MU hasn't done well recruiting Chicago (outside of D-Wade who was a lightly-recruited partial qualifier) in my lifetime; the guys they get are generally second-tier in terms of top-program interest. They don't win major recruiting battles in the city. MU really doesn't move the needle nationally either. Texas may not have before Barnes, but it does now, particularly with recruits. Another coach wouldn't have to rebuild that rep, he could just expand on it. I'd pick Texas in a heartbeat.
MU doesn't need to recruit Chicago anymore than UT doesn't need to recruit Texas. Its nice that it is there for both programs but you are expected to bring in national recruits at both places. As already stated this wasn't the case before Barnes at UT. Buzz's '13 class is in the top 10 his '10 class was #17 and his '09 class was #14, seems he is moving the needle nationally fine. He is 5 years in and only 40 years old, stands to reason his recruiting isn't getting worse. I wonder if any coach at perennial national power Texas had 3 out of his first 6 recruiting classes in the top 20 
You brought up Chicago as a positive for MU, I just pointed out that while it is geographically close, they don't compete for top-Chicago kids. They just don't get them. The best one aside from Wade, who they only got because all the other big names passed him up, was Jerel McNeal (Rivals #99 in 2005). They didn't beat out anyone big-time for him. Point being, it's actually not a plus in their column.
As to the remainder, I'd say you're better than this, but evidently not. You're not honestly suggesting that Texas before Barnes is the same as Texas after 15 years of Barnes are you? What Texas was when some guy you went to school with got recruited is not even remotely similar to what Barnes has built it into, and therefore not relevant to the present discussion. It is a national name amongst recruits now. It is one of a handful of schools that is commonly accepted amongst 5-star kids as a possible destination without any special circumstances surrounding their recruitment. The three years you throw out as achievements for Buzz at MU are down years in recruiting for Texas now. Did Barnes make it so? Certainly, but it won't just disappear once he's gone. He's doing that crap with underachievement on the court (as judged by the very recruiting standards he himself set). If they hire another good/great recruiter who is actually a strong coach as well, they won't be taking a step back. Texas is unquestionably a football first school, but they aren't about to let basketball slip in today's college athletics financial environment. It matters too much with what they want to do in marketing and selling themselves. They won't accept mediocrity, because it's too easy with their resources not to be. That and with programs like Ohio State and Florida dominating on the basketball court, they're not about to take a back seat in terms of overall AD prestige. MU doesn't hold a candle to what Texas has/is capable of, particularly with the Big East crumbling. They are dangerously close to being knocked down a peg, while Texas isn't going anywhere. More than likely they'll only get better as the funding disparity grows.
You missed my point about the Chicago thing and I clarified it, will try again. Chicago is a plus because its there, just because they haven't, in your words, done well there doesn't mean it isn't a resource. The state of Texas is a resource for Texas but contrary to what some think, they don't get every kid they want, still a resource because its right there.
We'll agree to disagree about the rest of this. If I rebut this I just be repeating my post for the most part. I will say that you have no basis for what you claimed about UTs recruiting. My point about my teammates recruitment was that how you view UT wasn't the case before Barnes, so you can't just blindly say those recruits are going to UT and not Rick Barnes like he's some interchangeable part. Barnes is that program, he's all they ever had. You have no historical basis to make UT minus Barnes some kind of monster, they literally were never that. Marquette, on the other hand, has been a solid program under multiple coaches, over multiple eras.
