$200M Down: Rethinking College Football's Coaching Buyout Cycle
Nothing says college football season is fully underway until the first coach is fired for poor performance and the subsequent eye-popping buyout an institution must pay the coach they just let go. Since the start of the 2025 season, thirteen Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) coaches have been relieved of their duties effective immediately. With the college season halfway over, total buyouts now exceed $200 million. Since the College Football Playoff began in 2014, payouts have exceeded $1 billion. After this past weekend, the coach of Wisconsin now leads the projections for the next coaches to be let go.
Below are the coaching changes by institution and the projected buy-outs owed to each coach:
In light of these buyouts, Stewart Mandel of The Athletic asked, "How do schools keep entering into these ridiculous, one-sided coaching contracts that cost more than the House settlement salary cap ($20.5 million) to extricate themselves from?"
Citing negotiating windows of 24 to 48 hours, escalating coaching salaries that set market rates, a lack of accountability when coaches fail, and the absence of a salary cap, Mandel describes an environment where coaches are hired and fired in pursuit of on-field performance that brings glory to institutions—and justifies the costs. Or – as as Matt Brown of ExtraPoints pointed out, perhaps the money is no longer real and few market forces can counterbalance the need for the right coach at any cost, as long as "there's always another rich guy who is willing to cut the right check and keep this whole thing going."
The cost of winning extends beyond coach buyouts this season. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry weighed in on Chip Kelly's firing at Louisiana State University, stating that LSU's athletic director Scott Woodward would not be hiring the next football coach. He stated “This is a pattern—right now, we've got a $53 million liability. We are not doing that again." Governor Landry was referring to the pattern Woodward set as Athletic Director at Texas A&M, where Jimbo Fisher was fired with the largest payout in football history: $77 million. Woodward has since stated he will resign but is owed approximately $5 million through 2029.
The ballooning costs of coach buyouts raise the question: Does buying out a coach's contract lead to future success? What are the real reasons coaches are fired?
Let's dig deeper into what we know about why coaches are fired and the market for buyouts.
Why Coaches are Fired and What We Know About Buy-Outs
On the surface, the evaluation of coaches is based on a simple formula: when coaches do not win enough games, they are fired. This is based on the “expectation” of winning. When there is a misalignment between expectations and outcomes, coaches are dismissed.
Yet, scholar Paul Homes found the reasons why coaches are fired runs deeper. While the performance of a coach’s team (as measured by win performance) is a key reason why a coach is fired, wins and losses are not the only contributing factors why a coach is fired. Coaches are fired based on an organization’s expectations on performance, the values and allegiances of the organization, and the relative power of the head coach gained through their tenure at the institution.
Holmes explains:
Strong current performance unsurprisingly lowers the probability of dismissal. However, schools also use recent historic performance to evaluate the standard to which the coach should aspire. If the coach falls short of these standards, he faces the axe. Using performance in both these manners, schools create an interesting situation in which stronger performance only in the most recent three seasons helps a coach’s prospects of survival; stronger performance before this actually diminishes the coach’s chance of retention.
These findings are echoed in a study of NCAA basketball coaches from 10 major conferences (including the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big 12, and Pac-12), which found that the power coaches earn from perceived prestige has little effect on their chance of dismissal. In fact, the likelihood of firing increases each year until year nine of tenure, after which the likelihood decreases. These two factors are inherently linked: a coach won't reach year nine without winning, but if they do, they're unlikely to be fired.
While wins and losses are the greatest indicator of coach longevity, the stakes have never been higher for coaches to be successful —and institutions face greater risk of paying buyouts due to several factors:
The formation of the College Football Playoff (CFP) in 2014 kicked off several conference realignments, with institutions jockeying for the best position to achieve CFP success. For example, USC and UCLA, former Pac-12 members, joined the Big Ten, a traditionally Midwest and East Coast conference.
Television rights deals between broadcasters and conferences have concentrated the highest-paying contracts—worth billions of dollars—in the hands of a few conferences (SEC, ACC, Big Ten).
The transfer portal created a pathway for athletes to switch schools immediately, allowing coaches to rebuild rosters from year to year and shortening the expected timeline for team success.
Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) created opportunities for athletes to earn money while playing. Naturally, the highest-profile teams attract the best-paid athletes. Bryce Young of Alabama, quarterback and Heisman winner, reportedly earned $3.5 million.
The changing financial landscape of college athletics has certainly fueled the proliferation of coach buyouts, but institutions have ways to lessen their impact and better understand the pressures driving this environment. These pressures include boosters demanding immediate success, conference commissioners pushing for playoff representation, television networks expecting competitive matchups for their billion-dollar investments, and fan bases with heightened expectations due to transfer portal activity and NIL spending. Institutions can use contract clauses to reduce buyouts if a coach takes a new coaching role. Penn State is banking on such a clause to avoid paying their recently fired coach James Franklin the full $50 million owed.
How to Select the Next “Executive (Coach)” & Equip Them for Success
It is unlikely that coaching buyouts will become less prevalent in the high-stakes world of college athletics. However, athletic directors, hiring committees, search firms, presidents, and other decision-makers can be better equipped to vet, choose, and support their next head coach. Below are insights on how these leaders might rethink this process and increase the likelihood their next hire is a “winner.”
Plan Coach Succession: Planning for leadership succession needs to occur well before leaders think it's necessary. In 2018, CEOs at the world's largest 2,500 companies had turnover rates of 18% – and boards were caught off-guard because there was no talent pipeline (internal or external) in place. FBS coaches on average hold their jobs for only 3.7 years. It is critical to understand the landscape of coaching candidates and be prepared for the inevitable.
Reduce the chances of bias: When interviewing candidates, humans tend to look for the easiest paths to make judgements — and decisions about candidates. To avoid this, it is important to have a diverse panel of stakeholders evaluating coaches – avoid having stakeholders interview candidates they know – level the playing field by structuring interviews and questions for candidates equally – and, include athletes and other future colleagues in the interview process to expand the assessment of coaches' qualifications.
Avoid leadership traps: Perceptions of leadership – can be misleading. Being seen as a team player may mask indecisiveness, dynamic public speaking may overshadow poor one-on-one skills, and similarity bias leads to selecting leaders with familiar backgrounds and characteristics. Instead, those selecting the next coach should prioritize assessing a candidate's integrity (Do they treat others with respect? Are they firm on their principles? Parents of recruits will look for this). Consider how they communicate information and expectations (Can they gain respect from senior leaders, colleagues, and athletes?). Evaluate how they collaborate with their immediate team—this signals whether they can build strong teams, handle conflicting ideas, and delegate authority effectively. This is essential when head coaches juggle recruiting, coaching, media appearances, and relationship building.
Hire a leader to build a culture of transparency: Leaders who prioritize organizational transparency —fully disclosing information to stakeholders and encouraging productive disagreement—improve overall organizational performance. In the high-stakes environment of college coaching, where "winning at any cost" can lead to shortcuts and rule-breaking, transparency is crucial to protect the integrity of the athletic department, program, and head coach. Hiring a leader who prioritizes candor, owns mistakes, and fosters a no-blame culture (like Mercedes F1) will build a working environment based on transparency rather than back-channel communication.
At IntelliSport Analytics
We believe strong culture is not a happy accident—it's the product of deliberate, informed choices. With our tailored approach to people analytics, we help teams and organizations bring clarity to their culture and provide the tools to shape it strategically.