Excellent in-depth analysis and overview. I am intrigued by your view of the coaching staff as 'subpar'. Is that strictly your view or is it based on your reporting? Are any of them worth keeping?
When I describe the staff as subpar, it’s based on the product they’ve consistently put on the field and the patterns that have formed over three seasons. The issues aren’t isolated. They’re recurring, and they span both sides of the ball.
They’ve regularly fielded units that play below their talent level. They often lack the foresight to prevent problems rather than spend entire offseasons correcting them. They’ve struggled to form a real identity, which is something a good staff would have established early and reinforced every year.
That said, I do think there are assistants worth keeping. There are guys on this staff who recruit well, develop well, or bring value culturally. But I also think there are spots where a new voice or a more proven commodity wouldn’t hurt. When the results aren’t there, you have to be honest about who is moving the program forward and who isn’t.
At the end of the day, the evaluation is performance-based. And right now, the on-field results make it difficult to call this a high-level staff.
Excellent piece of reporting. My mantra in the Fickell Era has been that the coaching staff can recruit; the question is can they coach. Paul Chryst could coach, but, at the end, he could not recruit in the portal era. In this new era, I thought, at first, that Fickell brought with him the ability to both recruit and coach, but now the money people tell us Fickell has not had enough money to succeed. Apparently things are different at Indiana? The fact is that the program is a total mess. Kids leave; coaches leave. Except for money, what athlete with NFL ambitions will come to UW to play football? Three years ago Luke Fickell was a name associated with success; now it is associated with failure. We are stuck somewhere between reverse and neutral. Again, great article.
Really appreciate you taking the time to read! But three years in, the on-field product raises fair questions about whether they can coach at a high enough level to close the gap. I haven’t seen anything that suggests this regime can, although I’d love to be proven wrong.
The money piece is real, but it doesn’t erase the staff’s shortcomings. And as you said, the instability: players leaving, assistant misfires, all show how far Wisconsin still has to climb before it resembles the program it’s supposed to be. Luke Fickell was hired to elevate the program. Right now, the results haven’t matched the expectations.
Hopefully, Year 4 gives us something more concrete to evaluate and inspire hope, because at the moment, it does feel like the program is stuck in between gears. Thanks again for reading!
Excellent in-depth analysis and overview. I am intrigued by your view of the coaching staff as 'subpar'. Is that strictly your view or is it based on your reporting? Are any of them worth keeping?
When I describe the staff as subpar, it’s based on the product they’ve consistently put on the field and the patterns that have formed over three seasons. The issues aren’t isolated. They’re recurring, and they span both sides of the ball.
They’ve regularly fielded units that play below their talent level. They often lack the foresight to prevent problems rather than spend entire offseasons correcting them. They’ve struggled to form a real identity, which is something a good staff would have established early and reinforced every year.
That said, I do think there are assistants worth keeping. There are guys on this staff who recruit well, develop well, or bring value culturally. But I also think there are spots where a new voice or a more proven commodity wouldn’t hurt. When the results aren’t there, you have to be honest about who is moving the program forward and who isn’t.
At the end of the day, the evaluation is performance-based. And right now, the on-field results make it difficult to call this a high-level staff.
Excellent piece of reporting. My mantra in the Fickell Era has been that the coaching staff can recruit; the question is can they coach. Paul Chryst could coach, but, at the end, he could not recruit in the portal era. In this new era, I thought, at first, that Fickell brought with him the ability to both recruit and coach, but now the money people tell us Fickell has not had enough money to succeed. Apparently things are different at Indiana? The fact is that the program is a total mess. Kids leave; coaches leave. Except for money, what athlete with NFL ambitions will come to UW to play football? Three years ago Luke Fickell was a name associated with success; now it is associated with failure. We are stuck somewhere between reverse and neutral. Again, great article.
Really appreciate you taking the time to read! But three years in, the on-field product raises fair questions about whether they can coach at a high enough level to close the gap. I haven’t seen anything that suggests this regime can, although I’d love to be proven wrong.
The money piece is real, but it doesn’t erase the staff’s shortcomings. And as you said, the instability: players leaving, assistant misfires, all show how far Wisconsin still has to climb before it resembles the program it’s supposed to be. Luke Fickell was hired to elevate the program. Right now, the results haven’t matched the expectations.
Hopefully, Year 4 gives us something more concrete to evaluate and inspire hope, because at the moment, it does feel like the program is stuck in between gears. Thanks again for reading!