I don't think I would say it's irrelevant, would just say that there's a large margin for error and room for a lot of variability.
Another, very simple, but equally valid way to look at the same data set would be to say that it shows how uncommon it is for a coach to take over a program that's a complete dumpster fire and turn it in to a champion. Normally, these championship programs have championship groundwork already laid. Becuase I would say most, if not all of those coaches took over better situations than the one Manny left behind at Miami.
And if you think about it, that makes sense. Fans, university administrators, and boosters are impatient. They want fast results. So often times, you can have situations like the one in Florida where one coach laid the groundwork (Zook) while another reaped the rewards (Urban). (Butch/Coker, etc). Or like the one in FSU, where the championship coach (Jimbo) took over from another championship coach (Bowden). (Miles/Saban etc)
I also can't find another example of a program that invested 4x as much in their championship coach as in the previous one. Why is that relevant? Because it shows that these other situations were still where the school was investing, still had strong infratstructure, even prior to having a championship coach. Ohio State and Michigan, for example.
Miami is already a "statistical outlier" because we went from not investing a dime in football and having a mom and pop operation, to investing big. Almost overnight. It was always going to be a slow build here, because we're starting from a different place. He has a long contract for a reason.