Category: Play Call

March Madness captivates everyone — from diehard basketball junkies to people who don’t watch a minute of the sport all year. No tournament is perfect, but March Madness sits on a pedestal as one of the greatest events in sports. For all of its glory, there are folks around college basketball advocating for an expansion of the NCAA Tournament, adding to the current field of 68 teams. Simply put, expanding March Madness would be a mistake and is unnecessary.

The strength and competitiveness of the field is the backbone of the tournament’s credibility, and expansion wouldn’t improve it. According to online college basketball insider T3 Bracketology, via direct message on X (Twitter), “If we added [eight] teams, based on the bubble since [March Madness] expanded to 68 teams, 72 percent would be high majors, & more than half of those high majors went .500 or worse in [conference] play.” 

If a 76-team format had been in place for the 2025 NCAA Tournament, it would have pushed teams like Indiana, which went 10-10 in Big Ten play and was bounced in the opening round of the conference tournament, and Ohio State, which barely finished above .500 at 17-15, into the field. Even with a 68-team field, schools with losing conference records like Oklahoma and Texas at 6-12 in the SEC, along with North Carolina at 1-12 in Quad 1 games, still made the tournament. 

Adding more teams to the tournament wouldn’t strengthen the field; rather, it would just guarantee more spots for mediocre and undeserving power-conference programs. If expansion meant giving bids to strong mid-major teams that fall short in their conference tournaments, like UC Irvine last season or 2024 Indiana State — both of which went 17–3 in league play and finished with 32 wins — it would be far more appealing. But there’s no indication that would actually happen. 

There is a certain pageantry and prestige associated with March Madness that expansion would erode. In the words of Connecticut head coach and two-time national champion Dan Hurley, “It’s a privilege to play in this tournament, not a right.”

Supporters of expansion often point to revenue, but that argument is overstated. Looking at it from the perspective of college programs and the NCAA, the monetary principles associated with March Madness are widely misunderstood. 

Seth Davis, a college basketball media personality, dismisses the notion that expansion would be for money: “For starters, NCAA Tournament revenue makes up less than five percent of athletic budgets at power conference schools. Expanding the field would barely make a dent in their bottom line. And there are substantial costs involved. More teams means more money spent on travel (the NCAA provides each team with a chartered aircraft unless it’s close enough to travel by bus), hotels, game operations and the like… Doing a little better than break even is not reason enough to expand the tournament.” Davis is one of the most outspoken supporters of expansion, but even he rebuffs the financial narrative of growing the tournament.

So there are economic questions from the NCAA’s point of view for expansion, but what about television deals and ratings? The First Four, the “play-in” games for March Madness, has seen its viewership down in recent years, so is the solution to add more mediocre matchups to drive up exposure and television revenue? It is not. The success of March Madness ratings is not just focused on fans of participating teams, but also predicated on the casual fan. Casual fans love filling out brackets and watching the early rounds to track their success, but they aren’t necessarily dedicated viewers of basketball.

“It overcomplicates [March Madness] for the common fan,” T3 Bracketology said. “Right now on bracket sites you don’t even fill in the First Four. The easy math cut of 64 to 32 to 16 to etc. is easy on the brain for a casual fan. Adding more games just makes it more complex and you could lose some people. 60-100 million people fill out a bracket, but just over eight million watch the first round. The hope is to grow that conversion rate and grow the audience during the regular season, not complicate matters and decline that.”

Adding more teams, therefore more games, could take away from the simplicity of making brackets and deter casual fans from tuning in as intently to “The Big Dance,” which ultimately would not result in a great surplus of revenue or interest.

Fortunately, nothing is imminent, and expansion, at this moment, is just a talking point. But as ESPN analyst Jay Bilas said, “Never underestimate the NCAA’s capacity to do something stupid.” If the NCAA wants to avoid doing something stupid, keeping the bracket at 68 teams is a good place to start.

MADISON ~ Watch an NBA game today, and you see a blur of possessions. Guards sprint into pull-up threes within seconds of crossing half-court. Big men float to the perimeter instead of battling in the paint. Scores climb past 120 points almost nightly. The pace is relentless, the spacing is wide, and the defense is an afterthought.

I used to love the NBA. In the mid-2010s, I followed it closely, but the game has changed so much that I find myself turning to college basketball instead. College still values defense, toughness, and balance. The NBA has tilted so far toward offense that defense no longer defines the sport.

The numbers back this up. In the 1990s, teams averaged about 101 points per game. By the 2022–23 season, that number had jumped to 114.2, the highest since 1969–70. This season, teams are averaging over 115 points. That is not a small shift. It is a structural change in how the league operates.

Rule changes paved the way. The hand-check ban in 2004 stripped defenders of the ability to steer ball handlers. The defensive three-second violation, introduced in 2001, forced big men out of the paint. Freedom of movement rules protect offensive stars, making it harder to apply physical pressure. Each change tilted the balance toward offense.

Analytics reinforced the trend. Teams embraced efficiency models that reward threes and layups. The Houston Rockets under Daryl Morey became the poster child for this approach, abandoning mid-range shots almost entirely. The Warriors perfected it, turning Stephen Curry’s shooting into a weapon that reshaped the league. Defense was left scrambling to adapt, but the math always favored offense.

Compare eras and the difference is clear. The 1990s New York Knicks built their identity on defense. Patrick Ewing anchored the paint, and the team thrived on physicality. Games were low-scoring, ugly, and tough. That was basketball’s balance. Contrast that with the 2010s Golden State Warriors. Their dynasty was built on offense-first principles. Curry and Klay Thompson stretched defenses to the breaking point. Draymond Green was a defensive leader, but his role was the exception, not the rule. The Warriors won by overwhelming opponents with shooting and pace.

Individual defenders still matter, but they are rare. Jrue Holiday’s perimeter defense, Marcus Smart’s intensity, and Rudy Gobert’s rim protection prove that defense can swing playoff series. Yet these players stand out precisely because defense is no longer the norm. They are specialists in a league that celebrates offense.

The question is what this means for fans. Some enjoy the scoring. Highlight reels are full of threes and dunks, and casual viewers love it. But others, like me, miss the balance. College basketball still rewards defense. Watching a team grind out stops feels meaningful. In the NBA, defense feels optional until the postseason.

This shift raises bigger questions. If defense no longer matters, what happens to the league’s identity? The NBA risks becoming a spectacle of offense without the tension that defense provides. Fans who grew up on gritty battles like Knicks vs. Heat or Pistons vs. Spurs may feel alienated. Younger fans may never know that side of the sport.

The NBA is not unwatchable, but it is unbalanced. Offense dominates, defense survives in pockets, and the game feels different. I loved the NBA when defense mattered. Now, I find myself seeking balance elsewhere. The league has chosen entertainment over equilibrium. That choice attracts casual fans but distances those who value the grind. If defense continues to fade, the NBA will remain popular, but it will no longer feel like the same sport.

The Los Angeles Dodgers didn’t just win the pennant this October; they won the payroll lottery again. Their $169 million luxury-tax bill alone tops the entire payroll of 16 Major League Baseball teams. That single stat captures why the sport’s competitive balance is broken, and why the only realistic fix is to adopt both a salary cap and a salary floor.

The greatest strength of a league like the NFL is its parity and unpredictability. USA TODAY recently noted that in 35 straight seasons, at least four NFL teams have reached the playoffs after missing them the year before. Through Week 9 this year, seven such turnaround teams sit at .500 or better. 35 games have featured winning scores in the final two minutes or overtime, representing 26% of all games played (through week 9).

In short, any fan base can have hope in the preseason. Thanks to a hard salary cap and a spending floor that forces every franchise to invest competitively, the NFL resets itself each year. The draft, schedule, free agency, and cap rules all work together to produce parity.

The same can not be said for the MLB, however. For the fifth time in the last 10 seasons, the team with the highest payroll has reached the World Series. Since 2016, all but one World Series has featured at least one top-five payroll club, and this is no coincidence, as the biggest markets continue to be the biggest spenders and winners.

Without a cap or a floor, the MLB has drifted toward feudalism or almost a form of capitalism. Big-market powerhouses like the Dodgers and Yankees hoard stars and swallow luxury-tax penalties that would bankrupt smaller clubs. Meanwhile, low-budget teams such as the Athletics and Marlins can hide behind “rebuilding” cycles while spending less on their entire roster than what a single player in New York or Los Angeles costs. This is why USA TODAY called the sport “a social experiment gone wrong.” When the Yankees’ $62.5 million luxury-tax bill nearly equals the Athletics’ entire payroll, the notion of competition starts to feel like a joke. Fans of small to mid-market teams know their fate before Opening Day.

A hard cap doesn’t punish success; it instead protects competition. It forces front offices to rely on scouting, development, and creativity, using some Moneyball ideals. Under a cap, signing a megastar means letting another walk. Teams must actually build rather than buy dynasties. Critics argue that restricting payroll limits players’ earning power. This is true to some extent, but it also broadens opportunity. When more teams can afford top talent, the free-agent market widens and careers grow longer. The NFL’s system, for example, has not left its players starving by any means.

The flip side is equally vital. A spending floor ensures owners can’t coast on profit-sharing or public subsidies while fielding bargain rosters. The Athletics’ John Fisher and the Brewers’ Mark Attanasio exemplify the problem, as petty owners who sacrifice talent to benefit themselves financially. A floor compels them to reinvest in product quality like the players, facilities, and communities that sustain the sport. If the Packers, who operate in the NFL’s smallest market, must spend at least 90 percent of the cap, why shouldn’t the Brewers?

Baseball’s competitive imbalance trickles down across all levels. Youth participation in baseball is dwindling, losing kids to lacrosse and other sports. When a 10-year-old fan of the hometown Pirates or Reds knows they will never truly contend, fandom fades. The NFL overtook baseball as America’s pastime not because it markets better, but because every fan base matters. A cap-and-floor model could reignite national engagement.

The current model guarantees labor tension, as  USA TODAY warned of a looming work stoppage. A more balanced system might reduce short-term payouts, but it would enlarge the product long-term, with higher ratings, broader fan bases, and more sustainable franchises. 

The NFL’s formula proves that parity sells. Fans tune in because the underdog always has a shot. Baseball, meanwhile, remains a gated community for the rich. Success should depend on roster design, player development, and timing, not on how many commas appear in a team’s payroll.

In July of this year, the New York Jets signed star cornerback Sauce Gardner to a four-year extension. New Head Coach Aaron Glenn was thrilled, calling him a “foundational” player. A little over three months later, Gardner is an Indianapolis Colt, and the Jets are entering another rebuild. In case their 2-7 record didn’t make it clear enough that a rebuild was impending, their recent trades of their two best defensive players, Gardner to Indianapolis, and defensive lineman Quinnen Williams to Dallas, cemented the notion. 

It would have been easy for the Jets to continue to flounder with this core, around the five or six-win mark, for another few years before Aaron Glenn and his personally chosen General Manager Darren Mougey would inevitably be let go, leaving a messy cap sheet, aging and ineffective star players, and limited assets to attract yet another new regime. Instead, the current Jets brain trust took a gamble: yes, trading two All-Pros certainly comes with some risk, and may be painful for fans to digest in the short term. However, they have, without question, raised the ceiling on their tenure by a considerable margin.

As much as Glenn promised the media since his hiring that the team would be competing to win this season, to most outside observers, it was obvious this would be a rocky season for the franchise. After the Aaron Rodgers era came to a close, the team was left low on draft picks, cap space and promising young players following the departure of many talented (albeit underperforming) veterans. Players from their brief win-now era that are no longer on the roster included Rodgers, Davante Adams, DJ Reed, CJ Mosley and Morgan Moses, amongst others, leading to ramifications from void years to bring in the vets, on top of the draft pick cost they paid to acquire many of them.

This offseason, the team really didn’t make many moves, choosing to stay away from the infamous New York tabloid headlines. They made their promising draft picks, they signed some middle-of-the-pack starters, but they didn’t make many big investments; arguably, their biggest improvement was parting ways with players whose departure could be considered addition by subtraction.

Anyone who believed this team was a true playoff contender, trotting out the ever-disappointing free agent signee Justin Fields (on his third team in three years) as their unquestioned, day one starting quarterback amidst an incredibly top-heavy roster, was bound to be disappointed. However, it was surely fair to hope they would be more competitive under the new regime than they looked in their dreadful 0-7 start to the season.

After all, it was just four years ago that the “core four” – cornerback Sauce Gardner, wide receiver Garrett Wilson, edge rusher Jermaine Johnson, and running back Breece Hall – were selected in the first two rounds of the 2022 NFL Draft, and showed such promise that Aaron Rodgers demanded a trade to Gang Green to help lead them to a brighter future the next year. The roster had some other key pieces, including the All-Pro Williams brothers on the defensive side of the ball and a young, promising offensive line. After all, part of the appeal of the Jets’ job openings this winter is that they weren’t that far away. Yet, a 1-7 record at the trade deadline highlighted their lack of talent up and down the roster, and changes were inevitable. How big remained to be seen.

At about 12:40 PM EST on Tuesday, November 4th, Gardner tweeted, “New York it’s been real.” About ten minutes later, NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reported that he and his new contract extension were being traded to the Colts in exchange for their next two first-round selections and second-year receiver Adonai Mitchell. About an hour later, he added that Williams was heading to the Cowboys, adding another second-rounder in 2026, and another first-rounder in 2027 to the Jets’ ever-growing draft pick chest.

These moves were met with shock from the football world and mixed reactions from the Jets fanbase, as to be expected when trading away talented players. Ultimately, these moves allow the Jets to finally move fully forward from the Rodgers era and rebuild a team without a true identity. This regime determined these players weren’t good enough to win given the way the team was constructed as of now, and was able to find great value to build a brighter tomorrow. Most importantly, these moves help give the Jets a chance to find a solution at quarterback, something Jets fans have been waiting for since Joe Namath.

Glenn and Mougey self-evaluated and realized they were far away from building the team they envisioned. That’s a hard realization, but a critical first step as they work towards a brighter future. They were able to receive a haul of draft picks and can now mold the team as they please. The keys to sustained success in the NFL are hitting on draft choices and having a franchise quarterback. Mougey and Glenn must do better than their predecessors in this regard to right the ship and break the longest playoff drought across all four major North American sports leagues.

Trading two fan favorite players for lottery tickets years down the line is a decision that will define the next five or so years of this franchise. Skeptics say this downtrodden franchise is even more devoid of talent than it was at 1-7. Believers say they weren’t winning with those players anyway, so an open cap sheet and eight picks over the next two years’ first two rounds sound incredibly effective to fill that talent void

I guess that makes me a believer.

The remainder of this season will be messy. Parts of next might be too. But Darren Mougey and Aaron Glenn are trying to build this thing their way. Whether they are able to do so successfully remains to be seen. 

“You play to win the game.” The famous words of former Jets coach Herm Edwards still remain iconic to this day, following a blown 18 point lead to the Tim Couch-led Cleveland Browns in 2002. Flash forward 23 years later, and the Jets find themselves at 3-9, having already clinched their tenth straight season with a losing record. This would be rock bottom for nearly any NFL franchise, but for the New York Jets, rock bottom simply has the comfort of home.

The Jets have not won the AFC East since that fateful 2002 season, trailing only the Cleveland Browns for the longest divisional drought in the NFL. Heck, even the Indianapolis Colts, who are currently in the AFC South, have won the AFC East, more times than the New York Jets. The team with the longest postseason drought in all of American sports, approaching 15 years now, finds itself in a position so dire, yet all too familiar, and it can be hard to pinpoint the source of the blame.

To start, one can blame the players. Specifically at QB, every “era” has its own tale of dysfunction and tragedy. At times there was hope; A 10-6 Ryan Fitzpatrick-led team that missed the playoffs in the final week following a collapse against a lowly Bills team, or the Hard Knocks-fueled Rodgers era that got cut short three plays in. Then there were the failed projects, the Darnolds and Genos, who managed to revive their careers when escaping Jets purgatory. Then there’s the names of Bryce Petty, Christian Hackenberg, and Zach Wilson; those guys just stink.

But how about the coaches? While the Adam Gase hire has few redeeming qualities, guys like Todd Bowles and Robert Saleh have found success outside the Jets organization, but didn’t have what it takes to right the ship with the ever-broken rudder. While Rex Ryan provided the last glimmer of hope, his notable crash-and-burn culminated in leading the Bills to sink the Jets at the end of that infamous 2015 season. 

Well, you may ask, if the Jets stink so bad every year, don’t they always have a high draft pick? Surely they have had the chances to pick up talent in the draft? That’s the thing that separates plain ol’ ineptitude from the Jet ineptitude. The Jets somehow have found a way to lose more than any team in football over the last 10 years, yet they still couldn’t even lose right.

Take the 2020 Jets season for example: COVID year, no fans in the stands, players ruled out left and right, football sucks. But for Jets fans, sitting at 0-13, football really sucks. But at least they are in position to draft heralded, “generational QB prospect” Trevor Lawrence with the number one overall pick in the upcoming draft. 

Walking into a matchup with the 9-4 Los Angeles Rams in the midst of a playoff push, Jets fans were bracing themselves to become the third team of all time to go 0-16. However, in Jets fashion, led by a ghost-sighted Darnold and a “he’s still in the league?” Frank Gore, the Jets came out victorious, and followed that up with a home win against the Browns, losing out on the number one pick. And with the second overall pick in the 2021 NFL Draft, the New York Jets select, Zach Wilson, BYU…

Losing when you want them to win, winning when you want them to lose, that is the true nature of Jets fandom. This season has been no different: An 0-7 start followed by a mass exodus of star players in return for draft picks. Time to focus on the draft, right? For most teams, yes, but for the Jets it is the perfect time to win three of the next five games to improve to 3-9! The only person more thrilled than Jets fans is Heisman favorite Fernando Mendoza, as the Jets have now dropped out of contention to draft him.

The Jets have been the laughingstock of the league since the turn of the 21st century. No matter who is in the building, the Jets have been stuck in a perpetual cycle of pain and suffering. It almost seems unfathomable that a team can be so bad, so rotten to the core across multiple generations of players and coaches. But when you piece it all together, there is one common thread in all of the chapters of the Jets’ story: The owner, Woody Johnson. 

Woody Johnson has pioneered every regime, with dysfunction following every step of the way. He infamously let his son, Brick in the locker room to notify Coach Saleh of his players’ poor Madden ratings. Recently, Woody made headlines in making a pitch to eliminate the NFLPA player report cards, labeling them as “bogus.” To be fair, I wouldn’t be pleased if I received an F owner grade from my players every year. 

A guy who is hated by everyone who works for him, quite the figurehead for the worst franchise in American sports. But it’s good to know their product on the field won’t stop him from increasing season ticket prices next year! Jets owner Woody Johnson: The man who gets paid regardless of if the Jets lose, or if they lose. 

Regardless of who you want to blame, the Jets have been, and will continue to be the laughingstock of American sports. And as a kid who hasn’t seen the Jets make the playoffs since he was six years old, and is now about to graduate college, there is still no end to the drought in sight. Yet, I will continue to watch the games and root on my favorite dysfunctional team in the hope of it all paying off one day. But for now, we Jets fans might just be stuck as the world’s biggest cult of masochists.

It is Sunday afternoon. One game is in overtime while another is coming down to the wire. Your fantasy wide receiver is finally having a great day, but you are watching a different game. You keep flipping between channels trying to catch every play and touchdown, and every time you switch, you miss something important. It quickly becomes frustrating and takes the fun out of watching. That’s where NFL RedZone comes in to turn all of that stress into pure excitement!

After launching in 2009, NFL RedZone changed how fans experience football on Sundays. Instead of sitting through breaks or replays, fans get to watch every big moment from every game no matter where they are. NFL RedZone is a live broadcast that jumps between all the NFL games happening at the same time, showing teams as soon as they enter the “red zone.” It also shows every scoring play, big turnover and other crucial moments. The broadcast runs for seven straight hours every Sunday, giving fans nonstop highlights from kickoff to the final whistle. The numbers say it all… “Hosted by the indefatigable Hanson, whose voice has become synonymous with Sunday adrenaline, it averages 2.5 million viewers per week.”

RedZone makes following football simple and easy. You see every touchdown, every defensive stop and every game-winning drive without ever touching the remote. It is fast paced, exciting, and perfect for fans who want to keep up with everything at once. Specifically, for college students like me, it is the ultimate Sunday setup. I tend to find myself studying, hanging out with friends or just relaxing on the couch every Sunday with NFL Redzone playing in the background. 

Through my personal experience, I believe that RedZone brings Sundays to a whole new level. The second Scott Hanson says, “Seven hours of RedZone football starts now,” the energy in my apartment changes. It is the moment football fans (like me) wait for all week. I truly believe that Hanson keeps the momentum and energy going all day. Even when it is two teams I do not follow, he makes it feel important. That constant excitement keeps me watching until the last play!

RedZone also connects football fans in a special way. Whether you are watching in your dorm, at home or with friends at a bar, you know millions of people are doing the exact same thing. Everyone reacts together to the same touchdowns and upsets, and that is one of the aspects that makes it so much fun. 

In my opinion, they should make a RedZone for college football too. It would have to focus on the Power Five or Top 25 teams since there are so many schools in the NCAA, but I think it would be amazing. Imagine following Alabama, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Texas all at once. The rivalries and the energy would make Saturdays just as exciting as Sundays!

NFL RedZone has completely redefined what football Sundays mean. It brings people together, keeps fans connected and delivers nonstop action from start to finish.

My favorite part of Sunday afternoon is when Scott Hanson announces the “witching hour” (the moment when “wins become losses and losses become wins”). NFL RedZone makes my Sundays convenient, fun and exciting from start to finish.

Wisconsin athletic director Chris McIntosh announced last week that Luke Fickell would be returning as head coach of the football team for the 2026 season. To many, the decision prompted both outrage and confusion. Fickell, before the first ranked win of his tenure Saturday against Washington, had failed in the eyes of most Badgers fans. Even after the win against Washington, Fickell’s record in Madison stands at 16-19, with only nine of those wins coming in Big Ten play. Fickell has presided over some embarrassing results, most notably back-to-back blowout losses to rival Iowa and a thumping at home this season against a mediocre Maryland team. When viewing Fickell through this lens, it might seem obvious that Wisconsin should’ve let him go. However, I believe that McIntosh’s decision was wise, for reasons other than his multi-million dollar buyout. 

There’s no question that Fickell’s tenure has been frustrating. The Badgers lost their cherished bowl game and winning-season streaks under Fickell. Fickell unsuccessfully tried to remake the Badgers into an air raid offense, shedding decades of precedent where Wisconsin made their name by primarily running the ball. Until Saturday, Fickell lacked a signature win. 

So why do I believe that keeping him was the right decision? In college football, patience can still be a virtue. Wisconsin made a significant commitment to Fickell in 2022, and for good reason. It can be easy to forget, but Fickell did have an excellent tenure at Cincinnati, which included being the only Group of Five school to ever reach the four-team College Football Playoff. It’s prudent to give Fickell at least one more year, especially since he’ll face a much less daunting schedule in 2026. The Badgers won’t be playing Alabama and avoid Ohio State, Oregon, and Indiana. While the Badgers would ideally be able to compete with those programs, we will finally get a glimpse at what kind of coach Fickell can be when he’s not facing a grueling schedule. 

Another aspect of Fickell’s tenure that must be mentioned is the putrid luck the Badgers have had at the quarterback position. Fickell has never had his initial starting quarterback play for an entire season. In the last two seasons, his preferred quarterback didn’t even make it to conference play. There’s no doubt that injuries are part of the sport, but that level of inconsistency at quarterback would hinder most coaches. Keeping Fickell also makes sense when you zoom out and look at the sport at large. College football’s coaching carousel is as zany as ever, with vacancies at some of the nation’s top programs like LSU, Penn State, and Florida. There’s other notable openings at Auburn, UCLA, and Virginia Tech as well. It appears as if the coaching supply won’t be able to keep up with the demand. Rather than being trigger happy, McIntosh has made the correct decision not to fire Fickell and plunge the program into a big pool of dysfunctional teams searching for a new coach. 

While the 2025 season has been far from Wisconsin’s best, there have been some encouraging trends recently. The Badgers, mired in a difficult season, are still playing for Fickell. The Badgers traveled to Eugene a couple of weeks ago and fought hard before being outmatched in a 21-7 loss to Oregon. Then, last Saturday, Fickell earned his signature against #23 Washington, a quality team that came into Camp Randall with a 6-2 record. Although weather definitely played a role in the game, there was a lot to like from the Badgers. Some of Fickell’s recruits are starting to show their worth. Freshman running back Gideon Ituka has shown strong flashes in the past two games, running for 85 and 73 yards respectively. On defense, Cooper Catalano and Mason Posa look like emerging stars. Catalano posted a staggering 19 tackles against Washington, while Posa had 2.5 sacks. There’s reason to believe that if Fickell can finally get some luck at quarterback, the Badgers could finally be on the upward trajectory. 

Part of McIntosh’s announcement regarding Fickell was that the university would increase funding to the football program. If you look around college football, turnarounds in the NIL era can happen as soon as one year. The success of football vagabonds like Indiana and Vanderbilt prove that no program is too far away from achieving success. First, let’s see how the Badgers finish the season. Their next game at Indiana is admittedly going to be a significant challenge. However, I’ll be more interested in seeing how they play against a quality team in Illinois and rival Minnesota. Then, all eyes will turn to a critical offseason for Fickell to prepare for the 2026 season. 

While this happened in a completely different era of college football, Barry Alvarez started his tenure at Wisconsin with three straight losing seasons, and we all know how that turned out. I’m not saying Fickell will replicate Alvarez’s success, but McIntosh has provided him with the chance to prove that his success at Cincinnati can still be translated to winning in the Big Ten. Only time will tell if McIntosh will be vindicated or reviled for his decision.