I don't know you, and I am not an expert in how you spend your time. I know it's not 80 hours of work per week, because that is completely absurd. If you have a better hourly breakdown it doesn't seem like you are sharing it. Your percentages are very different than what I would have guessed, and honestly I think your priorities are off.

If you nail down a single big result you could ride that for years. Maybe that isn't realistic for everyone, but if I didn't think I was going to be a major player and drive the state of the art, I think I would find something else to do. I really don't understand the concept of the 'hard working' professor, teaching is easy (show up, explain stuff), advising students should not take much time (pick smarter students, point them in the right direction, expect them to take it from there), conferences are a complete waste of time, trying to publish a bunch of little crap results is just generation of worthless volume and nobody is fooled by it. All this might sneak a person in at a 3rd rung school, but for what? What are all the grants for in CS, presumably you already have more than enough computers? Is that what people compete for when doing something important in the field is not realistic?

I'm sorry, but if you aren't concentrating on research, meaning real research not writing grants or typing up results that nobody cares about, then you are either at a really crappy school or you have the wrong priorities. Expanding the state of the art, or moving the needle on a difficult problem is going to get you attention, respect among your peers, and publication in real journals. The situation you describe seems more like a backup plan.