Here in the (Hockey East), we see that happen with such frequency that the term "phenomena" is no longer applicable. BC and bu seem to divide up the National U-18 team in their annual recruiting efforts. They tend to be among the youngest, and possibly the least mature teams, in D1. The kids have been thoroughly pampered and need to take much of their first year to learn one of life's most basic lessons: "it's not all about you". By the time they've become fully acclimated to team play, they are probably sophomores and their minds are on whether to sign with the team that drafted them and how large a contract their agent can get them. No point in waiting around, as they have had a taste of college social life life and have coped with those annoyances created by professors who naively expect them to make a sincere effort to learn something.
It appears that Wisconsin's coaching staff wants to follow a similar model as they recruited some fine players, sometimes shortly after they players reached puberty. Their own twist seems to be the idea that they will recruit 3 players for every two that they will enroll. They can lock them up for several years while they see who develops and who lags a bit. Some the laggards seem to wind up with lines through their names on the Heisenberg site. What joy it is (not) to have to reopen their recruitment and to contact coaches that they had previously rejected.. Oh, how I wish I ccould buy stocks where, if they don't work out, I can ditch them and only keep the winners. These kids aren't stupid. They can see what is happening. It does a real job on the heads of certain individuals who are struggling with the challenges of being a teenager and really need things in their lives that they can count on.
The point of this mini-rant is that while the players ultimately do the winning and losing on the ice, many games and seasons are successful because of what goes on in the locker room before anyone sets a skate on the ice. The coach has to recruit the "right" players, not just those with the best stats, agents of PR people. These would be strong players who are coachable, team oriented, hockey smart, and who are aware that they need to continue to improve. The coach must then establish the players' trust and belief that he will make them better so that they will buy into his system. A coach, who was a great player and expects to be a successful coach has to have patience as his players will probably not pick up the skills that he found easy when he was in their place. He also must understand who he is coaching - He can't coach college kids the same way he may have coached (or has been coached) as a pro).
I wonder if you have the right staff to manage the kind of talent that they like to recruit. There may simply be a mismatch here. Hockey East has had four coaches who have turned moribund programs around inside of the length of their initial contract. Nate Leaman at PC won a National Championship and his guys have played in another Frozen Final. Norm Bazin at UMass Lowell has won two HEA Championships. Jim Madigan at Northeastern has won two HEA Championships and the last two Beanpot tournaments and has developed a Hobey Baker winner and another finalist. Greg Carvel at UMass Amherst has taken his team to the Final Four in just three years and has also developed a Hobey winner.. The common threads among them was that they took over dumpster programs, the recruited and blended a roster with a few stars and a great many role players. Their players believed in them. They believed that his coaching could make them better, and that they weren't finished products who were ready for the NHL.
For a variety of reasons, I have a soft spot and positive rooting interest for the Badgers. Sadly, I have not seen anything like the turnaround I had hoped for. I am just a fan and not an expert on Wisco Men's hockey. If I am way off base here, and the situation is better than it looks on the surface, please correct my impression - Politely, please, unlike those Goopher people
Best of luck in the second half.