This week, Republicans in the Senate finally passed their long-awaited tax reform plan. It lowers individual income tax rates across the board, although it does claw back some government revenue in the form of elimination of state and local tax deductions. It drops corporate tax rates as well. It is, in other words, a significant but not atypical Republican tax cut designed to boost economic growth by allowing Americans to keep more of their own money.
The tax cut will almost certainly increase the deficit, however. Even with dynamic scoring — the assumption that the economy will grow at a faster clip thanks to tax cuts — the tax cuts could lead to $1 trillion in lower revenue through 2027. This has led some conservatives to sour on tax reform altogether, rightly saying that Republicans were, until a few months ago, complaining incessantly about former President Obama’s blowout deficits and the burgeoning national debt, which now stands at a cool $20.5 trillion. That doesn’t include long-term unfunded liabilities, which are slated to bring the debt to some $70 to 75 trillion in coming decades.
So, which is more important: cutting deficits or cutting taxes?
The answer, in the long run, is obvious: cutting deficits. Deficits impoverish future generations; they undermine the credibility of our financial commitments; they prevent us from fulfilling promises we have already made to our own citizens. There are already millions of Americans who will never receive Social Security in the amount they have been promised; there are already millions of Americans unborn who will spend their lives paying off the commitments made by others for political gain.
At the same time, were we to raise taxes to pay off our debts, we would enervate our population and inure citizens to high taxes. Citizens of European states are used to insanely high tax rates; the impetus for spending cuts based on desire for lower taxes disappears after years of habituation to those tax rates and unsustainable government benefits. Europeans are used to the very social programs that continue to bankrupt them despite high tax rates; they’re not clamoring to cut programs based on their distaste for those tax rates.
This puts American politicians in somewhat of a Catch-22. If they stump for spending cuts, they’re cast as uncaring and cruel; if they stump for tax increases to pay for those spending cuts, they’re cast as uncaring and cruel. Thus, the deficit continues to grow.
So, what should Republicans do about it? They ought to cut taxes, and then they ought to acknowledge that cuts are necessary to keep taxes low. Let Americans get used to keeping their own money. Let them understand that services aren’t free. Then, be honest about the costs associated with big government programs.
In the end, both Democrats and Republicans will have to face a simple truth: It’s either government cuts or bust. There’s no reason for Republicans to give away their only leverage — the taste of the public for a dynamic economy based on individuals retaining their earnings — in order to shore up programs Democrats will only work to expand.
If you had to live in Minnesota, next year would be interesting, because you would vote for two senators, the term of U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minnesota) ends after 2018, and then you’d be voting for the governor-chosen successor or someone else to finish Franken’s term.
I loathe Franken, so I’m glad he’s (reportedly) gone. It’s hardly surprising he’s as much of a pig in private as he was a jerk in public. Before the Senate he was an unfunny writer and actor on NBC-TV’s “Saturday Night Live.” This is the same state that voted in a professional wrestler as governor, though. Perhaps political idiocy is why both sides of my father’s side of the family left Minnesota for Wisconsin.
James Wigderson reports on the latest Democrat caught in #metoo:
State Rep. Josh Zepnick (D-Milwaukee) was accused Friday of kissing women against their will in two separate incidents at Democratic Party events. Democratic Party leaders are calling on Zepnick to step down but he has said he will not resign.
According to the Cap Times, the first incident occurred at a 2011 Recall Election party for a state senate candidate. By then, apparently, Zepnick already had a reputation. The Cap Times reported the story of the legislative staffer:
“We were in a huge room with a ton of supporters and people were drinking,” she said. “I remember I was on the left side of the room and he walked over to say hello, but this time he also grabbed my shoulders and he kissed me. Up until that point, his interactions with me had been entirely professional.”
She said she doesn’t remember whether his lips landed on her mouth or her cheek. She does remember feeling disgust and trying to “get away from him as soon as possible.” She recalls he was “pretty drunk,” so drunk that she’s not sure he would remember his behavior. She said she thinks other people witnessed it, but isn’t sure who, specifically, would have seen it.
The incident was not reported at the time because, the alleged victim told the Cap Times, she did not know if she could report it since it happened after business hours at a social function. However, others corroborated her story, according to the Cap Times, by saying that she refused to be near him after the incident.
The second incident, according to the Cap Times, occurred at the state Democratic Party’s 2015 convention held at the Potawatomi Hotel and Casino in Milwaukee. The Cap Times reported that the incident occurred after a heated exchange between then-state Rep. Mandela Barnes (D-Milwaukee) and Zepnick in Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s hospitality suite. The Cap Times does not report what the disagreement was about, just that the two men had to be separated.
Barnes is currently a Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor. It is unknown whether the loss of temper by Barnes was an isolated incident or not, or what incited the former legislator that he had to be watched by Democratic staffers, as the Cap Times reported, while he calmed down.
Zepnick was taken to the lobby by a Democratic staff member to try to get him to an exit when the incident allegedly occurred, according to the Cap Times.
“We’re in the hotel lobby and he’s just, kind of like drunk people just retell the same story over and over, he keeps telling me he’s not going to drive drunk,” the woman said. “But we’re standing in the lobby and he gives me a hug and then he kisses me, and I just turn my head and I’m like, ‘What the f—?’ And he’s so gross, and I’m upset.
Everyone was upset — or at least annoyed — that night, said a friend of the woman’s who had been working with others to try to defuse the altercation. But when the DPW staffer rejoined her co-workers after dealing with Zepnick, he said, she was crying.
He remembers the way she described it — like Zepnick had licked her face as a result of her turning her head to dodge the kiss. He remembers being shocked, and then angry. His anger resurfaced, still fresh as he described the night.
Two other then-co-workers, both of whom still work in Wisconsin politics, confirmed that she was visibly upset when she returned to the room where they were gathered, and that she told them Zepnick had “gotten weird” and kissed her.
“I was in tears, thinking, ‘What the f—, I hate my job, I hate that I have to deal with these f—ing people who just — who does that? You can’t kiss me,’” she said.
Zepnick was arrested in October 2015 for drunk driving. Prior to his arrest, Zepnick was demonstrating erratic behavior that prompted former Milwaukee talk show host Charlie Sykes to ask Zepnick if the state representative was drinking when he posted a boycott threat against a local business that opposed the Milwaukee streetcar.
Zepnick told the Cap Times that, as a recovering alcoholic, he has been sober for two years. Zepnick claims that he does not remember the incidents, was never confronted with the incidents until Friday, but apologized to the two women for the alleged incidents.
The apology is not good enough for Democratic leadership who called on Zepnick to resign. Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz (D-Oshkosh) issued a statement on Twitter:
Hintz’s statement that those who “have been made to feel uncomfortable or unsafe will always have our full support” given that he once threatened a female colleague during the Act 10 debate on the Assembly floor by saying, “you’re f–k–g dead!” Hintz’s record on respect for women is questionable considering he was once arrested for solicitation of prostitution at a massage parlor. The incidents involving Hintz occured in roughly the same time frame as those involving Zepnick.
Democratic Party Chairman Martha Laning has also called for Zepnick’s resignation. “In light of these serious and corroborated charges against Rep. Zepnick, and high standards to which we hold our public officials, we ask that Rep. Zepnick immediately step down,” Laning said in a statement. Laning has not issued any statements regarding Hintz.
State Rep. Dana Wachs (D-La Crosse), a Democratic candidate for governor, also called on Zepnick to step down. “These staffers should be safe and comfortable with the knowledge that they will not be harassed or assaulted,” Wachs said in a statement. As a Democratic member of the Assembly, Wachs was part of the unanimous vote to elect Hintz as minority leader, despite Hintz threatening a female colleague.
Assembly Democrats have not said that they will seek to remove Zepnick from office. In 2010, Assembly Democrats blocked Republican efforts to remove then-state Rep. Jeff Woods (I-Plover) after his fifth arrest for driving under the influence. Woods was a former Republican legislator who caucused with the Democrats at the time of the third, fourth and fifth arrests.
Democrats have also not said if they will be returning campaign contributions from Zepnick in light of the alleged sexual harassment incidents. Since 2008, Zepnick has made nearly $10,000 in contributions to various political campaigns and campaign committees. The contributions include $986 to the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee, $435 to Rep. Steve Doyle (D-Onalaska), $202 to state Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee), $200 to state Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), $150 to state Rep. JoCasta Zamarripa (D-Milwaukee), $50 to state Rep. Jonathan Brostoff (D-Milwaukee), and $85 to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
Zepnick also gave $100 to Jefferson County District Attorney Susan Happ, a former Democratic candidate for state Attorney General and a possible Democratic candidate for governor in 2018.
Why, one wonders, is Democratic leadership trying to get Zepnick to quit and not Hintz? Does Zepnick not sing from the Dem0cratic hymnal sufficiently? That would be like excusing the behavior of U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D–Minnesota), wouldn’t it?
Today in 1968, the Nelson Riddle Orchestra backed The Doors for the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour on CBS:
The number one single today in 1969:
On that day, a free festival in Altamont, Calif., featured the Rolling Stones, Jefferson Airplane, Santana, the Flying Burrito Brothers and Crosby Stills Nash & Young.
When the allegations about Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes came out, the mainstream media had a field day. But there was no larger feeding frenzy. Last year it was a “Fox News” story, not a “societal problem” story. It took the Harvey Weinstein allegations to get the mainstream press to start asking uncomfortable questions about its own institutions. I can think of several reasons for this, but one that stands out is the tribalism of media itself.
The Fox stories confirmed, to one extent or another, what a lot of mainstream liberals think about Fox or about conservatives generally: They’re retrograde.They’re bad. That’s the kind of thing that goes on over there.
It’s related to what some reporters I know at Fox call the “Fox News effect” (not to be confused with some blather from David Brock using the same term). If Fox goes hard at an important story, a lot of other outlets will reflexively go soft on it. I’m sure the folks at the Media Research Center can produce the total minutes Fox dedicated to Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Lois Lerner’s IRS, the VA, etc., compared with the other cable news networks or the broadcast newscasts. This isn’t to say that Fox doesn’t occasionally over-cover or under-cover some stories too. There’s no scientific formula for how much airtime or resources any particular story should get, and from the outset Fox has prided itself on not reflexively following the lead of the New York Times on every news event.
But it just seems obvious to me — and many other people in and out of Fox World — that there’s a kind of seesaw dynamic. If Fox puts a lot of weight on a story, other outlets go the opposite direction. That’s why so many conservative pundits played the “If this was Bush” game during the Obama presidency.
But back to the sexual-harassment thing. One of my longstanding gripes is how when conservatives do something bad, it’s proof of the inherent badness of conservatives and conservatism. But when liberals do something bad, it is immediately turned into an indictment of America itself. Joe McCarthy’s excesses were a window into the nature of conservatism, according to historians, intellectuals, and journalists. But when liberals — Attorney General Palmer, Woodrow Wilson, et al. — did far worse, the villain was America itself. When conservatives are racist, it is because they are conservatives. When liberals are racist it is because racism is an “American sin.” In other words, liberalism is never wrong. I could go on at length about this.
Similarly, the sexual-harassment story is now being covered — largely correctly by my lights — as an American story, not a story about liberals. Again, that’s fine. But three points come to mind.
First, is it crazy to think that there’s a problem specific to liberalism at work here? I mean this all started with Harvey Weinstein, and he first thought he could survive the scandal by promising to go after the NRA. Where did he get that idea? Maybe because he had good reason to think it would work?
Perhaps there are a lot of liberal men who think they can buy indulgences by toeing the party line on equal pay and Title IX, and emptying their bladders over things like Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women.” To be fair, in recent weeks, quite a few liberals have been coming to grips with the fact that Bill Clinton survived the exposure of his predations precisely because he bought such indulgences. It’s worth remembering that he even admitted that sexual misbehavior should take a backseat to winning when he chastised Donna Shalala, his HHS secretary, for criticizing his behavior — at a cabinet meeting set up to let Clinton apologize for his behavior:
The participants said Shalala rejected what she took as Clinton’s implication that policies and programs were more important than whether he provided moral leadership.
“And then she said something like, ‘I can’t believe that is what you’re telling us, that is what you believe, that you don’t have an obligation to provide moral leadership,’” one participant recalled.
“She said something like ‘I don’t care about the lying, but I’m appalled at the behavior.’ And frankly, he [Clinton] whacked her, let her have it,” this source said. The president told Shalala that if her logic had prevailed in 1960, Richard M. Nixon would have been elected president instead of John F. Kennedy, the source said. After that, no other Cabinet member had anything critical to say, the participant added.
The second point is the reverse. The stories of sexual harassment at Fox were entirely newsworthy and legitimate on the merits. But not because Fox is “right wing.” Yet it seems fairly obvious to me that the press enjoyed the Ailes and O’Reilly stories precisely because they involved toppling someone else’s icons. Where there was barely constrained glee in the voices of many pundits and reporters when it came to exposing the sins of Ailes and O’Reilly, there’s equally obvious remorse when it comes to Matt Lauer, Mark Halperin, NPR’s David Sweeney, and, obviously, Bill Clinton. It speaks well of the media that it’s reporting these things anyway. But it would be a good thing for the press to meditate on what that remorse (and glee) says about its own tribalism.
Last, it’s simply worth pointing out that many conservatives have now embraced the Clinton position. Substitute John F. Kennedy for Donald Trump and you have precisely the argument that Clinton made to Donna Shalala, only now many conservatives are making it. Likewise, with Roy Moore. Winning is more important than literally anything Roy Moore has said or has allegedly done. It seems that, just like sexual harassment, no party has a monopoly on cynical expediency. The problem lies not in ideology but in human nature.
The number one album today in 1960 was Elvis Presley’s “G.I. Blues” …
… which is probably unrelated to what Beatles Paul McCartney and Pete Best did in West Germany that day: They were arrested for pinning a condom to a brick wall and igniting it. Their sentence was deportation.
The number one single today in 1964 (really):
The number one single today in 1965 wasn’t a single:
The number one British single today in 1981:
The number one British single today in 2004 …
… was a remake of the original:
The number one British album today in 2004 was U2’s “How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb”:
So who shares a birthday with our youngest son? “Little Richard” Penniman:
Eduardo Delgado of ? and the Mysterians:
Jim Messina of Buffalo Springfield and Loggins and Messina:
Jack Russell of Great White …
… was born the same day as Les Nemes of Haircut 100:
Two deaths of note today: Doug Hopkins, cofounder of the Gin Blossoms, in 1993 …
Congressional campaigns two years after a new president is elected tend to be tough on the party holding the White House. This history, when combined with Donald Trump’s unpopularity, should provide motivation enough for Republicans in the House and Senate to push tax reform over the goal line. But the legislative details also matter, because Americans have a particular problem and the GOP needs to solve it.
In 1982, during President Ronald Reagan’s second year in office, Republicans lost 26 seats in the House. In 1994, Bill Clinton watched his Democratic colleagues lose 52 House seats. In 2010, during year two of Barack Obama’s tenure, the Democrats lost 63 seats.
Among recent presidents the only one who didn’t watch his party lose seats in the first off-year election after he moved into the White House was George W. Bush. Republicans actually added to their House majority by picking up eight seats in 2002, but perhaps this one should come with an asterisk. A little more than a year after the 9/11 attacks, congressional candidates faced an electorate that had rallied behind the wartime President.
To maintain their current House majority Republicans can afford to lose no more than 23 seats in next year’s contests, including the March special election to fill the seat of former Rep. Tim Murphy (R., Pa.).
The history is daunting and the current occupant of the White House presents unique challenges. A conservative political operative who conducted extensive private polling in Virginia right after this month’s gubernatorial election sought to understand the stunningly large Democratic turnout. The source says that sending a message to President Trump was the top reason cited by Democratic voters who normally don’t vote as the reason they showed up this year. This research found that just two days after the election roughly a third of these occasional Democratic voters could not even name their winning candidate, Governor-elect Ralph Northam.
Mr. Trump is not popular in Virginia, nor in many other parts of the country. But voters tend to give him higher marks on the economy. Voters who are consumers and investors have clearly been expressing optimism about his program and business executives are enthusiastic enough that they have been building more new factories and buying more new equipment.
But surveys still show a high level of anxiety about our economic future and worries about the lack of opportunity for younger generations of our citizens. If Republicans can reduce this anxiety, they have a chance to buck history. And they can only solve it by allowing more growth in the private economy, not by creating new government benefits routed through the tax code.
The United States just spent a decade testing the proposition that the government can solve our economic challenges by expanding the social safety net. But record enrollments in government health, disability and food-stamp programs did not make us happy. It’s time to give liberty and opportunity a try.
Main street businesses are the true victims of the strains of the current tax code. At the moment, nearly 95 percent of small businesses are taxed as “pass-through entities,” which means a business’s income is taxed at the owners’ top marginal individual rate. On the federal level, that rate reaches almost 40 percent, and once state and local taxes are added in, small businesses can be forced to relinquish almost half of their income to the government – far above the international norm.
Proposed tax legislation would fix this uncompetitive status quo. The tax proposals from both the House and the Senate contain promising provisions for our nation’s leading job creators, and are a step towards creating an equal playing field for small businesses across the county.
In the version the House of Representatives just passed, a separate small business tax structure is created. For starters, a new top marginal rate is established at 25 percent, which is nearly 15 percentage points lower than the old rate. Earnings below this rate are taxed at an expanded 12 percent bracket. (The 15 and 28 percent brackets are eliminated completely.) Perhaps most excitingly, the bill also creates a new nine percent rate on the first $75,000 of taxable income for businesses that make less than $150,000.
The current version of the bill the in the Senate does not create a separate small business rate. Instead, it creates a 20 percent deduction for all small businesses earning less than $500,000 a year, and for non-professional services businesses above that threshold. According to the Tax Foundation, 97 percent of small business pass-throughs earn $500,000 or less, meaning nearly every small business in the country will earn this substantial and long-overdue relief.
Small businesses have waited over 30 years for Congress to fix the current tax code. But the plan would help far more than just them.
In a score by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, they estimate the Senate bill will create 925,000 jobs and increase average after-tax income by over $2,500 for middle-income families. The same study finds Wisconsin would see the creation of almost 19,000 jobs and an income increase of over $2,600, which is higher than the national average.
Most small business owners would use a tax cut to expand their business, create jobs, and increase employee wages, helping local economies and their residents across the state and country.
Small businesses are currently facing one of the most stressful times of the year: Holiday shopping. The excitement of the Christmas season is coupled with the anxiety of finishing the year strong, jumpstarting growth for 2018.
Passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would be an incredible early Christmas present for Wisconsin’s main street businesses. Congress should make good on their promise and pass it now.
Imagine being a fly on the wall at Sun Studios in Memphis today in 1956, and listening to the Million Dollar Jam Session with Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash and Carl Perkins.
The number one single today in 1965:
The number one British album today in 1971 was Led Zeppelin’s ” “, alternatively known as “Four Symbols” or “IV” …
(I am curious about what year this was recorded. The fanfare sounds like one we played in 1984–85, which would mean I’m playing in this. We recorded an album — remember those? — at the Stock Pavilion that year.)
(If I was starting a new high school this would be my choice of fight song. It was written by John Philip Sousa. How many
Wisconsin plays Ohio State in the Big Ten football championship in Indianapolis Saturday night. The Badgers have played in more Big Ten championship games than any other team. Ponder that for a moment.
The storyline for this game, I predict, will be big Bucky against Ohio State’s superior speed and athleticism. But is that accurate? Adam Rittenberg suggests otherwise:
If the favored Buckeyes win, the script goes, it’ll be because they have more speed and more explosive players who were once much higher-rated recruits than the Badgers. Similar things were written after Wisconsin fell to Penn State in last year’s Big Ten title game.
But there’s a twist with this Wisconsin team. The Badgers are fast and furious. Their top-ranked defense has enough speed, especially at linebacker, to track down anyone, including the Buckeyes. Wisconsin’s offense also can make explosive plays, and not just Jonathan Taylor, who, fairly or unfairly, gets grouped with previous Badger backs who were celebrated more for their power than their speed. A young group of receivers recently emerged to stretch defenses and provide chunk plays to help a run-heavy offense.
Wisconsin has had speedy players before, but the collective trait stands out. Even Lou Holtz noticed when he stopped by a preseason practice, telling UW athletic director and former coach Barry Alvarez that the Badgers “can run with anybody.”
“You want to be as fast as you can,” coach Paul Chryst said, “and we’ve got some guys who can run.”
As the Badgers enter the final leg of the playoff race, they know they can keep up.
“When you think of Wisconsin, you think of tough running backs, power, things like that,” wide receiver Kendric Pryor said. “But we’re trying to change that. We’re trying to show people we’re fast on the outside, too.”
Pryor, a redshirt freshman, forms an exciting young troika with sophomore A.J. Taylor and freshman Danny Davis. The three have accounted for seven of Wisconsin’s past eight pass plays stretching 20 yards or longer. Pryor also has touchdown runs of 32 yards against Michigan and 25 against Iowa. This big-play prowess has helped since top receiver Quintez Cephus suffered a season-ending leg injury in a Nov. 4 win against Indiana. At the time of his injury, Cephus had accounted for seven receptions of 20 yards or longer, the most on the team.
After Wisconsin’s Nov. 18 win over Michigan, Davis talked about his desire to “win with speed.” His first career catch went for 35 yards against Florida Atlantic on Sept. 9. His second went for 50 yards the next week at BYU. Although tight end Troy Fumagalli leads the team in receptions, Davis, Taylor and Pryor each average better than 14 yards per catch.
“I know they’re going to do everything they can to fight for the ball and make sure we get it,” quarterback Alex Hornibrook said, “and then after the catch, they do some things that are pretty special, too.”
Wisconsin’s defense is doing special things, too, ranking first or second nationally in points allowed, yards allowed, rush yards allowed and pass yards allowed. The Badgers have allowed 10 or fewer points in half their games and just five touchdowns in their past seven contests. Although Wisconsin has been a top defense the past three seasons, speed is taking this year’s group to the next level.
Need proof? Look at the linebackers, especially T.J. Edwards, who is tied for the team lead with four interceptions, and Ryan Connelly, Wisconsin’s top tackler. The two have combined for 21 tackles for loss. Defensive coordinator Jim Leonhard also loves the athleticism he has with linebackers Garret Dooley, Andrew Van Ginkel and Leon Jacobs, who has hopscotched positions throughout his career but once tracked down Melvin Gordon on a long run in practice. Jacobs is thriving this season as a starting outside linebacker, recording 8.5 tackles for loss, 3.5 sacks and two forced fumbles.
“All those guys can run,” Leonhard said. “They can chase plays down. It’s not just a power game. Get us out of the box, and you’ve got us right where you want us. We don’t feel that way with that group.”
No player reflects the new Wisconsin and the program’s developmental roots more than Connelly, a 228-pound outside linebacker. He played quarterback in high school and received no FBS interest, so he walked on at Wisconsin. After showing bursts last season, in which he started eight games, Connelly has become a blur of speed and aggression this fall, always around the ball.
“That guy is bouncing around the field 100 miles an hour,” Edwards said.
Connelly perfectly complements Edwards, a Butkus Award finalist who is bigger (244 pounds) and admittedly a bit slower but who also uses his speed to reach the action.
“He’s not afraid to throw his body around,” Leonhard said of Connelly. “He plays at a high rate of speed, so when he hits something, there’s usually pretty good contact. He trusts his athleticism, and he just plays fast.”
Badgers players and coaches are aware of how they’re viewed, how they’re included in the still popular belief that the Big Ten’s best can’t run with the best from other leagues. Fullback Austin Ramesh, who had a 41-yard gain on a jet sweep at Minnesota — yes, Wisconsin runs its fullbacks on jet sweeps — said Wisconsin “might not win the combine competition” against most of its opponents but added, “We’re not a slow team.”
Leonhard recently detailed how Wisconsin’s defense matches up athletically at all three levels, highlighting players such as end Alec James, free safety Natrell Jamerson, cornerback Derrick Tindal and linebackers Jacobs, Van Ginkel and Connelly. He then paused and added, “I don’t know if this conversation can really apply to the Big Ten. It doesn’t really fit the narrative of the big, slow Big Ten anymore.”
Leonhard played in a different Big Ten when he starred for Wisconsin at safety from 2002 to 2004. Only Purdue and Northwestern ran spread offenses then, so power mattered more than speed, and Wisconsin had plenty of it. Four Badgers defensive linemen were drafted in 2005.
“It’s more of a space game [now],” Leonhard said. “Everyone is trying to find athletic players at all positions, and we obviously put a premium on the physicality and how we want to play up front, but you need athletes who can run around the field and make plays.”
Connelly thinks speed can cover mistakes. Although the Badgers are strong tacklers and seemingly always in the right position, their pursuit en masse can stop the running back or receiver who breaks free.
“That’s what’s going to win you games,” Connelly said.
Wisconsin has won every game this season, recording the first 12-0 start in team history. But to get rid of the annoying labels once and for all — really, really good but not quite elite; solid and smart but athletically limited — the Badgers need to beat Ohio State and secure a College Football Playoff spot.
From time to time, Leonhard will show players video of top college and NFL defenses, the best statistically and athletically. He’ll tell the group, “This is what the best is doing. Can we do that? Is that how we play?”
On Saturday in Indianapolis, Wisconsin hopes to deliver the answer.
Readers might recall the 2003 Fiesta Bowl between Miami of Florida and Ohio State. The former had National Football League-level athletes. But OSU won 31–24 in double overtime because the Buckeyes’ defense made one last stop. That could be analogous to Saturday’s game, except that this year’s Buckeyes have the role of the 2002 Hurricanes and this year’s Badgers are the 2002–03 Buckeyes.
The Badgers are unbeaten largely because of their defense, with improvements stemming from the second-half disaster in last year’s Big Ten championship game, as Jesse Temple reports:
The opponent and circumstances surrounding the game are different. But the lessons the Badgers took from that second half still apply.
“It’s definitely a learning experience to know that even if we get in a situation where we’re down, we’re not completely out of the game,” [inside linebacker Ryan] Connelly said. “Also, if we get up big to know they’re not out of the game. Really, anything can happen. It just goes to show you’ve got to play every down like it’s your last down.”
Wisconsin’s defense has carried that approach into this season, and the results have been nothing short of spectacular.
Wisconsin ranks No. 1 in total defense (236.9 yards per game), No. 1 in rushing defense (80.5), No. 2 in pass defense (156.4) and No. 2 in scoring defense (12 points). Wisconsin has allowed 15 touchdowns this season, the fewest of any FBS team. But the defense has been responsible for only 12 of those touchdowns.
Badgers defensive coordinator Jim Leonhard said a big reason for that success stemmed from the number of returning players from last season, which has created confidence at all levels of the field. Two of the most important talking points Leonhard uses each week are to stop the run and not allow explosive plays in the passing game, and the Badgers have adhered to that strategy well.
Wisconsin is the only team in the nation to not surrender a run of 30 yards or longer this season. The longest run against the Badgers was a 28-yarder by Nebraska tailback Devine Ozigbo on Oct. 7. Wisconsin’s defense also has allowed just 32 plays of at least 20 yards. Among Power 5 conference teams, only Washington has given up fewer explosive plays with 31.
“For the most part, we’ve won our 1-on-1 battles this year,” Badgers inside linebacker T.J. Edwards said. “Guys are challenging players on every play. I think that’s just guys playing with confidence. Confident in the game plan and confident in each other that if something does go wrong, there will be a guy right next to you to have your back. I think it’s very easy to let it loose and play free when you know someone is going to be there to help.”
Tindal said he has been impressed at what he’s seen from the defensive line, linebackers and defensive backs.
“Every time I watch film, I’m amazed at what I see,” Tindal said. “Like, dang, all these guys really are down there working. I appreciate that from my standpoint and it makes me feel like, man, they’re down there working, I’ve got to handle my job, make sure their job is easier.
“We work in tandem. I’m just proud of everybody. What we’ve been able to accomplish, all the doubters, all the naysayers, ‘Oh, y’all losing this, y’all losing that.’ They say it every year, man. But Wisconsin always finds a way.”
Wisconsin’s defense was so good this season that 12 different players earned some form of all-Big Ten honors — even more impressive considering only 11 players can be on the field at one time.
But before members of the defense begin patting themselves on the back, they are aware that their most difficult challenges are still to come. That starts Saturday against an Ohio State team that ranks fourth in the FBS in total offense (529.8 yards per game) and fifth in scoring (43.8 points).
“There’s some weeks we know that we weren’t exactly challenged and we know there’s better opponents out there waiting for us,” Connelly said. “To know that we will face better opponents keeps us hungry not to completely accept the fact that we’re so amazing or anything.”
Wisconsin has spent the week studying Ohio State game film, which has provided another lesson on the importance of finishing games. Last season, Wisconsin led Ohio State 16-6 at halftime and clung to a 16-13 lead after three quarters. But Ohio State forced overtime and escaped with a 30-23 victory at Camp Randall Stadium. The previous matchup between the two teams resulted in Ohio State drubbing Wisconsin 59-0 in the 2014 Big Ten title game.
Given that a playoff berth is at stake, what happened in the Big Ten title game last season, and the team Wisconsin is playing, there will be no shortage of motivation for the Badgers defense to excel.
“I’m expecting them to come out and think they’re just going to beat us because they go to Ohio State,” Tindal said. “They just say they’re better than us. … They expect that they’re going to dominate us. We can’t let that happen.”
The faults of quarterback Alex Hornibrook aside (and there were hardly any faults in the Badgers’ Paul Bunyan Axe-winning game over Minnesota last week), Saturday’s game will be either won or lost by Wisconsin’s defense. Defense and running the ball are not just the staples of the Barry Alvarez era; they go back farther than that to when a seven-win season was a good season at Camp Randall.
The UW Athletic Department produces an online magazine, “Varsity,” which included interesting thoughts from athletic director Barry Alvarez that started with former men’s basketball coach Bo Ryan:
Every successful player or coach has done it their own way. That’s why I thought it was interesting to hear the different stories Sunday at the Hall of Fame basketball event in Kansas City.
Bo Ryan’s story is a reminder that there’s not one magical formula to winning, regardless of the level of competition or the sport.
Bo had certain things that he believed in — core principles that he taught and coached — and it was sound at every level: Platteville, Milwaukee and at our place.
Watching his teams play, you could see that his coaching was based on the fundamentals and he never got away from that. It’s pretty much how we run our football program.
Don’t try to create something you can’t do. Be true to who you are. Play to your strengths.
After Bo retired, Greg Gard has emphasized the same things. He took over a team that wasn’t playing very well and he turned them into a good team.
He never lost the kids. You saw them get better. That’s good coaching.
I can still remember going in and talking to Greg after a couple of tough losses that year. I told him, “You’re getting better. You’re getting closer. Trust yourself.” And you saw what happened.
Greg and Paul Chryst have taken comparable approaches. Unlike many coaches today, they truly care about the players. It’s not about their next job and it’s not about breaking the bank.
It’s about coaching and caring about those kids.
We never say goodbye …
… because Saturday isn’t UW’s last game. It may not even be the Badgers’ next-to-last game. Ponder that, because …
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 