SEVERE WEATHER DASHBOARD: https://hdranalytics.com/severe-weather/

Friday, April 17th - 4:36 PM

Storms are well underway in Southern Wisconsin, but the two current squall lines are splitting right around Madison. There are Severe Thunderstorm Warnings in effect for certain parts of Dane County.

Friday, April 17th - 1:04 PM

Welcome to our Alert Day coverage of today’s severe weather event. Dane County is under a Tornado Watch, with unusually high risks of tornadoes, huge hail, and damaging winds in the coming hours. We’ll bring any major updates to you here.

Live coverage has concluded for this severe weather event, as the sole Severe Thunderstorm Warning for our area expired hours ago.

Thursday, April 2nd - 4:58 PM

The National Weather Service has indeed declared a Tornado Watch (as we predicted last night) for Dane County through 8 PM tonight. The latest Storm Prediction Center models maintain a 10% hatched risk for tornadoes, an upgraded 30% hatched risk for damaging straight-line winds, and a 15% chance of hail. Storms in Iowa have already prompted tornado warnings and an observed tornado or two, and that line of cells should make its way here within around two hours.

Before I get into the details on tomorrow’s severe weather event, let me start by saying that no, this one is NOT an April Fool’s prank. I’m also writing this while watching the Artemis II launch to the moon, and there is perfect weather at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, so I have to get in the right mindset here…

What to expect

The National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center has upgraded our threat level to an enhanced risk, a level three out of five. Let’s get into what that means.

Tornadoes - far more likely than typical storms

We are under a 10% hatched risk for tornadoes of the lowest intensity level, but that is still nothing to scoff at. A deep surface low is going to lift toward La Crosse, and the entire setup is uniquely favorable for strong, long-track, fast-moving tornadoes, mainly between 4-9 PM along the I-39 corridor, including Madison/Dane County. I think a tornado watch is fairly likely.

Damaging winds - very likely

We are also under a 30% damaging wind risk, which is pretty much as high as we ever get here, but it is not a hatched (additional intensity) risk, so that’s good.

Hail - possible, but not the main concern

Finally, we have a 15% (not hatched) risk of hail, mainly under two inches in diameter, so not a huge concern. This will most likely be attached to any tornadoes that do spin up or in very isolated storm cells, and hail impacts won’t be widespread.

What to follow tomorrow

Definitely make sure you have weather alerts set up on your phone if possible, and keep an eye on the radar (I recommend WeatherWise) for more details on storm timing. I will probably post a few live updates here as things develop, as we are declaring a (new) Severe Weather Alert Day for tomorrow.

*Certain data points may have changed since this article was written.

As recently as late last week, I have had to repeatedly answer one question regarding the snowday forecast: why is it still up? Each time I answered, I just said “we live in Wisconsin”. And just like that, mother nature decided to create the perfect storm this weekend. Some of you may remember that we actually had a snowday/closure two years ago in April, which was either the only or one of the only two closures that school year. Like I said, it’s Wisconsin. We truly are not in the clear from snow until May. And, this volatile, back-and-forth pattern of 60s to blizzards and back around again is only going to get worse and worse due to the effects of climate change. Just this week, we had elevated risks of severe storms, hail, and tornadoes, and now, we are dealing with a snowstorm. So, I thought it’d be a good idea to talk about this storm in particular, while using it to answer some broader questions about the model itself.

A “flaw” in the model that’s key to understanding why the odds keep changing

It’s important to note that although it’s called a forecast, the snowday model is really more of a “nowcast”, which is a predictive model for an event happening now, or in the immediate future. Of course, we are days away from this storm, and with weather forecasts in particular, things can and do change dramatically. Forecasting general trends or conditions, like temperatures, is far easier than a more exact metric like snowfall. That challenge is uniquely difficult with this system due to the current climate, because certain areas will be either just below or just above freezing, meaning it’s hard to tell exactly how much snow will stick on the ground. The NWS graphic below demonstrates how the shape of this storm is also so crucial.

Essentially, depending on which narrow band Madison falls under, we could receive 3-7 inches, or closer to 15 inches, and if the storm shifts dramatically south, which is unlikely but possible, we could get 20+. But, what’s the flaw in the model that this affects? As a nowcast, the snowday model has no factor and places no weight on time until the school day. It does account for time in a different way, where it grows less confident in a closure as hours pass by the night before. But it isn’t “aware” that we are predicting Monday vs. next Friday, for example. Our other models, like our election forecasts, have a time mechanism, where they both rely more on polling vs. fundamentals and grow more confident overall the closer we get to Election Day, but this does not. Basically, think of a 99.9% chance today as a 80% chance overall, whereas a 99.9% chance Sunday night is far stronger. These aren’t exact conversions, but you get the point: the swings you may see today and tomorrow will in theory get smaller and smaller the closer we get to Monday, because the NWS data will become more consistent, something our forecast is not inherently aware of.

How much snow are we actually going to get?

The short answer is that it’s still too early to tell. The better answer is that different models are saying different things. The GFS model, which has been consistent for the last few days, places us at a whopping 26 inches of snow by 7 AM Monday. The NWS hourly forecast, which is what our model uses, has us getting 15.1 inches total, up from 8 this morning, but down from 19 or so yesterday. Meanwhile, the NWS “probabilistic snowfall experiment” model has us getting anywhere from 2 to 9 inches. All in all, we simply don’t know yet.

What’s driving the model’s high chance of a closure?

The biggest threats that are contributing to a abnormally high chance of an MMSD closure are ice accumulation, snow depth, and wind gust speeds. MMSD typically has a threshold of 0.1 inches of ice, but the wind conditions and snow could lead to a Blizzard Watch/Warning that could prompt a day off as well.

When will MMSD call Monday off, if they do?

I think if we are still seeing double digit snow forecasts and ice accumulation, we will hear by noon-ish Sunday. If things calm down, it may be late Sunday night or very early Monday morning, but my bet is on Sunday.

More to come

I will be updating the forecast as best I can tomorrow, but admittedly it may be less frequent than normal as I have a forensics tournament. Keep an eye on things and our odds heading into Sunday, and let’s hope for another long weekend!

About the forecast

• Created by Henry Riley

• A full write-up of our election forecast methodology is coming soon

• This forecast uses a weighted blend of polling data and fundamentals (think past elections, consumer confidence, state partisanship, fundraising, etc.) to forecast the vote shares of each candidate, and then simulates the races with calculated uncertainty to output odds

• We are not running forecasts for the following elections (also held tomorrow), but they are equally important: California’s Prop. 50 vote, the NYC mayoral race, and the three Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention elections

• We also will not have our own live coverage of election night, but encourage you to follow the results at Decision Desk HQ, will share other resources tomorrow.

• The forecast will freeze at 5:00 PM Central time, an hour before VA polls close.

🔃 November 4th, 5:00 PM: It’s Election Day! Our odds and forecasts below have been frozen as we approach the polls closing in Virginia at 6 PM CDT.

New Jersey - Sherrill is favored to win.

Forecast odds

Odds of an upset

A Ciattarelli win is about as likely as a goal in an NHL shootout. That may not seem likely, but it happens.

Forecasted vote shares

Virginia - Spanberger is favored to win.

Forecast odds

Odds of an upset

An Earle-Sears win is about as likely as flipping a coin and getting tails twice. That may not seem likely, but it happens.

Forecasted vote shares

Forecast map

Only states with gubernatorial races this year are shown.

State forecasts

About the forecasts

• 🔃 November 2nd, 10:00 PM: Our ratings have been frozen for this year as both Middleton and Verona lost in level two of the playoffs.

• Created by Henry Riley

• Game probabilities for the current week of the season will be publicly available for free, but probabilities for future weeks will remain paywalled. Rankings will always be free.

• Playoff games are treated as normal games in the model, so the further a team goes in the playoffs, the higher their rating can go. (The conventional wisdom here is that the further you make it in the bracket, the better you are anyways)

Madison Memorial Playoff Eligibility Tracker

Memorial (3-5) did not make the playoffs. To earn a spot in the WIAA D1 Playoffs, they needed…

1. To beat Madison La Follette (2-6, 54% chance of VPM win) - 49-7 ✅

2. Ashwaubenon (3-5) to win @ Green Bay Preble (4-4) - 24-14 ✅

3. Marshfield (4-4) to win vs. Stevens Point (5-3) - 32-30 ✅

4. Menominee (3-5) to win vs. Chippewa Falls (4-4) - 6-36 ❌

Forecasts for the entire season of conference games are available below for paid subscribers.

Read more

Thank you for taking the time to read this piece. It is the accumulation of several months of emails to district leaders and school board members, analysis of local news coverage, and personal concerns over how MMSD makes decisions and how, in my personal opinion, they made the wrong one here. This article was also published in the Memorial Sword & Shield today, where it can be found here.

I apologize for the lack of content lately, as my summer was incredibly busy with work and college visits/applications. I hope to post the Big Eight football ratings (although late) soon, and write more with my lighter schedule this year once applications are done. Again, thank you for reading, this topic is an important one for me, and I hope you learn something even if you disagree with my view.

This spring, MMSD launched an ‘extensive’ review of GPA calculation to decide whether to switch from unweighted to weighted grades.

In an unweighted system, all classes count the same. A student taking two APs and one honors class who earns Bs in APs and As elsewhere has a 3.71 GPA. A common strategy for weighting caps regular classes at 4.0, honors 4.5, AP/college-level 5.0, meaning that that same student would have a 3.71 unweighted GPA, but a 4.0 weighted GPA. This is because an A in an AP is a 5.0, a B is a 4.0, and a B in an honors course would be a 3.5, and so on.

I have two main issues to talk about. First, the decision was wrong, and second, MMSD’s “review” lacked honesty. The second matters more - even if I may disagree with the outcome, that would be easier to accept if there was a genuine review where public input was considered, but they did not.

The Decision Itself

The district chose not to adjust GPAs, a choice many students and families view as unfair. But I need to explain how this whole conversation started. In 2024, Wisconsin Act 95 was enacted, with the goal of boosting in-state admissions to the UW-Madison, UW-Eau Claire, and UW-La Crosse. It is not the same as the new Direct Admit system, which is much more broad, and has lower standards for automatic admission to all of the smaller Universities of Wisconsin schools. Act 95 created the Wisconsin Guarantee, wherein the top 5% and top 10% of each high school class from around the state gain automatic admission to Madison (5%), and La Crosse & Eau Claire (10%). The legislation has drawn criticism as critical implementation details were overlooked, but MMSD exacerbated that by failing to respond.

Defenders argue advanced students will ‘get in anyway,’ but inequity remains fundamentally wrong. What happens in an unweighted GPA system with Act 95 is that a student who takes zero honors or AP courses in their entire high school career and gets all As will have a 4.0 GPA, putting them in the top 5% and earning automatic admission. But a student who takes twelve APs (sometimes more) and gets a single B will not get that same recognition. Even students outside a weighted top 5–10%, likely myself included, notice the inequity. The point is that it should not be possible for students to simply coast, whether intentionally or not, through four years of high school and gain admission without any review process to a prestigious state university, while someone who goes above and beyond in rigor and gets one “imperfect” semester grade does not. Throughout all of the correspondence I have had with the district, and their public-facing statements, they have simply refused to acknowledge that fact.

Concerns remain that weighted GPAs may push students into unsuitable courses or reduce arts participation. Those both certainly could be true, and I won’t pretend otherwise. However, Act 95 allows for the school districts to determine a class ranking based solely on GPA, and there is nothing stopping MMSD from simply creating that ranking based on a weighted system, even if that is hidden on transcripts, and still using the unweighted system for everything else. The only thing that would be impacted is the Guarantee, as MMSD themselves concede, as UW and every other school weight grades themselves, and have their own systems for doing so.

A Lack of Transparency & Honesty

When it was first announced that this review was taking place, the district said it was working with college representatives to learn how they use weighted grades in admissions. We were told district leaders would make a recommendation by this summer. At the time, MMSD Spokesperson Ian Folger said that “those recommendations could include maintaining current practice”. Everything suggests that the outcome was predetermined.

On August 22nd, the district’s Executive Director of College, Career & Community Readiness, Mary Jankovich, signed an email sent out to families saying that the final decision was to stick with unweighted GPAs, without any specific details on what led to the decision. The district simply listed the following factors that “the review process included”:

• Analyzing the 2025 Weighted Grades Survey, which included feedback from students in grades 8-12, families, and staff.

• Reviewing policies and practices from over 50 surrounding districts.

• Exploring models that assessed the impact of various weighted GPA systems using current student data.

• Examining college admissions practices, especially of highly attended colleges, to understand how they evaluate student transcripts.

• Consulting with the MMSD Advanced Learning Department and representatives from each of our high schools to gather diverse perspectives and expertise.

The day before, Jankovich and Dr. Carlettra Stanford, Assistant Superintendent of Schools & Learning, sent a memo to the Madison Board of Education. The memo listed the same five basic points, with a clear recommendation nonetheless: “No Change to Current Policy”. The memo also said that “this decision aligns with MMSD’s commitment to promoting a culture of continuous learning, rather than a sole focus on point accumulation,...supports our existing core values of a well-rounded education and ensuring equitable access to challenging learning experiences for all students. Current district data indicate disproportionate access to college-level advanced courses, and implementing a weighted GPA could potentially exacerbate this issue, running counter to our non-negotiable equity principles.”

Board members left out of the loop

BOE members Nicki Vander Meulen and Martha Siravo told the State Journal shortly after the decision that the district had not been keeping them in the loop, “questions went unanswered for months”, and the first response was the memo sent one day before the decision, while the review process had been in progress for months. I sent an email to the district’s main contact address on August 22nd, and never received a response back through that channel. On August 29th, I contacted the school board, and was fortunate enough to hear back from Siravo, who has kept in touch since then, while the administration has not responded with any substance. She agreed that the “report” in the original explanation was insufficient, and some board members have been calling for a more public discussion for months to no avail. She wrote that “the memo is completely unhelpful, doesn’t give any specific data, and doesn’t lean into any existing data”. Siravo shared that she was still attempting to follow up with Cindy Green, the Assistant Superintendent of Teaching & Learning, from an email she sent months ago. I also reached out to Claire Li, the MMSD student representative on the board, on September 19th, but have not received a response.

Survey results suppressed

I’d like to briefly touch on each of the five points that MMSD referenced in their decision, starting with the 2025 Weighted Grades Survey. The original statement simply claimed that the district “analyzed” responses, but no survey results were shared. Generally, you’d think they’d want to share them if the results supported their decision. In my first message to the district, I inquired about whether topline, anonymous results could be shared, but got no response. I only got a half-answer from Dr. TJ McCray, the Deputy Superintendent, after Martha Siravo forwarded my message to Superintendent Gothard’s office. Dr. McCray said “we cannot share the specific topline response percentages publicly”. That was not true, as the State Journal published the results following a public records request. Unsurprisingly, the survey found that “70% of families and students polled say they want weighted grading”, so the first “reason” already contradicted the decision.

MMSD’s communication office responded to the release of the survey with three new supposed reasons for sticking with unweighted:

1. “Weighted GPAs would assign a higher value for some courses... prioritizing benefits to students in those courses.

2. “[We] are focused on improving proportionate student representation in advanced coursework, and weighted GPAs may work counter to that.

3. “Our… resources would be best directed to… advising students to pursue coursework aligned with their post-secondary goals and strengthening… systems of support.”

Let’s set aside the fact that the first “reason” is just defining how weighted GPAs work, which I’m glad the district understands. The second was also mentioned in the memo to the board, but without evidence explaining how weighted GPAs would harm representation. In a worst case scenario, proportionate or diverse representation in advanced coursework may not improve. In a best case scenario, it would improve because of weighted GPAs. If students are recognized for taking harder coursework, they are more likely to. There is no clear negative impact on participation, but there’d be a positive one. The third point simply doesn’t make sense. Weighting GPAs doesn’t require “efforts” beyond changing how Infinite Campus calculates GPAs. The district presents a false narrative of a “tradeoff” between advising and supporting students and switching to weighted with no evidence. Unless school counselors and support staff would be calculating GPAs by hand, this is another one-sentence “reason” with no explanation because there isn’t one.

A majority of districts DO have weighted GPAs

The district also cited a review of “policies and practices from over 50 surrounding districts”, but once again refused to provide specifics, and Dr. McCray gave me a misleading response. He wrote that “very few districts, with the exception of Middleton Cross Plains, have adopted weighted GPA systems in response to Act 95. Many districts, like MMSD, have chosen to keep unweighted GPAs to preserve a consistent and equitable approach across all schools.” McCray’s claim that few districts have adopted weighted systems recently may be true, but district officials later told Channel 3’s Arman Rahman that of 56 surrounding districts, a majority, 29, did weight grades, vs 26 that did not.

That article was released alongside a TV interview of Langston Evans, MMSD’s director of college and career readiness. Evans revealed that that the survey “had a small response rate” and “those who did respond were more in favor of moving to a weighted GPA system”, and he claimed that “[students] would be better prepared [by] selecting courses based on their interests,... abilities, and… rigor that they wanted, which is a better story and… trajectory for admissions advisors and counselors.” That statement doesn’t make sense as weighted GPAs don’t force any particular course selections.

Data requests ignored

The district claims it explored “models that assessed the impact of various weighted GPA systems using current student data”. Again, it did not provide any details in the original decision, and Dr. McCray said that “the analysis revealed that a shift to a weighted GPA system could introduce new disparities or complexities that unintentionally disadvantage some students, contradicting our commitment to providing equitable academic opportunities”. This is equally as vague as the other “explanations”, and dismisses the fact that, weighted or unweighted, there will be students who are disadvantaged with the Guarantee. In the status quo, students who take harder coursework are, because there is zero wiggle-room or recognition. Personally, I’d rather give the students who had a more rigorous high school career the advantage. There are indeed disparities, and the composition of advanced courses is not representative of the MMSD population, which I believe we should correct. But this doesn’t solve the problem, nor does weighting GPAs make it worse. Rather, this is an attempt by the district to conceal it instead of putting any attention into the root causes of the disparities, which often start with earlier childhood education, or attempting to promote advanced courses, rather than just offer them. The district has not provided any plan to address these disparities long-term.

I submitted a formal public records request for these models on September 11th. MMSD indicated that the request was received on the 12th. As of writing, they have not responded within the Wisconsin DOJ’s 10-working-day guideline, and have repeatedly stated that “due to the number of public records requests received, we are experiencing a delay in our responses”.

With the fourth point, the district said they examined “college admissions practices, especially of highly attended colleges, to understand how they evaluate student transcripts”. Colleges have their own individual systems for weighting grades or evaluating rigor, but MMSD ignores that no such process exists in the Wisconsin Guarantee. The only way that can be fixed is if MMSD makes that process themselves.

As far as the final point about consulting with various employees, the only real way of measuring support from staff is the survey, where it was about 50-50. There are no statements on how weighted would have negative effects on various student populations, or explanations from staff who had input.

Where We Go From Here

This issue won’t fade, nor should it. MMSD hopes to repeat its playbook from the Honors sunsetting debate - talk without action. But survey results, peer-district comparisons, and fairness under Act 95 all indicate that weighted GPAs are better aligned with MMSD’s own values.

MMSD has failed to meet the own transparency standards it claims to uphold. The school board should demand a public, data-driven review before reaffirming current policy. Until MMSD provides evidence or real explaining for its choice, “transparency” remains a phrase used to conceal its absence.

About the ratings

1. 🔃 June 28th, 8:12 PM: Our ratings are no longer updating, as all Big Eight teams are out of the playoffs.

2. After careful consideration, we’ve decided not to post game forecasts/odds for the following reasons: 1) The baseball schedule is wildly inconsistent and much harder to manually keep track of than football or hockey (thanks rain), and 2) for whatever reason, the WIAA fails to keep their site updated in a timely and accurate with game results, making it much more time-consuming just to update the ratings, much less forecasts. This is obviously half of what makes the model interesting, but the ratings are still somewhat helpful on their own, and except for rare cases where the home field advantage is enough to compensate, the team with the higher rating is favored to win.

3. Playoff games are treated as normal games in the model, so the further a team goes in the playoffs, the higher their rating can go. (The conventional wisdom here is that the further you make it in the bracket, the better you are anyways)

2024-25 Big Eight Baseball Ratings

About the ratings

1. 🔃 June 13th, 5:53 PM: Our ratings are no longer updating, as all Big Eight teams are out of the playoffs.

2. After careful consideration, we’ve decided not to post game forecasts/odds for the following reasons: 1) The softball schedule is wildly inconsistent and much harder to manually keep track of than football or hockey (thanks rain), and 2) for whatever reason, the WIAA fails to keep their site updated in a timely and accurate with game results, making it much more time-consuming just to update the ratings, much less forecasts. This is obviously half of what makes the model interesting, but the ratings are still somewhat helpful on their own, and except for rare cases where the home field advantage is enough to compensate, the team with the higher rating is favored to win.

3. Playoff games are treated as normal games in the model, so the further a team goes in the playoffs, the higher their rating can go. (The conventional wisdom here is that the further you make it in the bracket, the better you are anyways)

2024-25 Big Eight Softball Ratings

We’re in for another potential round of intense severe weather tomorrow! Although the convective outlook is less extreme than it was for the late-April event, the enhanced risk area is centered directly over Wisconsin. The main threats tomorrow are large hail and damaging winds, but tornadoes are possible too.

Hail

Hail is tied with damaging winds for the highest odds, with a 30% chance of any given area around Madison receiving hail. Madison is again under the hatched area, meaning there is a “10% or greater probability of two-inch diameter hail or larger within 25 miles of a point”.

To reiterate, two-inch hail is roughly the size of a golf ball or a tennis ball, so significant damage to roofs, vehicles, and other structures is possible.

Expect strong winds

Madison faces a 30% chance of damaging thunderstorm winds or gusts of 50 knots (about 57 mph) or higher. There is no hatched area, though, so it's not extremely concerning.

We can’t rule out tornadoes

Madison is right on the border of the 5-10% outlook for tornadoes, and is near (but not in) the hatched area, meaning there is not just a 10% chance of tornadoes, but a 10% or greater chance of EF2-EF5 tornadoes. Again though, Madison is not under that risk area, just near it.

Last time was a fluke, though… right?

Yes and no… there were several tornado-warned cells, including a touchdown near Eau Claire, but the lines of storms simply missed our area, and they indeed were not as bad as anticipated. I’d say we can rule out anything worse than that cycle, but we shall see whether it gets that bad.

Again, we’ll have an updated NWS model tomorrow morning on our Severe Weather Dashboard (linked below) as soon as possible. I’ll know later in the day if we’ll need to go live, so stay tuned.

Although most weather-related posts that you’ll find on HDR Analytics may be about snow, I simply can’t not write about what the Madison-area, and the western half of Wisconsin as a whole will potentially experience tomorrow. For several days now, the National Weather Service and its Storm Prediction Center have been more confident about severe weather in our area than I’ve ever seen before. The categorical outlook has had a 30% chance of severe weather just shy of Madison multiple days out. That is uncommon for Madison, sure, as we usually see odds like that in the South or near Tornado Alley, but it’s also just uncommon in general. To put it bluntly: a day three (as in Saturday’s forecast for Monday) moderate risk has only happened 21 other times since the day three outlook was first introduced in the early 2000s. Translation: This is going to be hugely impactful, and will likely hit us hard.

Hail, hail, and more hail

As for the specific threats we should be watching for, hail has the highest odds here, with a 30% chance of any given area around Madison receiving hail. The latest update from the SPC is even worse for hail, as Madison is now within what we call the hatched area, meaning there is a “10% or greater probability of two inch diameter hail or larger within 25 miles of a point”.

For context, two-inch hail is roughly between a golf ball and a tennis ball… If we do get hail near this size, expect significant damage to roofs, vehicles, and other structures. If you’re able, park your car inside tomorrow evening. If not, have Jake from State Farm on speed dial.

And tornadoes too!

However, while hail is the most likely threat, it’s probably not the one you think of when you think “oh no, severe weather!”. Don’t worry, there’s a large tornado risk too. Madison sits right on the border of the 10-15% outlook for tornadoes. We are also in the hatched area on the tornado forecast, meaning there is not just a 10% chance of tornadoes, but a 10% or greater chance of EF2-EF5 tornadoes.

Above is the NWS scale for tornado speeds for each EF rating. Personally, I’d say anything over 80 mph is bad… but given there is even a remote possibility of an EF4 or EF5, it is absolutely crucial that you stay on alert tomorrow night when the worst of the storms move in. I plan to run a live broadcast and will post info on that tomorrow, as I pay for a premium radar service and can provide a bit of insight as things evolve. (Of course, if there are tornado warnings here, I have to move three floors down and won’t be able to do much other than post on the Instagram).

And some non-tornadic winds too

The final threat we face is straight-line winds from storms themselves. We are clearly in the 15% range for damaging thunderstorm winds or gusts of 50 knots (about 57 mph) or higher. I’m not overly concerned about damaging winds, and there is no hatched area here, so I’d say wind itself is the least of our worries.

Will anything actually happen?!

I. don’t. know. I can’t promise much more than the fact that we will get strong storms. I can tell you, based on both the data and how often these forecasts are right, that we will almost certainly see a Severe Thunderstorm Warning, very likely see a Tornado Watch, and some areas in and around Madison will get hail. What I don’t know is just how bad that hail will be, whether or not any of those tornado watches become warnings, etc. etc. But the odds are very good (or bad, I suppose) that we do see destructive hail or a few tornadoes, so please stay inside if possible and have a shelter-in-place plan, and stay updated on the latest developments. Although I have a never-ending list of complaints about local TV news, severe weather coverage is an area they continue to excel in, so if you don’t tune in here, do so there.

We should get a new NWS model in tomorrow morning, and I’ll post that on our Severe Weather Dashboard (linked below) as soon as possible. I’ll announce more details on the livestream tomorrow morning, so check back here then. It’s going to be a potentially wild ride tomorrow. Stay safe.

If there’s one singular event that never fails to determine the future of the National Football League, it’s the draft. Each season, around 250 young men’s lives are changed when their names are called by one of 32 teams. The draft, previously exclusively located in New York City, has recently changed locations on a yearly basis. This year, I was fortunate enough to attend the draft in Green Bay. Typically, after a draft, writers draft (get it) articles highlighting which teams they believe had the most and least successful draft classes, and this article will mirror that structure. While it’s premature to rank draft classes before draftees have played a single down of professional football, these rankings are an amazing way to get to know the classes, and see which teams most likely put themselves in a position to succeed in the following season and beyond. So, without further ado, here are my top five and bottom five draft classes from the 2025 NFL draft. 

Biggest Winners:

#1 - Cleveland Browns

Entering the draft, it felt obvious as to what the Browns would do. With the second overall pick. After all, it made perfect sense to draft Wide Receiver and Defensive Back phenom Travis Hunter, right? In the second round, Cleveland could easily get a quarterback, potentially even Shedeur Sanders if he somehow managed to fall beyond the first round. Beyond that, they could still solidify other positions of need with their later selections. And yet, the Browns… did none of those things correctly. Their draft class is one that perfectly encapsulates just how unpredictable the NFL draft is, and while the textbook draft seemed like it would be successful, the absolutely insane draft that we saw in reality took it to a whole new level. Cleveland began the first night of the draft by trading away the second overall selection that would become Travis Hunter, in exchange for the Jacksonville Jaguars’ first round pick in both this year's and next year’s drafts, as well as the 35th overall selection this year. They then selected a fantastic defender in DT Mason Graham as their first round selection. The Browns then had two early selections on the second day of the draft, in underrated linebacker Carson Schwesinger and Ohio State running back Quinshon Judkins, both filling huge positions of need. They selected a solid tight end in Harold Fantin before concluding day two by selecting a quarterback above Shedeur Sanders, taking Oregon’s Dillon Gabriel. The Browns rounded out their draft with two day two selections. They further bolstered their running back room with Dylan Sampson out of Tennessee. And then, against all odds, they selected projected first round quarterback Sheduer Sanders in the fifth round.

While Cleveland’s draft was bizarre, it’s hard to not be thoroughly impressed. The Browns solidified multiple offensive positions of need, gave themselves not one, but two shots at a future franchise QB, acquired a new defensive cornerstone, and set themselves up in a great position for next year’s draft, with two first round selections. It is for those reasons that I believe that the Browns are the biggest winners of this year’s draft.

#2 - New York Giants

Well, we did just discuss the team that (would’ve) picked second overall, so why not discuss the team that picked third? The Giants had an incredible draft class, selecting the other elite talent at the top of the board - edge rusher Abdul Carter from Penn State - at third overall, declining to reach on a quarterback. Then, the G-Men made a bold move, trading up from the second round back into the first to select high-upside, Ole Miss quarterback Jaxson Dart, hopefully securing a future star at the most important position. The Giants then followed up in the third and fourth rounds by selecting two absolute steals, Toledo DT Darius Alexander, and Arizona State RB Cam Skattebo. They secured a high upside project at the game’s most important position, two bargain selections, and one of the two best overall players in the draft. New York made some fantastic moves that should (hopefully) aid their franchise for a long time. 

#3 - Baltimore Ravens

The Ravens are a perfect example of a team making the most of the draft despite only possessing late round selections. For those who aren’t familiar, teams with better regular season records are given later picks in order to keep a competitive balance in the league. However, teams occasionally make late selections and still draft players at bargain prices to fill each of their needs, which is exactly what the Ravens did this year.

The Ravens began night one by selecting Malaki Starks, a versatile defensive back, to help aid Kyle Hamilton in a Ravens secondary that was disappointing last season. In the second round, the Ravens managed to land Marshall edge rusher Mike Green, who many expected would go decently high in the first round. Baltimore then made another great selection in the third round, taking LSU offensive lineman Emery Jones Jr. to help shore up an inconsistent offensive line. The Ravens then made several great day three selections to help add depth around the roster, including kicker Tyler Loop to compete with Justin Tucker for the starting job next season. Overall, it’s hard not to be impressed with what Baltimore managed to accomplish this draft. 

#4 - Dallas Cowboys

I hate to admit it, but the more I look at the Cowboys draft, the more I like it. The Cowboys began with a pick that I’m actually not a huge fan of, slightly reaching on Alabama offensive lineman Tyler Booker to replace retired offensive guard Zack Martin. The Cowboys then took an interesting philosophy in the next two rounds. Instead of reaching on a wide receiver, a position of need, the Cowboys instead took two bargain players that I believe made their draft. In the second round, the Cowboys snagged Boston College defensive end Donovan Ezeiruaku, a player who many (including myself) were surprised made it out of the first round. With their third selection, the Cowboys got an absolute bargain with Cornerback Shavon Revel Jr. from East Carolina, a player who easily would have gone in the first round and been considered one of the best cornerbacks in the draft if not for a torn ACL towards the end of last season. One more selection that I like from the Cowboys was their fifth round pick, taking Texas running back Jaydon Blue to help fill the still-evident void in the running back room. While there are arguments to be made that Dallas failed to acquire players at their biggest positions of need (most notably wide receiver), the reason I love the Cowboys draft is that they managed to draft three players who easily could have gone in the first round. Dallas added three future stars to their lineup, and I wouldn’t be surprised if all three became franchise cornerstones for the team

#5 - Seattle Seahawks

Honorable mentions to the Bills and Cardinals, who both also could have been in this spot. Overall, I love what Seattle did this draft. Coming into the draft, Seattle had two selections in both the second and third rounds due to prior trades of WR D.K. Metcalf and QB Geno Smith, and it was clear Seattle was ready to make some moves. Seattle began by selecting offensive lineman Grey Zabel in round one, a player who provided aid at their biggest position of need. Seattle then traded one of their third round picks to skyrocket up in the second round and select South Carolina safety Nick Emmanwori, a player who I believe should have been selected in the first round of the draft. The Seahawks then made another great second round selection in tight end Elijah Arroyo, a player who was dominant at Miami and who fell as far as he did only because of the high quality tight end class he found himself in. Then, the Seahawks selected hyper-athletic quarterback Jalen Milroe in the third round, an incredible prospect to sit behind Sam Darnold. Seattle then finished out their draft on day three with some solid depth selections. While they didn’t make any massive splashes, each of their selections provide some great help to the team, and I would not be surprised if this class pumps out multiple pro bowlers.

Biggest Losers:

#1 - Cincinnati Bengals

While I do have this class ranked last, it’s worth noting that this draft featured no teams who consistently made mind-numbingly bad decisions, just a few picks that I’m not a huge fan of. The Cincinnati Bengals came into this draft with one goal in mind: help the defense. The Bengals defense was… not very good last year, and contracts to several key offensive players meant that they couldn’t afford to add much high-end talent through free agency. I expected a draft filled almost exclusively with defensive players, and Cincinnati instead opted to draft split right down the middle, with three offensive and three defensive picks. With their first pick, the Bengals opted to take Texas A&M edge rusher Shemar Stewart, arguably the most polarizing player in the draft. While Stewart has the best athleticism of any player available, he put up relatively poor college production, with only 4.5 sacks in each of his three college seasons. While he has incredible upside and could be a fantastic player, there’s a very decent chance Stewart is unable to fully achieve his potential. The second round selection from the Bengals was linebacker Demetrius Knight, a pick which I honestly consider to be a pretty decent reach on the Bengals part. The Bengals then made a few more selections that felt a little off, and had what I would consider to be a relatively poor class, hinging very heavily on the production of the draft’s most boom-or-bust player.

#2 - Atlanta Falcons

I’ll give the Falcons two things. First, the first selection they made, defensive end/linebacker Jalon Walker, was an incredible value/great pick. And second, the Falcons definitely added some incredible players at their biggest weakness from last season, the pass rush. However, Atlanta made one of my least favorite moves in the draft too. After the great Jalon Walker selection, the Falcons thought it was necessary to trade back into the first round, using both their second round selection as well as their first round selection from next year’s draft, in order to select a second defensive end, James Pearce Jr. from Tennessee. While Pearce is undoubtedly talented, he also features a multitude of character concerns that took him off of several teams’ draft boards, and he plays the same position as the first player the Falcons selected. In a very deep edge class, there was very little need for the Falcons to put their 2026 draft at a huge disadvantage in exchange for selecting Pearce. Otherwise, I do like the selection of Notre Dame safety Xavier Watts in the third round, but I believe that this Falcons draft hinges too much on instant production of their two first round selections, and put them at a large disadvantage for next year’s draft.

#3 - Minnesota Vikings

I’m sure Henry will love putting this on his website.1 Last season, the Vikings traded up a whopping three times early on in the draft in order to secure both quarterback J.J. McCarthy and edge rusher Dallas Turner. While those trades both still have a chance to pan out for Minnesota, they did highly limit the team’s draft capital this season. The Vikings made only five draft selections, the lowest in the league, and only one of them was in the first two rounds. That selection was Donovan Jackson, an Ohio State offensive lineman who many considered a second round talent. The Vikings aren’t ranked even lower for me is for two reasons: First, it’s hard to dislike this draft too much for decisions made during last year’s draft, which shouldn’t really impact the grading. And second, both the third round selection of receiver Tai Felton and the fifth round selection of Tyrion Ingram-Dawkins made for some very solid value picks, and both could become decent contributors for the Vikings. While the team was disadvantaged for this draft and their total number of selections proves that, a couple of decent value picks save them from being my lowest rated draft class.

#4 - Detroit Lions

I simply didn’t like most of the selections made by Detroit during this draft. The Lions began by making a pick I consider a reach, selecting Ohio State defensive tackle Tyleik Williams. I do like the fit of Williams in Detroit, but it was definitely puzzling to see this be Detroit’s first round selection. Easily, my favorite pick from Detroit this draft was their second round selection of Georgia guard Tate Ratledge, a player who I think will do a great job reinforcing their offensive line. However, I questioned each of Detroit’s last four selections. Most notably among those picks was the third round selection of WR Isaac TeSlaa, a player who will likely struggle to see the field in Detroit and was considered a massive reach by most analysts. Overall, Detroit’s draft class was filled with puzzling decisions and picks I would consider to be big reaches. 

#5 - Miami Dolphins

Honorable mentions to the Buccaneers - who escaped this slot because of the overall talent of their selections despite some very questionable team fits - and the Chicago Bears, who also made some strange positional investments throughout the majority of the draft. The reason that the Dolphins are ranked so low isn’t necessarily due to the talent of their top two selections. 13th overall pick Kenneth Grant is undoubtedly a great player, albeit a little bit of a reach at his draft spot. I love guard Jonah Savaiinaea from Arizona, and I think he will be a tremendous player. I also think that the selection of Ollie Gordon II in the sixth round was a steal, and will give them tremendous depth at the running back selection. However, The Dolphins just lacked draft capital to make a lot of high quality selections - as they traded both their third and fourth round picks in order to move up in the second round to select Savaiinaea - and the draft class overall reflects this lack of depth from the mid rounds. While the Dolphins landed some good players, I believe that the overall upside of this class is highly limited due to that second round trade up. 

While I’ve gone through and ranked each of these draft classes, it’s important to note that the draft just shows a fragment of the careers of each of these players. Once we see each of these draftees play in actual NFL games, it will become easier to identify who actually had the best and worst draft classes. However, considering the current stance of the draft, these are the teams who I believe made the best and worst selections overall.

1

Henry here - I indeed did not enjoy this part.

Wide Left

2025 NFL Draft Consensus Big Board: The Top 300 Players in the 2025 NFL Draft, According to 112 Analysts

Welcome to the landing page for the Consensus Big Board for the 2025 NFL Draft. As often as possible, I’ve tried to provide it free, without subscription, to as many people as possible…

Read more

a year ago · 45 likes · Arif Hasan

This guest article was reviewed and edited for grammatical and accuracy purposes, and for clarity. No opinions were altered.

About the dashboard

• 🔃 April 8th, 9:45 AM: The tournament has finished! The forecast has been updated with the latest results.

Congrats to Jason Li, who has won our ESPN Tournament Challenge group and the $30 prize!

2025 March Madness Forecast

2025 March Madness Team Ratings

Our bracket picks

Using a combination of our own ratings and odds from NCAAgamesim.com, we pick a winner in each game/round to identify a champion. Feel free to download the image below.

Status + NWS advisories

🔃 April 4th, 9:55 AM: MMSD schools are open today. Our snowday forecast has been frozen (see what I did there?) for the remainder of the school year, and will return next winter. Check out our severe weather dashboard for odds of tornados, hail, and more!

Looking Ahead: This forecast is no longer updating until next winter.

Current forecast

How the forecast has changed

The latest data

Models & Images

There are no NWS models/images available for Friday at this time.

Future Days

Below are closure odds for as far out as the model can predict given the data that we have. They will only be updated daily until they are the next school day, when they’ll take over this page.

There are no future days to show, as the forecast is finished for the year.

It was a solid night for Democrats overall, and a worrying one for Republicans (and Elon Musk especially) last night. Susan Crawford went well beyond expectations in her clear victory in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race, and Democrats overperformed (although they still lost) in both Florida’s 1st and 6th districts.

It was a good night for vibes, but data was so-so

The vibes were fairly accurate, (I predicted all three outcomes with little data on Monday) but the data that we did have wasn’t necessarily super predictive in the end. In the Wisconsin race, Crawford beat our polls-based estimate by about 5%, doubling her margin-of-victory over Brad Schimel. Two of the six polls we had Crawford winning by 8%, so maybe the average would have only been off by 2% (a very typical polling error) if we had a larger collection of surveys to look at. The actual result ended up being much more comparable to the 2023 WI Supreme Court race, where Janet Protasiewicz won by around 11%, than I would’ve guessed, as I anticipated a 4-6% win for Crawford.

In Florida, we did not have any public polling (that I was able to find), so the only real data we had were early/mail voting numbers and turnout figures, which the New York Times was nice enough to compile daily. The story was similar here, as Republicans did overperform the turnout figures, but still won by significantly smaller margins than they typically do in these two districts.

Takeaways

Let’s start with Wisconsin - if there’s anything the Democratic party should recognize from last night’s outcome, it’s that Elon Musk and President Trump really aren’t well-liked in the Badger state. Now you might be saying, “Henry, Trump just won Wisconsin in 2024!”. And you’re not wrong, but Wisconsin was Kamala’s best of the seven key swing states, and also shifted the least towards Donald Trump. Poor Democratic turnout, Joe Biden’s mistake, too little time for Harris to run an effective campaign, and unhappiness (justified or not) with the economy lost her the election. Wisconsin is still going to be a place where reproductive rights and common sense, normal candidates will be compelling to the majority of voters. Now, there’s a non-zero chance this is one of the final straws for Trump in his… strange partnership that he has formed with Elon, and he kicks him to the curb in a matter of weeks. I think it’s safe to say that if Elon did have an impact here in Wisconsin, it was a negative one for Republicans.

Florida is perhaps more promising for Democrats in a different way: Although Florida isn’t a swing state (anymore, despite it appearing close in 2016 and 2020 polls) and most of it’s congressional districts aren’t key to the 2026 midterms (California and New York are the hot spots) the massive overperformance of both Democratic candidates last night is telling. If Democrats can replicate these 10-20% shifts in moderately competitive GOP seats, they have a very easy path to taking back the House majority. Now, part of this overperformance is the fact that Democrats are now the low-propensity voters who show up even when overall turnout is low, and presumably more Republicans show up next November, but even a little bit of that shift matters a lot.

What’s next?

So where do we go from here with elections? Let’s set aside 2026 for now, simply because I don’t want to even think that far ahead quite yet, (deep down I know it isn’t that far) and let’s look at 2025. Virginia and New Jersey will hold elections for governor on November 4th, with Virginia being the really interesting one to watch, as the current governor is Republican Glenn Youngkin, but VA has voted Democratic at the presidential level since 2008. I plan on posting a forecast this summer for those races. Both Arizona’s 7th (September 23rd) and Texas’ 18th district will hold special elections to replace representatives who died shortly into their current terms, so we’ll see if we have any polling/analysis on those when they are a bit closer. Virginia will also elect a new House of Delegates (state legislature) and Pennsylvania might have three Supreme Court seats on the ballot.

I plan on posting (as soon as I have time to sit down and make it) a page where you can see how our polling averages and forecasts performed in 2024, and maybe integrating that into a larger “how accurate we were” dashboard eventually, not unlike the one on HenryDRiley.com.

Other than that, I’m taking a break from elections for now, and am going to get the Big Eight softball/baseball models up and running, finish up March Madness, and maybe look at other projects we can post. Thanks for reading, and keep an eye on your inbox for more. If you’re not subscribed already, it’s free, and I encourage you to do so below.

Helpful resources

Wisconsin county benchmarks w/ live results data (by Elliott Morris of "Strength In Numbers"

Early Turnout Data from the New York Times

AP News Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Results

AP News Florida's 1st District Special Election Results

AP News Florida's 6th District Special Election Results

11:00 PM, Tuesday, April 1st

Our live coverage of Election Night has concluded.

10:59 PM, Tuesday, April 1st

Apologies for the (overwhelming) lack of updates, but the night moved quickly with race projections, and I didn’t get home until around 9:30. Susan Crawford will serve on the state Supreme Court, defeating Brad Schimel. Jill Underly won re-election as the State Superintendent, and Republicans won both congressional races in Florida this evening, but by much smaller margins that they typically maintain there.

2:46 PM, Tuesday, April 1st

Although it’s not directly related to today’s races, Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) is still speaking out in opposition to the Trump agenda on the Senate floor. He has been effectively (but not technically) filibustering for almost 21 hours, per a Yahoo timer. The Senate record for longest continuous speech period is held by Strom Thurmond, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

1:39 PM, Tuesday, April 1st

HDR Analytics is launching this live updates page for tonight’s elections in Florida and Wisconsin. I won’t be able to post on here from around 6 PM until 8-9 PM, but we may still have uncalled races after that. If we do, check back here for the latest.

UPDATE:

Another cool tool to follow tonight, Elliott Morris (who led FiveThirtyEight after Nate Silver until ABC/Disney dissolved it and created the Economist’s 2020 Election Forecast) has made a handy spreadsheet with county-by-county benchmarks for the WI race tonight: You can view it here.

In what is typically a dormant period for elections after a new President takes office, and with the 2026 midterms still over a year away, this Tuesday will feature three major elections that could have national ramifications. And despite President Trump specifically scheduling tariffs for Wednesday (April 2nd) because he was “a little superstitious” about implementing them on April Fools Day, these elections are very real. Here are my thoughts, predictions and the (limited) data we have for these races.

Wisconsin has the biggest state election this year (again)

Since this is most likely what you clicked on this article for, I’ll start with my personal best guess on what will happen in our state supreme court race to replace retiring (liberal) justice Ann Walsh Bradley. I believe that Susan Crawford (liberal) will defeat Brad Schimel by a relatively comfortable margin, (if I had to guess, maybe around 4-6 percentage points) based on Democrats’ consistent overperformance in special/off-year elections (those not in presidential/midterm cycles) and the particular dynamics of the race. It’s important to note that turnout/early voting data is probably becoming less indicative, or at least less of an advantage for Democrats, as Republicans now seem to use mail/early voting more than they did in 20201. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel confirms:

• “The number of absentee ballots cast is up 54% compared to 2023's Supreme Court race. Those using the in-person early voting option has especially surged.

• Conservative-leaning Washington County has seen a massive 165% increase in in-person early voting over 2023 data, while GOP stronghold of Waukesha County also has increased 100%.”

In general, the campaign has been more about, well, the campaign itself, than about any major policies or issues the court may rule on in the near future. Although the Crawford camp has at least attempted to frame the race as a “punch back” at the Trump administration, and a referendum on reproductive rights and abortion, (Wisconsin’s 1849 ban is still contested) the dueling TV ads (which you’re sick of if you live here) are mainly criticizing their opponent’s donors, i.e. Elon Musk and George Soros. Crawford in particular has made Elon Musk a cornerstone of her GOTV message, even calling her opponent “Elon Schimel” in their first and only debate.

I do believe that this race will be a bit closer than the 2023 matchup between Janet Protasiewicz and Dan Kelly, where Protasiewicz won by 11%, a relative landslide in Wisconsin, simply due to renewed GOP enthusiasm after their 2024 electoral success. Keep an eye on Dane Co. and Milwaukee Co. for Democratic turnout, and the WOW counties as well as counties up north for Republican votes. I’m fairly confident we’ll know who won on Tuesday, or at least by early morning Wednesday.

Could Democrats flip two U.S. House seats before 2026?

Short answer, no. Although there are two Republican-held House seats up for grabs in Florida, Democrats are highly unlikely to win both, although one could end up being more competitive than usual. Former Rep. Matt Gaetz vacated Florida’s 1st District when he resigned to (unsuccessfully) become Trump’s Attorney General, and Former Rep. Mike Waltz vacated the 6th District to become Trump’s National Security Advisor. If you are a bit surprised that the name of the National Security Advisor sounds vaguely familiar, just give “Signalgate” a Google. Yeah, that was Mike Waltz who added Atlantic editor Jeff Goldberg to a Signal chat with sensitive (and likely classified) information on U.S. military operations in Yemen last week.

There’s really nothing to imply that the 1st District, which was R+32% in 2024, will be all that competitive. However, the 6th District, which was R+33% in 2024, seems to be more peculiar. The New York Times is reporting that early turnout data is only around R+10%, a sharp drop in support for the GOP if accurate. Now, it would most likely take a miracle for the Democrat, Josh Weil, to pull off a victory here, but if this race is even competitive, it bodes well for congressional Democrats’ chances in 2026. As such, I believe that both Republicans will win in Florida’s special U.S. House elections tomorrow, probably by around 10-15% in the 6th district, and 25-35% in the 1st.

Resources for Election Night

I unfortunately have a prior commitment for most of tomorrow night, and will not be able to post much in terms of live updates here, and certainly can’t run a livestream, but I encourage anyone interested to follow along with returns as they come in using the two links below.

AP News Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Results

AP News Florida's 1st District Special Election Results

AP News Florida's 6th District Special Election Results

I know this wasn’t a super lengthy/detailed article, but there isn’t a whole lot to discuss until we see actual results, so keep an eye on those tomorrow, and if you live in any of the three jurisdictions holding elections, get out and vote!

Editor’s Note: This article was written on Monday, March 10th. I apologize for publishing a day late, but everything should still be accurate. I would love to post articles written by others whenever I have the chance, so if there’s anything numbers-related that you’re interested in, just let me know if you want to write something for the site! -Henry

The beginning of NFL free agency always comes with fireworks. Before the official start of a new league year on March 12th, a period known as the legal tampering period begins, in which players can contact teams and begin constructing contracts for the upcoming season. Despite not yet being official contracts, the majority of large free agency deals occur during this two day window, with this year being no exception. This article will go through several of the key signings from day one of free agency, and discuss the implications of both the signing for the team and player, but also the result of the contract for the remaining free agency market.

Sam Darnold signs with the Seattle Seahawks: 3 Years-$105.5 million

Seattle has a new quarterback. Fresh off of trading their primary quarterback for the past three seasons, Geno Smith, Seattle entered the day with a gaping hole at the game’s most important position. However, Seattle quickly filled this gaping hole with one of last season's biggest surprises. Sam Darnold was one of the NFL’s biggest stories in 2024, leading the Minnesota Vikings to a surprising 14-3 record and playoff berth, followed by an unfortunate loss to the LA Rams in the wild card round of the playoffs. However, Darnold’s season-long heroics did not go unnoticed, as his incredible season led not only to a Pro Bowl nod, but also likely heavily contributed to Vikings head coach Kevin O’Connell winning the Coach of the Year Award. Now, Darnold relocates to the West Coast to play for second year head coach Mike Macdonald, alongside a Seahawks team that just narrowly missed out on a playoff appearance last season. The contract, paying an average of about 35 million dollars per season, ranks on the cheaper end of the recent quarterback contract scale. The deal ranks Darnold similarly to Buccaneers quarterback Baker Mayfield, who similarly signed a 3-year contract following a big comeback season. If this contract pays off for Seattle and Darnold looks similar to his 2024 self, Seattle could be looking at a potential playoff season, despite its recent retooling.

Milton Williams signs the New England Patriots: 4 Years-$106 million

On occasion, the NFL sees a player switch his commitment from signing with one team to another during the legal tampering period, and this season was no exception. Within the first hour of free agency, it was announced that former Eagle and Super Bowl hero Milton Williams would be signing with the Carolina Panthers. However, this report was slowly walked back, until it was revealed that Williams would instead be signing a contract with the New England Patriots. While it didn’t entirely show up on the stat sheet, Williams’ impact on the Super Bowl winning Eagles could not be overestimated. Williams was a massive spark for the Eagles defensive line, and amassed 40 quarterback pressures, a career high. Williams’ dominance was evident in Super Bowl 59, where he amassed 2 sacks, including a crucial strip sack on Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes. An aggressive pursuit by New England for Williams led to a contract placing Williams third amongst defensive tackles in terms of average value per year, but if Williams can continue playing at the level he displayed in the Super Bowl, New England acquired an absolute game changer on the defensive line.

Justin Fields signs with the New York Jets: 2 years-$40 million

Another huge quarterback domino to fall on free agency day one was New York’s signing of former Pittsburgh and Chicago quarterback Justin Fields. After being the 11th overall pick in the 2021 NFL draft, the Chicago Bears believed that they had found their quarterback of the future. Throughout 3 years for Chicago, Fields was among the most polarizing quarterbacks in the entire NFL. Despite displaying some of the league’s worst accuracy and failing to secure a single winning season for the Bears, Fields also nearly set the single season quarterback rushing yardage record in Chicago’s putrid 2022-2023 season and showed many flashes passing the football throughout his time in the Windy City. Following a trade with the Panthers which netted the Bears the first overall pick, the team sent Justin Fields to the Pittsburgh Steelers for a 6th round pick, opting to use the first overall selection on USC quarterback Caleb Williams. Fields only started a few games for Pittsburgh last season, but had a very solid 4-1 record and played some of the most efficient football in his career. With a contract that’s fairly high for a volatile QB option, the Jets are taking a risk with this signing. However, if Fields can perform up to the potential that many still believe he contains, the Jets could finally be looking at a long-term solution for the quarterback position.

Carlton Davis signs with the Patriots: 3 years-$60 million

Now this… is an odd contract. At one point in his career, Carlton Davis was regarded as one of the better young cornerbacks in the NFL. During this time, playing for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and a year following Tampa’s Super Bowl victory, Davis signed a 3-year extension worth $45 million to stay in Florida. However, 2 years into this contract, Tampa decided that the price tag was no longer worth the play of the declining cornerback, and sent him to play for the up and coming Detroit Lions in exchange for a solid draft selection. Davis had a solid rookie season in Detroit, and entered the market as a decent option at the cornerback position. However, the contract that Davis ended up signing with the Patriots was rather lucrative, ranking him as the 7th highest paid cornerback in the NFL. While cornerback was a need for the Patriots, and New England came into the day with easily the most money to spend, it’s hard to justify this high of a price for an aging cornerback on the decline. New England needs to hope that Davis slows his decline and proves to be a valid fill to the cornerback hole, or else this could result in a disastrous signing for the Patriots.

Charvarius Ward signs with the Indianapolis Colts: 3 years-$60 million

The same contract as Carlton Davis received with New England, but this one comes with a bit more upside. Following his departure from the Chiefs and signing with the 49ers in 2022, Charvarius Ward ranked as one of the best cornerbacks in man coverage for two consecutive seasons from 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 per PFF, even being named an NFL All-Pro in 2023. However, in the middle of this past season, Ward’s 1-year-old daughter tragically passed away. Ward has stated that after this, both he and his wife were seeking a new start outside of California, and settled in Indianapolis. Despite coming off of a down season, obviously at least partially due to reasons outside of football, Ward brings some huge upside to Indianapolis. Despite the expensive contract, there is optimism that this could be a home run signing for the Colts, who are in dire need of secondary help.

Chris Godwin signs with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 3 years, $66 million

Tampa brought back their guy. After an electrifying start to the 2024-2025 season, ranking 6th among wide receivers in yards per game, and 5 touchdowns in 7 games. However, Godwin unfortunately dislocated his left ankle late in a game against the Baltimore Ravens, ending his season. If Godwin continued on pace with his statistical averages, he was well on his way to a career season in both yards and Touchdowns. Entering free agency, both Davante Adams and DK Metcalf, perceived as two of the top wide receivers available in the offseason, had both already found new homes. Godwin entered the first day of the legal tampering period as the best available wide receiver, and would see the market to prove it. However, both Godwin and Tampa Bay had a desire for the star receiver to return. Per Ian Rappaport, Godwin turned down an offer from the New England Patriots with an additional $20 million to stay with the Buccaneers, proving that even with a huge market, some players would just prefer to stay where they already play. Godwin returning to Tampa Bay is a good omen for their already explosive passing offense, which ranked third despite Godwin missing over half of the season. Taking another top receiver off of the board also led to several key WR contracts later on in the day, such as Dyami Brown signing for $10 million with the Jaguars and Josh Palmer signing for a whopping $36 million with the Bills.

An Additional Signing Recap:

While there isn’t quite room for every key signing to earn a full description, several more pave the way for the remainder of free agency and deserve a mention:

The Chicago Bears made several key moves, signing center Drew Dalmon, Edge Rusher Dayo Odeyingo, and Defensive Lineman Grady Jarrett, all of which secured positions of need for the Bears.

The Arizona Cardinals signed Eagles edge rusher Josh Sweat, another key Super Bowl contributor who could make waves with a new team.

The Denver Broncos signed a pair of former 49ers defenders, signing linebacker Dre Greenlaw and Talanoa Hufanga each to 3-year, $45 million contracts. Each of these signings should help secure an already elite Denver defense.

The Green Bay Packers signed a pair of contributors, signing cornerback Nate Hobbs and guard Aaron Banks, each hopefully adding to the Packers playoff roster. Each signing came with a high cost, but both bring new attributes that should hopefully aid the Packers in the quest of becoming a true contender.

And one more key move to mention despite not being a contract signing: The Washington Commanders traded several mid and late round draft selections to the Houston Texans in exchange for tackle Laremy Tunsil. Laremy Tunsil has consistently ranked among the best tackles in the NFL the past several seasons, boasting an impressive resume featuring 5 pro bowl nods. Coming off of a run to the NFC Championship game, the Commanders made a big swing by securing Jayden Daniels’ blindside.

Several key swings always happen during the first day of the legal tampering period. While it remains to be seen how successful each signing will become for the teams making them, each brings a new, potentially game-changing face to the franchise they will be joining.

A general note

I want to start by saying that I recognize it’s been a while since I’ve really posted quality articles or new/exciting models or data, and I’m hoping and optimistic that will change as the school year begins to (sort of) wind down. After this week with the SAT/ACT being done, I hope to post a little bit more, and definitely will after AP exams in May. There should be a decent amount to publish in the summer, with a few special U.S. House elections that could (in theory) flip the majority before the 2026 midterms, and both the Virginia and New Jersey governor’s mansions at stake in November. I might make an article about the upcoming WI Supreme Court race if there’s enough to discuss, but polling is essentially non-existent, so there really isn’t much data to operate on.

High School Sports

The season has been over for a bit now for Big Eight hockey teams, but if you’re still curious, please check out the forecast and ratings for the conference below.

I mentioned a long time ago that I hoped to run forecasts for two Big Eight sports for each season (fall, winter, spring), and have not done that thus far. My excuse in the fall was the election, for which the forecast required a ton of manual editing and plugging in of polls, and in the winter I simply didn’t have much time to get things set up for a new sport other than hockey. However, I do want to now run two models for this spring sports season, and I’m thinking a baseball/softball model would be a solid option. Feel free to voice your opinion below if you really want something else.

March Madness

The NCAA basketball tournaments are right around the corner, with Selection Sunday set for next weekend. I will be bringing back the (fairly basic) forecast, and will do my best to post that as soon as possible once the men’s bracket is announced. If I feel I have enough time, I’ll make one for the women’s tournament too.

I’d also like to do something a bit different this year and run a (very) low stakes tournament pool, so I will likely post an ESPN group link where you can submit your entry to the official HDR Analytics bracket challenge. There will be a small cash prize for the winner. (No entry fee is necessary)

Warmer Weather Incoming?

It’s getting fairly close to the point of the year where I’m convinced I will freeze (pun intended) the snow/cold day forecast until next winter, but I’m not quite there yet. We do still have some 30s in the forecast, and maybe flurries, so I’ll probably keep it up for a few weeks.

As for weather coverage into the spring and summer, I’ll run the severe weather dashboard from last year and update that daily, and potentially make a “heat day” forecast if there’s any interest for that, but the odds of getting anywhere close to the temperatures needed for a closure are slim.

Upcoming Elections, And Sad News On Polling

As previously mentioned, there is an upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court Election on April 1st (please vote if you are eligible!). However there’s unlikely to be any credible polling, so unless that changes there won’t be a polling average. However, Virginia and New Jersey hold governor elections in November, and there will be special elections in some U.S. House districts throughout the year, with two currently Republican Florida districts holding their elections on April 1st as well. If we get polls in any of these contests, there will be a polling average posted over at henrydriley.com. (Just go to the HDR Analytics home page and find “Polling Averages” on the left sidebar.

The sad news is that ABC News (Disney) implemented various layoffs this past week, impacting several of their smaller subdivisions, including ABC’s FiveThirtyEight, launched and formerly run by Nate Silver before the 2008 election. While 538’s election model wasn’t something I used much anymore, now that Nate runs his over at the Silver Bulletin (I highly recommend subscribing), their polling page aggregated just about every kind of poll fairly quickly and in an easy to use format, which was what I depended on for gathering polls for my averages, and therefore, our forecasts.

Silver Bulletin

Essays and analysis about elections, media, sports, poker, and all the other things I care about.

By Nate Silver

With that now being gone, it seems as though some other sites may try to fill in the gap and run polling aggregation sites, but I’m not sure how much faith to have in that. Basically, the question of if I’ll keep running the averages and election forecasts as easily is a big TBD at the moment. I’ll clarify the situation there once I know more.

That’s all I have to share for now. Check back here next Sunday for the (initial) posting of the March Madness forecast and group link, and keep an eye out for the Big Eight models. Thanks for reading.

About the forecasts

• 🔃 February 27th, 10:30 PM: All projections and ratings have been updated based on recent games. No Big Eight teams remain in the WIAA playoffs, so the forecast is officially finished for the year.

• Created by Henry Riley

• Game probabilities for the next week of games will be publicly available for free, but probabilities for future weeks will remain paywalled. Rankings will always be free. (I may add more extra paid features later on)

• Playoff games are treated as normal games in the model, so the further a team goes in the playoffs, the higher their rating can go. (The conventional wisdom here is that the further you make it in the bracket, the better you are anyways)

There are no conference matchups to forecast.

Read more