No. 8 Wisconsin Badgers

Wisconsin is our projected winner in the Big Ten in part because the Badgers return more than 99% of their minutes from last year's Sweet 16 squad.

Author:
Luke Winn
Publish date:
Nov 2, 2016

This article originally appeared in the Nov. 7, 2016, issue of Sports Illustrated. Subscribe to the magazine here. Find the rest of our college basketball preview package here.

Ethan Happ’s redshirt freshman season at Wisconsin, in 2014–15, was a punishing apprenticeship. He was 6' 9", a few growth spurts removed from being a high school point guard, and his assignment on most days was to defend 7‑foot senior Frank Kaminsky, that season’s Wooden Award winner. “Frank did not take it easy on Ethan,” says coach Greg Gard, an assistant at the time—nor did Ethan take it easy on Frank, who was often annoyed by the freshman’s aggression. “For me, scout team was my game,” says Happ. “I played like I was in front of 40,000 people.”

When Happ did get in front of the public, as a starter in 2015–16, he emerged as a remarkably high-impact defender. He led the Big Ten in steal percentage (4.0)—a rare accomplishment for someone who guards post players—and was fourth in defensive-rebounding percentage (23.8) as Wisconsin finished 13th nationally in defensive efficiency. Now 6' 10", Happ is a big reason why SI projects the Badgers as the -nation’s top defense despite their lack of a true rim protector or perimeter lockdown artist.

Wisconsin should also benefit from continuity: Returning players accounted for 99% of the minutes on last season’s Sweet 16 team. Gard took over after Bo Ryan resigned in December, and the Badgers clicked by reverting to a swing offense and by executing their team-defense tenets of limiting fast breaks, three-point tries and driving lanes. “They started to grasp the whole picture instead of just worrying about their man,” Gard says. “Everybody talks about offensive synergy, but defensive synergy is just as important.”

Big Ten preview: Wisconsin's stable of returners makes it a favorite

X-factor: Senior forward Nigel Hayes

If Nigel Hayes rediscovers the three-point shot that deserted him between his sophomore season (39.6%) and his junior year (29.3%), he should earn All-America honors and reach his third Final Four.

Coach’s Take: Greg Gard

“The types of shots Nigel Hayes got last season, when he moved to small forward, completely changed from what he got as a power forward the previous two years. The thing that will help him is that there's more experience around him now.

“His teammates will be better at finding him in the right spots, and I think he'll be better at finding guys that are more advanced in terms of their instincts. . . . The better and more efficient we were offensively last season, the better our defense got because we took care of the ball more. Our turnover numbers went down. Our free throw rate went up in attempts per game. Our field goal percentage went up. Our field goal percentage defense went down, so some of it was correlated. Our improvement offensively helped our defense because we weren't giving up as many live ball turnovers. We were taking better shots. We were getting to the free throw line more. All those things help your transition defense. The more we can set our defense and have opponents have to play five versus five, obviously, it's anybody's strength is in numbers. We were able to do that a little bit more effectively, and a little bit more consistently, and that helped overall for us defensively.”

Projected Top Seven Scorers


Name	Class	Pos.	PPG	RPG	APG	ORtg	Volume	Mins
Nigel Hayes	Sr	SF	15.9	5.9	2.8	113.3	27%	85%
Bronson Koenig	Sr	PG	13.4	2.9	2.6	119.1	20%	84%
Ethan Happ	So	PF	12.5	7.1	1.2	108.8	25%	70%
Vitto Brown	Sr	PF	9.5	5.2	0.9	110.0	20%	63%
Zak Showalter	Sr	SG	7.6	3.3	2.0	117.9	15%	70%
Alex Illikainen	So	PF	3.4	2.7	0.6	108.8	15%	35%
Jordan Hill	Jr	PG	2.8	1.3	0.9	101.8	14%	32%

Projected Big Ten Standings


Conference Rank	Team	Proj. Conf. Record	’15-16 Conf. Record
1	Wisconsin	14–4	12–6
2	Purdue	12–6	12–6
3	Indiana	12–6	15–3
4	Michigan	10–8	10–8
5	Michigan State	10–8	13–5
6	Maryland	10–8	12–6
7	Ohio State	10–8	11–7
8	Northwestern	9–9	8–10
9	Illinois	8–10	5–13
10	Iowa	8–10	12–6
11	Penn State	7–11	7–11
12	Nebraska	7–11	6–12
13	Minnesota	6–12	2–16
14	Rutgers	3–15	1–17