Typically an identity is something you build toward and use as a guide for making decisions, like on the recruiting trail.
Look at OL. Years of guys who varied in frame and height and now we see a very clear picture of height and length. They are recruiting guys toward an identity. You could choose any position and see it there in ways that I don't remember in the past. OLB - long and athletic. We simply are not recruiting OLB who are 5'11" and can really put it on a highlight film. We are recruiting a very specific type of athlete for that position and that plays towards our identity. In the secondary we used to recruit guys whose highlight films showed coverage skills. Recently you see way more highlight films showing big hits, physicality, and ball skills. We are recruiting players for a secondary to fit the identity.
Saying that Iowa or Wisconsin are doing things the way they are doesn't actually impact what we are in progress of doing. How do you think Iowa/Wisconsin/everyone got to that point? Consistency in staff, clear plan in recruiting, and time.
Next year we will have 13 or so seniors on the roster. A lot has been argued about this being "Frost's guys". But when we have 20 seniors on the roster who have all been developed toward the identity and recruiting for it and 4 classes of depth behind it, I think we will see it.
You don't have an identity by stating it. You claim an identity and then develop into it. Inconsistencies in year 2 are lessons that we will learn, not predictions about the future.