Only a few places in the US have that kind of tenure pressure, in fact, just the one you named. Maybe a half dozen fail to tenure more than 20% of their asst profs. And from the tough departments, everyone I know who didn't get tenure now has a good tenured job at another less strict but still respectable school. The hard part is getting the tenure-track job in the first place - once one has it, life in academia has unreasonably good job security.

And with regard to the proposal process, I'd agree there is a strong element of randomness. However, I often hear complaints implying that if a proposal was close to funding in one year, the next time it is re-worked and re-submitted it deserves to be funded, which I don't understand. If a topic is hot, the state of knowledge is moving forward, and priorities can change with the times. Also re-working does not always improve a proposal, particularly when it drives the budget up. And some pools of proposals are more competitive than others.

It can also be a trap to consider a proposal "recommended for funding" in most cases. Proposals for a well-run panels come out ranked by priority for funding, then the money is allocated until it runs out. The panel sometimes draws a line below which proposals are not recommended for funding, but this is usually well below where they think there will be any money left to spend.