While Nick Saban champions the idea that NIL and donor influence are driving the recent wave of college football coach firings, a deep dive into the 2025 season’s most notable dismissals reveals a familiar culprit: repeated losses on the field. The impact of donor dollars is evolving, but ultimate job security still hinges on performance.
The 2025 college football season has been a whirlwind, with an unprecedented nine coaches already shown the door, according to USA Today. Among the most high-profile exits was James Franklin from Penn State. This recent surge in coaching changes prompted legendary coach Nick Saban to offer a compelling, albeit debatable, theory on ESPN’s “College GameDay.” Saban suggested that the burgeoning “pay-for-play” landscape, often referred to as NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness), is empowering donors to exert more influence over athletic directors, leading to quicker firings.
Saban, known for his empathy towards the pressures faced by elite coaches, labeled Franklin’s dismissal as “unfair as hell,” attributing it to a perceived lack of “appreciation and gratitude” from Penn State for Franklin’s contributions, despite a staggering $49 million buyout package. He articulated his concern to ESPN, stating, “Everybody’s raising money to pay players. So, the people that are giving the money think they have a voice, and they’re just like a bunch of fans. When they get frustrated and disappointed, they put pressure on the (athletic directors) to take action.”
While Saban’s theory holds a certain theoretical appeal, suggesting a new paradigm where financial backers act as shareholders demanding immediate returns, a closer look at the data reveals that the fundamental driver of coach firings remains unchanged: consistent losing. The allure of NIL may be new, but the guillotine of a poor win-loss record is as old as the game itself.
The Enduring Reality: Losses Fuel the Hot Seat
Before the advent of NIL, the 2020 season saw 13 coaches fired, many amidst a pandemic that some inaccurately predicted would lead to greater financial prudence in athletic departments. Conversely, the preceding year was relatively quiet, with only one Big Ten and no SEC coaches dismissed. This cyclical pattern—a quiet year followed by a “bloodletting”—is a conventional wisdom now unfolding, regardless of NIL.
Let’s scrutinize some of the Power Four coaches fired this season, beyond the immediate spotlight on Franklin, to understand if pay-for-play truly dictates their fate:
- Mike Gundy (Oklahoma State): His 3-9 record last season, followed by a 66-point loss to Oregon and a defeat to Tulsa this September, sealed his fate. A 4-11 record over 15 games would have been a firing offense well before NIL.
- DeShaun Foster (UCLA): Foster’s 5-10 record, including early season losses to UNLV and New Mexico, was indefensible. The Bruins’ immediate surge under interim coach Tim Skipper only validated the decision.
- Brent Pry (Virginia Tech): Given over three seasons, Pry’s 16-24 record marked the worst tenure since the early 1970s. This was a textbook performance-based firing.
- Sam Pittman (Arkansas): A regression in momentum, leading to a 20-23 record in his final four seasons, is simply not tolerated in the SEC.
- Billy Napier (Florida): Ironically, NIL may have granted Napier an extension. Boosters reportedly raised funds for his dismissal last year but chose to invest in the roster for one more season. His performance, ranking him as Florida’s worst coach since the 1940s, ultimately proved too much to overcome. He simply lasted too long.
James Franklin: A Confluence of Factors
It’s with James Franklin where Saban’s theory finds its most plausible, albeit still secondary, argument. Penn State, coming off a playoff semifinal appearance last season, went all-in on a potential national championship run. This included luring defensive coordinator Jim Knowles from Ohio State with a top-tier salary and significant investment in the roster, fueled by donor support. Franklin himself touted this as his “best combined personnel” in 12 seasons, backed by a preseason No. 3 ranking.
When the team then dramatically “flopped” with consecutive losses to Oregon, UCLA, and Northwestern, the donor ranks felt an “inadequate return on investment.” This financial frustration, coupled with fan chants of “Fire Franklin!” during a home loss, created an undeniable pressure on the athletic director. While losses were still the catalyst, the amplified expectations born from significant financial investment — a component undeniably linked to the NIL era and donor involvement — likely accelerated Franklin’s exit.
Historical Echoes: The Bar Gets Raised
Franklin’s situation also reflects a long-standing tradition in college football: coaches raising the bar of expectation and then failing to clear their own new standard. Before the NIL era, coaches like Gus Malzahn at Auburn (eight consecutive winning seasons, .660 win percentage, three wins against Saban) were fired after an initial national runner-up finish that he could not replicate. Similarly, Ed Orgeron was dismissed from LSU two seasons after winning a national championship, and Auburn fired Gene Chizik years before any permitted pay-for-play rules existed, after he also won a national title.
This pattern underscores that extraordinary success often creates an even higher, and sometimes unsustainable, expectation. When a coach cannot consistently deliver at that elevated level, regardless of financial backing or lack thereof, their job security diminishes.
The Road Ahead: More Hot Seats, Same Reason
The firing spree isn’t over. Coaches like Auburn’s Hugh Freeze, Wisconsin’s Luke Fickell, and Florida State’s Mike Norvell currently occupy three of the hottest seats in college football, as reported by Yahoo Sports. In these instances, the blame firmly rests on performance, not primarily donor influence:
- Hugh Freeze has yet to deliver a winning season and is on a four-game losing streak.
- Luke Fickell’s Badgers are in their third season under him, currently on a five-game losing streak, and are considered one of the weakest teams in the expanded Big Ten.
- Mike Norvell also carries a four-game losing streak and an alarming 1-11 record in his last 12 ACC games.
For these coaches, as for most others, repeated losses are the undeniable driver of their precarious job status. The voice of donors and fans is certainly louder than ever, and in the current collegiate sports ecosystem, their financial contributions to roster building make them function almost like shareholders. However, the definitive proof that pay-for-play inherently makes coaches more vulnerable is still lacking.
The Verdict: Performance Still Reigns Supreme
In conclusion, while Nick Saban’s insights into the evolving dynamics of college football are always worth considering, the evidence strongly suggests that the surest way for a coach to face dismissal remains the same as it always has been: consistent losing. The infusion of donor money through NIL may amplify expectations and accelerate timelines, especially for programs that invest heavily and fail to deliver immediate results like Penn State under James Franklin. However, for the majority of coaches navigating the high-stakes world of college football, the scoreboard ultimately decides their fate.
