Long post (sorry). But I'm going to propose that abusive coaching styles aren't a matter of being effective or "building character," so much as they are a product of the fact players lack the power to demand better treatment.
College coaches (and a lot of coaches at lower levels) get away with "management" behaviors that very few private sector employers would tolerate. College sports has largely become a business, but most profit-seeking companies would immediately discipline a manager who screamed, threw things, etc--so the desire to be successful / make money isn't all that's issue. If abusive management increased profitability, more companies would use it.
Changing jobs generally isn't easy, especially in a down economy. But most of us are free to work for any employer who's willing to hire us--we don't have a limited window of 4 years of eligibility, don't have to sit out a year or get our former employer's permission to change jobs. And while employees can be replaced, the costs of doing so generally are higher for companies than for athletic teams. Hiring, retraining, etc. cost money, but subbing a player from the bench is free. (A coach doesn't want to lose a uniquely talented player, sure--but that player probably gets treated pretty well.) Businesses don't maintain a "bench" of extra employees who aren't doing other necessary jobs.
I can think of two types of jobs where managers are more likely to get away with abusive behaviors: 1) positions where workers can easily be replaced and 2) jobs that many people want, and that tend to burn through young employees quickly (large law firms, Wall Street analyst positions, large accounting and consulting firms--jobs that hire kids just out of school with the expectation the vast majority of them will only last a few years). College sports possess some crucial characteristics of both categories (to go with limited eligibility windows and restrictions on changing schools).
Successful companies that have to compete for talent try to avoid subjecting their workers to the management styles used by "old school" coaches. To me, that's powerful evidence those behaviors aren't effective at getting the best out of people or building cohesive teams.
The exception would be the military. And maybe that's a pretty important exception. (Although there you also can't generally quit your job, no matter how bad your "boss" may be.)