In general, I agree. But...

by Greg, seemingly ranch, Tuesday, May 15, 2012, 11:14 (5139 days ago) @ Bill

'Rebuilding' is perfectly acceptable on occasion, once your program has reached a peak. Therefore, it was fine for Lou to have rebuilding years post-1988 because we understood where the 'peak' was.

When was it "fine" for Holtz to have a rebuilding year after '88? He went 12-1, 9-3, 10-3, 10-1-1, and 11-1 in the five seasons right after '88. In '89, people were decrying his poor defense that gave up 3rd and 43. In '90, they disliked the inexplicable loss to Stanford. In '91, it was Cheerios time. In '92, he "played for the tie" against Michigan. In '93, he blew the shot at the title by "not having the team ready" for BC (and by blowing BC out in '92 instead of being more "gentlemanly").

Then came '94, the only real "rebuilding" year in his post-'88 tenure. And that year, it was all about "the game has passed him by" and the momentum that allowed the administration to ease him out was provided by this guy and his ilk: