Gimmes & Games

Looking Back to Look Forward at Wisconsin’s 2026 Schedule

I have been accused at times of being a Luke Fickell shill, a Phil Longo shill, and of being blind to the idea that Badger football was better off when there was a “Wisconsin Guy” in charge of the program. I’ll admit that my professional life has bled into my personal fandom. The brand of football I subscribe to in my day to day work has absolutely shaped my fandom. I like modern football, and I’m not ashamed to say it.

But regardless of my personal preferences, a “Wisconsin Guy” isn’t necessarily going to fix what ails the program, because I’m not entirely convinced that having a Wisconsin guy in charge was the primary reason for the Badgers’ most recent run of success (prior to 2021). Yes that identity of football was exciting and to those day it tugs at nostalgic heartstrings all the while it lit up the scoreboard. But have you ever stopped and really examined who we played, who we beat, and who we lost to?

The 2026 Big Ten is not the Big Ten West anymore. I know, that’s another tired talking point, but it’s true, and from a Wisconsin perspective it matters. The old divisional setup, the overall strength (lack thereof) of the Big Ten during that era, and the way non-conference schedules were constructed in the pre-CFP era tell the real story.

It was good to be king, and from 2015 through 2022 (excluding the 2020 season), the Wisconsin Badgers were the Kings of the Big Ten West. They compiled a 44-18 conference record and represented the division three times in the Big Ten Championship Game. Many fans view that stretch as a golden era of Wisconsin football. The numbers don’t lie.

But if you look at those numbers through cardinal-tinted glasses, you might see genuine dominance where context tells a different story. Outside of the Iowa Hawkeyes, who went 41-21 in conference during that same span, no other Big Ten West team finished above .500 in league play. So is being the best of a weak division a true measure of program strength? How did the Badgers fare when they stepped outside that comfortable sandbox and faced their cross-divisional counterparts?

Wisconsin’s schedule has always come down to two categories: gimmes and games. First, some definitions.

A gimme is a non-power conference opponent and/or a Big Ten opponent that finished the season with a losing conference AND overall record. This is where Wisconsin separated itself from the pack. During that highlighted stretch, the Badgers went 44-3 in gimme games, including an 18-1 mark against the dreck of the Big Ten West.

Think about that. It’s like being spotted six wins every season. Just like that you’re already bowl eligible before you even break a sweat, and three conference victories baked in. In theory, the Badgers only needed to win three or four of their remaining conference games to have a legitimate shot at the Big Ten Championship and potentially a NY6 bowl. When you’re structurally set up for success like that, you should see sustained breakthrough success...right?

That’s where the games come in.

To me, a game is a non-conference opponent from a power conference or a Big Ten team that finished .500 or better in conference or overall play. Part of me wants to refine that definition, because a team could feast on weak non-conference opponents, start 3-0 or 4-0, then collapse in league play and still qualify as a “game” by this standard (hello, Purdue and Nebraska). But regardless of how you tweak the formula these were the matchups that truly measured Wisconsin.

And in those games, the Badgers were decidedly average: 24-23.

That includes a 2-11 record against Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan. Beating up on bad B1G rivals is one thing but when the chips were even it lead to a 2-2 mark against Northwestern, and just 3-3 against Minnesota. The one outlier was a 5-2 record against Iowa, but even that came with five of those matchups featuring Brian Ferentz as the Hawkeyes’ offensive coordinator. And if you watched Iowa’s offense during that era, you understand the asterisk. Do those wins count? Of course they do. But they also require nuance.

I can already hear the response: “Yeah, but Luke Fickell hasn’t done much better.”

You’re right. The numbers are just as clear.

Under Luke Fickell, the Badgers have largely maintained the status quo in gimme games. They still handle business where they’re supposed to. But the record in the games has cratered. That’s reality. Sure the gimme-to-game ratio has shifted significantly, especially over the last two seasons (from 6/6 to 3.5/8.5). The schedule has tilted toward more games and fewer gimmes. And not only are there more games, they’re harder games against highly ranked teams and programs that, until recently, Wisconsin would only see (and often lose to) in bowl season.

The league has changed. The margin has shrunk. But standards are standards. The current coaching staff and roster have to live up to them.

So what does that mean for 2026?

It’s simple. We need to win roughly 93% of our gimmes and go .500 in the games.

Based on last season’s results, the 2026 schedule appears to feature six gimmes (Western Illinois, Eastern Michigan, Purdue, UCLA, Michigan State, and Rutgers) and six games (Notre Dame, Maryland, Iowa, USC, Penn State, and Minnesota).

You can run the permutations in your head. Sweep the gimmes and split the games? That’s nine wins. Drop one gimme and go 3-3 in games? Eight wins. Stumble to 2-4 in games but stay perfect otherwise? An 8-9 win season feels like the reasonable expectation.

But the question is would you be satisfied with eight wins if they went 2-4 in the games that truly mattered? If they beat the teams they were supposed to beat but folded as per usual against the heavyweights? What if they got upset by an overachieving gimme but stole one from someone they weren’t “supposed” to beat? Just a few years ago a season like that was seen as an achievement because Wisconsin football did it the hard and right way.

If we’re applying the same standards from as before but without the cushion of the old Big Ten West we’re left with a difficult truth. There was a time when we were just fine with that, and in fact we prided ourself on the program that those results built. But now can we as fans separate nostalgia from reality and accept mid-tier team in a stronger, deeper, more unforgiving conference? Is returning to “Wisconsin Football” as we remember it actually the achievement our hearts tell us it would be?

I know my answer.

But then again, I’m a Luke Fickell shill. So does it really matter?