Nebraska and Wisconsin are not the same, despite the resemblance

There's a different tone around two programs in their first seasons under well-regarded coaches. If it shows up Saturday, advantage Huskers.

Nebraska QB Jeff Sims directs traffic against Maryland. | Courtesy Nebraska Athletics

The easy joke to make a little more than a decade ago was that Nebraska and Wisconsin were virtually indistinguishable. It was hard to tell them apart visually from the neck down unless you were into uniform minutiae—same colors, same double stripes on the pants, same double-stripe with a TV number on the shoulders.

Maybe that’s why Adidas treated everyone in 2012 to what has to go down as one of the worst alternate uniform matchups of all time. It wasn’t easy on the eyes, but it was at least easy to tell the teams apart as Nebraska rallied from 17 points down to beat Wisconsin in Lincoln. The Badgers would eventually switch to Under Armour, which provided some sartorial separation by giving Wisconsin a custom number font and some other light detailing. By then, however, a visual resemblance was about the only one left between the two programs.

That wasn’t the case at the start of the Huskers’ Big Ten era. The Badgers were ranked No. 7 in 2011 when they hosted No. 8 Nebraska for its first game in the new conference. Wisconsin won that one. Nebraska won the following year, but suffered one of its worst defeats, 70-31, when the stakes were the highest two months later in the Big Ten Championship Game.

From that point on, no matter how the uniforms looked, these programs were not the same. Both programs churned through coaches in the decade to follow, but only Wisconsin kept winning. The Huskers’ only Big Ten win over the Badgers was that 2012 game played in alternate hell, which, in hindsight, makes for a handy metaphor—neither team looked like itself that day.

But here in 2023, maybe the scales are balanced again. Both teams are 5-5 entering Saturday night’s matchup in Madison. Both teams are flailing a bit near the end of their first seasons under well-regarded head coaches. Both teams are about as bad at scoring points (Nebraska: 16.5 yards per point, Wisconsin: 16.7) as they are good at preventing points (Nebraska: 16.9 yards per point allowed, Wisconsin: 17.0).

There hasn’t been a better time since October of 2012 to make a “Nebraska and Wisconsin are the same” argument.

I just wouldn’t.

The tough questions for Matt Rhule at his Monday press conference involved turnovers and the acuity of an offensive play call that cost Nebraska its chance to win in the previous game against Maryland. Those are important questions—and Rhule handled them evenly, as he does—but they’re specific, and specific is good in this case.

The tough questions for Luke Fickell on Monday, after Wisconsin was dominated at home by Northwestern, were bigger and broader. He handled them evenly as well, but the first question he got was about some players’ comments about “buy in.” Not the big-picture question you hope to take 10 games into a new job. Later, Fickell was asked which was more difficult, going 4-8 in his first season at Cincinnati or being 5-5 this season at Wisconsin.

“I would tell you that this is much more difficult,” he said. “Not because I think I know more, because in Year 1 [at Cincinnati] I had not a great clue what was going on, but every place you go to is new and different. I don’t know, maybe it’s the expectations we walked into, maybe it’s what I truly had envisioned, the things I thought we could be as we grew.”

Like Nebraska, Wisconsin has dealt with some key injuries on offense this season, which Fickell noted before continuing.

“In general I think I have an expectation for myself and the things we do that is far greater now than it was seven years ago. So, this is and continues to be a helluva lot more challenging.”

It’s an admirable answer while highlighting the difference between starting the season as the division favorite and starting the season picked to finish fifth. It might also be the difference between a coach at his second stop and a coach on his fourth job.

These may only be a temporary differences, but comparatively speaking Nebraska is still playing on a freeroll (despite some nerves in Lincoln of late), while Wisconsin appears to be carrying the weight of being down to two chips from what was once a sizable stack.

Neither is entirely the doing of either coach, just the cards context has dealt. If the game Saturday night looks that way, however, advantage Nebraska.

It’s not the sort of advantage you can count on, but if it’s there it might be the biggest edge available for either team. Otherwise, we’re looking at a pair of strong defenses against wounded offenses.

Or, I suppose someone could put it this way, Wisconsin and Nebraska are the same again.

3 Keys

First team to 32 loses

I haven’t watched all of Wisconsin’s snaps on offense this season, but I think I see the problem. The Badgers have a non-garbage time rushing success rate of 50.3% (12th nationally) and average 4.6 yards per carry (second only to Michigan in the Big Ten), but they run the ball on just 45% of snaps (103rd). Not only is this the antithesis of Alvarez-era Wisconsin football (and I’m including Barry’s stint as Athletic Director in that era), but it doesn’t seem to make a ton of sense.

That was always the risk when Luke Fickell—a classic, blue-collar, Big Ten guy from Ohio State—choose Phil Longo, most often labeled an Air Raid disciple, as his offensive coordinator. It was, on paper, a departure from what had made Wisconsin what it was over the previous 30 years, and you sort of had to respect the choice for its boldness even if you found it curious all offseason.¹

Here near the end of the actual season, with actual numbers on paper, it hasn’t been fine so far. After opening Big Ten play with wins over Purdue and Rutgers, Wisconsin has scored fewer than 20 points in four of its last five games, all losses. The one game Wisconsin scored more than 20, a 25-21 win over Illinois, required a touchdown with 27 seconds left in the game.

Over the last five games Wisconsin has averaged 43.6 passing attempts per game. For the season, the Badgers rank 14th nationally at 37.9, two spots behind Big Ten-leader Maryland (38.9) and one spot behind firework factory Washington (38.2). Wisconsin chooses to throw this often despite ranking 128th in yards per attempt,² 104th in passing success rate and 132nd in passing explosiveness.

If Wisconsin Run the Ball Guy³ was on edge all offseason about what a Longo offense could look like, he’s probably jumped off the cliff by now.

All of the numbers above are season-long numbers, but it’s still worth noting that Wisconsin has had some serious injuries on offense. It lost running back Chez Mellusi (6 yards per carry, 75 yards per game) in its fourth game. Top running back Braelon Allen has missed, basically, the past 10 quarters. He tried to give it a go last week, but sat after the first drive and remains questionable this week. The Badgers were without quarterback Tanner Mordecai for three Big Ten games before he returned last week, though that one might only call the decision to throw this much further into question.⁴

Bottom line, the scariest thing that could potentially happen to Nebraska’s defense Saturday might be a Wisconsin offense that suddenly came out committed to the run. That seems unlikely based on all of the above. It seems even less likely if Wisconsin is working with Allen at less than 100%. It also isn’t how most teams, even those that run it a good bit, have chosen to attack a thorny Husker defense.

So, if you’re Nebraska, let those passing attempts climb. The Badgers have lost every game this season in which they’ve thrown the ball more than 31 times.⁵

(And if Nebraska has to throw it more than 31 times, things have completely gone off the rails, but that’s the next key.)

Measurable: Wisconsin 32+ pass attempts

Three QB Monte?

Nebraska offensive coordinator Marcus Satterfield said the Huskers were preparing all three of their quarterbacks to play this week, though barring a significant change between now and Saturday it didn’t seem likely that Heinrich Haarberg would be first man up for the first time since the third week of September. The ankle sprain that forced him out of last week’s Maryland game also limited him in practice this week.

That leaves Jeff Sims and Chubba Purdy, and I expect Nebraska to go with Sims to start. He’s the more experienced option, and, while spirits around Wisconsin football may not be at an all-time high in Madison, it’s still Camp Randall Stadium at night, which will always have high rowdiness potential.

Believe it or not, there is, if you squint, some upside to seeing what Sims can do in a starting role again. His completion percentage (59.6), while not great, is 10 points higher than Haarberg’s, and Sims yards per carry (6.4), sacks removed, is about a half-yard better. In Expected Points Added⁶ per play, Sims (.276) edges out Haarberg (.238). All of this comes with a relatively small sample size for Sims, but from a play-calling perspective there’s evidence Nebraska trusts Sims to run a bit more of the offense, too.

You have to squint, of course, because oh-my-god-the-turnovers. I’m not trying to be harsh, it’s more of a marvel-at-the-anomaly kind of wonder. Sims was always turnover prone, yes, but not like this. He has 10 turnovers on 89 plays this season, or one every 8.9 plays. Haarberg’s had way too many turnovers, but he only averages one every 25.2 plays, which is probably why the coaches were willing to sacrifice some offensive upside in exchange for the lesser of two evils in the turnover department.

But that might not be Option 1 this week if Haarberg’s dinged up. Sims’ turnover numbers are so outside the norm, I’m left considering two scenarios: 1) This is perhaps the most cursed season I’ve seen an individual have that doesn’t involve multiple injuries, or 2) With a slightly largely sample size, Sims would progress towards his meager career averages.

If the Huskers go with Sims they better hope for scenario two, and it’s not the worst bet to make. Career-average Sims would be good enough to give Nebraska a shot in both remaining games. I haven’t mentioned Purdy much because there’s not a lot to go on, though if you prefer the mostly unknown to most of what we’ve seen this year, I could understand that play as well. That said, Purdy’s 57 passing attempts (including sacks) at Nebraska over the past two seasons have produced an ANY/A⁷ of -0.8. On 53 attempts this season, Sims is at -0.2 and Haarberg is at 3.8.

None of it is good. The average for an FBS starting quarterback last year was 6.4. The Huskers haven’t needed to be that high to win this season, with an average ANY/A of 5.4 in five victories. Before arriving at Nebraska, Sims had a career average of 5.2.

I’ll make 5.4 the number to hit here, but because it requires some calculation and they won’t show it to you on the broadcast, think of a passing line something like this: 20 attempts for 115 yards (both including sacks and the yardage lost) with two touchdowns to one interception.⁸

The ask here is pretty low, but it’s been a coin flip all season if the Huskers can hit it.

Measurable: Nebraska ANY/A of 5.4 or greater

In the margins

They say it’s a game of inches. Given the evenhanded one-handedness of both teams, this game seems destined to be decided in the margins.

Wisconsin’s offense isn’t all that explosive—its 27 plays of 20-plus yards (2.7/g) ranks 128th—and it’s facing a defense that’s given up 32 (3.2/g), 16th nationally. Give the Badgers three on the day as a reasonable benchmark. How many more big plays that three would it take to give Wisconsin a solid upper hand? One more? Two?

Nebraska turns it over 2.7 times per game, last nationally, while Wisconsin averages a below average 1.3 takeaways per game (72nd). Again, say the teams meet in the middle and the Huskers “only” turn it over twice (0.7 fewer than their average, 0.7 more than the Badgers’). Nebraska’s 3-1 with two or fewer giveaways (the loss being Michigan), and it’s 5-1 when the turnover margin is within one either way (1, 0 or -1).

We’re talking about, what, two, three or four plays that potentially make the difference? There’s no one way to account for that, and the last two drives of the Nebraska-Maryland game are that writ large. The Huskers force a turnover deep in their own territory to bring the turnover margin back to -1. Chubba Purdy, out of nowhere, leads Nebraska to 90 of the 97 yards it needed to gain. If he throws the ball away instead of into the arms of a Terp—or if he isn’t asked to throw the ball at all—the Huskers probably take a lead and get to put their best unit on the field to preserve the win.

Instead, the final turnover leaves Nebraska at -2, which has meant a loss each time this season. But, there were still chances to prevent even that from being true. The Huskers had two third downs on Maryland’s final drive. The first, third-and-10, was an automatic first down on a pass interference penalty, Nebraska’s only penalty on the day. The second was a more manageable third-and-1, but the Terps only picked it up by a yard. One of those two plays goes differently and maybe it’s a different story. It’s maddening when you actually stop and look at it. It’s why every football coach talks about execution. They know better than anyone that the only way to win consistently is to create a big enough cushion that four or five plays can’t decide the game.

Saturday doesn’t seem like it’ll be that kind of game for either team. It’s a “handful of plays” kind of game. If Wisconsin gets one or two more explosive plays than usual, it’ll probably win. If Nebraska commits one fewer turnover than average, it’ll probably win. Problem is, it’s hard to strategize for gaining or avoiding more explosive plays or takeaways—every staff already is.

So, I’ll be focused on a slightly larger handful of plays—third down. Before Maryland went 2-for-2 on third down on its game-winning drive, the Terps were 4-for-10. That was already the highest conversion rate Nebraska had allowed since Michigan, but it’s not awful. While the Husker defense has impressed since game one this season, it struggled on third down early in the year. That’s changed. Nebraska now ranks a respectable 43rd at 36%. If Maryland doesn’t end up at 50% last Saturday, at worst the game goes to overtime.

Those 14 or so opportunities for the Blackshirts, on average, are vitally important this week. Wisconsin throws all those passes for relatively few yards per attempt. It isn’t very explosive, but it’s at least average at staying on schedule with a 43% success rate (57th). Translation: The Badgers need to drive the ball to score. Wisconsin has averaged 50% on third down in wins, 37.5% in losses for an overall average of 43.9%.

The Huskers have lost every game in which they’ve allowed 45% or better. Wisconsin’s average might be enough for a Husker win, but Nebraska’s average would be better.

Measurable: Nebraska third-down conversion rate allowed 40% or less

Re-Key

To continue with the game-of-inches theme, here’s how close things were with last week’s keys.

• Allow 6.5 yards or fewer per pass attempt: If, on third-and-10 on Maryland’s final drive, Tommi Hill breaks the pass up instead of getting flagged for pass interference, the Huskers are under the number and probably headed to overtime. Instead, Maryland finishes with 7.1 yards per attempt and wins by three.

• Have an explosive-pass rate of 15% or better: Nebraska needed one more pass of 15-plus yards, and one fewer attempt to hit this one.

• Score at least 17 points while going at least 3-for-4 in the red zone: The Huskers were one touchdown and one trip short.

Handful of plays, man. I don’t know how anyone does this for a living.

1. I did, anyway, seeing some eerie similarities with Nebraska’s Bill Callahan transition—new AD fires homegrown coach for being good-not-great, makes a hire (who makes an OC hire) that represents a clear break from the previous, very successful era. TBD if the Huskers’ fate will be the Badgers’ fate. I was thinking about this so much that I eventually convinced myself I was reading too much into labels and that it would probably be fine.

2. At 5.7 yards per attempt, Wisconsin trails Nebraska, which averages 6.1, and I think the Huskers would be very happy to not throw the ball at all right now.

3. Every fan base has them.

4. There is, perhaps, an argument that Wisconsin’s 2023 pass rate isn’t just stubbornness, but part of a long-term plan. It’s an interesting idea given the conference changes drastically next year, particularly when contrasted with Nebraska’s more classical approach under Rhule. I planned to touch on that in this post, but it’s already long and that conversation is probably better suited to the offseason.

5. Strangely, Wisconsin has won three games this season while throwing exactly 31 times. Whatever you do, don’t land on 31 if you’re a Badger opponent.

6. Also of note, if Sims’ had his current EPA per play (which includes all the turnovers) at Haarberg’s usage rate, you could make an argument he was sixth-best among Big Ten QBs behind J.J. McCarthy (Mich), Kyle McCord (OSU), Taulia Tagovailoa (Md.), Drew Allar (PSU) and Luke Altmyer (Ill.). Haarberg currently ranks 11th.

7. Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt, a passing metric where sacks are counted as passing plays, touchdowns are rewarded, but not as much as interceptions are penalized, and, unlike QB rating, the resulting number is somewhat intuitive

8. Not surprisingly, but crucially, Nebraska has only thrown three total interceptions in its five wins.