You're right. It is imperative that an administration must be committed to win. In our case, that means win within the restrictions we impose on ourselves: educate our players and act with integrity.
You're wildly wrong about the X's and O's. Saban was clearly a very good coach at Michigan State. His limits were the limits of the university. Michigan State plays second fiddle to Michigan in-state. It's recruiting is limited by the other football powers that surround it.
I would have loved to have had Notre Dame hire Saban when he was at Michigan State. I'd take Dantonio right now in a heartbeat. These guys succeeded in a major conference with high expectations with limitations specific to the school. Plenty of coaches failed at Alabama before Saban. LSU was in the wilderness before Saban. USC sucked before Carroll and after Carroll.
As for Saban's pro record, I couldn't care less. It's not a great predictor of success in college as Saban has shown and Pete Carroll's pre-USC experience showed.
Embrace the power of "and". A great coach is limited by the university. But the university is also limited by a mediocre coach. In professional sports, the owner, the GM and the coach all matter. They all have to be talented and committed to win. If there's a failure anywhere along that chain, the best players in the world can't change that.