The flaw in this line of thinking is that the state of the university, state, region, and fan base is static. It's not the case. So for example if you look at FSU they were an all women's college until the 50's and generally did not really resemble what they are today until the 70's and 80's, which is coincidentally when Bowden became coach. As discussed previously the state of Florida did not exceed the population of the state of Ohio until 1990 but now is much more populous and in fact about double that of Ohio. For Ohio, I'm inclined to believe that their university, state, region, and fan base is much more static. In other words, the population of the state probably will not dramatically grow, the attendance of the univeristy probably will not increase, and thus the fan base will not grow or increase either. Now, we all know OSU has a strong fanbase and support throughout the state, their helmet status is safely intact.
On the other hand look at Nebraska. Population has increased some, but still small by state standards (less than 2 million). What is the odds they can climb back up the ladder to elite status, espeically now that the Big 10 has so much more competition than the old Big 8/Big 12. Will they be able to get the type of recruits there to put the program back on the map? And how much longer will you regard Nebraska a helmet team but now Florida/FSU and Clemson?
Well, I don't think there's a "flaw" in medina's thinking, because his conclusion is simply "when you've had one dominant coach for ~30 seasons, it makes it really hard to analyze what will happen in that coach's absence".
He wasn't (as far as I can tell) saying that FSU or VaTech are bad schools to add to the SEC or B1G--he's saying that it's really tough to determine whether the pre-Bowden/Beamer performance is the rule or whether the Bowden/Beamer performance is the rule.
I look at Wisconsin as an example...
Wisconsin football was TERRIBLE for a long time. Barry came in and built a culture, and then moved into the AD role and was able to sustain that culture over multiple successive coaches afterward. It's now been long enough that I believe that Wisconsin (partly as well due to benefits of being the only P5 school in the state and being in the weaker of the two B1G divisions) can sustain that success. That's how I'd bet anyway.
On the opposite side, Wisconsin basketball was equally terrible for a long time. Dick Bennett revived it and set the stage for Bo Ryan, who is probably the best coach Wisconsin has ever had or will ever have. The jury is still out on whether Wisconsin basketball will continue at the sort of high level that Bo Ryan set, but if I had to put money on it I'd say no.