Well actually it doesn't really fit what I was looking at when I called out Wisconsin's success. Michigan and Notre Dame have been football powers for a century, so they can be excluded from any comparison to us. Iowa has sustained mediocrity with flashes of success, which quite frankly I'd be thrilled with, but they've had 2 coaches over the last 44 years. Sure that would be great, but I don't think it's realistic. Kentucky, Missouri, and Louisville haven't sustained success.
When you look at Wisconsin, I think the answer might be their Oline. Someone said recruiting. Not really, they've only had a top 25 recruiting class twice since 2000. They typically are in the 30s or low 40s. They do tend to have more instate loyalty, but still lose plenty of top guys. What they are consistent good at is landing big viking Olinemen from the great white north. In fact I found an article by their people listing their highest rated offensive recruits of all time, 12 of the top 14 were Olinemen.
When I think of Wisconsin I think of RBs. And while the NFL and NCAA are very different games, they've had a lot of studs in college not be great in the NFL. Melvin Gordon has not lived up to his first round price, James White was a specialist, Montee Ball was a bust, John Clay did nothing, even Ron Dayne was more a backup in the pros. In fact there has been a stigma on Wisconsin RBs in the NFL, why? because their offensive line in college has been so dominant, anyone could do what the accomplished in college. Bummer for the NFL, but great for college.
It looks like Bielema is trying to put that same level of interest in the Oline, it obviously has done nothing this year. But if we can develop a consistent string of beasts that can allow any RB to look good while giving our QB the time to scan the field, it makes life much easier for your offense.
