I might have put people through an obstacle course of troubleshooting, but they never had an "interview" with more than three people.

Sadly, it's not like that for hiring most positions at any University. The entire process is just sideways compared to the corporate world.

A candidate comes in and meets with all the different parts of the department: compliance, strength and conditioning, training, etc.

Doesn't mean they all have an equal say in the decision.

...evaluating you as you evaluating the coach.

Got example, you mentioned s&c: I bet he did meet with them, but it was less “tell us, coach, your philosophy on injuries / strength versus cardio / etc.” and more “look at our great weight room facilities; here’s our training table plan and procedure; here’s what you need to know about South Bend Orthopedics and similar care your players can get; etc.”

Making people feel included, etc., and perhaps more importantly, not slighted.

To me, there are two sides to this coin. In general, I'm in favor of hearing from as many people as possible as long as I'm not overwhelmed as the decision-maker; people are clear that I am the decision-maker (when that's the case, of course); and the candidate isn't unduly annoyed or overwhelmed.

(And to be clear, as others have alluded, I presume much of this does not involve anything that comes close to a formal interview.)

But sometimes, the sense of entitlement ("I should get to participate" "I deserve a say" etc.) brings out the caveman in me.

Don't even get me started on "shared governance."

should interview with 17 people to get any job at any level anywhere.

A coach, faculty member, high-level administrator might wish to meet with a variety of people to understand the facilities and services available at the institution. And many of those might be invited to send a note with their thoughts on the meeting.

But the actual hire/no-hire decision will come down to a much smaller set.