The author states that he's using the "current state of the program" for the rankings, not historical successes. He's looking at ease of recruiting, facilities, fan support, etc. He suggests toward the end that UT is the more difficult job since we have to rely heavily on out-of-state recruits (it's easy to forget this when Butch is reeling those recruits in regularly).
His reasoning for placing Alabama at #1 is shoddy, however ("because Nick Saban has made it into the best job"). That essentially means it's the best job only so long as Saban is the coach, which defeats the purpose of the list.
Yeah, I've always wondered at this logic. The state of Florida is 450 miles from end to end. Butch can get to big parts of Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama faster than Florida's coach can get to Miami. Knoxville is closer to Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Cincinnati, and Birmingham than College Station is to Lubbock. Geographically, Knoxville is a
great hub to work out of.
And as for in-state loyalties, that's largely a red herring. There are some (maybe 10%? 15%?) of high-quality HS recruits who are bound and determined to play for their childhood favorite team ... but a wide majority pay attention to all those other factors that are important: like quality of coaching staff, offensive/defensive scheme match to the player's talents, degree of opportunity, chance for championships, and on and on. Playing for your hometown favorite is only one factor among many. It affects some decisions, sure, but not as many as all that.
Keep in mind: that 5-star recruit down in Daytona might be a Gator fan ... or a Seminole ... or a Hurricane ... or a USF ... or a UCF ... or who knows what, maybe an Ole Miss fan because his dad played for them. Even being in a talent-rich state guarantees you nothing. Recruiting is a dog-fight for everyone involved.
Bottom line is, I don't understand the purported recruiting advantage/disadvantage angle of articles like these. It just doesn't ring true to me.