We may as well call Nick Saban's executive order proposal to President Donald Trump what it really is: a Hail Mary attempt by the same folks who built the crooked house, now trying to remodel it — without ever admitting they rigged the foundation in their favor for decades.
According to reports, President Donald Trump is considering an executive order aimed at reining in the current model of athlete compensation, largely spurred on by a private meeting with retired Alabama head coach Nick Saban.
Saban, a man who became one of the richest public employees in American history on the backs of unpaid labor, claims the current model of NIL is "hurting the enterprise," and thinks a Trump executive order will fix what ails the sport he walked away from.
But here's the real question: When exactly was the playing field level in college football? Because it sure as hell wasn't when players were forced to sit out a full year to transfer while coaches were hopping on private jets to new jobs with $100 million buyouts.
It wasn’t when players were suspended for accepting a free meal while university presidents pocketed revenue from selling their jerseys and likenesses. And it sure wasn’t when athletes were banned from working side gigs while administrators raked in TV money hand-over-fist.
This is not about restoring fairness — it's about restoring control.
The Real Problem: The Power Structure Wants to Stay in Power
For decades, the NCAA, conferences, athletic departments and high-profile coaches — including Saban — enjoyed unchallenged dominion over the college sports economy. They built empires while telling athletes they should be grateful for a scholarship.
That "amateurism" lie paid well: Mike Gundy makes $8 million a year for a single conference title in two decades. Lincoln Riley left Oklahoma for $110 million and has gone 7-5, 6-6 in the past two seasons.
Jimbo Fisher got fired after managing 11 wins in the two seasons that followed Texas A&M buying the “greatest recruiting class in history,” and still walked with a $77 million parting gift.
Meanwhile, players — the ones actually generating all the cash — were forced into silence or punished for seeking a better opportunity. Now that they finally have the freedom to leave a bad situation, the power structure wants to slam the door shut under the guise of “protecting college sports.”
Cry me a freaking river.
"Pay-for-Play"? Good. It’s About Time.
Nick Saban says there’s “very little name, image and likeness” anymore — that it’s just “pay-for-play.” Yeah, and? Why shouldn’t it be?
What other multibillion-dollar industry in America tells its stars that they aren’t allowed to be paid directly for their work — especially while everyone else in the business gets rich? NIL isn’t the problem — it’s the first actual solution this sport has seen in decades. And it still doesn’t go far enough.
Now that athletes are finally starting to get a piece of the pie, the people who once swallowed the whole damn bakery want to suddenly bring in salary caps and federal limits — not for themselves, but for the players. How convenient.
If Nick Saban can earn millions in AFLAC commercials based purely on his name, why can’t a quarterback from Washington State make six figures signing autographs or endorsing a local car dealership?
The Hypocrisy is Staggering
Trump’s consideration of this executive order doesn’t solve the problem — it doubles down on the same outdated logic that got us here in the first place. The chaos in NIL and the transfer portal is not the fault of players getting paid; it's the result of decades of cowardice, greed and legal stubbornness from the NCAA and its power brokers.
Let’s be honest: The NCAA only moved on NIL because the Supreme Court unanimously told them they had no legal leg to stand on in Alston v. NCAA. They didn’t lead this reform — they got dragged into it kicking and screaming by lawsuits, public pressure, and state laws.
And now, these same folks — who lost the moral, legal and public battles — are lobbying the federal government to bail them out.
Not with smart legislation that clarifies employment status or provides protections for athletes — but with executive action that would shut the faucet off before the players ever get their fair share.
That’s not leadership. That’s a power grab.
You Want Stability? Start With Collective Bargaining
If you want to talk about real reform — let’s talk about collective bargaining. Let’s treat college athletes like what they are: essential labor in a billion-dollar industry. Let’s give them representation, protections and a cut of the revenue.
If the universities, conferences and the NCAA are serious about stabilizing the system, then let them open their books and negotiate directly with the players. Let’s see them agree to shared revenue, long-term health care and education protections.
But we all know that’s not what this is. This executive order idea isn’t about balance. It’s about barricading the gates again now that the players are starting to walk through them.
Unilateral Action by Trump Won't Fix College Sports
Finally, let’s deal with the legal reality: An executive order isn’t going to fix this. It’s a Band-Aid over a tumor. The issues at play — antitrust, labor law, right of publicity, Title IX, contracts — all require legislative clarity, not presidential fiat. That’s why Congress has held over a dozen hearings and floated multiple bills. None have passed, but at least the path is democratic.
What Trump’s talking about is unilateral action to appease a handful of elite power brokers, not the athletes who make college football what it is. And it won’t work — not legally, and not morally.
Bottom Line: Yes, Reform is Needed — But for Everyone, Not Just the Gatekeepers
Let’s be clear: Reform is absolutely necessary. But not the kind being whispered about in backrooms or dictated from the White House by people who never lost a dollar while exploiting the system for decades. What we need is reform that brings balance and fairness to everyone — athletes, coaches, programs, and yes, even administrators — not just those banging on the doors of Congress and now the Oval Office, begging for relief from a system they themselves created and corrupted.
If schools and coaches actually wanted stability, they could start by doing something very simple: offering longer-term contracts with protections on both ends. A fair agreement. Imagine that.
Instead, they’ve chosen to cry foul only when their roster gets hit. When a player they were counting on to win games and maintain that $9 million lifestyle hits the portal, suddenly it’s a crisis. But when the same coach finds a better option? He nudges the kid out — often by ghosting him or letting NIL deals quietly expire.
Funny how that never makes the headlines.
And don’t think this isn’t happening constantly. It's just not talked about because most players would rather be seen as “selfish” or “chasing the bag” than face the far more damning label of “not good enough.” So they announce they’re entering the portal, when in truth, they're pushed out — hoping to land on their feet somewhere else and reclaim some leverage.
Meanwhile, the very people screaming about contracts and clawbacks never stop to consider that multi-year contracts would also restrict coaches. That’s why it hasn’t happened — because control is the currency here, not fairness.
Make no mistake: these loud calls for regulation aren't about protecting the game. They're about protecting the machine that’s been printing money for the NCAA, athletic departments and millionaire coaches for years.
They’re trying to get their power back — not build a better system.
So if President Trump wants to wade into college sports with an executive order, he better make damn sure it’s not just a lifeline for the rich and powerful. Because any "solution" that doesn’t start with treating players like respected partners in the system is just the same old exploitation, wrapped in a new presidential seal.
____________________
Jason Watkins is the Founder and Publisher of HOF Media Group. Write to him at jw@hofmedia.us.
The SEC transition has been harsher on Brent Venables and the Oklahoma Sooners than anticipated, with a tough 1-4 start sparking fan concerns over Venables’ leadership.
Despite glimpses of offensive progress in their latest 26-14 loss at Ole Miss, Oklahoma’s 4-4 record has fueled doubts about Venables’ ability to steer the program through the SEC’s relentless competition. While injuries to key offensive players have created challenges, Venables’ hesitance to address coaching issues and poor communication within the offensive staff have only deepened the Sooners' struggles.
The failure of the offensive staff to communicate effectively and Venables’ hesitance to manage his coaching staff proactively have compounded the difficulties presented by mounting injuries.
Hesitancy on Display: The 4th-Down Decision
Venables' hesitation was encapsulated on Saturday, just six days after finally relieving Littrell of his duties as offensive coordinator: the 4th-and-4 timeout against Ole Miss late in the third quarter. Trailing by two scores, Oklahoma needed a jolt to stay in the game.
The situation was critical, but hardly complex. Coaches make these calls instinctively, often without a second thought. Instead, Venables used a timeout — only to ultimately bring out the punt team, a decision that deflated the offense and left fans scratching their heads.
If the choice was to punt, Venables could’ve delayed the game for a mere five yards instead of burning a precious timeout. If he intended to go for it, why not get his new play caller’s best play for the situation and make the call confidently?
Even if the Sooners fail to pick up the four yards, it would have signaled a willingness to take a chance — or give one — to an offense that has been less-than-inspiring all season.
In that one instance, Venables’ hesitation was as costly as a missed play. With the momentum squarely in favor of Lane Kiffin’s Rebels, burning that timeout only to punt sent the wrong signal to a young group on offense that is in serious need of someone who believes in them. Instead, he proved he didn’t trust them to get a measly four yards and extend a drive to get back into the game.
OU’s Identity Crisis on Offense
What we’re witnessing with OU’s offense is not merely a slump — it’s an identity crisis. Oklahoma fans are accustomed to high-powered, fast-paced offenses that can score almost at will. Littrell’s offense was anything but explosive for seven weeks, and Joe Jon Finley had a lackluster, scoreless latter half of Week 8, too.
To say the Sooners struggled to establish consistency would be an overwhelming understatement.
OU has struggled with untimely penalties and turnovers and suffered through a complete lack of innovation and creativity. The plays feel uninspired, lack direction and are devoid of explosive results.
As a unit, this offense is drawing comparisons to the infamous John Blake era, and has the numbers to back the comparison up. ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️
There’s no other way to say it but bluntly … OU has no clear identity with its offense on the field.
The offensive woes go beyond play-calling; they’re structural. Reports from inside the Switzer Center suggest that there have been significant communication breakdowns within the offensive staff. Coaches have reportedly been on different pages regarding even the most fundamental elements, like blocking schemes. If those rumors are reaching the public, it’s safe to say Venables has known about these issues for some time.
A head coach — even a defensive-minded one like Venables — cannot allow such dysfunction to persist. These aren’t minor misunderstandings; they’re symptoms of a team struggling to find cohesion. Venables needed to address these issues early, before they became embedded in the team’s culture, but his delay in doing so has turned what might have been small fires into an inferno.
Mailed-In Hire: The Problem with Littrell
When Venables hired Seth Littrell, it felt like a placeholder decision. It wasn’t the bold, visionary hire that programs like Oklahoma should be making. Littrell’s track record showed some promise, but he had yet to prove himself as the kind of offensive mind that could elevate a program to championship contention.
Looking back on the decision to elevate Littrell and Finley, the hire seems more like an afterthought, a half-measure rather than a commitment to offensive excellence.
The results have been glaringly obvious. The offense lacks explosive creativity that OU fans are used to seeing, and that lack of energy has translated into downright unacceptable performances on the field, as evidenced by the Sooners’ historically bad statistical rankings in FBS football.
In just ten months on the job, Littrell and his offensive staff failed to the tune of numbers nobody in their right minds would have predicted following the Sooners’ 2023 season that saw the offense rank in the Top 5 in both Total Offense and Scoring Offense, and alone at the top of the Big 12 Conference in Points, Yards and Yards Per Play.
This despite having two of the most electric quarterbacks from their respective recruiting classes in the fold:
2023 5-star and Elite 11-winning Jackson Arnold of Denton Guyer, the 2023 Gatorade National HS Player of the Year and twice a Class 6A State Finalist in Texas.
And former Allen and Frisco Emerson (Texas) superstar Michael Hawkins, Jr., a Sooner legacy trained by Kyler's father Kevin Murray, and who, as a senior, accounted for 55 touchdowns and just three turnovers, leading Emerson to within a game of playing for a Texas State Championship in Class 5A.
Neither were able to sustain success under Littrell's tutelage, and rumors have swirled this week about none of OU's QBs feeling as though been properly developed by the now-fired Littrell as the QBs coach.
Both started a games after being inserted for the other following ineffective play, and both came into their first appearances under Littrell with confidence and swagger that appeared missing by the time they were pulled from games after committing three turnovers and allowing the Sooners to fall behind teams they likely could have beaten were it not for the turnovers they committed.
In other words, Seth Littrell had to go.
Saturday’s loss leaves Oklahoma at 4-4, staring down a potential losing season -- the second for Venables since he arrived after the abrupt departure of Lincoln Riley to USC.
These are unacceptable at Oklahoma, a school with one of the richest football traditions in the country. What makes it even more alarming is that no longer can OU fans blame the losses on a ineffectice, suoddr defense — OU seems to have mostly turned the corner on that side of the ball — but to say the fan base is frustrated, would again be a massive understatement.
Oklahoma fans don’t want excuses; they want results. And for a head coach like Venables, the time for excuses is running out.
The Next OC Hire: BV’s Defining Moment
After Finally punting the Littrell experiment — once again needing more time than most believe he should have — Venables again finds himself in the market for a new offensive coordinator — for the third time in three seasons.
This time, though, the choice Venables makes will ultimately define his second tenure in Norman, possibly his entire future as a head coach in college football. Mailing it in would be tantamount to a dereliction of duty in the eyes of Sooner Nation.
Venables MUST get this one right. He has to bring in someone with a proven track record of offensive success, someone who can bring energy, innovation, and a clear identity to the offense. Anything less than a home-run hire will only deepen the cracks in Venables’ foundation as head coach.
If Venables fails to find the right offensive coordinator, his job security will slip through those cracks, and his tenure as the Head Ball Coach of the Sooners will die in a whimper. Even if he builds a defense that resembles the ’85 Bears, it won’t matter if OU’s offense can’t score points.
The OU fan base is patient to a degree, but they expect excellence. For Venables, this is a make-or-break moment.
Either he finds the right offensive coordinator and proves he can lead a balanced, championship-caliber team, or he risks being shown the door in a year or less.
The Venables Paradox: Championship Defense, JV Offense
The irony of Venables’ situation is that, in many ways, Oklahoma has become Lincoln Riley’s reverse image. Under Riley, the Sooners fielded prolific offenses but were plagued by a porous defense that could never quite get them over the championship hump.
With Venables, it’s the opposite: the defense has shown promise, but the offense is currently in full-on spiral.
The head coach role, especially at Blue Blood OU, requires more than defensive expertise or recruiting prowess. It demands a complete vision, a well-rounded team, and an unwavering commitment to excellence on both sides of the ball.
For Venables to truly establish himself as a championship-level head coach, he has to be willing to delegate offense to someone who can make people forget he’s a defensive guru and simply call him “Coach.” To reach the heights that Oklahoma fans demand, Venables needs to be remembered not as a defensive mind but as a leader who fields a complete team. That requires taking risks, making tough decisions, and, most importantly, holding his staff to the highest possible standard.
It requires a decisive, confident vision for a championship future. The clock is ticking on Brent Venables’ tenure in Oklahoma, and his window for turning things around is narrowing.
Being the head coach at Oklahoma is an honor, but it’s also a responsibility. Venables needs to rise to that responsibility, or he and Lincoln Riley might both be in the job market this time next year.
________________
Jason Watkins is the Publisher at HOF Media Group and the Host of the HOF College Football Podcast. Reach him at jw@hofmedia.us