FPI is annoying

Before I get into this post, I want to make clear that I don't have any animus toward Espn or their analytics people. I like them! I've defended them! (Though they've gone backwards a bit since I wrote that "In defense of BPI, etc." post.)

With that throat-clearing out of the way...

Espn has a predictive metric for college football called FPI. It is relatively good* at predicting the results of college football games. So if you want to lose a little (instead of a lot) of money, use FPI to pick games against the spread. Or you could just toss a coin and do slightly better.

For the most part, the analytics people at Espn are admirably clear that FPI is a predictive tool. But lately they've been doing two things with FPI that annoy me: First, they've been touting it as an accurate and objective arbiter of team quality. Second, they've been openly clamoring for an FPI-based metric—Strength of Record—to be used in selecting the teams for the college football playoffs.

Here's why I'm annoyed.

FPI is not an accurate measure of team quality.

I said above that FPI is relatively good at predicting the results of games. I say relatively good because college football is a crazy sport where crazy things happen on the regular. People say "Vegas knows, man" but Vegas don't know much about college football: the mean absolute error for closing betting lines in college football is about 12.2 points (and FPI is at 12.4). In the NFL, the mean error is 10.5 points—significantly better.

Why is this? It's because there is just not enough good data in a college football season to produce a highly accurate measure of team quality. Each team plays just 12 games, and only 8-10 of those are games that we can extract much useful information. (The other 2-4 games are mismatches that are likely to be all but useless for discerning differences among quality teams.)

So this is not a knock on FPI in particular. There simply does not exist a highly accurate measure of team quality in college football. What annoys me is that Espn pretends that there does, and that it is FPI.

We can see this hubris in an article today where they purport to show that the playoff selection committee is not selecting the "best" teams because it is not selecting the teams rated highest in the FPI and is considering teams rated poorly by the FPI (poster boy: Wisconsin). In other words, FPI is the arbiter of "best." Bullshit! If the question is: "Who are the best teams?" the only intellectually honest answer is:

"We don't know."

FPI-based "Strength of Record" should not and cannot be used in playoff selection 

As I mentioned above, there is not enough good data in a single college football season to construct an accurate enough measure of team quality to reliably discern between the best teams. To help make up for this, Espn incorporates its preseason prior — which is based on things like historical performance and recruiting ranks — into the FPI all year long. It never goes away. And while they refuse to say how much it still, at this point, influences the ratings, it is pretty clear that is still doing a lot of work. There is no other explanation for how Florida State (preseason No. 3, but 5-6 with bad losses) is still ranked 21st.

There is nothing wrong with keeping the preseason prior part of the formula. Espn's guys say that using the prior makes the predictions more accurate, and that's what the FPI is supposed to be maximizing. Fine!

But keeping the preseason prior means that FPI cannot be used in any way for selection to the playoffs. No one would argue that selection should be based on recruiting ranks or last year's performance. But if you rely on a strength of record measure based on FPI, that's what you'd be doing. You're giving Alabama extra credit for beating a bad Florida State team because FSU has five-star recruits and used to be good. Completely unacceptable.

Who benefits?

Obviously, a system that maintains a significant prior based on program strength and recruiting ranks will boost teams like Ohio State and Alabama. It makes sense if you are trying to predict games to give those teams a boost, because even in the middle of a down season they probably still have a lot of good football players could put it together at any time.

And obviously it hurts Wisconsin, which has not ever had a recruiting class better than 30th in the country. Which is why it is particularly annoying to see Espn touting Wisconsin's low FPI as a reason that it can't truly be considered among the best teams. It's crazy-making.

How good is Wisconsin?

Last week Chorlton foolishly bet against the Badgers. I called him out for his lack of faith and predicted that the Badgers would win by 19.*

At this point I guess I should break something to the more earnest among you: all my predictions are jokes.

The truth is I don't have strong opinions about what will happen in college football games. The ancients called this "wisdom." Because no one knows what will happen in college football games. This is why when some charge me of "overconfidence" about the Badgers I am genuinely befuddled. I have no confidence in the Badger football team.** I have no confidence in any football teams. I just watch the dang games and cheer and hope and drink and pass out. I do make predictions but -- and I can't emphasize this enough -- all my predictions are jokes.

But sometimes, very rarely, it happens that life makes my jokes unfunny. Saturday was such an occasion. My joke prediction* of a 19-point Badger win over MSU win became a straight man: the Badgers won by 24, dominating all three phases. Well, at least two. But really three. (Is there a fourth phase? I think it's plasma.)

Are the Badgers 24-points-plus-home-field-advantage better than the Spartans? That seems unlikely. They benefitted from some freak plays -- a crazy fumble returned for an unlikely touchdown; a dropped snap on a punt from the 5-yard-line, etc. -- that made the score what it was. But college football is crazy plays. I mean, come on, you've watched it before, right? Sometimes you get em, sometimes they get you. MSU got got Saturday, and it was great.

But that leaves the question: how good is Wisconsin, really? It shouldn't surprise you to learn that I have no fucking idea. I think they're "pretty good." And they've already won enough games this year to prove that, objectively. This is the great thing about being a Badgers fan: beat a couple top-10 teams, and the season is a success. We don't feel entitled to national-championship contenders, and we don't feel bad when they don't materialize. We just cheer and hope and drink and pass out. Then we wake up in Spring to find the basketball team is in the Sweet 16 again.

Life is good.


*Later, my account was hack'd.

**As someone who came of age in the 80s, this is constitutional.

Tanner McEvoy Starting at QB

So word has leaked that Tanner McEvoy is going to get the starting nod for the Badgers this Saturday in the big season opener against LSU in Houston.

Most are surprised by this news, but I think this is epitome of Wisconsin Football™: we can beat you with a quarterback who used to be a safety.

Supposedly, Stave will still get snaps. And we have all seen the Badgers be very successful with a power running game and an option quarterback. But this will certainly be interesting to watch.

What do you guys think?

How Does Wisconsin Get to the BCS?

The other day I expressed near certainty that the Badgers will get into the top 14 of the BCS. The argument is simple: every other major conference, two-loss team in similar circumstances, except for perhaps one, has finished in the top 14. (And even that one outlier got into the top 14 before falling back out.)

But apparently I haven't been very convincing. People look at all the teams in front of Wisconsin and wonder how the Badgers can move in front of eight of them. Here's how: a bunch of those teams are going to lose games. This is a true certainty, since there are (at least) five games left between teams currently ranked between 8 and 21 in the standings:

1) LSU v. Texas A&M
2) ASU v. UCLA
3) Oklahoma State v. Oklahoma
4) Clemson v. South Carolina
5) Texas A&M v. Missouri

So at least four teams (not five, because Texas A&M could lose twice) currently ranked between 8 and 21 will lose. It's a lock that Wisconsin would move past LSU, Oklahoma, UCLA, ASU, Texas A&M, or South Carolina if they lost, as they would all have three losses or more. I think it's very likely they move ahead of a two-loss Clemson team as well, particularly if they get waxed by South Carolina. So you can mentally move Wisconsin up to 19th just by virtue of these five games, because they will move past the loser of games 1 and 2 for sure, and will almost certainly move past the losers of at least one of 3, 4, and 5.

Once you do that, it doesn't look so daunting. The other teams they'd be behind are teams like Fresno St., Northern Illinois, Central Florida and Michigan State. I think Wisconsin would move ahead of those non-majors organically, even if they don't lose, and I think Michigan State will almost certainly lose again (possibly twice). Then there's Louisville, currently at #20, which is another team I think Wisconsin will just move past if it finishes with three more wins.

Anyhow, here's a bunch of plausible occurrences that could all occur, each of which would move Wisconsin up a spot for sure:

1) Clemson over SCar
2) Oklahoma State over Oklahoma
3) Baylor and Texas over Oklahoma State
4) USC over UCLA
5) Missouri over Texas A&M
6) Houston over Louisville
7) Rutgers or S. Florida over UCF
8) Georgia and Alabama over Auburn
9) Ball State or Toledo over NIU
10) Nebraska or Northwestern or Minnesota over MSU
11) New Mex. or San Jose State over Fresno.
12) UCLA over ASU
13) Texas A&M over LSU
14) USC and Notre Dame over Stanford

Now, not all of these things are probable, but many of them are more likely to happen than not. And if eight of these 14 outcomes happen, the Badgers almost certainly get to the top 14. If fewer than eight of them happen, there are still many, many ways that the Badgers move up (e.g., by moving up organically over Louisville, NIU, Fresno, and/or UCF).

Here's my prediction: if the Badgers win out, they'll finished ranked 13th in the BCS standings.

For the sake of completeness, here's the remaining schedule of the teams currently ranked 21 to 7 (current losses in parentheses):

21) LSU (3): Texas A&M, Ark.

20) Louisville (1): Houston, Memphis, @Cincy

19) ASU (2): Ore. St., @UCLA, Az.

18) Oklahoma (2): Iowa St., @K State, Oklahoma State

17) UCF (1): @Temple, Rutgers, South FLorida, @SMU

16) MSU (1): @Nebraska, @Northwestern, Minnesota

15) NIU (0): Ball ST., @Toledo, W. MIch.

14) Fresno St. (0): New Mex., @SJS

13) UCLA (2) Washington, ASU, @USC

12) Ok. ST. (1): @Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma

11) Texas A&M (2): @LSU, Missouri

10) S. Carolina (2): Florida, Coast. Car., Clemson

9) Missouri(1): @Ole Miss, Tex. A&M

8) Clemson (1): Ga Tech, Citadel, @South Carolina

7) Auburn (1): Georgia, Alabama

Will the Badgers get into the BCS top-14?

After their nice win against BYU, the big question about the Badgers football team is whether they can fight their way back into position for a BCS bowl game. It is silly that this matters, and normally I don't concern myself with which consolation game my favorite teams qualify for. But I sense a lot of angst among Badger fans about whether Wisconsin will be screwed out of a BCS bowl even if they win out. This angst is misplaced. If the Badgers win out, they will almost certainly be invited to a BCS game.

The Badgers need to finish in the top 14 of the BCS standings to be eligible for an at-large berth. They will surely receive an at-large berth if they finish in the top-14. Currently, they are 24th, so they have to pass a bunch of teams. History tells us they will (if they keep winning).

In the BCS era, 99 teams from the major (or "automatic qualifier") conferences have finished the regular season with two losses, as the Badgers will if they win out. Of those 99 teams, 89 finished in the top 14 of the final BCS standings. If you narrow it to just the Big Ten, 13 out of 14 two-loss teams have finished in the top-14.

Almost all the 10 two-loss team that didn't finish in the top-14 had a lot of late-season losses. It is no secret that the most important thing in college football is to lose early. Late losses kill:

1998 Notre Dame, lost last game and finished outside BCS top 15.
1999 Miss. State, lost 2 of last 3, and finished outside BCS top 15.
2000 Clemson, lost 2 of last 3 and finished 15th.
2004 Wisconsin, lost last 2 and finished 17th.
2005 Texas Tech, lost 2 of last 5 and finished 15th.
2005 UCLA, lost 2 of last 3 and finished 16th.
2006 Rutgers, lost 2 of last 3 and finished 16th
2012 Louisville, lost 2 of last 3 and finished 21st but won conference and got AQ berth.

That leaves just two two-loss AQ-conference teams that finished the season strong and didn't make the top-14 of the final BCS standings. In other words, 97 of 99 two-loss teams that didn't tank finished in the BCS top 14.

Now let's look at the two outliers.

1) 2005 Louisville, won last five games, finished 19th. This is easily explained. In 2005, no one respected Louisville, which had just made the jump from Conference USA to the Big East. And the Big East was and is the little step-sister of AQ conferences. Actually, it isn't even an AQ conference anymore, at least not under that name. Louisville didn't win the Big East that year, and no one wanted the second-place Big East crashing the BCS.

2) 2006 Virginia Tech, won last six games, finished 15th. Here's your exception that proves the rule. Virginia Tech lost a couple games early to ranked opponents, then took care of business down the stretch. Incredibly, it actually did work its way up to 14th in the BCS standings in the second-to-last week, but was passed by two teams (West Virginia and Wake Forest) in the final week. So even this true outlier actually did get into the top 14, only to fall back one spot in the final tabulations.

So here's the stone-cold fact: no major conference two-loss team has ever won its last seven games and failed to finish in the top-14 of the final BCS standings. If the Badgers win out, they'll be a two-loss AQ-conference team on a seven-game winning streak. It would be shocking if they didn't make it up to the top 14 in that scenario.

UW BYU

After last week I'm 7-3 (3-2 on picks and 4-1 o/u).

BYU got off to a weird start this season losing to a bad Virginia team on the road in a rain soaked, and weather delayed game. Then they followed it up with a win over a #15 Texas team that got of to a similarly horrible start but then righted the ship. Against Virginia, BYU ran 93 plays but scored just 16 points (13-40 passing 175 yards 4.4 yards per pass, 53 rushes for 187 3.5 yards per rush). Against Texas they were unstoppable running the ball and ran 99 plays for 697 yards and 40 points (9-27 passing 129 yards 4.8 yards per pass, 72 rushes 550 yards 7.6 yards per rush). BYU then failed to cease the momentum of the big Texas win and laid an egg against Utah running 95 plays but scoring just 13 points (18-48 passing 260 yards 5.4 yards per pass, 47 rushes 183 yards 3.9 yards per rush). Hard to ignore the completion percentage of under 35% (40-115) and no games over 5.4 yards per pass.

BYU has since run off 5 straight wins against perhaps lesser competition, and their sophomore QB Taysom Hill has performed better in those wins going 106-161 65.8%. Hill is also the teams leading rusher on the season at 142 rushes for 841 yards, 5.9 yards per carry and 8 touchdowns. BYU has a decent defense, but their offense lives and dies with Hill.

It's possible that at the end of the year we look back and realize BYU was the 3rd best team UW played this year. That's more a result of lucky scheduling in the Big Ten (no MI, Nebraska, MSU) than an endorsement of BYU. UW is an 8 point favorite, and the o/u is 55.5.

UW has been covering spreads all year, so I'm riding them like a hot craps roller and taking UW minus the 8 points. I'm torn on the o/u. BYU has only given up more than 21 points in one game all season, a 47-46 shootout at Houston. I don't think they can hold down Bucky in a tough road environment, so I'm going to go with the over in a 45-13 blowout.

Northwestern Prediction -- Torvik

Looks like the Badgers are 10 point favorites with an over/under of 57.

I'm taking Northwestern to cover, probably backdoor. Final score: 35-27, Badgers. That's the over, if you don't have a calculator handy.

--Bart Torvik

Torvik's Prediction: 28-27, Badgers

Excellent work this week, Chorlton, explaining all the reasons that the Badgers could beat Ohio State on Saturday night. Too bad you lost your nerve when it came to prediction time.

I actually agree with you that this came is a tough "nut" to crack. I could certainly see OSU winning by two or three touchdowns. I can also think of a lot of ways the Badgers can win, although not by two or three touchdowns. To me, when you've got so many options, this is like trying to read a putt and you can't even tell which way it will break, much less how much. I learned long ago what to do in that situation: aim at the hole. Translation: I think this will be a close game.

Like you, I went 2-0 on last week's predictions, although I won the mini-battle by almost nailing the final score (I predicted 38-10; actual score 41-10.)

This week I'm taking the Badgers with the points and the over, while you're taking the Buckeyes to cover and the under. (I'm curious if you have a final score prediction?) So we might get some separation. (More likely is that we'll both go 1-1, one way or the other.) Given that the Badgers haven't lost by more than 7 points since ... well, I can't remember ... I think the 7.5 spread is an absolute gift.

Other than my golf analogy, I have a few other equally squishy reasons for picking the Badgers in this one:

• The law of averages. The Buckeyes have won 16 in a row, including a lot of lucky, close wins. How long can this continue? The Badgers have lost heartbreak after ridiculous heartbreak. How long can that continue? I'm betting those streaks come to an end.

• Overconfidence. I see it in the Buckeye fan base, and I suspect it in the players. They think that Wisconsin has been lucky to go three straight Rose Bowls, and don't properly appreciate how good the program is. This very entertaining piece says it all, calling Wisconsin "the most mediocre tyrant the Big Ten has ever seen." It's fair to put a big fat asterisk next to last year's Rose Bowl. But to deny the quality of the previous two teams is nonsense. Remember: one of those teams had JJ Watt and the other had Russell Wilson, Montee Ball, and Nick Toon. In fact, here's a ridiculous stat: 9 of the 11 players who started for the Badgers on offense in the 2011 Rose Bowl made an NFL roster this year (the other two were Ike Anderson and Jacob Pederson, who will get a shot next year).

• Stave. I agree he hasn't played all that well this year. But we know he can throw the ball. He has made some terrible throws when he's had wide-open receivers. But he's also made some very good throws. Other than the dropped snaps, he's made really only one boneheaded play all year. (Last week's interception was Wozniak's fault, as was obvious and has been admitted by everyone involved.) I'm betting we see at least one more great half out of him on Saturday. Probably the first half.

• Melvin Gordon III. Stars shine when the sun goes down. Gordon really looks like something special, and I think he will continue his scintillating season with a huge performance on national television. I think we will look back at this year (and hopefully next year) and marvel about that time when Melvin Gordon and Sam Dekker were on the UW campus at the same time.

• Defense. We agree that the Badgers defense is for real. It will win this game with a goal line stand. Or two.

So there you have it: Badgers 28, Buckeyes 27.

--Bart Torvik

Prediction time

I am off to a good start this year going 2-0 in the first week (1-0 vs. spread, and 1-0 vs. o/u). Nowhere to go but down from here. Both Torvik and I were wrong about this week's fantasy matchup as my general indifference to fantasy didn't prevent me from getting a win vs. him. On to this week's game.

Line is OSU by 7 1/2, and o/u is 54 1/2

My week long efforts to convince myself that UW will win this game have ended in a stalemate. I just don't know where this game is going. It will not surprise me if this game is a 38-35 shootout, a 13-10 grinder, or a 42-7 blowout. I think I have a good handle on UW, I just don't have any idea how good this OSU team is. These have been two of the highest scoring teams in the country this year against bad defenses, but the o/u of 54 1/2 follows the historical trend that defense will prevail in this matchup. OSU is averaging 52.5 points per game and UW 41 so this o/u appears low, but only twice in the past 12 matchups have these teams been over 54 1/2, (59 both times in 1999, 2011) so I'm picking the under.

When I think about UW winning this game I can see a game where UW is dominant running, OSU just can't stop Gordon and White and UW outscores OSU. I can see a game where Borland racks up 20 tackles with 10 of them on Miller who just can't bust loose and UW gets a close win by holding OSU to 10 points. When I see them losing I see a game where the running game and defense do enough to keep UW close, but special teams and Stave's turnovers cost UW the win.

I'm sure Squishy Torvik will disagree with me, but I just don't see Stave leading this team to a win. All the hope about Stave basically stems from 2 good halves of football, the first half against Nebraska and the first half against MSU last year. He was very good in those 2 halves, but hasn't been very good otherwise. In 3 of his 4 starts this season he has thrown an interception and he threw an interception in 2 of his 4 full games last season. It's not like UW is chucking the ball around, and Stave rarely throws under pressure so this is a lot of picks for a team that just needs a QB to hand off, take care of the ball, and throw a few deep balls each game.

The injuries bother me too. Anderson is holding all his cards close to the vest, but if several of UW's guys can't play then that will greatly hamper UW. So all my efforts this week have gone for naught. I am picking OSU to win and cover. I was surprised to see the spread at 7 1/2, and I am tempted to pick OSU to win, but take UW and the points against the spread. In case you haven't noticed I have very little confidence in this pick, and in that case one should probably just not bet at all. Since this is just for pride and not for dough, I'm still making picks. I can stand to lose some pride anyway.

#2

In my week-long series trying to convince myself that UW will win at OSU this Saturday, reason #2 will be the UW running game.

The UW running game looks to be picking up right where it left off last season despite the losses of Monte Ball, Ricky Wagner and Travis Fredrick to the NFL. After rushing for 388 yards against Purdue, UW ranks 3rd nationally in rushing, averaging 349.8 yards per game. UW is getting big plays out of the running game and has a running play of at least 50 yards in each of the first 4 games. The average yards per carry in the 4 games are 8.1, 7.2, 7.6, and 8.9. None of the first 4 opponents have a defense anything close to what UW should see at OSU, despite what I wrote yesterday.

I had thought OSU did a good job shutting down UW's running attack last year at Camp Randall, but that's not entirely true. UW ran the ball 56 times for a net 206 yards rushing and a 3.7 YPC average. That average includes 4 sacks of Phillips for 36 yards. The 2 running backs both had solid days -Monte 39 rushes for 191 yards, a 4.9 YPC average, and James White had 8 carries for 33 yards and a 4.1 YPC average.

This production was despite a total lack of respect for the passing game due to UW starting Phillips, their 3rd string QB who in his only previous start in 2012 against Indiana was a less than prolific 4-7 for 41 yards. That's right, 7 passes and 41 yards for the entire game against Indiana in his only start in 2012 prior to the OSU game. Even with OSU selling out to stop the run Phillips was completely ineffective against OSU until the final tying drive. He completed 5 passes for 48 yards on the final drive, and was 9-20 for 106 yards the rest of the game.

While UW rushed for over 200 yards, they only scored 14 points. UW will need to score more than 14 points to win Saturday. UW did waste a few scoring attempts in that game when Monte fumbled inside the 5 yard line, French missed a 40 yard FG attempt, and UW opted to punt from the 30 yard line instead of attempting a long FG which resulted in a touchback and 10 net yards. The running game did enough to win if UW hadn't been crushed on special teams and Monte hadn't fumbled.

I know, I know, if and buts, candy and nuts. The point is that UW ran the ball on that defense, and they should run the ball on this OSU team.

Earn That Statue

There's a statue of Barry Alvarez outside Camp Randall Stadium. This strikes some people as premature, or gauche, or worse, for a couple of reasons: (1) Barry Alvarez is still alive, and we usually wait until people are dead to honor them in bronze; and (2) Barry Alvarez is not just still alive, but still working at the University of Wisconsin as its athletics director.

Still, most Badgers fans are fine with the statue because it cannot be denied that Barry Alvarez is a living legend. What he did as the football coach at Wisconsin is a miracle. He take a good-for-nothing, moribund non-program and turn it into a consistent winner that went to three Rose Bowls (and won them) in eight years. Then he transitioned into a role as the tsar—er, athletics director—and groomed his own successor (Bret Bielema). This is usually where the story takes a turn for the worse. As rare as it is for someone to create a powerhouse from scratch, it's even rarer for the powerhouse to survive that person's retirement. But Barry Alvarez did it. He built Wisconsin football as its coach, and as athletics director he left it in Bret Bielema's remarkably competent hands. Three more Rose Bowls ensued.

We know what happened next. Bret Bielema took the money and ran. Barry Alvarez hired Gary Anderson.

This is Barry's final test. If Gary Anderson succeeds at Wisconsin—and by "success" I mean that he wins at least one conference championship in his tenure—then Barry Alvarez will have done the unthinkable: He will have turned Wisconsin into a dynasty.

And if that happens, Barry Alvarez will, beyond any doubt, have earned that statue.

--Bart Torvik

Looks like I'm already down and the season hasn't even started.

Torvik got me to pick a QB favorite earlier this summer and I went with Phillips over Stave. While Stave has not been officially named the starter, the word on the street is he will win the job.

I am coming around on the new coach. I still have reservations about changing offensive and defensive systems that have worked amazingly over 2 decades, 2 coaches and 6 Rose Bowls. The choice of Stave over the much more athletic McEvoy, and the slightly more mobile and more experienced (or at least older) Phillips leads me to believe they are willing to craft the scheme to the talent. Stave will not be running the read option any time soon.

One of my reservations about the new coach had more to do with fan expectations more than Gary Anderson. After 2 wildly successful coaches and an impossible to imagine 6 Rose Bowls I thought the fan base had lost touch with reality when it came to reasonable expectations for this program. This is mostly based on what I hear and read, but it seemed pretty representative of the fan base as a whole.

What I heard at the end of the Bielema era were ridiculous things like UW should be a contender for a national championship. Not a Big Ten Championship, a National Championship. UW has had some great teams and has had some seasons where they were close to such lofty goals. UW certainly would have had a chance to play for a National Championship in a couple of recent seasons if an 8 team playoff existed, but that's a topic for another day. UW is not that type of program, and probably never will be.

I think I may have misread some of the fan base expectations because people hated Bielema so much. Much of my fear about expectations is because despite all of Bielema's success there were constantly fans who hated him and wanted him fired. They hated him because he didn't win a Rose Bowl, or have a good Bowl record in general, but mostly they hated him because he was a dick. I didn't care that Bielema was a dick. All I cared about was that the Badgers went to 3 Rose bowls and had a ton of wins while he was the coach. Gary Anderson on the other hand seems to have endeared himself to the fan base in a very short time, and by all accounts is pleasant to listen to in interviews and is an all around good human being.

If the fans like him, will they be more forgiving than they were with Bielema? Maybe. If he doesn't win enough to get to bowl games routinely then it won't matter how much he is liked or how saintly he is in life. Earlier this year if I was told he will win regularly but won't get to a BCS/Rose Bowl then I would have said he won't finish his contract. Now that I have seen how likable he is I'm not so sure. Fans are human beings after all, and how much a person is liked does matter to them in their perception of him as a coach.

I will start making my picks against the spread like last year, but not for a few weeks. You shouldn't bet on something you know nothing about, and no one knows much about football teams they have never seen play. Even though the only thing I'm risking is my pride. I'll resume picks in a few weeks once this team has shown more of itself.

Badgers QB redux

Alright, Chorlton, time to take a stand:

Who should start at QB for the Badgers?

Last year we clashed on Stave versus O'Brien.

You failed that test. Redemption time?

Big Time?

UW recently committed to play Alabama in the season opener in September 2015 at Cowboy Stadium. Badger fans have been clamoring for years for the team to upgrade the non-conference schedule and now they have got their wish. On the face of it this makes sense. The new playoff format will look at strength of schedule, and if the Badgers hope to ever have a chance to make it in, they will have to play some quality teams. Playing in a big time game like this will certainly be a moneymaker, and the exposure could help recruiting. If the Badgers pull off the win then it should be a big boost to the program, while a loss isn't anything to be ashamed of, so there doesn't look like there's much to lose.

Here's where my pessimism takes over.

I understand wanting to challenge the best, but UW is just not on a level with the Alabamas, Ohio States, and Floridas of college football. In 2015 the schedule will already be getting tougher because UW will also likely be playing a 9 game Big Ten regular season schedule. This leaves only 2 cup cakes on the schedule. I know fans hate watching 3 non-BCS schools come to Camp Randle, but UW has made it to bowl games most every year for the past 20 years and those cupcakes wins have helped in several years.

The Badgers have only missed a bowl game in 2 seasons since Barry's breakout Rose Bowl win after the 1993 season. The Badgers went to only 2 bowl games in all the seasons from 1970-1993. UW has had a great run lately with 7 seasons with 9 wins or more in the last 9 seasons (with last years 8 win season resulting in a Rose Bowl). In the 11 seasons before that, the Badgers had 3 Rose Bowl seasons with at least 10 wins, but just one other 9 win season. They had 2 losing seasons, and made it to mediocre bowls in 5 other years.

So the question is will the Badgers be able to continue the run of unprecedented success they have had in the past 9 years, or will the be the up and down program they were most of the Alvarez years, or will they go back to a Big Ten bottom dweller. I doubt this program could be dismantled by any coach enough to return it to the pre Alvarez era, but look what Rich Rod did to MI. Can UW continue as a perennial 10 win program? I sure hope so, but I doubt it even if they continue to schedule cupcakes. With a tougher schedule I think this team will be OK in the years they have a good team, but in the down years this team could easily lose enough games to miss a bowl game.

Would you rather see your Badger team shoot for the stars, schedule like a champion, and maybe make the playoff, but probably flame out? Or would you rather see them win games (albeit against some cupcakes) and get to a bowl game every year, although it may be a mediocre one?

After Alvarez won a Rose Bowl and got the program going he shot for the stars on the recruiting trail and found that he finished 2nd and 3rd a lot on those big time recruits while also missing out on other good recruits he could have got if he weren't holding out for these big talents he missed on anyway. He paid a price but learned a lesson and UW has used a pretty good recruiting formula ever since and has had great success. I wonder if UW is starting to make another overreach and get away from the things that have made them successful in an attempt to join the big boys.

In the formative years of my Badger Fandom UW hired Don Morton who was a big hire at the time (1987). He brought in his veer option offense and expected to be a national power within 3 years. He scheduled like it too, bringing in powerhouse Miami for a home game in 1989. Morton was a disaster and I remember sitting at that Miami game as they just destroyed UW 51-3 in a half empty stadium. UW had kicked a field goal on the first drive of the game, and I remember the student section sarcastically chanting "We scored first" after UW was down by about 30 points and obviously out classed. Morton was fired that year.

Gary Anderson is taking over a much better program, and Alvarez is still there so I don't expect Anderson to be the next Morton. I'm just not sure if the changes being made to the offense, defense, and now scheduling are going to be for the better.

The Worst Team Ever to Play in the Rose Bowl?

Noted idiot Craig James infamously labeled Wisconsin's 1998-99 squad "the worst team ever to play in the Rose Bowl." The common charge was that the Badgers were actually the third-best team in the Big Ten—behind co-champs Ohio State and Michigan—and got to play in the Rose Bowl only because of an obscure, stupid tie-breaking rule. Wisconsin and OSU did not play that year, and Wisconsin was awarded the Rose Bowl because Michigan and OSU had been to the Rose Bowl more recently.

Wisconsin was a 10-point underdog against UCLA in that 1999 Rose Bowl Game (which Mr. Chorlton and I attended). UCLA had gone a perfect 8-0 in the Pac-10 and was headed to the BCS national championship game until a season-ending, non-conference 49-45 loss to a weak Miami team (which itself was coming off a 66-13 loss to a mediocre, Donovan McNab led Syracuse squad). UCLA was led at QB by future Chicago Bears failure Cade McNown, and it could score. But it could not defend. It was soft, like a marshmallow.

Enter Ron Dayne. He absolutely destroyed the UCLA defense, running for ridiculously easy touchdowns of 7, 10, 22, and 54 yards. Jamar Fletcher made the play of the game, picking off an awful McNown throw and returning it 46 yards for a touchdown.

Alluding to Craig James's comment, after the game Barry Alvarez quipped, "Well, I know we're at least the second worst" team ever to play in the Rose Bowl.

In hindsight, the hyperbole about the Badgers being a bad team that year looks silly. They had a number of great players, including notably Dayne and Fletcher. Other than a close win on the road against Indiana, the Badgers handily destroyed all the bad teams they played. They had two nice wins against Purdue (led by Drew Brees, who went 55 for 83—both NCAA records) and Penn State. Their only loss was on the road to Michigan, which went on to clobber Arkansas in the Citrus Bowl. Ohio State won the Sugar Bowl handily. The Big Ten was actually good that year. And the Badgers went back and won Rose Bowl again the next year, negating conclusively any notion that the 1998 team was a fluke.

The 1998 team is relevant because the Badgers are against going to the Rose Bowl under a cloud of controversy. They got to the Big Ten Championship game with four conference losses, on what might be reasonably considered a technicality. It appears that they got the best possible draw in Nebraska, which has a terrible run defense. A few weeks ago I said here, after the OT loss to Michigan State and the news of Stave's season-ending injury:

It's still likely that the Badgers will stumble their way to the Championship game. But their odds of winning it went way down. And, if they do, they may actually be the worst team ever to play in the Rose Bowl this time.

By one objective measure, the Badgers clearly are the worst team ever to play in the Rose Bowl: they have five losses, more than any other team ever to play in the game. I haven't researched it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's never been a four-loss team in the Rose Bowl. [Update: three teams have played in the Rose Bowl with four losses: Washington (6-4) in 1964 (lost to Illinois); Washington (7-4) in 1978 (beat Michigan); and UCLA (6-4-1) in 1984 (beat Illinois). So the three worst teams to play in the Rose Bowl are actually 2-1 in the game.]

That said, a strong case can be made that this is the best five-loss team ever. Three of the five losses were in overtime, and the other two were by three points. Two of the overtime losses came in what were essentially exhibition games after Wisconsin had already clinched a spot in the Big Ten Championship game. Wisconsin had nothing to play for in those games, particularly not in the final game when they could no longer claim the meaningless divisional "championship." In the brutal, physical game of football, the slightest lack of commitment is nearly impossible to overcome. So in my book those losses carry an asterisk.

We know now that the Badgers were keeping some tricks up their sleeves. They were clearly saving Melvin Gordon for when he was really needed. They were resting Chris Borland, who is probably the best player on the team. With something big to play for, against a quality opponent, with everything on the line, the Badgers brought the house and won by forty points. 40.

Early lines have the Badgers as 6.5 point underdogs against Stanford. Stanford is a very good team that plays Big Ten football. They have the best run defense in the nation, and they shut down the high-flying Oregon Ducks.

But Stanford's resume is not overwhelming. They have two losses, one of which was in overtime to No. 1 Notre Dame. But the other loss was to Washington which has lost, ahem, five times this year. And two of their wins were in overtime (against Oregon (impressive) and Arizona (not so much)). They also had their Northern Iowa moment in the season opener, when they beat San Jose State by just a field goal. (San Jose State is decent, it turns out, but they lost to Utah State by 22.)

All told, Stanford is an impressive team, and they will probably beat the Badgers. But I will be surprised if it's by more than six points. And I won't be at all surprised if the Badgers again prove themselves to be at least the second-worst team ever to play in the Rose Bowl.

Am I going Crazy

I have read several articles and blogs that have discussed UWs defense in the OSU game because it was both unconventional for UW, and because it was so successful against Braxton Miller. For whatever reason, they all keep referring to the defense as a 4-2-5 as if it is some sort of new innovation in defensive scheme. UW tends to leave 3 linebackers on the field even against spread teams to stop the run and take advantage of their talent in Borland, Taylor and Armstrong. Since Borland was out injured against OSU, UW made changes to cover his loss.

Again today on Tom Lea's blog on ESPNwisconsin I saw this defense referred to as a 4-2-5.

That's nickle defense. Why aren't they calling it nickle. There is nothing new or special about it other than UW doesn't use it as much as everyone else. Am I missing something here?

Chorlton gets his wish...

Word on the street is that Curt Phillips will be starting at QB for Wisconsin on Saturday. E.g.,:

BREAKING:Multiple sources have told me Curt Phillips will be UW's starting QB @ IU, barring setback. Story @ ESPNWisconsin soon. #Badgers
— Tom Lea (@ESPNTomLea) November 7, 2012

This is breaking news only if you don't read the comments on Adam's WI Sports Blog. If you do, you'd have known this was coming since October 3rd (before Phillips even played that token series):

Although, the last time the Badgers had such terrible quarterback situation with Sherer and Evridge, the 3rd guy on the bench who didn't get a shot until the following year was Scott Tolzien. Maybe Phillips should get a shot.

Body Blows

It's a tough day to be a Badger fan.

The football team lost in gut-wrenching fashion, as usual.

The basketball team lost starting point guard Josh Gasser for the season to a torn ACL.

Silver lining: At least we found out that Stave is way, way better than O'Brien.

UPDATE:

Broken collarbone for Stave, surgery needed—out for the season.

One thing we can agree on:

Curt Phillips should not be starting.

Stave

As you say, and I agree, neither O'Brien nor Stave is "good." Not, at least, in the sense that either of them is going to single-handedly win games. But Stave is better, overall, and he should continue to start.

First, some words in support of O'Brien. Clearly O'Brien's ability to perform was partly hindered by factors outside his control. Most notably: (1) extremely poor offensive line play; and (2) the injury to Abberderis. The line has been shored up somewhat, it seems. And Abberderis is back. As you predicted half-way through last season, the receiving corps other than Abberderis this year is abysmal. In Stave's first action during the second half of the Utah State game, two of the no-name receivers (one of whom is actually named "Doe") dropped passes on third down that killed drives. Although it's true the no-names did look better against Nebraska.

Actually, I don't think it's a coincidence that the no-name receivers are starting to look better with Stave throwing the ball. I think the receivers want to perform better for him. I sense that they feel he is the better quarterback.

This is pretty squishy, I know, but overall I like the way Stave carries himself. Even with far less experience he seems to have significantly more poise and pocket presence than O'Brien. He stands in and takes a hit. He delivers the ball to a spot where the receiver can make a play. You call these balls underthrown—but underthrown is better than overthrown in most cases because it at least gives the receiver a chance to make a play. The drop by Ball is a perfect example—yes he had to slow down a little, but the ball hit him the hands. The only way you screw that play up as a QB is by getting excited and throwing it too far. That Stave isn't doing that shows his poise.

Certainly there's nothing in his actual play that makes me think he's less talented that O'Brien. He's got a better arm. He is reasonably accurate. He's taller. He's faster. He has better hair.

Ultimately I agree that the reason Stave is starting is because O'Brien did not protect the football. O'Brien's fumble at the end of the first half of the Utah State game was egregious and inexcusable. It wasn't like he was blindsided—he was already in another players grasp, and he saw the second hit coming, yet still coughed up the ball. Against Utah State! That kind of nonsense was literally the only way Wisconsin could lose that game, and they almost did because of O'Brien's nonsense. He lost the right the start.

Finally, at least one sportswriter who watched the Badgers camp was of the opinion that Stave beat out O'Brien, and that Bielema "gifted" the starting job to him. That Bielema had a quick hook seems to bear this out. He went with O'Brien in a close battle because O'Brien had experience. I like to think that the decision was eating away at him because he knew it was wrong.