No. 13 Wisconsin will face a significant test on Saturday as the Badgers host No. 11 Michigan in an early-season Big Ten matchup that should tell us a lot about two teams with something to prove in 2019. Though for the Badgers, things are slightly different entering this game.

Wisconsin has been one of the Big Ten's powerhouses in recent decades. Barry Alvarez took over a Badgers program in 1990 that was mostly irrelevant; it hadn't had a winning season since 1984 or finished ranked in the AP Top 25 since a No. 2 placement in 1962. Not coincidentally, that also happened to be the last time Wisconsin advanced to the Rose Bowl. It took Alvarez four seasons to get them back to Pasadena, California, in 1993. Alvarez went on to take the Badgers to the Rose Bowl twice more (1998-99) before stepping down following the 2005 season. He was replaced by Bret Bielema, who led the Badgers to three straight Rose Bowls (2010-12), but didn't stick around to coach the third. That's when Bielema shocked the world by leaving one of the Big Ten's premier programs for Arkansas.

Wisconsin hasn't returned to the Rose Bowl or won the Big Ten since. It has won three division titles under Gary Andersen (2014) and Paul Chryst (2016-17), but that's the perceived problem. Wisconsin has gone from being a program capable of winning the Big Ten to a program that's seen simply as the dominant force in the Big Ten West, not on the same tier as the more traditional powers in the other division.

It's a perception based on reality. Since Bielema left for Arkansas, the Badgers have continued to dominate their division. Wisconsin has gone a remarkable 30-5 since 2013 against the six other schools currently calling the Big Ten West home. Even last year, amid an 8-5 season, Wisconsin managed to go 4-2 against its division. The problem is that, in the same period, the Badgers have gone a combined 1-9 against Ohio State (0-4), Penn State (0-3) and Saturday's opponent, Michigan (1-2).

A win on Saturday could send a message, not that the Badgers are necessarily favorites to win the Big Ten -- Michigan has struggled to beat those teams itself, after all -- but that it is more than simply the best team in that other division.

Wisconsin is 2-0 and has outscored its opponents 110-0. South Florida and Central Michigan have only managed to enter the red zone once against this defense, and that resulted in a missed field goal by the Bulls. Even that possession came late in the fourth quarter of a game that was already 49-0 with Wisconsin's starting defense chilling on the bench. That was the first time USF had even managed to enter Wisconsin territory in that game. CMU managed to do so twice. Once when its drive started at the Wisconsin 41-yard line (the Chippewas went three-and-out, not gaining a yard) and in its final possession of the game when it reached the Wisconsin 40-yard line before a delay of game moved it back 5 yards. Like the USF missed FG drive, CMU's foray into Wisconsin territory came with Wisconsin's reserves seeing time in a 61-0 game.

The Badgers defense has looked dominant through 120 minutes, and that's a great sign. If you look at last year's Wisconsin team, offensively there was a bit of a drop-off, but the biggest problem the team had was on the defensive side of the ball. The 2017 Wisconsin defense was one of the most disruptive units in the country. I like to track a stat I call chaos rate (it's the same as havoc rate, but with blocked kicks and punts included) that shows the disruptiveness of a defense. Wisconsin's chaos rate took a major dip in 2018.

SeasonChaos rate

2017

.237

2018

.167

2019

.219

As you can see, while it's not back to 2017 levels, the Wisconsin defense has improved quite a bit again in 2019. On Saturday, it will go against the most talented offense it's faced this year, but nevertheless an offense that's had struggles of its own. After turning the ball over 12 times total in 2018, Michigan has five turnovers in its first two games of 2019. That's something Wisconsin will look to take advantage of if it wants to avenge the 38-13 beatdown the Wolverines put on it in Ann Arbor, Michigan, last season. Wisconsin entered that game with a record of 4-1 but strumbled afterward, finishing 4-3 in its final seven games.

Another area where we might see improvement is at the quarterback position. In last year's 25-point loss to Michigan, Wisconsin's Alex Hornibrook had a nightmare performance. He finished the day completing 7-of-20 passes for 100 yards with a touchdown and two interceptions. Stud running back Jonathan Taylor managed to rush for 100 yards and nearly 6x yards per carry against one of the best run defenses in the country that day, but it was all for naught due to Hornibrook's struggles.

Jack Coan should be able to provide more success. While Wisconsin never asks too much from its quarterbacks, early indications are Coan can get the job done more thoroughly. Through two games, Coan has completed 76 percent of his passes with five touchdowns and no interceptions. If we look deeper, though, we see he's been a bit better than those numbers suggest. Sports Info Solutions provides data on how many air yards (yards past the line of scrimmage a pass goes) and on-target rate (exactly what it sounds like) that gives us a better idea of Coan's accuracy. Here is how Coan's 2019 season compares to Hornibrook's in both 2017 and 2018.

QBAir Yards per att.Comp%On-Target%TD%

2017 Hornibrook

5.16

62.3

74.8

7.9

2018 Hornibrook

5.01

59.5

75.6

6.3

2019 Coan

4.78

76.3

86.4

8.5

Coan is throwing shorter passes and is more accurate because of it. Still, this proves to be a bit misleading. Let's look at how Coan compares to Hornibrook on passes of 5 Air Yards or more.

QBAir Yards per att.Comp%On-Target%TD%

2017 Hornibrook

7.22

59.9

72.7

10.1

2018 Hornibrook

6.31

53.9

72.7

6.5

2019 Coan

7.89

72.2

86.1

8.3

These trends continue the further we look down the field. Coan has an on-target rate of 76.5 percent on throws of at least 10 Air Yards, while Hornibrook checked in at 68.7 percent last season and 67.9 percent in 2017. Now, these numbers come with a couple of enormous caveats. Coan's sample size is quite small, and he hasn't faced the stiffest of competition.

Still, the numbers suggest that Coan provides more of a threat downfield than Hornibrook. Against a defense as stout as that of Michigan, the ability to make it work vertically will give Jonathan Taylor a lot more room to work in the run game. It will also make Wisconsin's play-action more dangerous if Coan can strike deep with accuracy.

Of course, reasons to believe Wisconsin is more capable of beating Michigan this season don't mean anything unless it goes out and does it. But if the Badgers do pick up a win on Saturday, odds are their defense and Coan's ability to test the opposing defense will play a significant role in it happening.