I'm really, really tired of the "money changes everything" mantra. It's just flat out wrong.

If money is the primary driver of success, then Mike DuBose and Mike Shula would each have won national championships at Alabama. Ken Hatfield and Tommy Bowden would have done the same at Clemson. Texas would be a perennial top 5 program. USC would still be a major national player.

People act like pouring money into a poorly led football team will somehow put success on autopilot. The team will just "out-budget" opponents on its way to winning, regardless of how well or poorly the coaches can sell the school to prospective players, or teach, develop, and utilize those players once they are part of the team. Life just doesn't work that way.

In answer to your "how" question, look no further than VT men's basketball. I wonder what the current roster's "ACC talent level" ranking is, compared to Duke or UNC, who are both looking up at us in the standings. VT under Mike Young is not unbeatable by any stretch, and they certainly lose some games they should win (Pitt, most recently). Yet most games, they look like they know what they're doing. There is clearly a cohesive system, the coach is recruiting and teaching to that system, and the players have bought in. Players are clearly developing and getting better... look at Aluma, Cattoor, Mutts, just to name a few.

We have none of that in football. But we could have it, by bringing in a coach who can clearly lay out a vision for what he wants to do, identify players who can execute that vision, and convince those guys to join up. Bigger budgets, bigger staffs, and shinier, newer facilities aren't going to make that happen. Leadership is.