3 key concerns from Wisconsin’s Week 1 loss to Notre Dame: In game coaching decisions remain an issue

NCAAF College Football News, Photos, Stats, Scores, Schedule & Videos...

Things were looking good for the Wisconsin Badgers in their season opener against the Notre Dame Fighting Irish until they weren’t, as the latter rode by the former 41-13 in a blowout on Sunday evening at Lambeau Field.

Sporting a much different roster with over 30 new players, Wisconsin showed the fight and hope that many were looking forward to in the first half, but things unraveled quickly in the second half as the Badgers showed a lot of their old roots.

While there were a few positives from the outing, there were also a number of concerns. Here are the three biggest ones after Week 1.

Luke Fickell’s in-game coaching

Heading into the season, one of my five biggest keys was Luke Fickell and his in-game decision-making. I’ve been critical of the head coach in that regard in each of his three years at the helm at Wisconsin, as he hasn’t shown enough improvement.

Sunday didn’t leave me any more confident than I was entering the season that change is coming soon. There were a number of questionable decisions from Fickell that I continue to be surprised by weekly.

First, the timeouts. Wisconsin spent four timeouts in poor situations. The first came less than five minutes into the game as the offense wasn’t set on a 3rd & 6 on Wisconsin’s opening drive, forcing a timeout early. This one wasn’t fully on Fickell. With the new offense, there’s bound to be a few operational mistakes that you hope are ironed out by the start of the season. That wasn’t the case on Sunday.

I’m a proponent of taking the five yards versus burning timeouts, which are far more valuable, but I understood this one, being a third and manageable, and Wisconsin ran the ball for a first down on 3rd & 6 in plus territory that extended the drive and led to a field goal.

In the second quarter, though, Fickell had one of his most questionable decisions of the game. With a 4th & 10 at the Notre Dame 36-yard line, Fickell initially had the offense out there before burning a timeout. You’d think a field goal opportunity was coming, but after the timeout, the Badgers brought out the punt unit.

There’s a lot to unravel here. First, it felt like a good field goal opportunity from 53 yards with a chance to tie the game at 13 apiece. Fickell had said multiple times post-game that he wanted the Badgers to be on “go” and be aggressive. He did note that the reason Wisconsin didn’t kick is that Gavin Lahm’s percentage dropped from 92 percent down the middle and 90 percent on the left hash to 78 percent on the left hash.

But if the goal from the jump was to be aggressive and on the “go”, it still felt like the right opportunity to kick for it there, with the minimal opportunities Wisconsin had in Notre Dame territory. And Fickell acknowledged that postgame, saying he’d kick in hindsight. It felt like Wisconsin went away from its own goals and strategy here.

Now, I prefer punting to going for it, given how the defense was playing, the difficulty of completing a 4th & Long vs. Notre Dame, and the chance to pin the Irish deep. But it made no sense for Wisconsin to burn a timeout rather than take the five-yard delay of game and give themselves a better chance to pin Notre Dame inside the 10-yard line. We’ve seen Fickell make this decision before, and it’s an inexcusable one.

The bad decision was compounded by a mistake from the punt unit, as the Badgers misplayed the ball and allowed it to go into the end zone for a touchback, netting them only 16 yards (36 to the 20) on the play. Just a poor series of decisions there, even if the idea was a fine one.

Wisconsin spent another timeout near the end of the half with 1:03 left on another operational issue, as the clock was stopped following an incompletion. They then spent a fourth timeout in the third quarter on another third down as they couldn’t get the ball snapped in time.

Fickell’s one timeout/field goal decision wasn’t the only one. In the fourth quarter, down 34-13 with a 4th & 7 at the 50-yard line, he elected to punt again with eight minutes remaining. Here’s what he said on that:

“That’s right there at that point where we want to get the defense maybe back out there, give them a little bit better opportunity. They weren’t playing very well either. To give them a completely short field if we didn’t get it. We had a philosophy going in, and if it was going to be 3rd, 4th, and anywhere in that 3 to 4 range, we were going to be very aggressive.

“We knew that punting and field goals were not going to win games, especially against these guys. That kind of hit the range a little bit. I know the score was probably in your analytics books would have said go, but we tried to stick with the philosophy.”

But Fickell also said he wanted the team to be aggressive, even as the team was getting behind in the second half.

“No, we got to go. Yeah, we got to go. I mean, look, this is a journey, and I keep saying that over and over and over again. These guys got to understand, like, we got to get better. And it stinks when you’re in the situation where you are, but they asked me like, what do you want to do? I’m go. Like, we can’t sit on this thing.

“And just like we said in the second half, they score right off the bat. And I said, guys, we got to go. They score again on a pick 6. I said, guys, we got to keep going. This isn’t like, let’s figure out how we can slow this thing down and get out of here. It’s, we got a chance to be a good football team. We got to have to grow a hell of a lot, not just from this, but from a hell of a lot more things. So, we just got to continue to be aggressive in everything that we’re doing.”

Punting there with eight minutes left down 21 points with the defense giving up back-to-back touchdown drives just seemed to go completely against that thinking. And Wisconsin’s defense ended up giving up a 12-play, 88-yard touchdown drive spanning 6:06 to end the game after the punt.

If these were one-off decisions, it would be fine at times. But Fickell has constantly made questionable kick/go decisions and struggled with his timeouts throughout his tenure at Wisconsin. This team showed on Sunday that they’re better than the 2025 version, but they’re still a ways away from being a good football team.

That places even more scrutiny and pressure on coaching decisions, which is why that was a major key to success for me this season. Sunday felt like the same rookie mistakes happening over again.

Second half defensive letdown

I’m going to take this loss appropriately because of the difficulty of opponent and because I do think some of Wisconsin’s struggles are overblown. But it’s unfortunate that this loss looked like Badger losses of the past: a competitive stretch mixed with stretches of undisciplined play.

I thought Wisconsin’s defense had a really solid first half. Linebackers and safeties were instinctive and aggressive in run support and Wisconsin’s defensive line competed with a quality Notre Dame offensive line. Wisconsin allowed just 1.8 yards per carry in the first half. I also thought the pass defense was physical with Notre Dame’s wide receivers, getting to the ball quickly and breaking up a couple of passes.

For some reason, which Luke Fickell didn’t fully know himself, everything unraveled in the second half. Notre Dame’s offensive line played better and the run game started opening up. But Wisconsin’s zone defense had a ton of holes in pass coverage, and Notre Dame just started taking the easy plays.

Wisconsin allowed a ton of checkdowns and quick access throws by playing off coverage. But they also had openings on the intermediate in-breaking routes, which Notre Dame exploited. Add in ugly tackling and a ton of yards after the catch, and things came quite easy for the Fighting Irish.

The tackling, which was sound in the first half, was the biggest execution error in the second half. And it was from all levels of the defense. But there needs to be a better adjustment from Mike Tressel.

Wisconsin has better cornerbacks for its scheme this season. It’s time to start using that consistently. They’ve got physical corners who can press up, and that should especially be happening on the near-side, where Notre Dame got way too many layups on hitches, curl, and quick outs in the second half.

I also thought the defense was slow to react against the run in the second half, and not playing instinctively as they did in the first half. We’ve seen for years how Wisconsin can play when the pieces connect. But we’ve also seen them deviate from the gameplan and be too undisciplined, which popped up again on Sunday night.

For years now, we’ve seen a similar story with Mike Tressel. There have been periods of really good defensive play for the Badgers, and we’ve even seen the opposite of Sunday: slow starts (which I’ve pointed to as a preparation/gameplan issue before) and then quality adjustments for good performances.

But we’ve also seen very similar iterations of this defense, and I have some questions on how much Tressel can get out of his personnel. It feels like this grouping of defenders has been his best to fit his scheme, which wants to play aggressive and stop the run. It’s on him (and the players to execute) to now get the most out of his group.

Struggles to be opportunistic

This might be a weird saying, but the Badgers continue to struggle to be opportunistic on all three sides of the ball. We knew the offense was going to take some time to gel, and we did see some quality plays in the passing game, but Wisconsin had some costly mistakes that flipped the game.

The early one was the muffed kickoff, as Wisconsin threw running back Harrison Bortolotti back there after injuries to Jaylon Domingeaux (before game) and Eugene Hilton (in-game), and after he made a play on kickoff return, he fumbled a kickoff that gave Notre Dame phenomenal field position for their lone touchdown of the first half.

That was, at minimum, a seven-point turnaround in a 13-10 first half. It’s the type of mistake Wisconsin couldn’t afford, but one that has plagued them throughout the years. Then, of course, after a rough first defensive drive out of halftime, Colton Joseph had a costly pick-six on a miscommunication from Chris Brooks.

Suddenly, a 13-10 halftime lead for Notre Dame ballooned to 27-10, and it suddenly felt like the game was fully out of reach. I mentioned above on Wisconsin’s two field goal decisions. The Badgers were also 0 for 2 in the red zone, settling for field goals on both chances.

But a lot of this comes defensively and ties into the previous point. Once again, Wisconsin didn’t force a turnover. The Badgers have preached hunting for turnovers and being more aggressive in both of the last two offseasons, but we see a different approach when it actually matters on the field.

I feel like a broken record, but it’s the third straight season that I’ve wanted Wisconsin to trust its cornerbacks to be more aggressive in the secondary. Yes, it might lead to more chunk plays, but the Badgers are already giving those up with their other mistakes, and they aren’t giving themselves chances to create those game-changing plays that can swing games in their favor.

And now, it really feels like the Badgers have the personnel to be aggressive in the secondary. When it’s one-off misses to be opportunistic, that’s not as much of a problem. But we’ve been beating the same horse for a few years now and haven’t seen that change, despite Luke Fickell talking about wanting to have that change.

Fickell did note that, in hindsight, perhaps they should’ve let the corners press more. We’ll see what changes are implemented in the future. But Wisconsin probably finds itself in close games in the future again. Being aggressive, hunting for the win, and being opportunistic will be the difference-maker in those games. Will that happen?

More at NCAAF College Football News, Photos, Stats, Scores, Schedule & Videos