Why? This sort of statement comes up a lot without much to back it up. Why this style, specifically, and above all other styles? College football has shown many ways to win, and the one common denominator is that teams that win consistently execute whatever they do well. That's why Washington St is suddenly noteworthy, that's why Nebraska was once noteworthy. Different styles, but the same high execution. Can anyone tell me one play, over the last several years, that Nebraska ran consistently well? I can't over the course of several coordinators. I can think of fly by night plays that worked for a short stretch, but I can't recall one for a very long time that was the kind of play executed to a high degree that one could have confidence in.
Let's paint a scenario for the idea that Nebraska has to copy Wisconsin in order to break through this current ceiling. Suppose Nebraska is the top team in the West. If you don't like that, suppose Nebraska and Ohio St swapped divisions permanently. Paint it however, but don't change Wisconsin. What is the viewpoint of Wisconsin now? They're now Bo Pelini...5-3/4-4, 9/10 wins. Maybe they don't get blown out as often (cough 59-0 cough), but they're Bo Pelini. When you look at Wisconsin's record against the best Big Ten sides, which conveniently all are in another division, it's not great (they've also dodged most of the better teams). The team they've most consistently played is Ohio St, whom they've lost the last 5. They played Michigan once since 2010, lost. They've lost the last 3 to Penn St (and 5 of the last 6). They've played MSU once since 2012 (win last year).
It appears to me that the thing that is making Wisconsin seem worthy of copying is that Nebraska isn't.
