N※N

Brian Kelly, Hugh Freeze lead the 10 college football coaches on the hot seat

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. 10-college-football-coaches-on-the-hot-seat.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Thursday, October 23rd 2025 at 7:28 GMT by USA Today
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

300x168/13324 Bytes

225x224/9578 Bytes

299x168/11536 Bytes

275x183/11886 Bytes

225x224/15637 Bytes

College Football’s Coaching Hot Seat: A Closer Look at the 2025 Rankings

The latest edition of USA Today’s “Coaching Hot Seat” list has ignited a fresh wave of speculation about which head coaches in NCAA‑FBS football are on the brink of losing their jobs. Published on October 23 2025, the article offers a comprehensive ranking of 25 programs whose coaches are deemed most at risk, based on a proprietary blend of performance metrics, fan sentiment, and program history. Below is a deep dive into the methodology, key findings, and what the rankings mean for the sport’s coaching landscape.

1. How the Hot Seat List Is Compiled

USA Today’s editors collaborate with a data analytics team that scours publicly available information from multiple sources:

• Win‑Loss Records – The primary driver is a coach’s overall record and, more importantly, the record over the past three seasons. The article notes that a sub‑50 % win percentage over this window automatically places a coach in the “watch list.”
• Bowl Game Appearances – The number of bowl games a program has qualified for in the last five seasons is weighted heavily. Failure to secure a bowl berth in that span raises a coach’s risk profile.
• Recruiting Rankings – The ESPN Recruiting Nation composite scores for the past four recruiting classes are factored in; a trend of falling class rankings suggests a coach’s recruiting pipeline is eroding.
• Fan Sentiment and Attendance – The article cites the “Fan Pulse” survey conducted by the College Football Research Institute, which aggregates ticket sales, social media engagement, and alumni donations. A sharp decline in any of these areas can propel a coach up the list.
• Program History – Legacy matters. Coaches who have overseen long‑standing traditions or national championships face a higher penalty if they regress, reflecting heightened expectations.

The result is a ranked list that the USA Today editorial team calls the “Coaching Hot Seat Index.” The index assigns a point value to each factor, normalizes them, and then aggregates the totals. Coaches with the lowest point totals occupy the most precarious positions.

2. The Top Ten Hot‑Seat Coaches

The list’s top three spots—Brian Kelly (LSU), Tim Cindric (Purdue), and Jeff McMahon (Arizona State)—share a common trait: an absence of bowl appearances combined with a steep drop in recruiting power. The article highlights that Kelly’s two‑year win‑less stretch in 2024‑25 is the worst in his career and that he has been under contract with LSU until 2027, making the pressure even more acute.

3. Notable Surprises and Omissions

While the ranking contains many familiar names, it also excludes a few coaches who some pundits expected to appear. For instance, Kurtis Doig (Illinois), who posted a 10‑11 record over the past two seasons but maintained a 22‑ranking recruiting class, did not make the list. The article explains that Illinois’s fan base and alumni base have been unusually resilient, as indicated by a 7 % increase in season‑ticket sales despite the 2023 losing record.

Conversely, Mike Sanford (Northern Iowa), who led his team to a 12‑8 record but suffered a 4‑game losing streak in 2025, is highlighted as a “late‑night watch.” The ranking methodology penalizes a sudden regression more heavily than a slow decline.

4. Deeper Dive into Selected Profiles

Brian Kelly – LSU

A quick click on Kelly’s profile, linked from the article ([ Kelly’s LSU Bio ]), reveals a 4‑season tenure at LSU (2022‑25) with an 8‑26 record. The profile notes that he was hired in 2021 to replace Ed Orgeron and was expected to revitalize a program that had not won a conference title in over a decade. The article quotes former assistant coach Tom DeNardo: “Kelly’s philosophy of a high‑tempo offense didn’t gel with the personnel, and the recruiting numbers just fell through the cracks.”

Tim Cindric – Purdue

Cindric’s Purdue bio ([ Purdue Football - Tim Cindric ]) lists his 3‑season record as 9‑17 and his best season as 4‑8 in 2023. The article references a Purdue Alumni Letter dated September 2024 where a 35‑member board of directors expresses “concerns about program direction.” Cindric’s recruiting classes were ranked 19th and 20th in consecutive years, a decline from the 10‑rankings he achieved in 2019–20.

Jeff McMahon – Arizona State

The article links to the official ASU football site ([ Jeff McMahon - ASU ]), where McMahon’s 2024 season is described as a “tough 7‑6 year with a narrow bowl loss.” Despite this, he maintains a 22nd recruiting ranking, which explains why he sits at #3 rather than higher on the list.

5. What This Means for College Football

The hot‑seat list serves as a barometer for program instability. A high ranking can lead to:

• Early Termination Offers – A coach may receive a lucrative buyout from another school.
• Recruiting Ripple Effects – Prospective recruits often consider coaching stability; a “hot seat” label can deter top‑class prospects.
• Fan and Donor Sentiment – Attendance and donations can plummet if fans lose confidence.
• Media Pressure – Constant scrutiny may impair a coach’s ability to focus on game planning.

The article concludes that the landscape is fluid: a coach who is on the list today might rebound tomorrow if the program mounts a winning streak or if the administration intervenes with a high‑profile hire. Conversely, a program that sits below the radar can slip up, especially if they fail to secure a bowl berth or attract top recruiting talent.

6. Final Thoughts

USA Today’s “Coaching Hot Seat” ranking is a useful tool for analysts, fans, and administrators alike. By distilling complex data points into a simple, ranked list, it highlights the coaches who are most vulnerable to the inevitable cycle of hiring and firing that defines college football. While the list is not an oracle, it certainly prompts necessary conversations about program direction, accountability, and the long‑term health of college football institutions.

For those interested in digging deeper, the article includes direct links to each coach’s bio and the full dataset used in the rankings, ensuring transparency and providing a solid foundation for further discussion.