Just my opinion, but there is absolutely zero correlation with how a particular coach did, or didn't recruit, when comparing to a current coach. The game is completely different and recruiting is so different that trying to compare is worthless. Same with building a program now versus in the old days (3 years ago or more). Like comparing someone's horse and buggy to a current coaches vstol fighter jet. Tradition, fan base, loyalty, coaching development, facilities are all irrelevant now. It is just a money game. Perhaps, but unlikely, style of play and personal relationships could have a minor effect on recruiting. But, this would only be true unless there isn't much difference in the money.
Hate it. But, we are in a different day and age, and the game we all have grown to love is completely gone. I gave up on the Olympics years ago. It is just a pro event. I may be getting there with the college sports. Pro sports lost my interest many years ago for many reasons.
As for recruiting, I enjoy following it. But, don't really judge a coach by it, I just look to see if he wins after having been given a fair chance. It doesn't matter to me if he/she wins with 2 star players or 5 star players. I also care about how he treats the kids and program and how he comports himself. But having said that, I agree that ultimately he has to be judged by winning or losing at the collegiate level. By "winning", I believe that to be relative to what he has to work with. I don't think it is fair to judge an Oklahoma coach with a coach at Kansas. In the same way, I don't think you can just the coach at Kansas in football with a coach at Oklahoma (who has vastly more resources).