No, coaching certainly is easier at a place where better recruiting is possible. Look at:
* The World Cup -- if talent alone won, Brazil would win the thing every four years. There is nobody alive who can say with a straight face that France's talent is equal to that of Brazil. The French team was coached better.
* The NBA: When Amare Stoundemire went down, many figured the Phoenix Suns had zero chance of making the playoffs. Mark D'Antoni did a sensational coaching job against teams with much better talent
* The NFL: Does anyone really want to suggest the New England Patriots had the NFL's best talent in the years it won those Super Bowls? Tom Brady and Adam Vinitieri and a few others are stars, for sure, but overall, they have had far better coaching than say .... the Colts.
* Baseball: The Detroit Tigers have no business having the best record in baseball, and I'd contend that the White Sox didn't have the best talent last year. But Jim Leyland (this year) and Ozzie Guillen (this year and last year) have done heroic coaching (managing) jobs. Put the college football equivalent of Leyland or Guillen on the sideline in Austin, and UT would have several more championship trophies. Mack Brown should be the world's highest-paid recruiting coordinator. You can't say he's a great coach, because the talent level on his teams is light years ahead of most of his opponents'. The one team in his conference with similar talent is Oklahoma, and Bob Stoops is 6-2 against Brown. More often than not, UT has had better talent, but Stoops is a far better coach.