Why is the rebuttal to the coach being the problem always the hill being the problem? We had a heck of a class in 2007, why should we assume that type of class is irreplacable?
Good recruiting classes are not irreplacable at Tech, in fact they should expected. Sure, sometimes we recruit smaller classes which affects our overall pool of recruits, but largely we do not recruit effectively. Football players that come to Tech do not have to be geniuses, they just have to be able to pass college prep classes and get an 1100 on the SAT. (cue the argument about the major selection here)
The coaching staff is the problem, first and foremost. The hill is changing things to better adapt (more gender parity, more "football" classes). Is that on the request of the coaches? Who knows.
It used to be said that we are doing more with less at GT, but I don't believe that anymore. I just don't think we are shooting for "more" and I define that here as better talent that more effectively gives us advantages in our league. I believe it is a science this coaching staff has not figured out.
Example: South Carolina (#33), Baylor (#34), Michigan State (#35), Mizzou (#36), Nebraska (#37) have all done what we couldn't do this year with relative rankings. USC always battles it out in the East, Baylor, MSU, and Mizzou all won their divisions and/or conferences, and Nebraska beat Georgia. All of these teams are only slightly ahead of us on the rankings (#44)
I can discount USC and Nebraska, sure - they are typically in the teens. But Baylor, Mizzou, MSU (and others)? These are teams that are typically "in our wheelhouse" when it comes to recruiting. Their success is one we cannot replicate because of their coaches. Briles, Pinkel, and D'Antonio have built programs out of pretty much nothing. We've got something, and we attract the same level of talent, but we can't build a program. That falls on the coach.