Was out of town, and wasn't able to attend game or watch it live.
When hearing the score, my first thought was that Wisconsin must have played reasonably well - considering how bad they were last year, and how unimpressive their roster is this year. And they had shown some signs of "fight" vs ND.
But that was very much NOT the case on Saturday.
After watching that game last night - Wisconsin was awful. Worst they have looked this year - by far. Led by QB play that was utterly atrocious (maybe the worst QB play by either the home or visiting team at Beaver Stadium in several years). And they STILL won?
Losing to a team that is simply not very good - on a night when their QB was flat-out horrendous (and he was HORRENDOUS) - is hard to do. But PSU did it.
Ouch!
Where to begin w PSU?
Obviously, this was a whole new program, and reasonable hope is that as the 2026 season wore along you could start to check off areas of the team where you felt comfortable that they were "good" or at least "solid".
After 4 weeks? What position groups could you reasonably feel good about?
1) CB/Nickle - can probably check off that box as "will be good or at least reliable week-to-week". That is primarily a group of guys returning from PSU's 2025 squad. They played well again on Saturday.
2) Field Goal kicker. Look s pretty much the same as last year, when he was very, very reliable.
Other than that? Nothing. Truly. What area can you check off as "we are good there"?
Both lines have been poor (even against bad teams). The interior on both sides - especially the C/LG of offense, DTs on defense - have not looked to be P4 level at this point. Shouldn't surprise anyone, given the roster composition. A couple "old" guys who were not standouts on teams with bed rosters, and a couple guys who couldn't even crack the surface of pressing for playing time. There has been no miraculous transformation here. You are only as strong as your weakest link on either line - and a lot more weak links than strengths thus far.
LB? One guy who can play (#13, who is probably playing better than he ever has) and then nothing but filler.
WR? Howard was a nice spark early - and it will help to get him back, but the rest are what they were coming in - lower level P4 guys, which isn't horrible, but not game changing by any degree.
And TE has not been what some hoped it would be. Reasonable folks knew #18 was a Mike Gesicki type (but not at the level of Gesicki as a receiver) who blocked even worse than Gesicki. He is a weapon as a receiver, for sure, but may not be "worth it" when you look at the all-around game. #87 has played well,
This TE group may be the next unit that becomes "OK, we are good there". But right now, when you are playing 2 or 3 of them per down, and only one is a consistent performer in both the run and pass game, that is not good enough.
S is a concern - really bad vs Temple, of all teams, and "meh" in other games (#4 has been, surprisingly to me, the best of that bunch). People should have known the best ISU DB was not the guys PSU got (that guy went to USC). But #31 has been far less than what was hyped (his play at ISU never matched the hype he arrived at PSU with, FWIW).
RB? What one would expect: Anyone should have known Hansen was a "poor man's Zack Zwinak" (he had played a TON at ISU - much like Becht - so you knew what you had) - which ain't bad, but nothing special. And so far it is clear why #1 was buried quickly at OSU. There is potential, in time, in the RB room (#1, and #25 perhaps) - but not top end potential, at least not shown so far.
QB is of course, a problem - if anyone expects this squad to be good.
It was funny listening to all the overflowing chatter about "the most experienced QB in college football" - when, abundantly, what everyone should have known is that #3 is maybe the most experienced and greatest example ever of a truly, consistently, "mid" QB. Which is NOT some horrible slander - 1/2 the guys in college football are LESS than "mid". "Mid" is a guy you can win with - if the rest of the team is strong. 'Mid" is not a guy who can elevate a team and regularly win games against good teams. He was really bad on Saturday (but he was NOT alone). He will have better games ahead - but he is not going to elevate the team.
Coaching?
A lot of folks have a lot to like about Campbell as "the man" - and I wouldn't argue against that. he does seem to be a very quality "guy". And that is an important element.
The staff as a whole? "Meh", at best.
Lynn was the one staff member who came in with a lot of hype. That was never warranted. UCLA saw a significant uptick - up from "horrendous" - when he arrived. But he has never led an actual good defense. Some blame that on lack of talent at his prior stops - which may be at least partially true. But he did have some talent at USC, and they never played defense for him either (as they still don't under the new guy)
None of the others are at all impressive in their resume - and haven't shown anything at PSU to date. The best of what Campbell had at ISU didn't follow him here. So time will tell.
Said at the beginning of season:
PSU is unlikely to beat a ranked team this year (ranked at end of year, of course) - and it is entirely possible they will not even PLAY a ranked team this year (which is becoming more possible each week - as we see how mediocre - at best - Washington is, and both USC and Michigan look extraordinarily ordinary.
While the Big Ten as a whole looks tremendously thin of high quality teams (and PSU does not play ANY of the currently 5 highest ranked Big Ten teams - that is kind of amazing)
Despite all of the challenges of the roster and the personnel turnover, this was (is?) a season that should contain tremendous possibility for PSU (even a "mid" P4 team should be a playoff team given PSU's schedule).
But games like Saturday? Forgettaboutit.
It will take SIGNIFICANT upgrade in play to even be a 500 team in the conference. Fortunately, the bar was set brutally, awfully low in the conference opener vs Wisconsin. So nowhere to go but up.
When hearing the score, my first thought was that Wisconsin must have played reasonably well - considering how bad they were last year, and how unimpressive their roster is this year. And they had shown some signs of "fight" vs ND.
But that was very much NOT the case on Saturday.
After watching that game last night - Wisconsin was awful. Worst they have looked this year - by far. Led by QB play that was utterly atrocious (maybe the worst QB play by either the home or visiting team at Beaver Stadium in several years). And they STILL won?
Losing to a team that is simply not very good - on a night when their QB was flat-out horrendous (and he was HORRENDOUS) - is hard to do. But PSU did it.
Ouch!
Where to begin w PSU?
Obviously, this was a whole new program, and reasonable hope is that as the 2026 season wore along you could start to check off areas of the team where you felt comfortable that they were "good" or at least "solid".
After 4 weeks? What position groups could you reasonably feel good about?
1) CB/Nickle - can probably check off that box as "will be good or at least reliable week-to-week". That is primarily a group of guys returning from PSU's 2025 squad. They played well again on Saturday.
2) Field Goal kicker. Look s pretty much the same as last year, when he was very, very reliable.
Other than that? Nothing. Truly. What area can you check off as "we are good there"?
Both lines have been poor (even against bad teams). The interior on both sides - especially the C/LG of offense, DTs on defense - have not looked to be P4 level at this point. Shouldn't surprise anyone, given the roster composition. A couple "old" guys who were not standouts on teams with bed rosters, and a couple guys who couldn't even crack the surface of pressing for playing time. There has been no miraculous transformation here. You are only as strong as your weakest link on either line - and a lot more weak links than strengths thus far.
LB? One guy who can play (#13, who is probably playing better than he ever has) and then nothing but filler.
WR? Howard was a nice spark early - and it will help to get him back, but the rest are what they were coming in - lower level P4 guys, which isn't horrible, but not game changing by any degree.
And TE has not been what some hoped it would be. Reasonable folks knew #18 was a Mike Gesicki type (but not at the level of Gesicki as a receiver) who blocked even worse than Gesicki. He is a weapon as a receiver, for sure, but may not be "worth it" when you look at the all-around game. #87 has played well,
This TE group may be the next unit that becomes "OK, we are good there". But right now, when you are playing 2 or 3 of them per down, and only one is a consistent performer in both the run and pass game, that is not good enough.
S is a concern - really bad vs Temple, of all teams, and "meh" in other games (#4 has been, surprisingly to me, the best of that bunch). People should have known the best ISU DB was not the guys PSU got (that guy went to USC). But #31 has been far less than what was hyped (his play at ISU never matched the hype he arrived at PSU with, FWIW).
RB? What one would expect: Anyone should have known Hansen was a "poor man's Zack Zwinak" (he had played a TON at ISU - much like Becht - so you knew what you had) - which ain't bad, but nothing special. And so far it is clear why #1 was buried quickly at OSU. There is potential, in time, in the RB room (#1, and #25 perhaps) - but not top end potential, at least not shown so far.
QB is of course, a problem - if anyone expects this squad to be good.
It was funny listening to all the overflowing chatter about "the most experienced QB in college football" - when, abundantly, what everyone should have known is that #3 is maybe the most experienced and greatest example ever of a truly, consistently, "mid" QB. Which is NOT some horrible slander - 1/2 the guys in college football are LESS than "mid". "Mid" is a guy you can win with - if the rest of the team is strong. 'Mid" is not a guy who can elevate a team and regularly win games against good teams. He was really bad on Saturday (but he was NOT alone). He will have better games ahead - but he is not going to elevate the team.
Coaching?
A lot of folks have a lot to like about Campbell as "the man" - and I wouldn't argue against that. he does seem to be a very quality "guy". And that is an important element.
The staff as a whole? "Meh", at best.
Lynn was the one staff member who came in with a lot of hype. That was never warranted. UCLA saw a significant uptick - up from "horrendous" - when he arrived. But he has never led an actual good defense. Some blame that on lack of talent at his prior stops - which may be at least partially true. But he did have some talent at USC, and they never played defense for him either (as they still don't under the new guy)
None of the others are at all impressive in their resume - and haven't shown anything at PSU to date. The best of what Campbell had at ISU didn't follow him here. So time will tell.
Said at the beginning of season:
PSU is unlikely to beat a ranked team this year (ranked at end of year, of course) - and it is entirely possible they will not even PLAY a ranked team this year (which is becoming more possible each week - as we see how mediocre - at best - Washington is, and both USC and Michigan look extraordinarily ordinary.
While the Big Ten as a whole looks tremendously thin of high quality teams (and PSU does not play ANY of the currently 5 highest ranked Big Ten teams - that is kind of amazing)
Despite all of the challenges of the roster and the personnel turnover, this was (is?) a season that should contain tremendous possibility for PSU (even a "mid" P4 team should be a playoff team given PSU's schedule).
But games like Saturday? Forgettaboutit.
It will take SIGNIFICANT upgrade in play to even be a 500 team in the conference. Fortunately, the bar was set brutally, awfully low in the conference opener vs Wisconsin. So nowhere to go but up.
