A recruit is less likely be influenced by having his coach be an analyst than he is his coach actually coach him on the field. Programs are always restrained from doing that because they don't want to waste an investment in a position coach if he isn't up to snuff.
If, however, hiring support staff roles in an effort to lure a kid is deemed a competitive disadvantage because big money schools can do things other programs can't, that's the same for all of those roles. I don't understand why people get bent out of shape about this. I'm fine limiting the number of analysts a school can hire for competitive balance purposes consistent with how assistants are hired. But if we're not concerned about the use of that role generally, I can't get worked up about hiring someone because it may influence a recruit. So what if it influences a recruit? Why is that deemed a bad thing?