News
November 22, 2025
Mike Bianchi: Lane Kiffin’s Ole Miss contract is a sad blueprint for college football’s broken system
ORLANDO, Fla. — Can we please stop pretending college football is anything other than a billion-dollar clown show held together by buyout checks, booster fantasies and athletic directors who negotiate contracts with all the fiscal discipline of a drunken lottery...
Mike Bianchi: Lane Kiffin’s Ole Miss contract is a sad blueprint for college football’s broken system
The latest contract extension for Ole Miss head football coach Lane Kiffin has sparked renewed debate about the spiraling financial landscape of college football and whether the current system is sustainable. In a scathing commentary, columnist Mike Bianchi argues that Kiffin’s deal exemplifies a “billion-dollar clown show” fueled by exorbitant buyouts, unrealistic booster expectations, and athletic directors who seem to have lost all sense of financial responsibility.
Bianchi’s piece, originating from Orlando, Florida, doesn't delve into the specifics of Kiffin’s new contract. Instead, it uses the situation as a jumping-off point to criticize the broader problems plaguing the sport. The core issue, according to Bianchi, is the unsustainable cycle of universities throwing vast sums of money at coaches, only to potentially fire them a few years later and be saddled with massive buyout obligations.
He paints a picture of booster influence run amok, where wealthy donors exert undue pressure on athletic departments, pushing for coaching hires and demanding immediate success, regardless of the long-term financial implications. This pressure, combined with the win-at-all-costs mentality prevalent in many programs, often leads to rash decisions and contracts that are ultimately detrimental to the university's overall financial health.
Bianchi suggests that athletic directors, often caught between the demands of boosters and the need to remain competitive, are failing to exercise proper fiscal restraint. He accuses them of negotiating coaching contracts with the same level of prudence as someone who's just won the lottery after a night of heavy drinking – a clear exaggeration meant to highlight the perceived recklessness of these decisions.
The article implicitly questions whether the current model, where coaches are paid millions while some student-athletes struggle to make ends meet, is morally justifiable. While not explicitly stated, the implication is that the focus on extravagant coaching salaries is diverting resources away from other crucial areas, such as academic programs and student support services.
Ultimately, Bianchi's commentary serves as a wake-up call, urging a reevaluation of the priorities and financial practices within college football. He suggests that unless significant changes are made, the sport risks becoming an unsustainable circus driven by money and ego, rather than a genuine reflection of athletic competition and academic values.
The latest contract extension for Ole Miss head football coach Lane Kiffin has sparked renewed debate about the spiraling financial landscape of college football and whether the current system is sustainable. In a scathing commentary, columnist Mike Bianchi argues that Kiffin’s deal exemplifies a “billion-dollar clown show” fueled by exorbitant buyouts, unrealistic booster expectations, and athletic directors who seem to have lost all sense of financial responsibility.
Bianchi’s piece, originating from Orlando, Florida, doesn't delve into the specifics of Kiffin’s new contract. Instead, it uses the situation as a jumping-off point to criticize the broader problems plaguing the sport. The core issue, according to Bianchi, is the unsustainable cycle of universities throwing vast sums of money at coaches, only to potentially fire them a few years later and be saddled with massive buyout obligations.
He paints a picture of booster influence run amok, where wealthy donors exert undue pressure on athletic departments, pushing for coaching hires and demanding immediate success, regardless of the long-term financial implications. This pressure, combined with the win-at-all-costs mentality prevalent in many programs, often leads to rash decisions and contracts that are ultimately detrimental to the university's overall financial health.
Bianchi suggests that athletic directors, often caught between the demands of boosters and the need to remain competitive, are failing to exercise proper fiscal restraint. He accuses them of negotiating coaching contracts with the same level of prudence as someone who's just won the lottery after a night of heavy drinking – a clear exaggeration meant to highlight the perceived recklessness of these decisions.
The article implicitly questions whether the current model, where coaches are paid millions while some student-athletes struggle to make ends meet, is morally justifiable. While not explicitly stated, the implication is that the focus on extravagant coaching salaries is diverting resources away from other crucial areas, such as academic programs and student support services.
Ultimately, Bianchi's commentary serves as a wake-up call, urging a reevaluation of the priorities and financial practices within college football. He suggests that unless significant changes are made, the sport risks becoming an unsustainable circus driven by money and ego, rather than a genuine reflection of athletic competition and academic values.
Category:
Politics