I simply mean that a smaller pool to work with (5-50 boys per class) means that that you are more affected by natural talent swings than larger schools with 100-600 boys per class. Some schools have large boom and bust periods - others seem to have runs that are 20+ years long. I've had great experiences with every 6-8 man coaches I've met and have been mentored by several, even though my coaching and teaching has been exclusively at Class A and B schools. I absolutely agree that coaching matters at every level, but I know there is a difference between having 8 freshmen come out for football and coaching up what you have and having 50+ and cutting more.
As for indirect coaching, I would expect the head football coach of a program to have more of a role/influence on a middle school program when that team's practice is happening 40-50 feet away on the next field over. I use the term indirect, because while he may not be walking over to coach them during his own practice, they are almost certainly running his system or a simplified version, and he probably has a say over who coaches the MS team. To put it another way - the coach at a C1 school has probably met every football player in his MS program and watched them play multiple times at the MS level, while a coach of a class A school in Omaha isn't able to have the same access to MS players, and there is more player movement (aka not directly feeding from a specific middle school to a specific high school). Again, simply my observations and experiences.
I feel that I came across very hostile to towards ANY team that opts down. I'm really not. I'd argue that the rule itself isn't a problem - when used as intended. Schools with systemic issues can opt down, with the implication that when/if they improve, they are able to "opt back" to their previous class and have full class membership (playoff eligibility). Historically, we have seen that for the vast majority, opting down does not result in more wins. If anything, it generates a mixed bag of creating engagement for many schools. In fact, I would argue that schools such as Schuyler and SSC should return to their original classes ASAP -the C1 Grinder is certainly not helping Schuyler, and over the last 3 years, SSC has beaten 4 Class A (or Iowa Equivalent) and 1 class B team (Schuyler).
My very specific gripe is Wakefield. They have actually been the success story of the opt down rule. They opted down due to legitimate concerns - their coach has created a strong culture that has restored their team numbers (maxpreps reports have them at low to high 30s over the past 5 years), while going 29-8 over that same time. The equivalent (I went to a random 10 schools at varying success levels) C2 program actually had less kids on their max prep rosters! Their coach wrote this post in 2019, after going 20-4 over 3 years. He then in 2020 went 7-0, and is currently 2-4 with a strong schedule/winnable games. They can obviously be competitive and have just as many kids as they would be competing with in C2, while the statistics would show they have an advantage over class D1 that is unlike any other program that is opting down. This is my problem - in my opinion, they are abusing a rule that was not designed for them. Why is it somehow unacceptable to go 2-6 or 3-5 in their rightful class, if that is the results of their season?