Why Wisconsin could improve on the field and still fall short of its standard in 2016

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.