Who Really Runs College Football? Coaches, Power, and the Price of Privilege

In college football, the spotlight may shine on athletes, but the real power sits on the sidelines. Coaches command the biggest salaries, wield enormous cultural, political, and even spiritual influence, and are often shielded from scrutiny by a web of university policies, state and federal laws, and cultural norms that benefit from their success. While athletes are criticized for chasing NIL deals or transferring, coaches move freely, cash in on massive buyouts, and sometimes even shape public policy-all while the machinery of college athletics bends to protect their interests.

The Buyout Game: When Coaches Always Win

Consider Jimbo Fisher’s $76 million buyout from Texas A&M-a sum nearly equal to the cost of a new F-35 fighter jet. Meanwhile, Texas Tech invoked state sovereign immunity to avoid paying Mike Leach his $2.6 million buyout, prompting Leach to call Texas a “third-world nation” for using such tactics. Whether lavishing millions on a departing coach or dodging contractual obligations altogether, university leadership, state law, and federal exemptions often ensure coaches at the top are protected and compensated in ways unimaginable for most employees.

Coaches as Politicians and Community Icons

Some coaches parlay their influence into the political arena. Tommy Tuberville went from the Auburn sideline to the U.S. Senate; Tom Osborne led Nebraska to national titles before serving in Congress; Tim Walz coached high school football before becoming Minnesota’s governor. Their leadership styles-discipline, decisiveness, motivation-resonate with voters, especially where football is king. Yet, the command-and-control approach that works in a locker room doesn’t always translate to the collaborative demands of public office.

Faith on the Sidelines: Religion as Inspiration and Insulation

Many coaches weave faith into their programs. Bobby Bowden and Dabo Swinney built cultures around Christian values; Deion Sanders at Colorado openly models his teachings on spiritual principles. Even in progressive Colorado, the university system largely turns a blind eye to complaints about Sanders’ religious expression, offering only “boundaries” training. The Supreme Court’s recent shift away from the Lemon Test has made the legal landscape murkier, but the cultural reality remains: public universities and communities often defer to the immense influence of their coaches, even when it tests legal or ethical boundaries.

For many coaches, faith is deeply sincere and a genuine source of guidance. But in an industry where the monetary incentives are so enormous, it’s understandable that anyone-coach or not-might find themselves praying for such an exorbitant salary. In some contexts, public religiosity can also serve as a powerful form of career insulation. Administrators and communities are often reluctant to criticize or discipline a coach seen as a moral leader, making faith on the sidelines both a source of inspiration and, at times, a strategic shield.

The Old System’s Quiet Harm: Player Stacking and Emotional Fallout

One of the most damaging legacies of the old college football structure is the practice of player stacking. For years, coaches operated with near-total autonomy, constructing rosters far larger than they could realistically play-then quietly engineering conditions that made it almost impossible for certain players to remain. Instead of openly cutting athletes, coaches would ramp up pressure, reduce opportunities, and create an environment so discouraging that players felt compelled to quit. Before leaving, many were asked to sign paperwork stating their departure was “voluntary,” often without fully understanding the consequences for their scholarships or future eligibility.

The emotional fallout for players was profound: lost confidence, feelings of failure, isolation, and in many cases, long-term mental health struggles. Yet, the loudest voices now complaining about the “chaos” of the transfer portal and NIL are often the same coaches who never uttered a word about the emotional damage caused by player stacking. Where was this concern for stability and athlete well-being when the old system quietly discarded so many young men?

This hypocrisy is on full display in recent headlines. Take Lane Kiffin at Ole Miss, who has built a reputation as a “frat boy” coach and is no stranger to abrupt departures himself (e.g., his exit from the University of Tennessee in 2010). When defensive tackle DeSanto Rollins missed meetings during an alleged mental health crisis, Kiffin berated him, saying, “Go read your f---ing rights about mental health. We can kick you off the team for not showing up.” Rollins alleged he was pressured to quit or transfer-a familiar tactic in the old regime. Yet, if Rollins had transferred and benefited from NIL, he would likely have faced public scrutiny for “disloyalty” or “chasing money”-criticism rarely, if ever, directed at coaches like Kiffin who move freely for bigger paychecks or more power.

The NIL Double Standard

Ironically, many coaches who benefit from these privileges are the loudest critics of NIL and athlete empowerment. Nick Saban, for example, built Alabama’s “three-year and out” model, which funneled players to the NFL without prioritizing graduation. Yet, he’s appeared before Congress to lament the chaos of NIL-a system that finally gives athletes some of the agency coaches have always enjoyed.

Tradition, Power, and the Bill Belichick Paradox

Calls for a “return to tradition” in college football are common, often invoked by those defending the old guard or resisting change. But what does tradition really mean in this context? Consider Bill Belichick, now at UNC, who at 73 is in a high-profile, unmarried relationship with a woman 49 years his junior-a pairing that’s become a media spectacle and the subject of locker-room jokes. For all the talk about upholding “traditional values,” what exactly is traditional about this? The reality is, coach privilege often means never having to answer for the same standards imposed on others. When it comes to power, celebrity, and influence, the rules are flexible-especially for those with a winning résumé. So for those who demand a return to the old ways, I have to ask: what, exactly, is traditional about Bill Belichick at UNC? I’ll wait.

Coaches as Agents of Change-and Myth

Of course, coaches can also be agents of progress, sometimes in ways that become the stuff of legend. Take Bear Bryant, often credited with integrating Alabama football by inviting USC to play in Birmingham in 1970. When Sam “Bam” Cunningham and USC’s integrated team dominated Bryant’s all-white squad, it became a turning point for the South. The story has grown into legend, sometimes glossing over complexities, but it shows how a single coach’s decisions can shift the culture of an entire region-for better or worse.

Coaches, Control, and the Law: A Call for Real Accountability

For too long, coaches have ruled their programs with near-dictatorial control, often escaping both state and federal employment laws and workplace standards that govern everyone else. Reports of hostile work environments, retaliation, and unchecked authority are not just “locker room culture” issues-they are matters of workplace law and public trust.

It’s time for local politicians, prosecutors, and university officials to recognize that coaches-no matter how many championships they win-are not above the law or basic standards of conduct. They must be held to the same scrutiny and accountability as any other public servant or powerful figure. Civil society and the public should demand transparency and real consequences-just as we would for any elected official or community leader.

Acknowledging My Own Bias

I’ll admit: my critique is not without bias. If a coach were influencing a public university program in a way that aligned with my own values, would I be as critical? Perhaps not. To ignore this would be arbitrary. The truth is, we all bring our perspectives to these debates, and it’s important to recognize our own limitations.

Conclusion: Who Does College Football Really Serve?

Coaches’ financial privileges, cultural reverence, political power, and spiritual influence create a class largely immune to scrutiny. Meanwhile, athletes seeking fair compensation and mobility face criticism, legal hurdles, and systemic bias. If we want college sports to truly serve young athletes, it’s time to question the unchecked power of coaches and the institutions, laws, and cultural norms-state and federal-that protect them, even as we recognize our own biases in the process.