The Athletic Releases Updated College Football Coaching Tiers And Sparks Debate Across Nation About Where Programs And Leaders Truly Belong This Year
College football has always been a sport driven by passion, tradition, and constant debate. Every offseason, while fans count down the days until kickoff, media outlets provide fuel for discussion through rankings, projections, and analysis. Among the most anticipated of these offseason releases are coaching tiers. Unlike simple win-loss records or recruiting rankings, coaching tiers attempt to capture something more nuanced: the standing of head coaches relative to their peers, their perceived stability, their potential, and their proven track records. Recently, The Athletic unveiled its updated college football coaching tiers, and as expected, the list instantly became one of the most talked-about topics in the sport.
What makes coaching tiers so compelling is their ability to combine objective data with subjective interpretation. Coaches are not simply measured by their current record but by a larger body of work. They are evaluated based on championships, recruiting acumen, consistency, program-building ability, and the often intangible quality of leadership. For fans, these rankings become both a source of pride and frustration, as they reflect how the national media views their program’s place in the larger landscape. For coaches themselves, while they may publicly dismiss the importance of such lists, the tiers inevitably become part of their narrative, shaping perceptions of job security, recruiting power, and legacy.
At the top of The Athletic’s coaching tiers, there was little surprise. Names like Nick Saban, Kirby Smart, and Dabo Swinney continue to define the upper echelon of college football. Saban, despite being in the later stages of his legendary career, remains a figure whose dynasty at Alabama speaks for itself. His collection of national championships, NFL draft picks, and recruiting dominance keeps him firmly in the highest tier, regardless of occasional setbacks. Smart, meanwhile, has ascended to join Saban at the very top thanks to back-to-back national championships at Georgia, cementing the Bulldogs as the new gold standard of the sport. Swinney, despite recent criticism of Clemson’s offensive stagnation, retains his spot at the highest level due to his two national titles and consistent playoff appearances.
Beyond that elite top tier, however, the debates grow louder. The second tier is often populated by coaches who have either recently competed for national championships or who are consistently putting their programs in the mix. Names like Jim Harbaugh of Michigan, Ryan Day of Ohio State, and Brian Kelly of LSU typically occupy this space. Harbaugh, after years of scrutiny, finally broke through by defeating Ohio State in consecutive seasons and reaching the College Football Playoff, thereby reshaping his narrative. Day, though successful in nearly every measurable category, faces pressure because of his inability thus far to win a national championship despite inheriting one of the most talented rosters in the country. Kelly, meanwhile, made waves by leaving Notre Dame for LSU, where his first seasons have shown glimpses of promise but have yet to yield a championship breakthrough.
What makes The Athletic’s coaching tiers particularly intriguing is not just who occupies the top levels, but who finds themselves in the middle. The so-called “up and down” category—reserved for coaches with inconsistent results or unclear trajectories—always sparks heated debate. In this release, several well-known names were slotted into this tier, including Florida’s Billy Napier, Texas A&M’s Jimbo Fisher, and Miami’s Mario Cristobal. For Napier, the placement reflects Florida’s inconsistency under his leadership, where promising recruiting classes have yet to translate into consistent on-field success. Fisher’s inclusion is perhaps even more controversial, as his national championship at Florida State once placed him among the sport’s elites. However, years of underachievement at Texas A&M have left him viewed as a coach with talent but without the results to match. Cristobal, meanwhile, continues to rebuild Miami but has yet to produce the kind of breakout season fans demand.
For fans of these programs, the tier placement is more than a casual ranking; it becomes a referendum on the direction of their team. Florida fans, for instance, see Napier’s placement as either a fair reflection of his early struggles or an unfair rush to judgment. Texas A&M fans debate whether Fisher’s recruiting success justifies patience or whether his inability to deliver SEC titles proves his best days are behind him. Miami fans, long starved for national relevance, view Cristobal’s placement as a reminder of how far the program still has to climb. In each case, The Athletic’s tiers stir conversations not just about the coaches but about the trajectory of the programs themselves.
Another fascinating element of the coaching tiers is how they elevate rising stars. Coaches like Deion Sanders at Colorado, Lane Kiffin at Ole Miss, and Josh Heupel at Tennessee all occupy tiers that reflect their upward trajectory. Sanders, though still early in his Power Five journey, has already proven to be one of the most influential figures in the sport, reshaping recruiting and branding in unprecedented ways. Kiffin, once considered a volatile figure, has rebuilt his reputation through consistent offensive innovation and competitiveness in the SEC. Heupel, meanwhile, revived Tennessee with an explosive offense that returned the Volunteers to national prominence. Each of these coaches represents the dynamic, ever-changing nature of the sport, where narratives can shift dramatically in a matter of seasons.
Beyond individual evaluations, the tiers also highlight broader trends within college football. The dominance of the SEC and Big Ten is reflected in the number of coaches from these leagues who occupy the highest levels. Conversely, conferences like the Pac-12 and Big 12 see fewer representatives near the top, reflecting the struggles of those leagues to consistently produce national contenders. With conference realignment reshaping the sport—Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC, USC and UCLA heading to the Big Ten—the distribution of coaching talent will continue to shift, and future tiers may look very different.
The coaching tiers also serve as a barometer of stability versus instability. Some coaches, like Saban and Smart, represent stability at the highest level, with programs built on consistency and sustained excellence. Others, like Fisher or Cristobal, embody instability, where uncertainty lingers despite resources and recruiting success. Still others, like Napier, stand at a crossroads, where the next few seasons will determine whether they ascend to higher tiers or slide downward. For fans and athletic directors alike, these tiers function almost as a diagnostic tool, offering a snapshot of where their program stands in relation to others.
Critics of The Athletic’s tiers argue that such rankings are inherently subjective and fail to account for contextual challenges. For example, a coach leading a program with fewer resources or tougher schedules may be unfairly penalized compared to a coach at a traditional powerhouse. Others note that tiers often reflect recency bias, rewarding short-term success while overlooking long-term consistency. A coach like Kyle Whittingham at Utah, who has quietly built one of the most consistent programs in the country, may not receive the same recognition as someone who recently burst onto the scene with a flashy season. These criticisms highlight the difficulty of evaluating coaches across such a diverse landscape, where circumstances vary dramatically from school to school.
Nevertheless, the release of The Athletic’s coaching tiers has achieved its goal: sparking conversation, debate, and passion among college football fans. For some, it validates their belief in their coach’s greatness. For others, it fuels frustration and demands for change. For everyone, it provides a new lens through which to view the upcoming season, reminding us that coaching remains one of the most important variables in the sport.
Looking ahead, the tiers will undoubtedly shift again in the near future. Retirement looms for some of the sport’s legends, while rising stars continue to build their reputations. Conference realignment, playoff expansion, and the ongoing impact of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities will all reshape the coaching landscape in unpredictable ways. What is certain, however, is that the debates will continue. Every win, every loss, every recruiting victory, and every misstep will feed into the next iteration of these rankings, ensuring that the conversation never truly ends.
In the end, The Athletic’s coaching tiers are more than just an offseason exercise. They are a reflection of the sport’s constant search for hierarchy and meaning, a way to measure progress and status in a game defined by competition. For coaches, they are both a badge of honor and a source of pressure. For fans, they are a reminder that in college football, perception matters almost as much as reality. And for the sport itself, they are proof that the debates, the arguments, and the endless discussions are what make college football one of the most compelling and passionately followed games in America.
