Where do I begin???
You are actually comparing Churchill and Patton to college football coaches?
Wow. I can tell you one thing. Had Patton not had the U.S. money and armaments he would not have had the success he had. We prevailed in WWII - it was inevitable - because of our overwhelming economic power. And, I can tell you that had the U.S. not come to Europe, the UK would not have survived. So, yes these were great leaders and inspriational people, but money and economic power was the key to success - just like money and economic power is the key to success on the college football level.
As far as Robinson is concerned, I think you forget that with talent he won two Super Bowls - his defenses were very good during those two years. He also had success at UCLA and Texas - when he had talent.
Do I think Nick Saban is a better football coach than Greg Robinson? Of course I do. And, if I were a betting man, I would probably agree that at Alabama Greg Robinson would not have had the same success that Nick Saban has had. But, Greg would have had a great deal of success with that kind of talent, at that school. Most coaches would have success at that school. In fact, three coaches in the last thirty years have won NCs at Alabama.
Your take on JB is way off.
The SU BB team does not win because of strategy - it wins with great players - many great players.
If you think JB wins because of his 2-3 zone, you're crazy. He's been running the 2-3 since Roy Danforth ran it in the late 1960s. In the early 1970s SU was a very decent team, with players like Mark Wadach, Mike Lee, Bob Dooms and after that Dennis DuVal and Jim Lee. We were a very good regional program. But we were not a national program. The 2-3 zone did not change the trajectory of the program - national players did that - Pearl Washington, Derrick Coleman, Billy Owens and the many, many more that have come to SU since that time. The team right now has gobs of national players - it's sick how much talent we have accumulated. And you're focusing on the 2-3 zone???
My goodness.
And as far as the other sports you've mentioned, I really have no idea what you're talking about. I am not familar with the teams other than the SU women's lacrosse team. I'm sure that GG is very good coach. And, I'm sure that he has been funded well and has been given the chance to recruit more effectively.
Beyond that I can't really comment.
Do coaches matter? Yes. But they are not "genies in bottles" who take mediocre players and transform them somehow.
They succeed with money, facilities, talented players, knowledge of the game - which they all have - and organizational skills. As Coach Mac used to say. In the begining "I thought it was 80% coaching and 20% players. After awhile I realized that it was 20% coaching and 80% players."
And that's the reality.
No, Nick Saban and Chip Kelly would not have caused Philip to catch that INT or Antwon Baily not to fumble or our WRs to become faster or our KO guy to kick deeper or our punter to be more effective. When you break it down player to player it becomes very clear that coaches can only do so much. And neither Chip nor Nick would have changed any of what I have just described.
I'm done with this argument. You know where I stand. I have a nice day.
It started as a hypothesis that the move to the ACC may be helping recruiting already but immediately changed gears to 'just win and they will come'. Then it morphed again into winning isn't enough to fill the stands, it's how you do it that counts. It's offensive football versus defensive football, baby!! Then it devolved into yet another moratorium on HCDM, his philosophy, and why we would be better with someone else. 
