I have often wondered about this. Have emailed with several who comment on teams that had success and teams that seemingly "failed." Almost always, comments about leadership infuse the former and lack of leadership involves the latter.
When our son was a freshman in college in 2001, he joined a team that went 35-11 the prior year and lost only 1 position player. Great expectations existed. That team had great kids, but had a tremendously disappointing 24-18 record. Searching for answers it turns out one player tore his ACL the day before the first game and redshirted.
When that player returned in 2002, the team went 37-11. Even though that player was hobbled, his contributions and "leadership" were considered critical to the different results on the scoreboard.
There are many more illustrations I could provide.
How can one player, one or two leaders make such a difference in a college season? Or does it? Is it winning that causes us to "find" leaders or is leadership truly critical to "winning" when you play upwards of 56 games with a 25-30 man roster? What is this thing in college that is called leadership? Why do some teams have it and some teams, no matter how talented, do not?
Original Post