way. 

There's nothing this team does that's impressive. They're being passed up by the former mid-tier B1G teams like IU, Maryland, Illinois? 

 

[LouisEly]

18 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

But this isn't the NFL. You're bringing in 5th year starters at QB. You have the transfer portal.

And those 5th year starters have gotten injured.  All three years.  That's not rewriting history.

As for "the transfer portal", what we don't know is how much UW has had in NIL funds available, how much the QBs they've had to bring in cost (by all accounts, seven figures for an experienced Power 5 starting QB), and how much that leaves them for other positions.  And when they have as many holes as they've been left with, they don't have a Phil Knight or a Larry Ellison to give them eight figures to fill out the entire team.

And kids in the portal aren't going to go somewhere where they don't think they have an opportunity to start.  An OC isn't going to go to UW in the portal because Renfro was there; nobody knew he was going to get hurt.

UW was without their starting QB, OC, LT, TE, and they lost their starting RB during the game.  No wonder they struggled on offense.

[BrewerFan]

1 hour ago, LouisEly said:

And those 5th year starters have gotten injured.  All three years.  That's not rewriting history.

As for "the transfer portal", what we don't know is how much UW has had in NIL funds available, how much the QBs they've had to bring in cost (by all accounts, seven figures for an experienced Power 5 starting QB), and how much that leaves them for other positions.  And when they have as many holes as they've been left with, they don't have a Phil Knight or a Larry Ellison to give them eight figures to fill out the entire team.

And kids in the portal aren't going to go somewhere where they don't think they have an opportunity to start.  An OC isn't going to go to UW in the portal because Renfro was there; nobody knew he was going to get hurt.

OK, but when would that excuse ever cut it? We had the top QB recruit we ever brought into Wisconsin(minus Wilson in the portal... if you count that) and when he didn't pan out, that was pretty much the end of Chryst. Every year his QB gets hurt? In which of those cases did it appear even WITH that QB, they were going to be a top 10-20 team? When have they looked like they were... really competitive? Mordecai was here for 10 games. Van Dyke got hurt Week 3 and we had two ugly wins over a 6-7 MAC team and then South Dakota last year. 

What about Beau Pribula? Would we be better with him?

I don't even know the answer to that because... obviously it's NOT just picking up 5th year QBs(or 4th year) it's picking the right guys. They clearly haven't done that. The players they've got have been substantially worse coming to Wisconsin and the guys they've passed on have had quite a bit of success. 

The MOST success he's had is when he took over what was largely PC's players. He went 7-5. 

 

We appear headed to a 2-10, 3-9 type season(right now the "easy" games are... what, Iowa, Minnesota and Washington?

 

And you're right, I don't know EXACTLY how much guys have gotten, but I have an idea. Billy Edwards was the guy Fickell wanted and it'd cost them 750K. 

The Varsity Collective is the group I at least have some communication with a couple members. 

 

But this is the same program that used to build with 2-3 star recruits. They can't do THAT anymore? They need to be able to spend like OU? They've NEVER had the resources of the top tier programs, but they've been a perennial 9-10 win program. 

1 hour ago, LouisEly said:

UW was without their starting QB, OC, LT, TE, and they lost their starting RB during the game.  No wonder they struggled on offense.

It's Football. College, B1G, NFL, you need depth. You can't just fold up when you lose players. 

They spent a couple DECADES as a top ~15 program with recruiting classes that were in the 40-50 range fairly regularly. 

There's not enough lipstick to put on this pig, there's no excuses.

 

Fickell was a big swing and a big miss. I KNOW there are at least some people close to the program who believe Leonhard's interview about changing less and continuing on the same path... in hindsight may have been a better decision. Now I don't think what they think or say really matters(other than one who is in the ADs office and in that case it's a Brother of someone close to McIntosh, so this could be his opinion passed off as his Brothers) and they didn't feel that way at the time, but with NIL money being regulated, at least for the time being, maybe it's time to get back to trying to go back to just recruiting, developing LONG term relationships with these kids and rely a bit less on the portal. 

 

They have 1 of the top 20 players in '26
They got 3 of the top 10 in '25
I think they got 3-4 top 10 from the '24 class, but lost the top 3. 

 

'26 class has some talent on the top of it. It's looking better with regard to the skill positions... but they've definitely moved away from building a wall around the state and keeping guys home. 

The problem is definitely deeper than they just have REAL bad luck with injuries every year. 
 

[nate82]

2 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

rely a bit less on the portal. 

They had to rely on the portal because PC put them in this spot to rely on the portal.  He did very limited recruiting and let one really good defensive player go because he didn't want to even meet them on campus.  He just gave up and said screw it I am not doing this anymore.  

He didn't recruit a single QB after going after Mertz.  It was like ok we got this guy we don't need to worry about 2-3 years down the road.  Heck we don't even need to recruit for a backup QB because reasons only PC knows.  

The team is in a bad spot and having to go to the portal because of PC.  He is the reason why they have had to go to the portal so much.  You can't just give up on recruiting and expect to stay as the HC of a college team.  

[JosephC]

7 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

We appear headed to a 2-10, 3-9 type season(right now the "easy" games are... what, Iowa, Minnesota and Washington?

 

Ignoring all the pre-season projections, and just looking at results so far, I think the only winnable games for Wisconsin would be the Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota games.

Michigan is post-Harbaugh, and I'm projecting that program to dip a bit.  But that will still be a road game for Wisconsin and Michigan did just go on the road and beat Nebraska.  Would have to favor Michigan in that one, although I think it could be closer than one would suspect.

Iowa went on the road this week and beat Rutgers.  Rutgers is nothing special, but that program should get a bump with Schiano back coaching.  It's still a Big 10 road win for Iowa.  If Iowa can beat Rutgers on the road and Wisconsin gets beat by Maryland at home, one has to assume that Iowa is the better team.  I'd still give Wisconsin a chance because Iowa is Iowa, there is always a chance the passing game implodes and just handicaps the offense to the point where they can't win.  But this will be a home game for Wisconsin, is a rivalry game for Wisconsin, and I would expect to see Wisconsin's best effort put forth.  I will be picking Iowa, but this is a game where I wouldn't be shocked if Wisconsin pulls off the upset.

Ohio State/Oregon.  Both automatic losses, and likely bad losses.

Washington answered a lot of questions yesterday.  Washington State's conference is such a mess that this was kind of their "Superbowl."  It was a close game for 3 quarters and Washington put a 28-0 on them in the fourth to win what would appear to have been a totally lopsided game.  This is a home game for Wisconsin and there is an outside chance that the travel hurts Washington.  But based on what has happened so far, Washington seems like a pretty easy pick.

Indiana answered all questions yesterday.  Wisconsin will go in there and get beatdown just like Bert did yesterday.  Could easily be as ugly as the Ohio State and Oregon games.

Illinois got beat down in every aspect, Indiana put in backups early in the fourth and just ran all over Illinois' first stringers.  Illinois has a win against Duke, but Duke lost a game against Tulane and looks like a bottom tier power four team.  Since this game is at Wisconsin, I think it is a winnable game for the Badgers.

Only meaningful game that Minnesota played this year was at California and that was a 27-14 loss.  They are likely not very good.  Too bad this game is at Minnesota.  Still appears like it could be a winnable game for Wisconsin.

So I think Iowa/Illinois/Minnesota are all winnable games, but Wisconsin are bad, so winning all three is not a real possibility IMO.  I would put their win cap at 4.  

[Playing Catch]

Getting a top QB is a great way to make a program look good. Peak Russell Wilson would make every college team better, so I'm not disputing that the way to playoff glory is to procure good quarterbacks and throw the ball around. Quarterback is often the position cited by non-traditionalist Badger fans, as to justify the changes to the program. Even on this board, I've read the lament of something along the lines of "who cares about the run game, we need to modernize," etc.

Quarterback seems to also be the biggest concern for those that are defending Fickell, or wanting more time with him, feeling like if his transfer guys were only healthy, THEN we'd really see Fickell shine.

Right now, they can't keep the quarterback upright, and they can't gain one yard on a 3rd and short. Meanwhile, their opponents CAN.

It seems that there are a significant cadre of fans that are concerned about "going back to Barry-ball," due to their boredom with the metronome of winning the way he did, by running the football and stopping the run.

I loved Barry-ball, so I'm just as biased as those wanting to modernize. But as I said at the time of the move... it BETTER work, because otherwise you've really torpedoed any remaining semblance of Barry-ball left in the program.

The debate reminds me of Brewer fans that just want more dingers and offense, regardless of the winning. I like WINNING.

 

edit to add... Barry and "his" guys were NEVER shy about throwing the ball. They WERE shy of trying to throw the ball around when they didn't have the talent to do it. In college football, there are a lot of teams that don't have the talent to do it, and win.

Edited September 21, 2025 by Playing Catch

[yourout]

The real question's going to be is how much more is it going to cost you to keep him when you factor in half empty stadiums next year. 

The money you save not buying him out now is probably not going to match what you're going to lose if you keep him.

It really is a lose lose lose situation.

[Jim French Stepstool]

4 hours ago, Playing Catch said:

Getting a top QB is a great way to make a program look good. Peak Russell Wilson would make every college team better, so I'm not disputing that the way to playoff glory is to procure good quarterbacks and throw the ball around. Quarterback is often the position cited by non-traditionalist Badger fans, as to justify the changes to the program. Even on this board, I've read the lament of something along the lines of "who cares about the run game, we need to modernize," etc.

Quarterback seems to also be the biggest concern for those that are defending Fickell, or wanting more time with him, feeling like if his transfer guys were only healthy, THEN we'd really see Fickell shine.

Right now, they can't keep the quarterback upright, and they can't gain one yard on a 3rd and short. Meanwhile, their opponents CAN.

It seems that there are a significant cadre of fans that are concerned about "going back to Barry-ball," due to their boredom with the metronome of winning the way he did, by running the football and stopping the run.

I loved Barry-ball, so I'm just as biased as those wanting to modernize. But as I said at the time of the move... it BETTER work, because otherwise you've really torpedoed any remaining semblance of Barry-ball left in the program.

The debate reminds me of Brewer fans that just want more dingers and offense, regardless of the winning. I like WINNING.

 

edit to add... Barry and "his" guys were NEVER shy about throwing the ball. They WERE shy of trying to throw the ball around when they didn't have the talent to do it. In college football, there are a lot of teams that don't have the talent to do it, and win.

Great post.

As to the last paragraph, they also didn't throw the ball around when a game was in hand and it made no sense to do so, unless you wanted to endanger your chances of winning.

[Jim French Stepstool]

12 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

 

 

But this is the same program that used to build with 2-3 star recruits. They can't do THAT anymore? 
 

My short answer would be with this staff, no.

Past teams here had some exceptional talent, but always relied largely on those 2-3 star guys developing & performing above their recruiting stars. I see little to no evidence of that now. And with the annual turnover of rosters in CFB now, can it even happen?