Barry Alvarez took over the coaching reins at Wisconsin in 1990. In the previous six years, the Badgers had won only 7 conference games (thank you, Northwestern!) and never were close to having a winning season.
His first three teams, played primarily with players he largely didn't recruit, also had losing records. But starting in 1993, lasting until the end of his coaching tenure 13 years later, his teams had a 68% winning record, averaged 8.3 wins a season, and went 9-4 in bowl games (including the two recent ones he coached out of "retirement". Ten years after leaving as coach, the school has most years fielded competitive teams, and the passion he built at Camp Randall among the fan base remains as strong as ever.
For the last two years that he coached football, he also served as Wisconsin's athletic director, a position he still holds. During his tenure, Wisconsin has remained a powerhouse in men's and women's ice hockey, and the men's basketball team has become a national power.
So, should these accomplishments accord him a designation as a great coach/athletic director?
Hmm, his teams never won a national championship, so according to the standards some of you are expressing, the answer would be no. I disagree - just because someone isn't the absolute best at something, or doesn't get the top recognition, or loses a championship - doesn't mean he/she isn't "great" at what they do.
Ty Cobb played in 3 World Series - lost every one of them. Neither did Ken Griffey Jr, Carl Yastrzemski, Ernie Banks, etc, win the World Series.
Likewise, Big Bang Theory and Sheldon Cooper aside, I don't think I'd be dismissive of the qualifications of the physicists and chemists who come in second place for the Nobel Prizes.