Opinions on this take from 247

[DTP]

Everyone is only allowed 25 ICs. If Alabama or Clemson or Ohio State decide to start raiding the transfer portal, every transfer they sign from the portal becomes one less 5 star high school recruit they can sign. If your recruiting classes are nothing but 4 and 5 stars from top to bottom, potentially losing an IC slot for a one or two year transfer isn't a great move unless you're desperate at the position (not common if your recruiting classes are always loaded). If you're a school like Miami who can consistently sign good but not great classes, it makes sense to sacrifice a couple IC spots (that would probably go to fringe recruits) and use them for portal guys. I've mentioned it before but I think they played the 2021 class perfectly. They used their first counter on Jarrid Williams because they were absolutely desperate for any help on the offensive line and that worked out well. They managed to get 20 kids committed while still holding one spot for that last second QB recruit (Garcia). Leaving three open ICs to use for much needed immediate help at need positions (DE, CB, WR). In a perfect world, you wouldn't have immediate needs to be filled but in reality you have to play the hand your dealt.

 

[Ethnicsands]

The top programs can't have it both ways. They can't simultaneously load up their rosters with 4 & 5 star recruits, and also raid the transfer portal each yr for the most talented kids, because there exists an inverse relationship between the two. If the top programs begin to prioritize the transfer portal more than recruiting, they will inevitably be forced to recruit a lower percentage of the top 300 kids each cycle, allowing other programs to recruit the kids they didn't have space for. A better way to look at the transfer portal is to compare it to free agency in the NFL. The best teams each yr are the ones that effectively survey & assess which option presents the greatest value.

Alabama’s Rimmington award winning OC was a transfer. Ohio State’s QB was. Top programs will be the best choice for the best transfers. Why wouldn’t they be? The best Juco linemen are always sucked up by top schools. Same thing.

You're confusing the number of spots with the allocation of kids. Alabama won’t take many kids that route. But if top programs focus on transfers, the top 10-15 schools would easily absorb the top 20-30 transfers, and how many really good transfers are you expecting to be available? The thing that changes the allocation of kids isn’t the portal, at all. It’s the 25 man IC rule and the 85 man roster.

Your % of the top 300 point is also misused. If the 85 man roster limit went to 75, Alabama’s average roster quality relative to other top programs would go up, because they’re crushing it with top top top kids. Yes, a few more top 300 kids would be available and pachinko around, but you have to do the math on the other side of the equation, too. the relative competitive beneficiaries of shrinking rosters mathematically would be schools with the highest mean talent and schools with the lowest variance, both of which come from evaluations and recruiting. The comsequence of smaller rosters would be less room for mistakes, development projects and the like. UM has had a ton of those for a ling time. We wouldn’t be helped at all by smaller rosters.

 

[AtlAtty]

Really OU got the transfer train rolling with the quarterbacks. Manny took it from OU and turned a freight train into a bullet train.
UF made a nice pick up with Gilbert, but I'll put Stevenson right there for this transfer season.
UM has done a great job of showcasing transfers such that guys are now begging to transfer to UM after the success of Osborne, Phillips, Roche and King.

 

[DTP]

The portal is a nice tool for coaches looking for that need they feel will be the “quickest” fix. I prefer recruits who want to be hurricanes, true Canes. I really could care less about any transfer who uses the U as a stepping stone to the NFL. I wish them well but once they leave the program they’re no longer in my reality. It’s all about the U !!!

Some of our all time greatest players were transfers though. Jeremy Shockey, Bryant McKinnie, Dan Sileo, Jerome Mcdougle, Andrew Williams. Even Greg Olsen originally signed with Notre Dame.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Everyone is only allowed 25 ICs. If Alabama or Clemson or Ohio State decide to start raiding the transfer portal, every transfer they sign from the portal becomes one less 5 star high school recruit they can sign. If your recruiting classes are nothing but 4 and 5 stars from top to bottom, potentially losing an IC slot for a one or two year transfer isn't a great move unless you're desperate at the position (not common if your recruiting classes are always loaded). If you're a school like Miami who can consistently sign good but not great classes, it makes sense to sacrifice a couple IC spots (that would probably go to fringe recruits) and use them for portal guys. I've mentioned it before but I think they played the 2021 class perfectly. They used their first counter on Jarrid Williams because they were absolutely desperate for any help on the offensive line and that worked out well. They managed to get 20 kids committed while still holding one spot for that last second QB recruit (Garcia). Leaving three open ICs to use for much needed immediate help at need positions (DE, CB, WR). In a perfect world, you wouldn't have immediate needs to be filled but in reality you have to play the hand your dealt.

I agree with this with one note - alabama won’t have less room for 5*s, generally speaking. The loss of spot goes to the last guy on their list, not their top 10. And they do take transfers at times, including jucos. But your logic is right. We’re enamored with the portal but the reasons it made sense for us hopefully won’t persist. We had gaping holes in our roster. Better recruiting for a few cycles will change the portal role for us to more selective augmentation.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Some of our all time greatest players were transfers though. Jeremy Shockey, Bryant McKinnie, Dan Sileo, Jerome Mcdougle, Andrew Williams. Even Greg Olsen originally signed with Notre Dame.

Cortez Kennedy was a juco.

 

[Rellyrell]

At least for the time being, almost everyone should be trying to take advantage of the portal. Outside of a small handful of loaded programs, pretty much everyone has roster holes. In a “win now” world of college football, coaches would be stupid to ignore a plug and play transfer while waiting for an unknown to “develop”. It’s not like 20+ years ago when teams had to rely on transfers because they couldn’t sign anyone. Top flight teams are taking transfers now and top flight players are transferring. Guys like Joe Burrow, Jalen Hurts, Kyler Murray, Baker Mayfield and Justin Fields are Heisman caliber players who all transferred. That’s just quarterbacks.

As many here know, I’ve been an opponent of The Portal for various reasons.

However, there’s definitely some pros & cons to the portal. Imo, The Portal is a crap shoot just like recruiting a high school player. The pro of The Portal is u can find some highly rated players per their 247 composite ranking that’s unhappy about playing time, atmosphere, etc that can contribute immediately. The con of The Portal is you might just pick up a guy who wasn’t good enough at the previous program to win a starting position, or loss their position to an underclassman, and you get hoodwinked by their HS rating.

For every example of Baker, Hurts, Fields, Burrow (who all went to already established great programs), u have the example of Martell, Patterson, Heaps, Williams, Costello, Newman, Franks, Brice, Bryant etc. U can find a star in The Portal & u can find fool’s gold in The Portal. I do believe there might be some tweaks to The Portal b/c teams will start bytching about tampering, LOI’s, etc.

Sometimes The Portal success is based upon the program. Day & Riley are QB coach gurus which is why I don’t like the examples of the QBs that went to those programs as Portal Examples. But we got King & King + Lashlee was a nice combo.

 

[Miami[]_[]Smoke]

one thing that is certain is that transfers reduce spots for HS kids, which increases the importance of evaluations (fewer spots means more need for accuracy and less tolerance for variance / risk).

It’s more about your return on a transfer for me...a high school recruit might give you 3-4 years and takes up one counter. Most transfers will give you one year and cost the same, one counter. If you use too many transfers, it will eventually catch up to you via depth issues

 

[Rellyrell]

Cortez Kennedy was a juco.

We also had better evaluators at this time.

 

[Rellyrell]

It’s more about your return on a transfer for me...a high school recruit might give you 3-4 yours and takes up one counter. Most transfers will give you one year and cost the same, one counter. If you use too many transfers, it will eventually catch up to you via depth issues

This is one of my reasons y I’m leery of The Portal.

 

[The canesman]

We also had better evaluators at this time.

Great point about evaluators. I believe since Butch we haven’t had much of that.

 

[Rellyrell]

Great point about evaluators. I believe since Butch we haven’t had much of that.

Correct;

Look the JUCO bunch w/ Butch on staff (going back to the 80’s) & look at our recent run w/ JUCOs afterwards. We’ve absolutely sucked picking players from JUCO from Sandland, Huertelou, Wyche, Dean, etc.

 

[DTP]

I would say our portal pickups have mostly been success. Martell and Kennedy both bombed but everyone else has been as advertised. If you’re signing transfers it’s because you don’t have someone at that position who can play right now for whatever reason. Sometimes it’s poor recruiting. Sometimes it’s injuries. Sometimes it’s because the guy you had at that spot transferred himself or left early for the draft or got kicked out of school. Most transfers have played already at the college level and coaches have something to evaluate so it’s not a crap shoot at all. Unless you’re taking a chance on a guy who never played or is jumping from a very low level to a much higher level. Not coincidentally, the only two transfer flops we’ve had fit those categories. Tate Martell had barely played outside of minor mop up duty but at least our staff wasn’t stupid enough to just assume he could play. He was brought in to compete with two highly rated recruits (who both flopped btw). Tommy Kennedy just couldn’t play. It’s a huge gamble taking a guy from a low level FCS program and hopefully our coaches have learned from that.

 

[Trafficante]

Alabama’s Rimmington award winning OC was a transfer. Ohio State’s QB was. Top programs will be the best choice for the best transfers. Why wouldn’t they be? The best Juco linemen are always sucked up by top schools. Same thing.

Logically, the best programs have an excess of top 300 talent on their rosters, so the likelihood of a talented player getting buried in the depth chart, and then transferring to earn more playing time elsewhere, is also higher for these teams. How can the top programs be the preferred destination for BOTH top recruits, & top transfers, when there are 25 ICs, 85 scholarships, etc? The entire phenomenon behind transfers is being fueled because top programs are hoarding talent.

You're confusing the number of spots with the allocation of kids. Alabama won’t take many kids that route. But if top programs focus on transfers, the top 10-15 schools would easily absorb the top 20-30 transfers, and how many really good transfers are you expecting to be available? The thing that changes the allocation of kids isn’t the portal, at all. It’s the 25 man IC rule and the 85 man roster.

We're trying to discuss the best course of action for MIA to take when trying to fill out it's roster in any given cycle. There is no hard rule to follow, because the variables surrounding each option change on a yr by yr, case by case, basis. No one is arguing whether Alabama CAN acquire the best talent from a recruiting cycle or transfer portal. Obviously they can. The question is how MIA should respond?

Your % of the top 300 point is also misused. If the 85 man roster limit went to 75, Alabama’s average roster quality relative to other top programs would go up, because they’re crushing it with top top top kids. Yes, a few more top 300 kids would be available and pachinko around, but you have to do the math on the other side of the equation, too. the relative competitive beneficiaries of shrinking rosters mathematically would be schools with the highest mean talent and schools with the lowest variance, both of which come from evaluations and recruiting. The comsequence of smaller rosters would be less room for mistakes, development projects and the like. UM has had a ton of those for a ling time. We wouldn’t be helped at all by smaller rosters.

I meant overall share of top 300 recruits on their roster would go down. I'm aware that the overall % of top 300 recruits on their roster would increase. The benefit to MIA would be it's overall % of 300 recruits would also go up.

 

[Jassid82]

Everyone’s goal is of course to get as many HS studs as possible but attrition happens.

Landon ****erson was an afterthought in that FSU OL and now will be a day 2 pick even with a season ending injury.

Every school has benefited especially OSU and LSU. Only Clemson hasn’t really, and they definitely could have used a WR after Ross’s injury or some DB help.

I remember when Coach K back in the early 2000s said he would NEVER recruit a kid who was one and done it wasnt the "Duke way" of doing things. Well, after a few years of getting his a$$ handed to him in the tournament by the 2nd round and not winning titles..he changed his tune years later and won 2 titles with one and done kids. (I think it was 2 right? I know Jahlil Okafor and his crew definitely won one)..

All this said, I can see Dabo absolutely being the "Coach K" of the transfer portal. Refusing to use it. Then after he gets his a$$ kicked about 4-5 years in a row by teams with transfer portal guys (hopefully its us doing the a$$ kicking a few of those years) I can see him doing a 180 and changing his tune. Dabo just looks like the type that thinks the portal is beneath his program and they are too good for it and dont need it. Yeah..we will see.

 

[Brains]

Some of our all time greatest players were transfers though. Jeremy Shockey, Bryant McKinnie, Dan Sileo, Jerome Mcdougle, Andrew Williams. Even Greg Olsen originally signed with Notre Dame.

Earl Little originally signed with Michigan. Cleveland Gary, Shane Curry, and Wesley Carroll were also transfers.

 

[Ethnicsands]

It’s more about your return on a transfer for me...a high school recruit might give you 3-4 years and takes up one counter. Most transfers will give you one year and cost the same, one counter. If you use too many transfers, it will eventually catch up to you via depth issues

I agree that a transfer with one year of eligibility left is a tough use of an IC. But some transfers have multiple years to play. Bolden and Phillips were examples. Depends on the situation.

 

[Ethnicsands]

We also had better evaluators at this time.

Jimmy and Butch working together.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Logically, the best programs have an excess of top 300 talent on their rosters, so the likelihood of a talented player getting buried in the depth chart, and then transferring to earn more playing time elsewhere, is also higher for these teams.

This comment makes no sense. There isn’t a likelihood that more guys get buried at Alabama than at Miami. They both have the same number of roster spots and playing opportunities. The only probability is that the average talent of a kid at Alabama who is buried will be a lot higher than the average talent at Miami of a buried kid. But the actual way it works is often completely opposite to your assumption. At a good program, there’s depth amd maturity and red-shirting and experienced kids stick around, so kids don’t quit and go early, they generally work hard and try to be ready when their number is called. McGahee didn’t transfer when he was behind Gore in ‘01. The thing that causes transfers is loss of fiath in the opportunity (or the coach tells you to gtfo). Winning cures a lot of that. What kid wants to quit on a potential title team?

How can the top programs be the preferred destination for BOTH top recruits, & top transfers, when there are 25 ICs, 85 scholarships, etc? The entire phenomenon behind transfers is being fueled because top programs are hoarding talent.

It’s easily possible that top programs have the most talent, and still have spots that are attractive to a top transfer, because there are lots of spots on a FB team at lots of positions. Just look at Fields at OSU or the OC at Alabama.

The entire phenomenon behind transfers is being fueled because top programs are hoarding talent.

This just isn’t true at all. It‘s mathematically wrong. Top programs hoarded talent more in the past, because rosters were bigger and IC rules were looser. What’s going on here is you’re inventing an idea about transfers that isn’t right. People here are skewed by Miami’s experience the past 2 years. The real ‘liquidity’ added to the transfer market was relaxation of the rule that you had to sit out a year. That de-risks it for kids.

We're trying to discuss the best course of action for MIA to take when trying to fill out it's roster in any given cycle. There is no hard rule to follow, because the variables surrounding each option change on a yr by yr, case by case, basis. No one is arguing whether Alabama CAN acquire the best talent from a recruiting cycle or transfer portal. Obviously they can. The question is how MIA should respond?

I agree it’s situation specific. I was commenting on the mistaken belief that the transfer dynamic is some sort of fundamental change in the logic of cfb. It’s not.

I meant overall share of top 300 recruits on their roster would go down. I'm aware that the overall % of top 300 recruits on their roster would increase. The benefit to MIA would be it's overall % of 300 recruits would also go up.

This is a flawed assessment. Let’s say the IC number was lowered from 25 to 22. Alabama would take 3 fewer top kids a year. Other schools would, too. There would be a pachinko effect all the way down. A bit higher average talent at all programs in an absolute sense (average per roster spot), but less overall talent on each roster because fewer kids and a greater (relative) disparity between top programs and everyone else, because the talent reduction isn’t from across the bell curve. If anything, fewer roster spots at Alabama makes Alabama even more attractive to top kids because as you point out, they’ll be less at risk of being buried than they otherwise would have been. And what matters competitively isn’t that you got a higher % of some arbitrarily defined pool of kids - it’s whether you’re more or less competitive with the top programs. Also, bad evaluations would be even more harmful in a smaller roster universe, and Alabama will take a lot less risk from that than others, because they pick from a higher quality pool and have more and better evaluation resources than other programs.

 

[BoxingRobes]

Until proven otherwise, I think Miami will be a real destination for transfer players for the foreseeable future. 1-2 years in Sunny South Florida or in bum**** SoufCack? Many kids wanting to come home. We ain't talking about freshmen and bags here. All these teams playing catchup, and I'm a mope.

We've basically gotten everyone we've wanted from the portal for three straight years outside of Jalen Hurts.