GRM
Well-Known Member
I was thinking about the transfer portal, and most of us all agree that it is chaos. How to reign it in is one question? What it has become is another? Could it just be another level of recruiting? There are so many questions?
For the players, IMO, overall it gives them more freedom and opportunity for them to make the NFL and maybe some NIL. Why can't they have free agency, so long as they qualify academically and get an education? Why should they be tied out of HS when they make their decision as a 17-19 YO? Their coach can leave at anytime, but before they were penalized and left behind. However, for coaches who can and do leave for more $$, some can take most their team with them--probably not good. For HS recruits, the portal is not good, as now early signing day seems to be completely dwarfed by the portal news. For teams needing a complete rebuild (i.e. CU, Kansas, Arizona) the portal presents an opportunity to get out of the cellar and might be good for the game. However, for players on that lousy losing team just staying playing and getting a free education without the worry of being shown the door, may not be an option. For fans that desire a winning team, the portal may be better. Prime and the portal invigorated CU even with just 4 wins.
Back to the players, isn't the portal just a form of true competition, whereby now developed players can then compete for the coveted playing spots and scholarships on any team? Some players at smaller schools on partial or no scholarship at all, transfer up and get some of their education paid and maybe some NIL too. Graduate transfers get a year (some get 2 years) of free graduate school. Does it give more players an opportunity to get their NFL dream shot? Is it good for college football as a whole--will the G5 just be a feeder to the P65? Will FCS be a feeder? Could teams drop football?
Like many, I go back and forth on the portal. This year, my impression of the portal changed. I just put some thoughts down in evaluating the overall transfer portal:
Since the transfer rule went into effect and w/ no extra Covid year, I thought the portal would calm down somewhat, numbers wise landing somewhere between 2021 (861) and 2022 (2,337). Initially, I was thinking 1600-1800 players, which is a still a bunch. It is already at 1571, and I think it will probably 2000-2400 players when all is said and done after the Spring window. It is inevitable, that certain guys will jump into the portal in the Spring if they are passed over on the depth chart. Malachi Nelson (#1 5* last year) just jumped in because a Kansas State QB transferred in. CU's last KSU QB transfer Jordan Webb was quite a dud. Similar things will happen, as players who thought they were on the 2-deep, will drop down to the 3-4 deep, so why stay if they want and can play at a lower conference/division school presenting them an opportunity. Although the sites do not pick up all the portal commits (usually guys to go to smaller schools), I do think about 70% continue playing football--which would be normal attrition pre-portal era. There has always been attrition in college football. I thought the portal would be hot with guys entering the 1st week, but it has stayed hot to this day. This year, more highly touted guys are entering the portal than ever and it does not seem like they are guys with baggage.
Some overall observations about the portal:
1. Except for the very few, it looks to me like the NFL wants more polished players going into the NFL at age 22-24, than 20-22. Specifically, for guys playing the down-7 and QBs. I have not heard anything specific but I just get that feeling--that except for the very few, the NFL generally wants older more developed guys overall.
2. I think it has become a viable option/strategy to go play at a smaller school (I am amazed at the Ivy guys) to grow/develop then transfer as an upperclassman, and still have a shot at the NFL. It think parents, players, and lower division coaches are buying into this plan. Growing, staying healthy, and playing with confidence are huge factors in any sport. I think this is more emphasized in the trenches (Oline, Dline), but all positions as well, whereby if they grow and improve athleticism they can transfer up and get an NFL shot. Overall, this could be a better route than going to lower P65 team being thrown into games at 18-19 and getting beat up. It could be better than going to a P65 not as a blue-chip, then having to battle up the depth chart, with new recruits or transfers slotted above you at any given time. IMO, let them grow, play, dominate and avoid injuries; and if things work out then make the jump to big time CFP for a 1-2 year audition into the NFL.
3. This year, I'm seeing more players from the powerhouse football factories--BAMA, GA, Clemson, USC, LSU, Fla St, Oklahoma, Tex, aTm (coaching change) having kids jump in the portal, even some on teams that are having great seasons. These places have all the facilities, nutrition, and coaching they could ever ask for. They are winning programs, guys are going to bowls and getting rings, but that does not seem to matter as much. I don't think these are highly touted HS recruits are going to crap overnight or having multiple fall-outs with established coaches. Instead, I think they are looking at the depth chart and making decisions (and I think many coaches are doing the same thing in being honest with players about their future playing time), rather than just staying for a championship ring or winning run. Also, the portal changes the equation for kids at any school, as they can now be slotted above by an older player via the portal.
4. I think all the P65 are re-evaluating HS recruiting v. the portal to a large degree. It seems the conclusion is that although you want to be competitive with HS recruiting (I still think you want some splash signees for exposure and reputation), however it is a much larger gamble on a HS recruit (even a can't miss) than bringing in a touted portal player who is already built with plug-in measurables, healthy, confident, and with tons of game experience under their belt.
5. Presuming the transfer rule stays in effect, I think coaches are figuring out that for blue-chip under-class-man, they may be better off bringing in a young blue-chip under-classman transfer because they must either sit out a year or graduate before they can transfer again. For HS recruits some guys are play me now, from a coaching perspective it may be easier to have a young transfer forced to sit a year/limited action, than being forced to play a blue chip true-frosh out of the fear of them transferring.
6. I no longer think that teams can emulate practice to such a high degree, that it overcomes a player with substantial in-game experience, no matter what division they are playing in. Although going up a division or conference is an adjustment for sure, it might be easier than plugging in a guy that is 3-deep or have playing to play a Frosh, with normal growing pains. For CU, Ward (Southern Utah) is a good example and he started the last 6 games or so, not because of injuries (although we had a few), but because he was just the better guy come season's end.
7. QB's are in a class all their own. We saw not just the Heisman finalists but those QB's that were considered in the Heisman hunt throughout the season were mostly transfers. The game experience is definitely an advantage. Age is another. Then they move into a new system, and their tendencies are not mapped out--so they are at a further advantage. Proving that they can excel in multiple systems (Bo Nix) only helps NFL stock, as that player is flexible and can learn new systems. IMO, for the Heisman guys, staying an extra year in college with the same team, that plan has not really panned out. The other teams have too much film and can catch-up to a degree.
IMO, QBs are sort of like pitchers and hitters in MLB. You will see a pitcher or hitter (i.e. Trevor Story) come out absolutely hot as a rookie, but by mid-season their pitching and hitting zones are all mapped out and the other teams catch-up.
Observations 8-13 to follow
For the players, IMO, overall it gives them more freedom and opportunity for them to make the NFL and maybe some NIL. Why can't they have free agency, so long as they qualify academically and get an education? Why should they be tied out of HS when they make their decision as a 17-19 YO? Their coach can leave at anytime, but before they were penalized and left behind. However, for coaches who can and do leave for more $$, some can take most their team with them--probably not good. For HS recruits, the portal is not good, as now early signing day seems to be completely dwarfed by the portal news. For teams needing a complete rebuild (i.e. CU, Kansas, Arizona) the portal presents an opportunity to get out of the cellar and might be good for the game. However, for players on that lousy losing team just staying playing and getting a free education without the worry of being shown the door, may not be an option. For fans that desire a winning team, the portal may be better. Prime and the portal invigorated CU even with just 4 wins.
Back to the players, isn't the portal just a form of true competition, whereby now developed players can then compete for the coveted playing spots and scholarships on any team? Some players at smaller schools on partial or no scholarship at all, transfer up and get some of their education paid and maybe some NIL too. Graduate transfers get a year (some get 2 years) of free graduate school. Does it give more players an opportunity to get their NFL dream shot? Is it good for college football as a whole--will the G5 just be a feeder to the P65? Will FCS be a feeder? Could teams drop football?
Like many, I go back and forth on the portal. This year, my impression of the portal changed. I just put some thoughts down in evaluating the overall transfer portal:
Since the transfer rule went into effect and w/ no extra Covid year, I thought the portal would calm down somewhat, numbers wise landing somewhere between 2021 (861) and 2022 (2,337). Initially, I was thinking 1600-1800 players, which is a still a bunch. It is already at 1571, and I think it will probably 2000-2400 players when all is said and done after the Spring window. It is inevitable, that certain guys will jump into the portal in the Spring if they are passed over on the depth chart. Malachi Nelson (#1 5* last year) just jumped in because a Kansas State QB transferred in. CU's last KSU QB transfer Jordan Webb was quite a dud. Similar things will happen, as players who thought they were on the 2-deep, will drop down to the 3-4 deep, so why stay if they want and can play at a lower conference/division school presenting them an opportunity. Although the sites do not pick up all the portal commits (usually guys to go to smaller schools), I do think about 70% continue playing football--which would be normal attrition pre-portal era. There has always been attrition in college football. I thought the portal would be hot with guys entering the 1st week, but it has stayed hot to this day. This year, more highly touted guys are entering the portal than ever and it does not seem like they are guys with baggage.
Some overall observations about the portal:
1. Except for the very few, it looks to me like the NFL wants more polished players going into the NFL at age 22-24, than 20-22. Specifically, for guys playing the down-7 and QBs. I have not heard anything specific but I just get that feeling--that except for the very few, the NFL generally wants older more developed guys overall.
2. I think it has become a viable option/strategy to go play at a smaller school (I am amazed at the Ivy guys) to grow/develop then transfer as an upperclassman, and still have a shot at the NFL. It think parents, players, and lower division coaches are buying into this plan. Growing, staying healthy, and playing with confidence are huge factors in any sport. I think this is more emphasized in the trenches (Oline, Dline), but all positions as well, whereby if they grow and improve athleticism they can transfer up and get an NFL shot. Overall, this could be a better route than going to lower P65 team being thrown into games at 18-19 and getting beat up. It could be better than going to a P65 not as a blue-chip, then having to battle up the depth chart, with new recruits or transfers slotted above you at any given time. IMO, let them grow, play, dominate and avoid injuries; and if things work out then make the jump to big time CFP for a 1-2 year audition into the NFL.
3. This year, I'm seeing more players from the powerhouse football factories--BAMA, GA, Clemson, USC, LSU, Fla St, Oklahoma, Tex, aTm (coaching change) having kids jump in the portal, even some on teams that are having great seasons. These places have all the facilities, nutrition, and coaching they could ever ask for. They are winning programs, guys are going to bowls and getting rings, but that does not seem to matter as much. I don't think these are highly touted HS recruits are going to crap overnight or having multiple fall-outs with established coaches. Instead, I think they are looking at the depth chart and making decisions (and I think many coaches are doing the same thing in being honest with players about their future playing time), rather than just staying for a championship ring or winning run. Also, the portal changes the equation for kids at any school, as they can now be slotted above by an older player via the portal.
4. I think all the P65 are re-evaluating HS recruiting v. the portal to a large degree. It seems the conclusion is that although you want to be competitive with HS recruiting (I still think you want some splash signees for exposure and reputation), however it is a much larger gamble on a HS recruit (even a can't miss) than bringing in a touted portal player who is already built with plug-in measurables, healthy, confident, and with tons of game experience under their belt.
5. Presuming the transfer rule stays in effect, I think coaches are figuring out that for blue-chip under-class-man, they may be better off bringing in a young blue-chip under-classman transfer because they must either sit out a year or graduate before they can transfer again. For HS recruits some guys are play me now, from a coaching perspective it may be easier to have a young transfer forced to sit a year/limited action, than being forced to play a blue chip true-frosh out of the fear of them transferring.
6. I no longer think that teams can emulate practice to such a high degree, that it overcomes a player with substantial in-game experience, no matter what division they are playing in. Although going up a division or conference is an adjustment for sure, it might be easier than plugging in a guy that is 3-deep or have playing to play a Frosh, with normal growing pains. For CU, Ward (Southern Utah) is a good example and he started the last 6 games or so, not because of injuries (although we had a few), but because he was just the better guy come season's end.
7. QB's are in a class all their own. We saw not just the Heisman finalists but those QB's that were considered in the Heisman hunt throughout the season were mostly transfers. The game experience is definitely an advantage. Age is another. Then they move into a new system, and their tendencies are not mapped out--so they are at a further advantage. Proving that they can excel in multiple systems (Bo Nix) only helps NFL stock, as that player is flexible and can learn new systems. IMO, for the Heisman guys, staying an extra year in college with the same team, that plan has not really panned out. The other teams have too much film and can catch-up to a degree.
IMO, QBs are sort of like pitchers and hitters in MLB. You will see a pitcher or hitter (i.e. Trevor Story) come out absolutely hot as a rookie, but by mid-season their pitching and hitting zones are all mapped out and the other teams catch-up.
Observations 8-13 to follow
