Back in November 1998, Arkansas was reeling after a tough 28-24 defeat to the top-ranked Tennessee team. Houston Nutt, then coaching the Razorbacks, knew he needed his players to focus on an important game against Mississippi State that would secure the SEC West title and a chance for redemption against Tennessee.

“Just two days before the matchup, I gathered the team and asked them to get to bed early,” Nutt recounted during a recent conversation with YSL News Sports. “But that night, my starting kicker gets arrested for a DUI.”

This kind of situation has troubled college coaches for decades: when a player breaks a team rule or ends up in the news for embarrassing reasons. There’s often pressure from media and administrators to take action, showing that players are not above accountability.

Yet, the coach realizes that if he punishes the player by sitting him out, it can jeopardize the team’s success and, ultimately, his own job security.

Nutt decided to suspend the kicker, Todd Latourette, who was among the SEC’s best that season. Unable to rely on a skilled kicker, Nutt forwent several field-goal attempts, including a 36-yarder. The final score was a narrow 22-21 loss, and that decision has haunted Nutt for 25 years.

“I let down a strong team,” he admitted. “Even some seniors approached me before the game, saying, ‘Coach, if you take him, we’ll handle it ourselves. We’ll make him run it off on Sunday.’

“I wish I had taken their advice.”

If a similar situation arose today, however, Nutt might consider a different approach. With the recent trend of college athletes making money through booster collectives for their names and likenesses, the practice of fining players for misbehavior is becoming more accepted in college sports.

This approach is similar to how college football has adopted various elements from the NFL, including coaching staff structures, training methods, analytics, and now financial penalties as a form of discipline, moving away from the usual methods like suspensions or physical punishments.

“We believe it’s an effective strategy,” noted one athletics director from a major conference, who opted to remain anonymous to avoid potential issues in recruiting. “It has definitely captured the players’ attention.”

However, there are still many serious incidents that require more significant responses than just fines. Cases involving allegations of sexual assault or domestic violence, especially when charges have been filed, like in the case of Georgia receiver Colbie Young, should follow strict policies that prevent any chance of a player participating while a legal matter is unresolved.

Coaches have often been portrayed as all-knowing figures responsible for right and wrong, entrusted by their schools and fans to be mentors, protectors, and, at times, judges in off-field matters.

This heavy responsibility has not always worked in their favor. When a player misbehaves but continues to play, it breeds skepticism that the coach only cares about wins above all else. Conversely, if a coach suspends a key player and the team loses, there’s little recognition for adhering to ethical standards.

In today’s win-or-else culture, that recognition is unlikely.

“When I started, you might have a five-year window to show results, but that has diminished significantly,” Nutt explained. “Now, it’s a two- or three-year window at most, and you must deliver outcomes.”

Signs are emerging that college coaches are indeed keen to alleviate the burdens of a traditionally significant part of their responsibilities.

During Big 12 media days, Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy exemplified this shift when he justified why he did not suspend star running back Ollie Gordon following a drunk-driving incident this past summer.

While Gundy faced criticism for remarks that seemed to downplay the seriousness of drunk driving, he emphasized that Gordon is benefiting from NIL deals and that his playing would most benefit Oklahoma State football.

“We can say these individuals aren’t employees, but they effectively are,” Gundy pointed out. “They earn significant money, which is fine. However, there should be accountability for their actions.”

Even though he didn’t express it clearly, Gundy raises a valid point: Gordon is a college student representing a university, but he is also an adult earning a hefty salary to play football.

Should his actions off the field tarnish Gundy’s reputation or Oklahoma State football? Is it fair to risk teammates missing out on a game because of his mistakes? Moreover, how does benching a player affect the financial support behind them?

When finances are involved, the dynamics of motives and incentives become much more intricate.

“I believe most coaches would agree that this is akin to the NFL now,” Nutt stated. “Ultimately, since they receive pay, they are treated as employees. The core issue isn’t just stadium management — even though that remains important — it’s the financial impact. I understand how that could serve as a major driver.”

This discussion highlights the ongoing rift between college and professional football. Coaches like Mike McDaniel won’t be held responsible if a Miami Dolphins player gets arrested. Similarly, John Harbaugh won’t be blamed if there are negative incidents regarding players in Baltimore.

In contrast, certain coaches, such as Urban Meyer during his time at Florida or currently Kirby Smart at Georgia, have often faced scrutiny following multiple players’ troubles related to arrests or reckless conduct.

“In high school, if a student goes astray, it’s typically seen as the parents’ responsibility. In the NFL, the blame rests solely on the player. But in college, it often falls on the coach, as that’s the prevailing perspective,” explained Todd Berry, former president of the American Football Coaches Association and a seasoned college coach. “Traditionally, playing time was the main leverage for altering behavior. However, with the newfound transfer freedom, that’s shifted, pushing some coaches to adapt their strategies to achieve behavioral change. For some, monetary incentives might play a role.”

Although Georgia has refrained from discussing their penalty structure or its relationship to player arrests, Smart hinted at SEC media days that his team is considering such measures to mitigate off-field troubles.

“I genuinely believe that financial accountability is crucial because the NFL has set a clear example,” Smart remarked. “If you were to ask our players, their main concern would be their monetary compensation. The stakes are indeed high for those who have faced significant financial repercussions.”

A more skeptical interpretation of his comments — particularly considering the ongoing issues with reckless driving in Georgia, highlighted by cornerback Daniel Harris’ recent arrest — could suggest that Smart is seeking alternate deterrents for misconduct beyond player suspensions that could jeopardize their quest for a championship.

Nevertheless, Smart clarified that the fines imposed by Georgia’s collective fall outside of his direct control. Like an NFL coach, his main focus is on the sport itself, leaving moral complexities and off-the-field matters for others to handle. After all, his $13 million annual salary isn’t meant for him to be a caretaker.

“Coach (Frank) Broyles always told me,” Nutt recounted, mentioning his former athletics director and storied Arkansas coach, ” ‘Houston, I really appreciate how well your players graduate and their community involvement. But always remember, I pay you to win.’ ”