Badgers Losing Identity When It Matters Most

Although Wisconsin is headed to the Big Ten Championship game next week thanks to the transgressions of two Legends division foes, they are completely undeserving of the honor. But while there is no doubt the 2012 edition of Badger football doesn’t have the pleasure of a leader the caliber of Russell Wilson, they do have the talent to beat each of the five teams they have lost to thus far this season.

What they don’t have this season, in part due to offseason coaching changes, is the identity necessary to be a true championship-caliber team.

Never has that lack of an identity been more apparent than in Saturday’s loss at Penn State. After getting out to a fast start and holding a 14-7 lead at the half, Wisconsin played the remainder of the afternoon like a team with the weight of the world on their shoulders.

Rather than playing like the team with nothing to lose, having already sewn up a birth in the conference title game, the Badgers played not to lose. From the overly conservative play calling in the final two minutes of the first half to the run play called on third-and-9 late in the fourth quarter, the conservative play calling by offensive coordinator Matt Canada was a drag on the offense and a hamper on the ability of the team to put away a Nittany Lion team that had no business winning this weekend.

The ridiculous conservatism came to a head when Wisconsin decided to settle for a PAT and overtime following a 2^nd straight final drive touchdown with UW down 7 points.

Last week, settling for overtime at least made some sense. The Badgers had the momentum, were playing at home, and had failed on two straight short-yardage plays at the goal line just a few minutes earlier.

But in State College, overtime was not a place the Badgers had any reason to venture. Win or lose, overtime made no sense for Wisconsin.

Having already lost four times, it was already Rose Bowl or bust for this UW team. The formula had become fairly simple, with a Big Ten Championship game victory sending the Badgers to Pasadena and a defeat likely sending them to either Jacksonville or Tampa.

So the result of Saturday’s game meant virtually nothing for Wisconsin. As simply as ever, the Badgers had nothing to lose.

What they had to gain was momentum. They had the momentum of another last-second comeback and the emotional lift of a two-point conversion to quiet a loud Beaver Stadium crowd.

And perhaps most importantly, they had a running back that had just become the all-time touchdown leader in FBS history.

But even had Wisconsin failed on a two-point conversion and fell one-point shy, they would have been better off than they would heading to overtime. Forget the percentages (43% success rate on conversion attempts), going for two was the only call.

First of all, overtime brings in the possibility of injury. Without anything to gain from a win, there was no reason Wisconsin should have extended the opportunity to suffer an injury any longer than it already was with the game on the line in the final seconds. One bad step and UW could not only lose a chance to win the game, but also a shot at winning next week’s title game.

Add to that the fact that Wisconsin had already lost two straight overtime games. The confidence simply wasn’t there for the overtime and the Badgers’ recent history likely curbed any momentum Wisconsin had following Jeff Duckworth’s touchdown catch. Now that UW has lost three straight in extra frames, frustration is likely to set in. That is not a good formula heading into a matchup with Nebraska that will almost certainly be decided down the stretch.

The general rule is that a two-point conversion for the win is the right call for a visiting team but not a home team. As the adage goes, “you play for the win on the road and play for the tie at home”. Wisconsin had this rule on its side and plenty of evidence to support it as the correct decision for the moment in question.

But right now, Wisconsin doesn’t have an identity. Wisconsin doesn’t have the belief in its offensive line that it has had for years, the belief that they can get two-and-a-half yards at any time when they absolutely need it.

Part of the problem is certainly the personnel. The Badgers lost four NFL offensive linemen in the past two years and have a line that is clearly not as polished as UW would like. Still, this is a team that racked up over 550 yards on the ground just two weeks ago against Indiana. While Indiana is by no means Penn State, a team that can put up those numbers against a conference opponent has to have at least the belief that they can gain two measly yards on command.

After last year, you could say that the losses at Michigan State, Ohio State, and in Pasadena were the result of bad luck, of coming so close, anything. But after losing five games that hung in the balance (and add a lucky win against Utah State) in 2012, there is no other place to point the finger than at Bielema and his coaching staff.

I have tried to defend Bielema for most of the past two years. His numbers speak for themselves and are impressive even in the shadow of the almighty Barry Alvarez. But this year he and his staff have shown an impeccable ability to lose control of the game and to panic down the stretch that is simply unacceptable at a program with the pedigree of Wisconsin.

Teams win close games by sticking to what they do best and by doing it better than ever when it matters the most. Over the past two seasons, Wisconsin has lost its identity and become a shell of itself when victory hangs in the balance. A missed field goal early this season and a miracle catch in Indianapolis last December gave the Badgers a few close wins, but other than that they have come up empty.

From Paul Chryst lining up in the shotgun and throwing in the two-point conversion against TCU to the decision to settle for overtime in State College, the Wisconsin coaching staff has lost a sense of what it means to play Badger football in tight games. Sure it is up to players to make plays, but it is up to coaches to give those players a chance to make those plays. Right now, the UW staff is doing anything but. Unless they regain that identity and stick to it when the going gets tough, Wisconsin will continue to descend from its place atop the Big Ten ranks. 

Muhammed Case and Others Put Arbitrary Nature of NCAA Enforcement On Full Display

The fact that UCLA freshman guard Shabazz Muhammed was ruled ineligible by the NCAA prior to the Bruins’ season opener against Indiana State came as a surprise only to those within the Westwood bubble who were unwilling to acknowledge a set of facts that clearly pointed toward a violation. But while the ruling in Muhammed’s case seems to be correct, albeit poorly timed, other cases in which the NCAA handed down rulings this week weren’t based in nearly as much common sense.

For example, nine-game suspensions handed out to Indiana freshmen Peter Jurkin and Hanner Mosquera-Perea came as a result of their having done nothing more than play on an AAU team coached by a man who had given $185 to the school between 1986-1992, apparently enough for that coach, Mark Adams, to be deemed a “booster”.

Given that the way the letter of the law stands right now does indeed mean these suspensions were “by the book”. But if that is the case, then the book needs to be rewritten.

Because right now, the book that is NCAA rules on amateurism is simply too big and too onerous to effectively enforce.

Without the ability to enforce each and every regulation, the organization has forced itself into a situation in which enforcement is necessarily arbitrary. Sometimes the rulings handed down from headquarters in Indianapolis are “by the book”. Other times the ruling seems grounded more in the common sense of the case, even if that common sense isn’t exactly in line with the letter of the law. Consistent enforcement is simply impossible with the way the NCAA has its bylaws written at this point.

The solution? Simplify things.

I hate the idea that student-athletes should be paid by the schools for their participation in intercollegiate athletics. Not because they don’t deserve compensation, but instead because they are already compensated to the tune of up to $50,000 of free tuition, room, and board.

But what I do object to is the prohibition placed on these student-athletes by the NCAA when it comes to obtaining funds from elsewhere.

If a student-athlete gets offered the opportunity to appear in a commercial, they should be free to take it. Just as free as any other student would be.

Should the NCAA shed its unnecessary regulation of student-athletes’ outside employment, it would not only make enforcement easier and thus easier to streamline, but would also eliminate the need for schools to try a circumvention of the rules.

The objective of creating an even playing field in the recruiting process is a noble endeavor, but an endeavor the NCAA takes that is destined to fail and ultimately contradictory to the interests of the student-athletes it is designed to protect. After all, if there is no objection to a free market for academic, musical, research, or need-based scholarship money, then why is the same not acceptable when it comes to financing the education of student-athletes?

Too often I think this argument over athlete compensation is narrowly defined by its application to the “1%” of NCAA athletes that dominate our television sets. Beyond the glitz and glamor of big-time college football and men’s basketball are thousands more student-athletes who truly will “go pro in something other than sports”, even if that slogan is quite cliché.

Ultimately the endeavor to make recruiting happen on an even playing field works against the interests of that majority of student-athletes. It prevents them (in some cases) from accepting academic grants that supplement athletic scholarships when such funds would put their team above its scholarship allotment. It prevents them from taking on summer jobs that could be the result of a connection made through the athletic department, a summer job that could perhaps provide both a source of funds and an entre into their industry of choice.

After all, if the manager gave $185 to the school, he or she could be deemed a booster and then suddenly the summer job in a civil engineering firm turns into a secondary NCAA violation.

The onerous nature of NCAA regulations makes their enforcement both unfair and by nature arbitrary. It allows for a coach with a history of cheating like John Calipari to move up the chain without consequence while at the same time cracking down on an innocent rower who might take a job from an alumnus who gave $150 to the athletic department 25 years ago.

Ultimately the problem with the NCAA bylaws is not that student-athletes are prevented from getting special treatment that they deserve, but rather that those bylaws prevent many student-athletes from taking advantage of opportunities open to their classmates who are not burdened by the watchful eye of the compliance department.