For more than ten years, college football has experienced a period of unstoppable financial expenditures, during which the termination fees for coaches have been treated as nothing more than minor obstacles.
When Texas A&M dismissed Jimbo Fisher in 2023 at a cost of $77 million, it demonstrated to the entire collegiate sports world that no severance package was too massive. The university is set to distribute over $7 million to him every year until 2031 simply to keep him away from the sidelines.
However, following the most hectic three-year span of leadership changes the coaching landscape has ever witnessed, we may be seeing early indications of caution driven by contract buyouts. Over 30 positions changed hands during each of the last three seasons—specifically, 32 in 2024, 30 in 2025, and an unprecedented 33 in 2026. (This translates to 95 head coaches being substituted, which is 14 more than the previously most volatile three-year period between 2011 and 2013.)
A mix of natural historical cycles and the monetary strain of direct athlete compensation suggests a deceleration in firing rates for 2026. To put this in perspective, at this exact point last season, five jobs at power conferences were vacant: Stanford (since the spring), Arkansas, UCLA, Oklahoma State, and Virginia Tech. (Additionally, Penn State dismissed James Franklin on October 12).
Up to this moment, not a single head coach has been let go.
“We are dealing with astronomical termination fees, the urgency of financing athlete rosters, and major doubts surrounding the Protect College Sports Act alongside future revenue-sharing structures,” remarked an athletic director from a major conference. “Does replacing the head coach instantly fix all our problems? Or will certain universities choose to maintain stability for now?”
Program leaders are anticipating elite-level roster values exceeding $60 million within the SEC by 2027, with the premier athletes in the game commanding upwards of $8 million in the coming year. Since the Protect College Sports Act seems unlikely to pass through the House of Representatives, player payrolls are expected to continue their steep upward trend.
This situation is intensified today as institutional debt mounts, athlete compensation surges, and the total bill for an entire staff overhaul combined with roster improvements can easily top $100 million. Predictably, several of the institutions with vulnerable head coaches are among the lowest spenders relative to their conference rivals, forcing them to make a classic modern-day collegiate sports decision on how to distribute their funds.
Athletic administrators are grappling with a classic dilemma: Do they have the resources to dismiss the coach and absorb the massive termination penalty? Or can they risk retaining the coach while watching their program, donor contributions, and fan engagement steadily decline?
Ultimately, how active will the coaching carousel be throughout collegiate athletics this autumn? The resolution depends largely on six major-conference universities and how they handle incredibly challenging contract terminations.
Navigate to a coach:
Lincoln Riley | Dabo Swinney
Mike Norvell | Deion Sanders
Shane Beamer | Greg Schiano
1. Lincoln Riley of USC
Termination Cost: $70 million
Southern California has supplied Riley with immense capital for recruiting, a state-of-the-art football complex, and a highly compensated general manager near the top of the market. Modifications have occurred in almost all areas of the organization, including coordinators, conditioning coaches, and support staff.
If the Trojans continue to replicate this familiar pattern under Riley—possessing a flashy offense that dominates weaker opponents but lacking the team toughness and focus needed to win crucial matchups—the administration will be left with just one logical option.
With a 5-1 record, USC is entering a crucial two-game road stretch against Penn State and Wisconsin right after an open week—precisely the kind of challenges that have plagued the team during Riley’s tenure. His road record at USC stands at a modest 11-10 overall, including a 4-6 mark in away games within the Big Ten. These persistent habits must be corrected.
Arguably more damaging than their 41-27 defeat to Oregon a fortnight ago, which dropped them to 0-3 in the series, was the reputational blow the Trojans took due to Desman Stephens II’s sideline conduct following a highly controversial hit on Ducks quarterback Dante Moore. The complete absence of situational awareness and self-control on the bench as Stephens celebrated cheerfully made USC the subject of national ridicule.
Patterson, the defensive coordinator selected personally by Riley, is currently managing a defense ranked 89th in scoring nationally. This appointment, which always possessed a high-risk, high-reward outlook, is rapidly heading toward failure. The challenge is set to intensify as USC prepares to navigate a brutal upcoming schedule featuring trips to Penn State and Wisconsin, followed by matchups with Ohio State and Indiana.
There is very little proof that the Trojans’ defense, which surrendered 460 yards to Rutgers, is capable of holding firm away from home. Furthermore, statistical records show that Riley struggles against high-caliber opponents, carrying a 5-14 record against AP-ranked teams and an winless 0-5 record against top-10 programs.
Riley’s current agreement with USC has six remaining years, a contract originally authorized by former athletic director Mike Bohn. After guiding the team to the Pac-12 championship game in his debut season, his original decade-long commitment was extended by an additional year. He currently earns over $11 million per season, with scheduled salary increases lasting until the contract concludes in 2032.
If terminated, Riley’s contract settlement would rank as the second-most expensive in the history of college athletics, eclipsed only by Jimbo Fisher’s exit package.
However, Riley’s contract contains offset clauses, meaning the ultimate cost to USC could be reduced in a fashion similar to James Franklin’s contract adjustment at Penn State. (Franklin was originally in line to receive $49 million, but the university ultimately settled for a payout of around $9 million spread across three years.)
While it is improbable that USC would secure such a massive discount, firing Riley would not end his employment prospects, given his reputation as an elite offensive play-caller. The Texas-born Texas Tech alumnus was highly successful during his stint in the Big 12, posting an impressive 84.6% winning percentage with Oklahoma, in contrast to his 67.8% mark at USC.
Securing another head coaching position or an offensive coordinator role in the NFL would offset his payout and save USC a substantial sum. (By comparison, Franklin’s contract at Virginia Tech is valued at approximately $42 million.)
A clear warning sign for USC will be visible on the opposing sideline this Saturday. Parting ways with a highly competent coach simply because they struggle to win elite matchups seems to have set Penn State back during the opening phase of the Matt Campbell era. Although Campbell undoubtedly requires more patience, there are no clear championship-level successors waiting to take Riley’s place. Moreover, a promising core of young athletes on USC’s roster could quickly enter the transfer portal if a coaching change is made.
2. Dabo Swinney of Clemson
Termination Cost: $57 million
To be absolutely clear, Clemson will not be dismissing Swinney. His past achievements are too monumental, his ties to the school run too deep, and his contract termination fee is far too massive. On top of that, the team is currently sitting at 3-2 and will likely be the favorite in all of their remaining matchups.
The program’s recent decline coincides with massive structural shifts in college athletics over the last decade. Swinney’s coaching style, which was highly effective during the previous era, has not achieved the same level of success under the current landscape.
Consequently, the primary challenge facing Clemson—one they have debated for several seasons—is figuring out how the program can adapt to maximize Swinney’s personal strengths. While his talents lie in building relationships, fostering culture, and player development, these must now coexist with an era dominated by financial transactions.
Some adjustments have already been made; for example, Clemson integrated ten defensive players from the transfer portal last season, though they only signed one on the offensive side. It remains to be seen whether this modernizing process will continue to progress over time.
Swinney frequently points to the program’s historic dominance in the ACC, highlighted by eight conference championships over the past eleven seasons. However, Miami has emerged as the clear powerhouse in the league, demonstrated by their four-touchdown victory at Death Valley just last week.
Where does the program go from here? Will Clemson maintain its current coaching staff in hopes of internal progress? Will they continue starting first-year quarterback Tait Reynolds, or will they finally break their portal avoidance by spending upwards of $5 million to secure an elite transfer quarterback? Furthermore, are we going to see modifications in the front office to bring player recruitment up to speed with modern standards?
Although Clemson might secure a respectable record in 2026, they still face a frustrating deficit when trying to match the nation’s premier football programs.
Termination Cost: Close to $51 million
Norvell is doing his best to survive under the most intense scrutiny in the country. The positive atmosphere surrounding Saturday’s lopsided victory against Virginia offered some crucial relief for his coaching status. Even so, he has posted a disappointing 4-14 record over his last 18 conference matchups as they prepare for a Friday night game at Louisville.
This year, Norvell holds a 3-2 record, bringing his total record at the school to 41-36, a tenure highlighted by an unblemished regular season and a conference crown in 2023. Unfortunately, very little has gone in their favor since that peak.
To put it plainly, Florida State is under severe economic strain. The athletic department’s outstanding liabilities exceed $430 million, primarily tied up in facility renovations and backed by revenue bonds. Consequently, securing additional loans is extremely challenging for the school. This financial reality makes the prospect of a $68 million payout to dismiss Norvell and his assistants highly problematic. (Given his recent struggles, it is doubtful Norvell would immediately land another major-conference head coaching job to offset these costs, leaving FSU to bear the brunt of the expense.)
Observers across college football suspect that the absence of clear leadership and organizational harmony, which created FSU’s current athletic and financial troubles, may also hinder their ability to execute crucial strategic decisions moving forward.
Following the dismissal of athletic director Mike Alford on September 14, many expected a rapid replacement process followed by a final verdict on Norvell’s future by December. However, Florida State has not yet formally partnered with any prominent executive search firms. Instead, it is anticipated that board chairman Peter Collins—whose leadership has run parallel to FSU’s decline—will oversee these critical choices alongside university president Richard McCullough.
This unfolding drama has caused anxiety among local supporters while providing entertainment for national audiences, who are watching a classic example of hubris preceding a collapse.
It is worth noting that Florida State is actively seeking a path to exit the ACC, a campaign marked by an awkward lawsuit against the conference, poor on-field results, and actions that may alienate alternative conferences. Drew Weatherford, a former FSU trustee, famously asserted in 2023 that their departure from the league was an inevitability, stating it was merely a question of timing and method.
President McCullough expressed similar urgency, describing the financial disparity between the ACC and the SEC or Big Ten as an existential threat to the university’s athletic future.
A combination of organizational pride, poor balance sheets, and a track record of weak athletic leadership plagued by internal discord—exemplified by Alford’s predecessors David Coburn, Stan Wilcox, and Randy Spetman—has made the athletic director vacancy at FSU look unappealing to many. With influential donors wielding significant power and university administrators closely involved, a fundamental question remains: how much autonomy will a new athletic director actually enjoy?
Ideally, Florida State hopes Norvell can turn the season around, given his strong standing with school officials and the reality that terminating him and his assistants would require the previously mentioned $68 million outlay.
To match Miami, which has completely outpaced them in both athletic success and conference positioning, FSU must bridge a massive funding gap, as they currently trail the Hurricanes by at least $15 million in roster spending.
As an additional financial warning, public universities in Florida have been authorized to draw up to $22 million in auxiliary funding from campus reserves, a provision set to lapse in 2028. This represents another massive financial challenge for FSU to address in the coming years, even as Norvell’s contract obligations run through 2031.
4. Deion Sanders of Colorado
Termination Cost: $26.1 million
The most positive outcome of Sanders’ tenure in Boulder is that he brought widespread attention to a football program that had been irrelevant for decades.
However, as Sanders struggles in his fourth season without a reliable quarterback, a clear team identity, or a realistic path to competing in the Big 12, the initial excitement has clearly evaporated.
While Buffaloes fans enthusiastically embraced the initial hype, enthusiasm is falling fast as the team struggles on the field and may not be favored in any of their remaining games.
Neither side holds much deep commitment to the other. For Sanders, the university served primarily as a backdrop for his personal brand and media ventures. For Colorado, while they benefited from the spectacular play of Travis Hunter, those highlights are fading into the past, alongside a difficult-to-measure surge in student applications during the height of the early media circus.
Currently, the spectacle has become downright embarrassing. A microphone caught Sanders yelling that the team only had nine players on the field following a timeout—which they had been forced to call because they previously only had eight men lined up. That widely shared television clip perfectly captures the dysfunction of the program. Over the last two seasons, Colorado has managed only two victories against power-conference teams (Iowa State and Georgia Tech), going 2-13 in their last 15 attempts. Following an open date this week, they must face 12th-ranked Utah before traveling to meet 18th-ranked Oklahoma State.
Under newly appointed offensive coordinator Brennan Marion, the Buffaloes’ offense languishes at 125th nationally in scoring. Their average of 18.6 points per matchup is nearly a full touchdown lower than the Big 12’s next worst offense, TCU (25.4 points), and almost two touchdowns behind the third-lowest, UCF (32.4 points). Meanwhile, the highly touted recruit Sanders banked on at quarterback, former five-star prospect Julian Lewis, has fallen to third on the depth chart after reclassifying early.
Colorado is also facing the same financial hurdles common among mid-tier Power 4 universities, with reports indicating a projected $27 million deficit for the fiscal year. Their football budget sits near the median of the Big 12, making the financial logistics of paying a massive buyout while remaining competitive highly problematic.
Prior athletic director Rick George signed Sanders to a highly profitable contract extension in March 2025, raising his potential earnings to $12 million by 2029. With no other programs showing interest in hiring Sanders away, the duration and guaranteed funds of this deal make it one of the least favorable agreements in college football. While replacing the assistants wouldn’t add astronomical costs, the $26.1 million owed to Sanders remains a massive hurdle.
The incoming athletic director, Fernando Lovo, takes over a struggling program saddled with a highly unfavorable contract, forcing him to make a high-stakes decision regarding one of football’s most polarizing personalities.
Termination Cost: $22.5 million
The current season has brought a series of unfortunate events for South Carolina. The Gamecocks suffered a heartbreaking defeat to Kentucky on a final-play two-point conversion, dealt with highly publicized behavioral problems involving standout edge rusher Dylan Stewart, and have seen quarterback LaNorris Sellers struggle to replicate his strong play from 2024.
Beamer has accepted full responsibility for his team’s shortcomings, owning a 35-33 record in his sixth season at the helm. He publicly admitted that his own coaching performance has been inadequate, taking accountability and stressing the urgent need for overall team improvement.
Just two years ago, Beamer had the program on the verge of a College Football Playoff berth. Currently, however, the Gamecocks sit at 0-3 in SEC play and occupy the bottom of the standings following a disappointing 4-8 campaign, putting his job security under intense scrutiny.
As of now, there is no immediate push within South Carolina’s administration to dismiss Beamer. He enjoys broad popularity, and the athletic department’s financial stability is largely sustained by a university subsidy exceeding $42 million. Recent financial records indicate this institutional support has expanded, rising by $16 million compared to 2024 levels.
The contractual obligations South Carolina has to Beamer are distinct from the other coaches on this list. The university must pay the full $22.5 million regardless of whether he secures another job, as his contract lacks any mitigation or offset provisions. This would require an annual expenditure of over $7 million through the end of the 2030 campaign.
When including the expenses to release his coaching assistants, which could reach up to $11.8 million, the total termination cost approaches $33 million. (Fortunately for the school, the assistant coaches’ agreements do feature offset clauses, which could reduce that $11.8 million liability depending on their subsequent employment.)
Newly appointed athletic director Jeremiah Donati will likely defer any decision until the season concludes. The financial picture is complex, given that South Carolina’s highly successful women’s basketball program operated at a $6 million loss last year, while the men’s basketball team has gone 6-30 in the SEC over the last two years, potentially requiring an $8 million buyout of head coach LaMont Paris.
With South Carolina’s athletic budget currently ranking near the median of the SEC, it remains questionable whether the school can absorb millions in dead money while remaining competitive. Indeed, the primary inquiry from any high-profile coaching candidate will be centered on the size of the program’s player payroll budget.
6. Greg Schiano of Rutgers
Termination Cost: $18.6 million
Rutgers operates one of the most financially challenged athletic departments in the country, experiencing a deficit of over $75 million during the 2024-25 fiscal periods. When factoring in operational shortfalls along with subsidies from the state, university, and student fees, the athletic program has accumulated more than $500 million in cumulative losses since entering the Big Ten in 2014.
Schiano stands alone as the only highly successful modern head coach in Rutgers history, recording 100 victories across two separate tenures and leading the program’s all-time win list by a margin of 22 games.
However, disappointing results on the field over the last two seasons have put him under intense pressure. The Scarlet Knights finished 5-7 in 2025 and have opened the current campaign at 1-4, highlighted by an embarrassing home defeat to UMass. An upcoming matchup against Maryland—another financially constrained athletic program with a head coach on the hot seat—should serve as a major indicator of Schiano’s job status.
The financial realities for Rutgers are daunting, with the total cost to terminate Schiano and his staff projected at up to $28 million. Since Schiano is unlikely to offset much of this fee through new employment, the school would be forced to take on even more debt.
Nonetheless, Schiano remains highly respected within the administration and maintains strong ties to local donors and state officials built over his 18 total seasons leading the team. Furthermore, programs like Wisconsin, Baylor, and Mississippi State have demonstrated this year that exercising patience can yield positive results.
Schiano candidly pointed out the insufficient NIL support at Rutgers under former athletic director Pat Hobbs, stating plainly that the program has not seriously engaged in the market at a Division I standard, let alone compared to their Big Ten rivals.
Because Rutgers is among the lowest-spending football programs in the Big Ten, absorbing a massive buyout while convincing potential coaching candidates that they can compete in a conference where median roster spending is expected to reach $35 million by 2027 is a very tough sell. (By comparison, Rutgers spends less than $25 million on its current roster.)
The newly appointed athletic director, Keli Zinn, inherited a severe financial crisis from Hobbs and has started guiding the department toward fiscal recovery. Ultimately, if the team fails to turn things around on the gridiron, the question is simple: can Rutgers realistically take on additional debt?
