First off, let me say that I generally appreciate your comments and agree with a lot of what you say - specifically re: the fickleness of fans, etc. There's no doubt that for most fans what determines whether or not going for it on 4th down was a good or bad call depends almost solely on whether or not the team picked up the first down, etc. etc.
But lately it seems the general gist of a lot of what you're saying is either the coach has no impact on the outcome of games because there's no such thing as actually "coaching kids up" or game day coaching, etc., or all the coaches are so good that they basically cancel each other out - and everything just comes down to the talent of the 11 guys on the field which is almost entirely determined by there high school recruiting star ratings and the overall NIL spend of the team. Is this what you're actually saying?
I have to believe certain coaches have better personalities for recruiting - higher EQs to connect with players/families, salesmen, etc. And some coaches are likely better at seeing past the star ratings to predict which kids can actually play football, fit into positions of need, have the right attitudes to enhance the culture of the team, etc. And some coaches must be better than others at putting together the optimal staffs, putting kids in the best positions, doing the best pre-game preparations, etc. And some rare coaches might even be better at in-game adjustments, play-calling strategies, etc. no? Wasn't Paterno amazing coming off of bye weeks and in bowl games because ostensibly he was better than other coaches at breaking down an opponents weaknesses and coming up with ways to exploit them?
If the coach doesn't actually have any real influence on the wins and losses, why are the best ones paid 8-figure salaries while others are stuck in division III?