Wisconsin

1-1
Latest
Wisconsin opens season with high-stakes matchup against No. 4 Notre Dame at Lambeau Fieldour readWisconsin Prepares for Week 2 Matchup Against Western Illinoisour readThe Iowa rivalry

Big Ten · Luke Fickell, year 5 (18-22) · Camp Randall Stadium · 80,321 · 65,274 avg in 2026

The nationunrankedAP / Coaches
The model#88 CFB ZeitgeistSP+ #74 (-1.5) · FPI #56
The marketWisconsin by 23.5vs Eastern Michigan · our model 75% Wisconsin · a number, not a pick

LastW 36–9 vs Western Illinois · Sat Sep 12 · Abu Sama III 107 rush yds, 1 TD, 5 rec yds

Nextvs Eastern Michigan · Sat Sep 19 · 12:30 pm ET · Camp Randall Stadium · Wisconsin by 23.5 · series 4-0, won the last 4 · Game preview

Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2

Key stats — 2026 — FBS rank
Points/game
24.5
Pts allowed/game
25.0
Total yards/gmT-#106 / 138 · 23rd pct
345.0
Rush yards/gm#90 / 138 · 35th pct
150.0
Pass yards/gmT-#97 / 138 · 30th pct
195.0
Yards allowed/gmT-#68 / 138 · 51st pct
326.0
Rush yds allowed/gm#82 / 138 · 41st pct
132.5
SacksT-#128 / 138 · 5th pct
1
3rd-down convT-#73 / 138 · 46th pct
40.0%
All 82 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team
690345.0/gm6.05/playT-#106 / 138 · 23rd pctT-#62 / 69 · 10th pct#16 / 18 · 14th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
652326.0/gm5.30/playT-#68 / 138 · 51st pct#49 / 69 · 30th pct#13 / 18 · 31st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush yards
Team
300150.0/gm2.63/play#90 / 138 · 35th pct#47 / 69 · 33rd pct#11 / 18 · 42nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
265132.5/gm2.15/play#82 / 138 · 41st pct#56 / 69 · 20th pct#13 / 18 · 31st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush carries
Team
6231.0/gmT-#115 / 138 · 16th pctT-#58 / 69 · 15th pctT-#13 / 18 · 28th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
7035.0/gmT-#79 / 138 · 42nd pctT-#48 / 69 · 30th pct#11 / 18 · 42nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team
21.0/gmT-#106 / 138 · 18th pctT-#56 / 69 · 14th pctT-#14 / 18 · 17th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#53 / 138 · 50th pctT-#34 / 69 · 36th pctT-#10 / 18 · 33rd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team
390195.0/gm3.42/playT-#97 / 138 · 30th pct#58 / 69 · 17th pct#15 / 18 · 19th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
387193.5/gm3.15/play#63 / 138 · 55th pct#39 / 69 · 44th pct#13 / 18 · 31st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass attempts
Team
5226.0/gmT-#91 / 138 · 32nd pctT-#54 / 69 · 22nd pct#14 / 18 · 25th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
5326.5/gmT-#41 / 138 · 69th pctT-#26 / 69 · 60th pctT-#11 / 18 · 39th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Completions
Team
3115.5/gmT-#102 / 138 · 25th pctT-#58 / 69 · 16th pct#14 / 18 · 25th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3417.0/gm#63 / 138 · 55th pct#38 / 69 · 46th pct#14 / 18 · 25th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass TDs
Team
21.0/gmT-#94 / 138 · 25th pctT-#54 / 69 · 19th pctT-#12 / 18 · 33rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#45 / 138 · 57th pctT-#29 / 69 · 46th pctT-#7 / 18 · 50th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Passer rating allowed#61 / 91 · 34th pct#34 / 41 · 18th pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct
134.2134.2
Interceptions thrown
Team
10.5/gmT-#52 / 138 · 49th pctT-#25 / 69 · 53rd pctT-#5 / 18 · 64th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
00.0/gmT-#1 / 138 · 92nd pctT-#1 / 69 · 93rd pctT-#1 / 18 · 94th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Sacks (def)
Team
10.5/gmT-#128 / 138 · 5th pctT-#68 / 69 · 1st pct#18 / 18 · 3rd pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#33 / 138 · 67th pctT-#20 / 69 · 62nd pctT-#4 / 18 · 64th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team
42.0/gmT-#135 / 138 · 2nd pct#68 / 69 · 2nd pct#17 / 18 · 8th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
105.0/gmT-#66 / 138 · 47th pctT-#42 / 69 · 37th pctT-#11 / 18 · 39th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
First downs
Team
3216.0/gmT-#119 / 138 · 14th pct#64 / 69 · 8th pct#15 / 18 · 19th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3517.5/gmT-#61 / 138 · 54th pctT-#43 / 69 · 37th pct#11 / 18 · 42nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down conv
Team
105.0/gmT-#71 / 138 · 44th pctT-#42 / 69 · 35th pctT-#11 / 18 · 36th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
73.5/gmT-#29 / 138 · 76th pctT-#20 / 69 · 67th pctT-#3 / 18 · 78th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team
2512.5/gmT-#72 / 138 · 45th pctT-#34 / 69 · 49th pctT-#9 / 18 · 47th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2412.0/gmT-#26 / 138 · 79th pctT-#11 / 69 · 83rd pct#8 / 18 · 58th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down conv
Team
10.5/gmT-#85 / 138 · 29th pctT-#44 / 69 · 32nd pctT-#12 / 18 · 33rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#71 / 138 · 37th pctT-#40 / 69 · 32nd pctT-#11 / 18 · 31st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down att
Team
21.0/gmT-#98 / 138 · 22nd pctT-#45 / 69 · 29th pctT-#14 / 18 · 19th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
31.5/gmT-#54 / 138 · 52nd pctT-#30 / 69 · 49th pctT-#11 / 18 · 36th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Time of possession
Team
53:2726:44/gm#119 / 138 · 14th pct#61 / 69 · 12th pct#14 / 18 · 25th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
66:3333:16/gm#110 / 138 · 21st pct#61 / 69 · 12th pct#14 / 18 · 25th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct

FBS rankings · 2026 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs

Player stats — 2026 season
Quarterbacks
Player#GCmp/AttPctYdsY/ATDINTRateZPRQBRAdj ANY/ASack%
+0.53 EPA/play1231 / 5259.63907.521131.5—55.26.93.7
Running Backs
Player#GCarYdsAvgTDLongStuff%10+%
+0.50 EPA/play3223156
#56 FBS		6.8172——
Receivers
Player#GRecYdsAvgTDLong
+0.60 EPA/play—2813316.6051
+0.91 EPA/play2257715.4133
+0.78 EPA/play13266310.5020

2026 stat leaders · Wisconsin

through 2 games

Cooper Catalano leads Wisconsin with 22 tackles through 2 games.

1. Cooper Catalano LB 22 tackles
2. Mason Posa LB 16 tackles
3. Matthew Jung S 16 tackles
4. Tyrell Henry WR 133 receiving yards
5. Abu Sama III RB 156 rushing yards
How They Play · 2025

Wisconsin fields a struggling run-heavy offense behind a leaky, bend-don't-break defense.

Offense
5th pct EPA/play
Run/Pass
60% run plays
Defense
41st pct EPA allowed
Defensive shape
91st pct at limiting explosive plays

Percentile vs all FBS, based on this season's per-game production. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.

The Savant Card · Wisconsin · 2025

Wisconsin reads strongest in explosive plays allowed (top 10%) and rushing epa allowed (top 24%); the crux lives in passing epa, where Wisconsin sits at the 4th percentile.

offense · strengths lead

EPA / play +0.02
5th
Success Rate +0.36
8th
Explosive Plays +1.22
36th
Rushing EPA +0.06
32nd

defense · higher bar = harder to play against

EPA Allowed +0.17
41st
Success Rate Allowed +0.44
17th
Explosive Plays Allowed +1.15
91st
Passing EPA Allowed +0.28
37th

hidden math · special situations

Passing EPA +0.02
5th
Rushing EPA Allowed +0.03
76th
Elite · 90+Strong · 70+Average · 40-70Concern · 10-40Bottom · <10
Sources · CFBD tier-2 advanced stats · per-game production · 12 games this season · percentiles vs. up to 136 FBS peers

Home-field advantage · Wisconsin · 2018–present · FBS opponents

Wisconsin is worth +4.5 points more at home than on the road.

Middle of FBS, 58th percentile of 133 programs

64% at home, 42% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (32–18 home, 15–21 away). Interval ±4.9.

95% intervalmodel 2.3 · books ~3Weakest home edge in FBSStrongest

Our model gives every stadium the same flat 2.3-point home edge — per-team modelling was tested and did not survive scrutiny (why) — and the books use about 3. Against the closing line, Wisconsin has beaten the number by −1.8 more at home than away over 72 games — inside the ±8.1 that many games can resolve. Results here cannot tell the flat number apart from the building, and that is the honest reading of nearly every FBS stadium.

Camp Randall Stadium seats 80,321 and has averaged 92% full (73,868, 27 games reported). Visitors cover a median 308 miles to get here since 2018 — 38th-shortest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. 20% of the 2026 roster (21 of 104 located players) grew up inside 100 miles of the stadium.

Edge = half the gap between average home margin and average road margin, FBS opponents only, non-neutral games since 2018; the interval is 95%. Market line: closing spread, seasons with lines on file. Trip length is straight-line miles from the visiting team's campus to the venue, measured across all 53 home games since 2018.

Home32–18Away15–21Edge+4.5 ±4.9Visitor trip308 mi

More in this tab

Scheme claimsFive specific, testable claims about how this team plays.

Standard downs vs. passing downs

Does Wisconsin hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?

13th percentile success on standard downs, 18th on passing downs — little dropoff between the two — a schedule-independent identity.

Fragile off scheduleBalanced, both workStruggles even on scheduleStandard-downs reliantWisconsinWeak on standard downsElite on standard downsFalls apart off scheduleHolds up off scheduleHawai'i18th standard · 41st passingUNLV51st standard · 7th passingStanford76th standard · 15th passingEastern Michigan52nd standard · 10th passingSan José State54th standard · 22nd passingNew Mexico State45th standard · 75th passingSacramento State23rd standard · 14th passingOklahoma State41st standard · 49th passingDuke20th standard · 29th passingFlorida State28th standard · 65th passingRutgers30th standard · 71st passingKansas70th standard · 35th passingBoston College27th standard · 56th passingNorfolk State16th standard · 9th passingLouisville96th standard · 70th passingMissouri36th standard · 85th passingMemphis69th standard · 65th passingGeorgia Southern24th standard · 45th passingOle Miss94th standard · 50th passingJacksonville State65th standard · 82nd passingNorth Dakota State86th standard · 27th passingArizona92nd standard · 86th passingUSC97th standard · 99th passingWake Forest56th standard · 97th passingTCU93rd standard · 8th passingDelaware70th standard · 31st passingUAB65th standard · 81st passingMichigan State62nd standard · 29th passingSouth Florida91st standard · 52nd passingFlorida International46th standard · 43rd passingNavy98th standard · 59th passingWisconsin13th standard · 18th passingOregon State10th standard · 38th passingSyracuse48th standard · 64th passingOhio State90th standard · 40th passingBall State12th standard · 24th passingPittsburgh30th standard · 76th passingColorado35th standard · 77th passingGeorgia Tech58th standard · 44th passingAuburn75th standard · 55th passingBaylor40th standard · 96th passingNorth Texas49th standard · 68th passingApp State44th standard · 90th passingIowa State4th standard · 23rd passingUTSA99th standard · 29th passingArkansas60th standard · 80th passingBoise State58th standard · 46th passingOregon35th standard · 33rd passingTulsa56th standard · 1st passingTulane31st standard · 2nd passingPurdue83rd standard · 88th passingMiddle Tennessee87th standard · 68th passingVanderbilt80th standard · 12th passingSan Diego State4th standard · 40th passingLSU33rd standard · 98th passingClemson1st standard · 19th passingCentral Michigan16th standard · 6th passingTexas Tech88th standard · 48th passingMichigan2nd standard · 62nd passingWestern Michigan39th standard · 20th passingOhio38th standard · 17th passingBuffalo7th standard · 14th passingTexas72nd standard · 94th passingCoastal Carolina61st standard · 52nd passingColorado State82nd standard · 91st passingWyoming65th standard · 36th passingTexas A&M85th standard · 72nd passingLiberty14th standard · 59th passingFlorida Atlantic43rd standard · 87th passingLouisiana19th standard · 92nd passingSouth Alabama50th standard · 73rd passingTroy22nd standard · 59th passingSam Houston78th standard · 61st passingNevada77th standard · 52nd passingWestern Kentucky25th standard · 34th passingWashington State8th standard · 3rd passingWashington81st standard · 4th passingCalifornia9th standard · 25th passingCharlotte73rd standard · 83rd passingTennessee65th standard · 78th passingUtah State4th standard · 93rd passing
Source CFB Zeitgeist · advanced team stats, Connelly success-rate definition
View all FBS teams as a table
TeamStandard-downs percentilePassing-downs percentile
App State44th90th
Arizona92nd86th
Arkansas60th80th
Auburn75th55th
Ball State12th24th
Baylor40th96th
Boise State58th46th
Boston College27th56th
Buffalo7th14th
California9th25th
Central Michigan16th6th
Charlotte73rd83rd
Clemson1st19th
Coastal Carolina61st52nd
Colorado35th77th
Colorado State82nd91st
Delaware70th31st
Duke20th29th
Eastern Michigan52nd10th
Florida Atlantic43rd87th
Florida International46th43rd
Florida State28th65th
Georgia Southern24th45th
Georgia Tech58th44th
Hawai'i18th41st
Iowa State4th23rd
Jacksonville State65th82nd
Kansas70th35th
LSU33rd98th
Liberty14th59th
Louisiana19th92nd
Louisville96th70th
Memphis69th65th
Michigan2nd62nd
Michigan State62nd29th
Middle Tennessee87th68th
Missouri36th85th
Navy98th59th
Nevada77th52nd
New Mexico State45th75th
Norfolk State16th9th
North Dakota State86th27th
North Texas49th68th
Ohio38th17th
Ohio State90th40th
Oklahoma State41st49th
Ole Miss94th50th
Oregon35th33rd
Oregon State10th38th
Pittsburgh30th76th
Purdue83rd88th
Rutgers30th71st
Sacramento State23rd14th
Sam Houston78th61st
San Diego State4th40th
San José State54th22nd
South Alabama50th73rd
South Florida91st52nd
Stanford76th15th
Syracuse48th64th
TCU93rd8th
Tennessee65th78th
Texas72nd94th
Texas A&M85th72nd
Texas Tech88th48th
Troy22nd59th
Tulane31st2nd
Tulsa56th1st
UAB65th81st
UNLV51st7th
USC97th99th
UTSA99th29th
Utah State4th93rd
Vanderbilt80th12th
Wake Forest56th97th
Washington81st4th
Washington State8th3rd
Western Kentucky25th34th
Western Michigan39th20th
Wisconsin13th18th
Wyoming65th36th
Tendency driftHow this coordinator's calls have drifted since arriving.

Season by season

How Wisconsin’s current staff calls plays, year over year

Offense: Jeff Grimes (2025–2026)
1st-down pass rate
2025: 39% → 2026: 36% · 2-pt range · #175 of 184 · less than most
Defense: Mike Tressel (2025–2026)
1st-down pass rate
2025: 39% → 2026: 36% · 2-pt range · #195 of 203 · less than most
RatingsWhere the public rating systems put this team.

Model Consensus

Where the Models Rank Wisconsin

CFB Zeitgeist

#88

-1.5

SP+

#74

-1.5

FPI

#56

+2.6

Elo

#75

1455

The national models put Wisconsin between 56th and 75th nationally — CFB Zeitgeist is more skeptical, at 88th.

National rank of 138 FBS teams · 2026 season. SP+/FPI/SRS published; Elo & CFB Zeitgeist ranked by rating.

Comparable teamsPrograms built like this one — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, roster size. Not a stat match.

Most similar programs · Wisconsin

Reads like

DelawareConference USASame tier of program · Similarly-sized rosters up frontFloridaSECSame tier of program · Similarly-sized rosters up frontFlorida StateACCSame tier of program · Similarly-sized rosters up front

Matched on how the programs are built — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, conference, voice and roster size — not on this season's stats. A calibration, not a prediction.

Historical echoPrograms whose arc bent the same way -- then what happened.

Historical echo

Wisconsin’s slide has precedent — and 2 of the 4 closest kept falling.

Programs whose stature fell in the same shape. The grey line is their decline; the color is what came next for them.

Oklahoma 1957–1962
kept sliding
Miami 2009–2014
stayed down
California 1940–1945
clawed back
Miami (OH) 1980–1985
kept sliding

An analogy on the shape of a program’s Zeitgeist stature arc — not a prediction. Interim calibration, medium confidence; matched among current FBS programs at a comparable level.

ConditionsThe weather and altitude visitors have to deal with.
Venue texture

57°F average kickoff temp; 9% of games had measurable precipitation; 10 mph average wind.

Based on 81 home games with weather data.

This page may include content derived from public news sources, social media, and fan communities. We relay these sources as-is — we are not reporting them. Sources may be summarized or quoted imperfectly; for anything that matters, go look at the original source directly. The original source may also be wrong. AI-generated content is labeled and may contain factual errors. All analysis is editorial opinion, not professional reporting. Data sources · About this site