The big 2014 Wisconsin football preview: Still the best in the new West?

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. A different kind of Year 0

For the most part, Gary Andersen's first year in charge of the Wisconsin football program went fine.

The Badgers won at least nine games for the fourth time in five years, finished in the F/+ top 20 for the fifth straight season, again produced one of the most effective, explosive rushing attacks in the country, put a top-10 defense on the field, and came within a seven-point loss in Columbus of reaching their third consecutive conference title game. Defensive coordinator Dave Aranda's 3-4 defense fit extraordinarily well with the new personnel, and the Badgers' three-headed running back combined for a gaudy 3,600 rushing yards and 32 touchdowns. Wisconsin was as good as ever in 2013.

In a lot of ways, though, the real work begins this fall. When a coach takes a rebuilding job, I often talk about the Year 0 effect, in which a coach is building from the ground up and installing his system, and the first-year results are both awful and of little consequence. Sometimes it takes until the second year to see what the coach is trying to build. (Sometimes it takes even longer.)

But on the opposite end of the spectrum, you get a different type of Year 0 effect. Andersen inherited a nearly perfect distribution of talent and experience on his first Wisconsin roster when he came to Madison from Utah State. Not only did he have three strong running backs, a go-to receiver, and a top-notch offensive line, but he also inherited perhaps the most experienced defensive front seven in the country, one capable of meeting the size requirements of a shift from a 4-3 to a 3-4 front.

This time around, he must replace four of his top six linemen and each of his top four linebackers.

The Andersen-Aranda duo has quickly established itself as one of the better sets of defensive coaches in the country. Andersen was a successful defensive coordinator at Utah, and it took Aranda and him just two years to put together the pieces of a top-10 defense at Utah State (No. 9 in Def. F/+ in 2012). So perhaps everything will work out just fine.

But the training wheels are off, so to speak, and we'll see if the Badgers can avoid some temporary regression as Andersen gets his own personnel firmly established.

Wisconsin is in an odd position. Only seven programs have ranked in the F/+ top 20 in each of the last five seasons: Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Stanford, and Wisconsin. But of those seven, only Wisconsin has lost more than eight games in the last two years. The Badgers were just 17-10 in 2012-13, in part because of a baffling losing streak in games decided by one possession. They've lost 13 of 16 such games, and they've lost all eight since a 16-14 win over Andersen's Utah State squad early in 2012. It has given the program an air of vulnerability that most consistently excellent teams would not have.

Vulnerability or no, Wisconsin is remarkably well-positioned. The Badgers benefited significantly from the Big Ten's redrawn division boundaries; with Michigan State and Ohio State in the East, Wisconsin is easily the most proven program in the West, and a division title in 2014 would further emphasize that.

Can the defense hold together enough to fend off division foes like Nebraska, Iowa, and a potentially resurgent Northwestern? And while we're asking questions, just how worried should we be about the Wisconsin passing game?

2013 Schedule & Results

Record: 9-4 | Adj. Record: 11-2 | Final F/+ Rk: 19
Date	Opponent	Opp. F/+ Rk	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L	5-gm Adj. Avg.
31-Aug	Massachusetts	118	45-0	W	45.6 - 17.5	W
7-Sep	Tennessee Tech	N/A	48-0	W	31.6 - 9.5	W
14-Sep	at Arizona State	13	30-32	L	36.3 - 26.8	W
21-Sep	Purdue	114	41-10	W	38.1 - 20.1	W
28-Sep	at Ohio State	9	24-31	L	32.2 - 20.5	W	17.9
12-Oct	Northwestern	59	35-6	W	39.1 - 15.9	W	16.9
19-Oct	at Illinois	71	56-32	W	38.5 - 33.7	W	13.4
2-Nov	at Iowa	29	28-9	W	35.4 - 15.6	W	15.5
9-Nov	BYU	30	27-17	W	36.8 - 18.7	W	15.5
16-Nov	Indiana	56	51-3	W	44.2 - 12.3	W	19.5
23-Nov	at Minnesota	55	20-7	W	23.1 - 13.0	W	16.9
30-Nov	Penn State	61	24-31	L	34.2 - 35.7	L	15.7
1-Jan	vs. South Carolina	10	24-34	L	33.2 - 33.6	L	11.6

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk	Spec. Tms.	Rk
F/+	+9.5%	28	+15.8%	9	+0.9%	50
Points Per Game	34.8	27	16.3	6
Adj. Points Per Game	36.0	16	21.0	10

2. A less-than-spectacular finish

Not every one-possession loss is created equal. In fact, the three Wisconsin suffered came with no overriding pattern or level of performance. First, the Badgers were hosed at Arizona State in one of the strangest endings you'll ever see. Then, they trailed by 17 to a favored Ohio State team in Columbus before putting together a late, futile rally. Finally, they suffered an inordinate number of defensive breakdowns against an underdog Penn State squad in Madison, again fell behind by 17 points early in the fourth quarter, and saw a late rally, and a last-second Hail Mary, fall short.

Until the Penn State game, the Badgers had left little to chance, thoroughly defeating any team ranked outside of the F/+ top 15. But the level of play diminished at the end of the season.

• Adj. Points Per Game (first 5 games): Wisconsin 36.8, Opponent 18.9 (plus-17.9)
• Adj. Points Per Game (next 5 games): Wisconsin 38.8, Opponent 19.2 (plus-19.6)
• Adj. Points Per Game (last 3 games): Wisconsin 30.2, Opponent 27.4 (plus-2.8)

After averaging at least 5.5 yards per play in each of the first 10 games, Wisconsin's offense averaged just 4.6 against Minnesota and 5.4 against Penn State. Meanwhile, after allowing greater than 5.0 yards per play just twice in the first 11 games, the defense allowed 8.0 to Penn State and 7.3 against South Carolina. Neither unit was particularly banged up by the end of the year, but the results just slipped a bit. Until it happens again, we'll just say it was an odd occurrence.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.25	19	IsoPPP+	111.6	18
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	48.0%	19	Succ. Rt. +	110.8	27
FIELD POSITION	Def. Avg. FP	28.2	34	Def. FP+	104.4	15
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	4.3	63	Redzone S&P+	101.3	57
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	20.4		ACTUAL	19	-1.4

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	18	19	27	28
RUSHING	8	5	24	7
PASSING	95	42	39	93
Standard Downs		16	32	8
Passing Downs		35	33	67

Q1 Rk	19	1st Down Rk	10
Q2 Rk	24	2nd Down Rk	31
Q3 Rk	15	3rd Down Rk	66
Q4 Rk	63

3. Some unexpected red zone troubles

Again, Wisconsin was a top-20 team as a whole and left minimal room for doubt in most games; in the Badgers' nine wins, their average scoring margin was plus-29.7 points. So for most of the year, the ship sailed rather smoothly.

But if we're looking for glitches, we do find a surprising one. Despite a rushing attack that was devastating for most of the season (fifth in Rushing S&P+), Wisconsin was only average near the goal line. The Badgers averaged a mediocre 4.3 points per trip inside the opponent's 40 and ranked just 57th in Redzone S&P+. One would expect better, all things considered.

Short yardage was actually an issue away from the goal line, too. While Wisconsin's line stats were great overall -- 12th in Adj. Line Yards, fifth in Opportunity Rate (percentage of rushes gaining at least five yards) -- the Badgers were, again, thoroughly average in short-yardage situations (53rd in Power Success Rate). With a lot of experience returning up front (five players with starting experience, 75 career starts) and a pair of good-to-great running backs, one would assume those numbers improve in 2014. But one would have assumed they wouldn't have been that bad in 2013.

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2014 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player

Ht, Wt

2014 Year

Rivals

Comp

Att

Yards

TD

INT

Comp Rate

Sacks

Sack Rate

Yards/ Att.

Joel Stave

6'5, 225

Jr.

2 stars (5.4)

208

336

2494

22

13

61.9%

16

4.5%

6.8

Curt Phillips

7

14

37

0

2

50.0%

0

0.0%

2.6

Tanner McEvoy

6'6, 223

Jr.

3 stars (5.5)

Bart Houston

6'4, 217

So.

3 stars (5.7)

D.J. Gillins

6'3, 185

Fr.

4 stars (5.8)

Running Back

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Rushes	Yards	TD	Yards/ Carry	Hlt Yds/ Carry	Opp. Rate
James White	RB				221	1444	13	6.5	7.4	43.0%
Melvin Gordon	RB	6'1, 207	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	206	1609	12	7.8	7.1	53.4%
Corey Clement	RB	5'11, 210	So.	4 stars (5.8)	67	547	7	8.2	7.7	53.7%
Joel Stave	QB	6'5, 225	Jr.	2 stars (5.4)	22	70	1	3.2	2.1	40.9%
Jared Abbrederis	WR				6	119	2	19.8	13.3	100.0%
Austin Ramesh	RB	6'1, 235	RSFr.	3 stars (5.6)
Taiwan Deal	RB	6'1, 225	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)

4. Hey, Melvin

One way to avoid short-yardage struggles is to bust a huge share of big plays. Third-and-2 doesn't matter as much when you're rushing for 15 yards on second-and-4. And in Melvin Gordon, Wisconsin has one of the most explosive running backs in the country. After announcing his presence with a nine-carry, 216-yard performance against Nebraska in the 2012 Big Ten title game, the junior from Kenosha proved consistent and capable of taking on a heavier load in 2013. Despite splitting carries with two other capable backs, Gordon rushed for at least 140 yards in eight games last fall and averaged at least 8.0 yards per carry six times.

Actually, mentioning only Gordon in the above paragraph might be unfair to Corey Clement, who was even more explosive, albeit in one-third the carries. It's also unfair to opponents that both return this fall.

Gordon, Clement, and James White combined for more than 275 rushing yards per game in 2013; each averaged at least 6.5 yards per carry and 7.1 highlight yards per opportunity. White was more of a bruising force, but Gordon and Clement are each over 205 pounds and were far more efficient than White. With White gone, that might open the door for some carries for someone like Austin Ramesh or Taiwan Deal, but both Gordon and Clement are built to carry a pretty solid load. And again, they'll be doing so behind a high-class line, albeit one that still has some room for improvement.

Receiving Corps

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Target Rate	%SD	Yds/ Target	NEY	Real Yds/ Target	RYPR
Jared Abbrederis	WR				122	78	1086	63.9%	37.1%	61.0%	8.9	138	8.8	158.5
Jacob Pedersen	TE				58	39	551	67.2%	17.6%	60.4%	9.5	89	9.7	80.4
James White	RB				43	39	300	90.7%	13.1%	68.4%	7.0	-103	6.8	43.8
Jeff Duckworth	WR				21	12	176	57.1%	6.4%	64.3%	8.4	21	7.2	25.7
Jordan Fredrick	WR	6'4, 210	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	18	10	106	55.6%	5.5%	73.3%	5.9	-25	5.9	15.5
Alex Erickson	WR	6'0, 198	So.	NR	16	9	127	56.3%	4.9%	66.7%	7.9	10	8.9	18.5
Kenzel Doe	WR	5'8, 170	Sr.	2 stars (5.4)	12	7	57	58.3%	3.6%	41.7%	4.8	-32	5.0	8.3
Sam Arneson	TE	6'4, 254	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	10	6	57	60.0%	3.0%	85.7%	5.7	-18	7.6	8.3
Brian Wozniak	TE				8	6	33	75.0%	2.4%	57.1%	4.1	-34	4.0	4.8
Derek Watt	FB	6'2, 231	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	8	3	20	37.5%	2.4%	50.0%	2.5	-29	2.7	2.9
Melvin Gordon	RB	6'1, 207	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)	3	1	5	33.3%	0.9%	100.0%	1.7	-13	1.4	0.7
Robert Wheelwright	WR	6'2, 198	So.	3 stars (5.7)	3	1	3	33.3%	0.9%	0.0%	1.0	-15	1.3	0.4
Reggie Love	WR	6'3, 210	So.	3 stars (5.6)
Troy Fumagalli	TE	6'5, 233	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
Jazz Peavy	WR	6'0, 182	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
Dareian Watkins	WR	6'1, 200	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)
Chris Jones	WR	6'2, 190	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)
Krenwick Sanders	WR	6'2, 190	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)

5. Where do the big pass plays come from?

Wisconsin had a strong, explosive offense overall despite getting next to no big plays from the passing game. The Badgers got 23 rushes of 30+ yards in 2013, tied for the most in the country with Auburn and Ohio State. Meanwhile, they got just 14 passes of 30+ yards, tied for 91st in the country with Arkansas State, Boston College, Michigan State, UTEP, and Wake Forest.

And that was with Jared Abbrederis. The long-time No. 1 receiver from Wautoma caught 182 passes for 2,851 yards (15.7 per catch) and 20 touchdowns from 2011-13, and he was one of the most heavily featured wideouts in the country last year. Only seven receivers were targeted with a higher percentage of their teams' passes than Abbrederis, who saw the same number of passes as Wisconsin's next three targets combined.

Of course, all four of those targets are now gone. Whereas James White could be replaced pretty easily in the running game, he was one of the most proficient out-of-the-backfield receivers in the country; plus, tight end Jacob Pedersen averaged nearly 10 yards per target. This was a wonderfully efficient group even if the big plays were nearly non-existent. There are some intriguing youngsters vying for playing time, from sophomores Rob Wheelwright and Alex Erickson to freshmen Dareian Watkins (a four-star signee), Chris Jones, and Krenwick Sanders, but they're all quite yougn.

So the passing game starts over, and there's at least a chance that this statement goes for more than just the receiving corps. Quarterback Joel Stave's full-season numbers were decent -- completion rate over 60 percent, sack rate under five percent -- but his mistakes were costly and a little too frequent. You want your interception rate under about two percent, especially if you're not completing long passes, and his was 3.9. He went just 29-for-53 with three picks against Penn State, and he opened the door at least a little bit for someone else to steal the starting job in 2014.

The most likely candidate, by far, is junior Tanner McEvoy. A good enough athlete to have played a bit at safety last year, McEvoy's progress was a spring story line, especially with Stave out with a shoulder injury.

Offensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	114.5	3.28	3.91	48.8%	70.4%	16.8%	143.1	2.6%	6.1%
Rank	12	16	17	5	53	31	26	15	53

Player	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	Career Starts	Honors/Notes
Ryan Groy	LG				33	1st All-Big Ten
Rob Havenstein	RT	6'8, 327	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	28
Kyle Costigan	RG	6'5, 315	Sr.	2 stars (5.3)	21
Tyler Marz	LT	6'5, 321	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	13
Dallas Lewallen	LG	6'6, 322	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	7
Dan Voltz	C	6'3, 313	So.	4 stars (5.8)	6
Zac Matthias	RG				5
Ray Ball	LG	6'7, 321	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	0
Walker Williams	RT	6'7, 322	So.	3 stars (5.7)	0
Alex Walker	LT	6'4, 239	So.	3 stars (5.6)	0
Trent Denlinger	RG	6'6, 297	So.	NR	0
Hayden Biegel	LT	6'6, 281	RSFr.	3 stars (5.5)
Ben Hemer	LG	6'4, 274	RSFr.	NR
Jaden Gault	RT	6'6, 310	Fr.	4 stars (5.8)
Michael Deiter	C	6'5, 310	Fr.	3 stars (5.5)

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE
	Raw Category		Rk	Opp. Adj. Category		Rk
EXPLOSIVENESS	IsoPPP	1.04	17	IsoPPP+	106.9	34
EFFICIENCY	Succ. Rt.	37.8%	19	Succ. Rt. +	114.8	17
FIELD POSITION	Off. Avg. FP	30.7	56	Off. FP+	102.5	32
FINISHING DRIVES	Pts. Per Trip in 40	3.5	8	Redzone S&P+	108.8	28
TURNOVERS	EXPECTED	22.3		ACTUAL	20.0	-2.3

Category	Yards/ Game Rk	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	7	19	17	8
RUSHING	5	9	19	4
PASSING	17	28	20	37
Standard Downs		14	23	14
Passing Downs		36	16	84

Q1 Rk	20	1st Down Rk	29
Q2 Rk	22	2nd Down Rk	25
Q3 Rk	8	3rd Down Rk	10
Q4 Rk	68

Defensive Line

Category	Adj. Line Yds	Std. Downs LY/carry	Pass. Downs LY/carry	Opp. Rate	Power Success Rate	Stuff Rate	Adj. Sack Rate	Std. Downs Sack Rt.	Pass. Downs Sack Rt.
Team	116.8	2.52	3.15	36.1%	61.4%	19.5%	96.6	4.4%	8.3%
Rank	17	14	48	33	29	58	66	66	35

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Pat Muldoon	DE				13	22.0	3.4%	4.5	2.0	1	0	1	0
Beau Allen	NG				13	15.0	2.3%	2.0	1.5	0	0	0	0
Konrad Zagzebski	DE	6'3, 278	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	13	14.5	2.2%	2.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Tyler Dippel	DE				12	13.5	2.1%	0.5	0.0	0	0	1	0
Warren Herring	NG	6'3, 294	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	13.5	2.1%	6.0	4.0	0	0	0	0
Ethan Hemer	DE				13	10.0	1.5%	2.0	0.0	0	2	0	0
Bryce Gilbert	NG	6'2, 305	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	8	6.0	0.9%	1.0	1.0	0	0	0	0
Jake Keefer	DE	6'3, 265	Jr.	4 stars (5.8)
James Adeyanju	DE	6'2, 265	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)
Alec James	DE	6'4, 239	So.	3 stars (5.7)
Arthur Goldberg	NG	6'3, 290	So.	3 stars (5.5)
Chikwe Obasih	DE	6'3, 260	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)
Garret Dooley	DE	6'2, 227	RSFr.	3 stars (5.7)
Billy Hirschfield	DE	6'6, 270	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)
Conor Sheehy	DE	6'4, 275	Fr.	3 stars (5.7)

6. An underrated front rebuilds

With a cast of three-star defensive linemen, Wisconsin coaches Gary Andersen and Dave Aranda have built a Badger defense that is physical and difficult to run against inside but also protects the secondary and allows the defensive backs to play "bend don't break" coverages.

The linemen protect the linebackers, the linebackers protect the secondary, and the opponent finds itself with nearly nowhere to go. Borland gets a lot of the credit, and he's a phenomenal player, but let's pause and sing the praises of the Badger DL: Pat Muldoon, Beau Allen, Ethan Hemer, Tyler Dippel, Warren Herring, and Konrad Zagzebski. It is a unit that is both largely unheralded and one of the most dominant units in college football in 2013.

Last November at Football Study Hall, Ian Boyd wrote a lovely piece about how and why the Wisconsin defensive line was so good in 2013. (The defense then proceeded to fall apart. Blame Ian.) The line didn't make many plays of its own, but its primary job was to free up linebackers, and it very much did that. But of the six players Ian listed above, four are now gone. Meanwhile, those freed-up linebackers will have completely different names this year as well.

Wisconsin's pass defense had some issues in 2013, especially late in the season. The pass rush wasn't incredibly dynamic (though it was pretty good in blitzing situations), and while the downfield breakdowns weren't incredibly common, they were pretty significant. But Wisconsin was able to force teams to become one-dimensional because of a top-notch run defense. Not a single team averaged better than 4.5 yards per carry on the Badgers last year, not even Ohio State.

Now we're looking at a "strength gets weaker, weakness gets stronger" situation. The secondary is exerienced, but there are new names littered throughout the front seven. The coaching is top-notch, and the return of Zagzebski and Herring shouldn't be overlooked, but it's hard to imagine there won't be at least a little bit of regression.

Linebackers

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Chris Borland	ILB				12	91.5	14.1%	8.5	4.0	0	2	1	1
Ethan Armstrong	OLB				13	42.0	6.5%	5.0	2.0	0	2	0	0
Conor O'Neill	ILB				12	33.0	5.1%	5.5	1.0	0	1	1	0
Brendan Kelly	OLB				12	29.0	4.5%	7.0	4.5	0	2	3	0
Derek Landisch	ILB	6'0, 230	Sr.	3 stars (5.5)	10	26.0	4.0%	2.0	1.0	0	1	1	0
Vince Biegel	OLB	6'4, 233	So.	4 stars (5.9)	13	22.0	3.4%	3.0	2.0	0	2	0	0
Joe Schobert	OLB	6'2, 230	Jr.	NR	13	18.0	2.8%	2.5	1.0	0	3	0	0
Marcus Trotter	ILB	6'0, 233	Sr.	3 stars (5.6)	5	16.0	2.5%	2.0	0.0	0	1	0	0
Leon Jacobs	ILB	6'2, 225	So.	2 stars (5.4)	13	5.5	0.9%	1.0	0.0	0	0	0	0
Jesse Hayes	OLB	6'3, 236	Jr.	3 stars (5.7)
Jack Cichy	ILB	6'2, 208	So.	NR
Keelon Brookins	OLB	5'10, 193	RSFr.	4 stars (5.8)

7. Potential? Check

The experience level plummets, but Wisconsin has recruited quite well along the line and linebacking corps. Four-star redshirt freshman Chikwe Obasih was a spring standout and could start, and there are nine other linemen and linebackers who were given either a four-star rating or the highest three-star rating by Rivals.com. Vince Biegel made a couple of plays when afforded the opportunity last year, and it doesn't appear that size will be too much of an issue despite youth. There is potential everywhere you look, but almost nobody has proven much on the field.

Secondary

Name	Pos	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Rivals	GP	Tackles	% of Team	TFL	Sacks	Int	PBU	FF	FR
Michael Caputo	FS	6'1, 206	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)	13	49.5	7.7%	3	0	0	3	0	0
Sojourn Shelton	CB	5'9, 172	So.	3 stars (5.7)	13	33.5	5.2%	0	0	4	5	1	0
Dezmen Southward	SS				13	33.0	5.1%	3.5	0	1	5	1	1
Darius Hillary	CB	5'11, 187	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	13	25.5	3.9%	0	0	1	5	1	0
Nate Hammon	SS	6'1, 196	So.	2 stars (5.2)	12	22.0	3.4%	1	1	0	1	1	0
Tanner McEvoy	SS	6'6, 223	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)	11	20.0	3.1%	1	0	1	4	0	0
Peniel Jean	SS	5'11, 187	Sr.	3 stars (5.7)	12	13.0	2.0%	0	0	0	4	0	0
Leo Musso	FS	5'10, 195	So.	2 stars (5.4)	13	11.0	1.7%	1	0	1	0	0	0
Jakarrie Washington	CB				11	9.0	1.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kyle Zuleger	S				13	9.0	1.4%	0	0	0	0	1	0
T.J. Reynard	CB	5'8, 172	Jr.	NR	7	6.5	1.0%	0	0	0	1	0	0
Jerry Ponio	S				13	4.0	0.6%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dare Ogunbowale	CB	5'11, 186	So.	NR	8	3.0	0.5%	0	0	0	0	0	0
A.J. Jordan	FS	6'0, 178	Jr.	3 stars (5.6)
Devin Gaulden	CB	5'10, 180	Jr.	3 stars (5.5)
Vonte Jackson	S	6'1, 199	So.	4 stars (5.8)
Hugs Etienne	CB	5'11, 182	So.	3 stars (5.7)
Austin Hudson	SS	6'2, 185	Fr.	2 stars (5.4)

8. Hold onto the damn ball

Short yardage struggles and untimely turnovers from the offense certainly played a role in Wisconsin's continued failures in close games. But there's been another factor; in 2012-13, Wisconsin defenders have intercepted 17 passes and broken up 112. The national average of interceptions as a percentage of passes defensed is typically around 22-23 percent; for Wisconsin, it's been 13 percent in the last two years, and you could say it's cost the Badgers 12 or 13 takeaways.

Failing to capitalize on turnover opportunities helps you consistently lose close games. It also forces you to defend for longer periods of time and could lead to more breakdowns. Wisconsin's secondary was ultra-young in 2013 -- among the top eight tacklers were six freshmen or sophomores -- and it could have used every break it got.

Despite the loss of safety Dezmen Southward, the level of experience is quite a big stronger in 2014. Seven of the aforementioned eight return, including a potential star in sophomore corner Sojourn Shelton, who both made and allowed some big plays last fall. The secondary might have to carry a bit more weight this year if the front seven isn't making quite as many plays against the run.

Special Teams

Punter	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Punts	Avg	TB	FC	I20	FC/I20 Ratio
Drew Meyer	6'3, 185	Jr.	53	38.6	3	15	19	64.2%

Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Kickoffs	Avg	TB	OOB	TB%
Andrew Endicott	5'9, 166	So.	57	58.3	9	0	15.8%
Kyle French			26	64.2	6	0	23.1%

Place-Kicker	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	PAT	FG (0-39)	Pct	FG (40+)	Pct
Jack Russell	6'0, 172	Jr.	34-34	8-10	80.0%	1-3	33.3%
Kyle French			23-24	4-6	66.7%	1-2	50.0%

Returner	Pos.	Ht, Wt	2014 Year	Returns	Avg.	TD
Kenzel Doe	KR	5'8, 170	Sr.	20	26.5	1
Kyle Zuleger	KR			8	19.1	0
Kenzel Doe	PR	5'8, 170	Sr.	16	7.3	0
Jared Abbrederis	PR			11	8.5	0

Category	Rk
Special Teams F/+	50
Field Goal Efficiency	87
Punt Return Efficiency	44
Kick Return Efficiency	19
Punt Efficiency	94
Kickoff Efficiency	46
Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency	67

9. A little more leg, Drew

The Wisconsin special teams unit basically had two weaknesses in 2013, and one got at least partially rectified when Jack Russell took over for Kyle French as place-kicker. But the Badgers still needed a bit more leg from punter Drew Meyer, who did pretty well in terms of kick placement but ranked just 94th in both Net Punting and Punt Efficiency.

Despite high efficiency on both offense and defense, then, Wisconsin was only decent in terms of the field position battle. If the punting game improves at least a little bit, return man Kenzel Doe could turn this unit into an overall strength. (Seriously, almost every damn Big Ten team has a great return man.)

2014 Schedule & Projection Factors

2014 Schedule
Date	Opponent	Proj. Rk
30-Aug	vs. LSU	12
6-Sep	Western Illinois	NR
20-Sep	Bowling Green	52
27-Sep	South Florida	86
4-Oct	at Northwestern	50
11-Oct	Illinois	63
25-Oct	Maryland	51
1-Nov	at Rutgers	78
8-Nov	at Purdue	108
15-Nov	Nebraska	40
22-Nov	at Iowa	34
29-Nov	Minnesota	73

Five-Year F/+ Rk	24.1% (10)
Two-Year Recruiting Rk	47
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*	1 / 1.9
TO Luck/Game	-0.3
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	10 (6, 4)

10. The West is the place to be

It's going to be an interesting year in the Big Ten West.

Wisconsin is easily the top dog and most proven entity, but the Badgers do have some questions to answer regarding one of last year's biggest strengths (defensive front seven) and one of its biggest weaknesses (big pass plays).

The offense will be good regardless, but if there's slippage in run defense, and the secondary is still creating some messes of its own, then the offense will have to win some shootouts. And while the running game will be as good as anybody's, you do have to threaten defenses through the air.

If Wisconsin can maintain a top-30 level despite these questions, and if the Badgers can remember how to win tight games again, they could conceivably end up with a better record in 2013 despite some regression. The schedule features just one projected top-30 team (LSU in the season opener) and only two others projected higher than 50th.

But how they fare against Iowa and Nebraska could determine whether they reach the conference title game for the third time in four years. The numbers like their chances quite a bit, but they do still have more uncertainty than we're used to seeing.