What we learned from Luke Fickell about Wisconsin football's transfer portal class
Luke Fickell recaps Wisconsin football’s massive transfer portal class, the talent gap that exists, and what still has to change in 2026.
The Wisconsin football program didn’t tiptoe through the transfer portal this offseason. It kicked the door in, took inventory of the roster, and walked out with something that looked noticeably different than what went in.
When Luke Fickell met with the media to discuss the Badgers’ 2026 transfer portal class, the backdrop mattered. This wasn’t a victory lap. It was a full-blown reset. Coming off a 4–8 season in 2025, Wisconsin entered the portal window, which ran from Jan. 2 through Jan. 16, knowing that the status quo wasn’t going to be an option. What followed was a roster facelift that saw the program sign more than 30 transfers and aggressively reshape nearly every position group on the depth chart.
“Very different group, very different look,” Fickell said. “And there are a lot of things to be done, not just learning and getting football going, but building relationships and making sure, most importantly, that we all have a better idea of who we are and what we’re all about. Now it’s going to come down to us coaching and tying all these things together.”
So what was Wisconsin actually trying to fix? Where did the coaching staff believe the gap was widest? And which positions did Fickell view as non-negotiable if this roster reset was going to mean anything in 2026?
Here are my takeaways from Fickell’s assessment of the transfer class.
Closing the Gap Takes More Than New Players
Fickell didn’t dance around the obvious. Wisconsin has been chasing the top of the Big Ten, and anyone with a working set of eyes could see the distance between where they were and where they wanted to be last fall.
“Nobody’s naive to not think that there’s a gap between where we are and where we want to be and where the top of this league is,” Fickell said.
That reality showed up repeatedly in 2025. Injuries mattered, sure, but they weren’t the full story. Wisconsin played Indiana, Ohio State, Oregon, and Alabama — all College Football Playoff teams — but the difference in overall talent was hard to ignore. Fickell acknowledged that it mattered.
“The great thing about last year is we got to experience what the very best looks like,” Fickell said of their schedule. “And if I’m being honest, we are not there. There’s a gap between where they are and where we are.”
The staff believes this portal cycle helped narrow it — not erase it.
“That gap can be closed with talent,” Fickell said. “I think we closed some of that gap with talent. But that gap’s not completely closed.”
That’s where context matters. Wisconsin entered this portal window better positioned than a year ago. Things felt more organized, more decisive, and, by their own admission, operating with a higher level of institutional support. They moved quickly. They landed a few proven Power Four starters. They also targeted younger, high-pedigree players who never quite found their footing at blueblood programs but still carry traits worth betting on, while scouring through the lower levels for untapped potential.
Still, Fickell pushed back on the idea that this was simply a talent-shopping exercise for Wisconsin. It’s about much more than that.
“The way in which you play together, the way in which we bring them together, the way in which we coach,” Fickell said, “there’s only one way to close that gap the rest of the way. And it’s going to be through together. It’s going to be through a team. It’s going to be through hard work. It’s going to be through the core things that we believe make us who we are. The way you do things together is going to really matter.
“We’ve got a lot of work to do. And we’ve got to know that we’re chasing. Our ability to close a gap doesn’t just happen by bringing guys in.”
That’s the pressure point for this class. On paper, Wisconsin upgraded. Relative to what they lost, the roster is more talented. But the real question isn’t whether the gap narrowed in January — it’s whether this staff can identify what each of these players does best, deploy them accordingly, and develop cohesion fast enough for the talent to matter.
The gap won’t close just because new names showed up. Fickell knows that. And while it’s clear there was more investment behind this portal class — both in where these players came from and how they’re viewed by people in the industry — I’m still a bit more skeptical than the public consensus about how transformative it actually is.
If Wisconsin is going to turn this portal haul into tangible progress, the next step has to show up quickly: the coaching, the fit, and the togetherness. Until that translates on the field, this remains a wait-and-see situation, not a quick fix. This staff hasn’t earned any “blind faith” entering Year 4.
Colton Joseph: Wisconsin’s 1A at QB
For the fourth straight offseason, Wisconsin entered the transfer portal knowing it needed to address the starting quarterback spot. This time around, the Badgers weren’t casting a wide net — they were deliberate.
Colton Joseph wasn’t just a quarterback they liked. He was the one they organized their entire board around — and they were able to reel him in.
That distinction matters.
Fickell made it clear that this evaluation went well beyond the counting stats, even if the numbers are still worth mentioning. At Old Dominion in 2025, the 6-foot-2 signal-caller threw for 2,624 yards on 9.0 yards per attempt with 21 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. He also added 1,007 rushing yards, 13 rushing touchdowns, and averaged 6.4 yards per carry.
“It’s easy to press play and watch every game from last year and see the stats,” Fickell said of Joseph. “But there was some uniqueness that said, ‘Hey, there’s just a connection here as you begin to talk with him.”
