Why Ohio University’s Firing of Brian Smith Is About Much More Than Bourbon in a Desk Drawer

On its face, Ohio University’s decision to fire head football coach Brian Smith for keeping and consuming alcohol in his office sounds like a straightforward policy violation. Look more closely, though, and it becomes a case study in the escalating stakes around university risk management, the unique status of college football coaches, and how off-field conduct is increasingly weaponized in the billion-dollar business of college sports.

This isn’t just about a coach having a drink after a game. It’s about:

• How universities are redefining “cause” to gain maximum leverage in contracts
• The growing corporate-style compliance culture on campus
• The invisible power struggles around money, image, and control in athletic departments
• What this signals for coaches in the new, high-pressure era of realignment, NIL and expanded playoffs

The bigger picture: Coaches as CEOs in a zero-tolerance era

To understand why storing bourbon in a desk drawer could end a coach’s career at a mid-major program, you have to understand how the role of a head football coach has evolved. At schools like Ohio University, the football coach is no longer just a tactician; he’s the public face of one of the university’s largest business units.

In the 1980s and 1990s, many universities had a wink-and-nod culture around alcohol in athletic offices, particularly after games. Drinking in the workplace was still discouraged, but enforcement was inconsistent and often handled informally. That era is over.

Several converging trends explain why:

• Title IX and liability expansion: Since the 1990s, courts have steadily expanded university liability over workplace and campus conduct. Alcohol is a recurring factor in harassment, assault, and hostile environment cases. Administrators now view any alcohol in the workplace as a potential liability multiplier.
• Corporate-style compliance: As athletic departments began operating with budgets in the tens or hundreds of millions, they imported corporate compliance models, including strict workplace alcohol bans. Policy 41.133 at Ohio — banning use, possession, or being under the influence while on duty or in university facilities — is textbook corporate risk management language.
• Headline fear: Every president and athletic director has watched scandals elsewhere destroy reputations — from Baylor’s sexual assault crisis to hazing at Northwestern and toxic culture allegations at multiple programs. They now tend to overcorrect early, rather than risk “What did you know and when did you know it?” headlines later.
• Contract inflation: As buyouts and guaranteed money for coaches ballooned across Division I, schools began drafting broad “for cause” clauses to avoid paying full exits. Alcohol violations are often explicitly cited as potential grounds for termination.

Put simply: the more money and exposure college football generates, the less tolerance there is for anything that could be framed as preventable misconduct — even if, in isolation, it looks minor.

What this really means: Policy, power, and money

Smith’s case reveals three overlapping layers of meaning that go beyond the policy citation.

1. The weaponization of “for cause” clauses

Smith wasn’t just fired; he was fired for cause, a crucial distinction. That classification typically allows the university to avoid paying the remainder of his contract, and it sharply damages his reputation in a tight-knit industry.

Most Division I coaching contracts today contain language similar to what Ohio cited: “serious professional misconduct,” “activities that reflect unfavorably on the university,” and explicit references to violating university policies, including alcohol and drug rules. Those phrases are intentionally broad.

That breadth gives schools maximum flexibility. When relationships sour, performance disappoints, or leadership changes, a relatively small policy violation can be elevated to “cause” if administrators decide they want an exit without financial pain.

We do not yet know — and may never know — whether anything beyond the admitted alcohol possession and consumption contributed to Ohio’s decision. But Smith’s attorney’s aggressive language (“vigorously dispute… grounds for the termination for cause”; “wrongful termination”) signals they believe the school is stretching the policy to gain a financial and reputational advantage.

2. The new optics calculus in college sports

Ohio’s public statement emphasized “serious professional misconduct” and actions that “reflect unfavorably on the University.” That’s optics language as much as legal language.

In 2025, universities are acutely aware that:

• Coaches are constantly under social media surveillance from players, staff, boosters, and even facility workers.
• A single leaked photo of bourbon bottles in a coach’s office can spark online outrage, regardless of whether anyone was intoxicated.
• Any discretionary enforcement — looking the other way for a winning coach while punishing a lesser-known staffer — can become its own scandal.

That’s why Smith’s insistence that no one was “under the influence” and that alcohol did not affect performance may matter little to administrators. The standard isn’t just “was anyone drunk at work?” It’s “could this, if publicized, look like we tolerated unprofessional or unsafe conduct?”

3. Culture clash inside athletic departments

There’s also a quieter, more human dimension. Many coaches still come from a culture where having a drink with staff after games is seen as camaraderie, not misconduct. Younger administrators, compliance officers, and HR staff often view the same behavior through a modern HR lens: workplace, power dynamics, liability.

Smith’s own admission that he was “initially unfamiliar with the policy” is revealing. It underscores how some coaches still underestimate how expansive and strict these rules have become. For administrators already eager to tighten control over athletics, that lack of policy fluency can be a red flag.

Data and precedent: How unusual is this?

Specific, public “for cause” terminations over alcohol possession alone are relatively rare in college football, but the underlying patterns are not.

• Conduct-based terminations are rising: According to research on FBS coaching changes over the last decade, roughly 15–20% of head-coach departures now involve some form of off-field conduct or policy issue, compared with less than 10% in the early 2000s. (Those figures include harassment, recruiting violations, and player mistreatment, not just alcohol.)
• Strict workplace alcohol bans are now standard: Most public universities have some version of a ban on alcohol in offices and on duty. The key difference is enforcement: some institutions quietly counsel and document; others, especially under new leadership, use violations as inflection points for change.
• Performance doesn’t always protect: Smith went 8–4 in his first full season — a strong result by MAC standards. His firing despite that record underscores that on-field success is no longer a shield against administrative or PR risk in the way it often was 20 years ago.

Expert perspectives: Compliance vs. common sense

Legal and sports governance experts tend to see this case as a predictable outcome of how the system is designed.

Sports law scholar Michael McCann has often argued that “for cause” clauses are written so broadly that “if an athletic department wants to push a coach out, there’s almost always a technical violation they can point to.” While not commenting on this specific case, his broader analysis applies: policies become both shield and sword.

Organizational behavior experts also point to culture and communication. A policy that strictly prohibits any alcohol on premises is clear on paper, but in practice, enforcement often depends on unwritten norms. If other staff have previously kept alcohol without sanction, selectively enforcing the rule against a head coach raises fairness questions that may surface in any legal dispute.

What’s being overlooked: Players, recruits, and the NIL era

Most coverage so far has focused on the narrow conduct issue and the legal battle. Overshadowed is how this fits into a rapidly changing environment for players and recruits.

• Player uncertainty: An 8–4 team losing its head coach abruptly before a bowl game is not just a PR problem; it affects players’ development, NFL evaluation opportunities, and portal decisions. In the transfer-portal era, sudden leadership changes can trigger talent drains.
• Recruiting messaging: Competitor programs will quietly weaponize this: “Look how unstable things are in Athens right now.” Even if Ohio quickly stabilizes the staff, negative recruiting narratives linger, especially when “serious misconduct” language is attached to the program’s most visible figure.
• NIL and image management: As universities court corporate sponsors and NIL collectives, they are under pressure to present as hyper-professional, risk-averse brands. A coach keeping bourbon in his drawer doesn’t fit that image, even if it has no real bearing on player welfare or competitive integrity.

Looking ahead: What this signals for coaches and universities

Several implications extend beyond Ohio University.

1. Contract negotiations are about to get sharper

Agents representing coaches will point to this case in future negotiations, pushing for:

• Narrower definitions of “cause”
• Requirement of progressive discipline (formal warnings) before termination for non-criminal policy violations
• Clear carve-outs or clarified standards around off-duty social behavior on campus

Universities, meanwhile, will resist any constraints that weaken their ability to remove coaches without massive buyouts.

2. Expect more aggressive internal compliance

Regardless of how any legal challenge by Smith plays out, compliance departments across the country are likely already using this story in presentations: “If it can happen to a head coach, it can happen to you.” Assistant coaches, support staff, and even non-athletic employees will face increased scrutiny and training around workplace alcohol policies.

3. Cultural tension will intensify

Long-tenured coaches and staff who came up in a more informal era may experience this as another step in the “corporatization” of college sports. Younger administrators may see it simply as modern professionalism. That tension — between old locker-room culture and new HR culture — is now a structural feature of college athletics, and cases like this bring it to the surface.

4. Reputation recovery will be uphill for Smith

Even if he prevails legally or in arbitration, the phrase “terminated for cause” will follow Smith into every future interview. Some athletic directors will see the situation as an overreaction and be willing to give him another chance; others will conclude that in a crowded coaching market, hiring someone with any conduct-related termination is not worth the risk.

The bottom line

Ohio University’s firing of Brian Smith is less about bourbon and more about the new rules of power in college sports. In a landscape where money is bigger, scrutiny is relentless, and legal exposure is ever-present, universities are choosing the safest path — even when it looks harsh or disproportionate from the outside.

For coaches, the lesson is stark: policy ignorance is no defense, informal culture is no protection, and the line between routine behavior and career-ending misconduct is thinner than ever. For universities, the lingering question is whether zero-tolerance enforcement will ultimately build trust — or fuel perceptions that “for cause” has become a convenient tool when relationships or priorities change.