Are we losing the portal contest?
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
WTF are you talking about? - it has been pointed out ad nauseam the different schools we have portal kids from and they aren’t all ISU amd many are highly rated.
Much of the team is set 2 deep. The QB, OL, WR, TE, DT and secondary groups are all improved. Need just a few depth pieces - particularly at DE and OL. The portal window closes Friday and hundreds of players will still be choosing schools over the next few weeks. My only hope right now is to perhaps stretch for another WR. 2026 will be a much better season than 2025.
I do not understand this obsession with star ranking....the ONLY ranking that matters is how HCMC feels about each player. To moan about players being 3 stars from playing in the Big 12 is ridiculous. Does Indiana have all 4 and 5 star players?
Dude, don't forget to pack these for your next trip to Blacksburg:
Gonna be a while before they come out in maroon and burnt orange.
Cast the stars aside.
PSU got a good portion of the ISU roster, and VT / TN / FL got a good portion of our previous roster.
In as much as I tired of BGJ, he was a good recruiter. I think we took a net loss in talent in this portal exchange, but I'm still excited that PSU is turning a new leaf.
Last edited:
Rocco isn’t mid he’s actually very good. He played with a torn labrum last year and his entire offense was hurt
DE is on my wish list. Bacon is a hybrid player. Big enough to play on the end, rush the passer, stout against the run and good in coverage. Sill waiting on Lavar Jr. I think his natural position is on the edge or as a hybrid EDGE/LB in a 4/3. Do not know what he weighs at the conclusion of the season. But I would like another DE comparable to McPhearson who looks very good on tape with room to improve.
Lot of serious discussion here BOB.First post.
OBVIOUSLY., “we” will suck balls next season.
Oh, contraire.
Becht is the walking, talking textbook definition of "mid"
There are, IIRC, about 68 P4 Programs in the nation. So the dead-on "middiest" spot would be around 34th
Becht is a three-year starter,
2025 College Football Passing Stats | College Football at Sports-Reference.com
His QBR among P4 QBS has been:
3 Years ago: 20th, QBR 150.7
2 years ago: 35th, QBR 138.1 (that was the year with the 2 "NFL Receivers" on the roster)
1 year ago: 38th, QBR 134.8 (the year he was "banged up", as you say)
In all of recorded football history, there may never have been a more consistently "mid" QB. Ever. Seriously.
That ain't all bad (in fact, it is kinda' equally good/bad - it is just what it is)
Expecting any great deviation - either positive or negative - from that in 2026 would be a direct inane "yeah, but" in contradiction to experience and data.
Last edited:
Probably a net decline in overall roster talent but offset by no Franklin. Too soon to tell how it shakes out.
I know that l m showing age but l fondly recall awaiting the Parade Magizine All American issue to be delivered and for the USA Today A A s to be announced....then in 2002 the star ratings were introduced
and the star gazing obsession beganAs of January 14, 2026:
Number of players who have entered the portal:
- Ohio State 30 and counting…
- Texas 22+
- Florida 20+
- Oregon 25
This is the new normal.
Number of players who have entered the portal:
- Ohio State 30 and counting…
- Texas 22+
- Florida 20+
- Oregon 25
This is the new normal.
We'll be able to make this evaluation at the end of next season.
When you have 126 QBs ranked, and you are ranked 37th (2023), that puts you at the 30th percentile, and ahead of Cam Ward (50), Shedeur Sanders (56), Diego Pavia (57, Fernando Mendoza (65), Brendan Sosby (70), and other names that have gone on to do very well.
What he is not (to date) is elite. What he is is a good quarterback that plays well within a system. His deep ball is better than we have seen here in a very long time. He is fearless and thinks he can make windows that are high riisk/high reward. As a result he is looked at as being careless with the ball. He could also improve his arm strength.
Short version. He is a gunslinger that does not play scared. I, for one, am all in.
Last edited:
I know that l m showing age but l fondly recall awaiting the Parade Magizine All American issue to be delivered and for the USA Today A A s to be announced....then in 2002 the star ratings were introduced
You use the perfect phrase, star gazing. Relying on HS star designations is futility and a worthless exercise for portal players.
Take former Penn State DE/DT Enai White who is in the portal, again. White was a 4 star player who committed to Texas A&M in December 2021. It’s ridiculous to reference his 4 star status as a 4th year player who will be playing for his 3rd team since his HS days. The stars are irrelevant. What is relevant: current film and college production.
DE as currently constructed is dependent upon Granville, the next Abdul Carter imo, returning to 100% by start of the season. I know that may be fantasy for an acl, and that is is reason why we need Edge depth. But so does every single school in the country and it is a very pricy position in the portal. The kid we got out of Colorado will be fantastic, though. As far as I know LA2 is only 220. It will be interesting to see what he weighs this spring. Hoping he is able to approach 240 and beyond.
"Star-gazing" as a problematic issue primarily applies to the individual level. An individual player may never live up to the star rating assessed by recruiting services as a prospect in high school, or an individual may exceed the star rating that was assessed. That happens all the time because we are dealing with human beings. Those ratings are based on "potential" as informed by various metrics that have decent reasoning behind them, but in the end are still just projections.
Where "star-gazing" can start to have some merit is on the macro-level. Simple question: if all other things being equal (heart, grit, etc.), would you rather have a team composed of 65% 3-star rating players, or a team composed of 65% blue-chip rated players? Be intellectually honest. But one might argue, "the portal now changes everything!" It does change a lot, but do we have enough data yet to demonstrate that prioritizing the portal with your resources over high school recruiting leads to long-term success on the field? There is a statistically significant correlation that the teams who maintain high blue-chip ratios tend to be the teams that have the depth to consistently challenge for conference championships and playoff spots. Some highly-rated individuals out of high school won't pan out—just as some 3-star players won't pan out. It's a luxury of depth if you can replace a 4-star kid who didn't pan out with the athleticism of another 4-star kid who did pan out. That's why on the team-level, the ratings actually do matter.
Indiana is now the prime example of how a program can quickly go from a doormat to a world-beater: significantly use the portal for experienced players who have shown production at the CFB level—regardless of their high school high school ratings. It certainly worked for them in two years, but they have a great coach. The questions are: can other coaches pull all the right strings together and replicate what Cignetti was able to do? And, will even Indiana find sustained, success over the long-haul doing things the same way they have the past two seasons?
The second question has a problem, though. With the incoming recruiting class, Indiana is set to bring in the same number of blue-chip recruits in one class as it currently has on its entire team. And after this season, I'm willing to bet that ratio only increases for them with the next class. So, what does that mean? Well, the Indiana experiment with building a winner based on proven portal guys who came in as 3-star prospects in high school is now certain to evolve; it's not going to remain the same model. In other words, we may not necessarily see, at least from Indiana, whether the model they are currently using can have sustained success over the long-term. What has been proven over the long-term is that if you maintain a high blue-chip ratio, then you at the very least set yourself up for being in the mix for playoff spots on a regular basis. Using the portal for upgrades at that point becomes the potential enhancer at that point, especially if you target production in the portal over potential.
It's worked out really well for Cignetti. They really hit on their "misfit" portal transfers. A year ago, how many people really saw Mendoza winning the Heisman and leading his team to the national championship game? But, can that be easily replicated? One of the dirty secrets about transfer players is that there is no guarantee that the collection of players you bring in who were developed elsewhere will mesh well within your program and how you want to find success on the field. Now, the same applies to bringing in high school recruits. However, the advantages there are 1) there is more time to evaluate and to get to know those recruits, 2) you control their early development pathway, and 3) there is more time for them to find how their fit into your program and system. In conclusion, I do not yet see enough evidence to prioritize resources in the transfer portal over prioritizing high school recruiting. They both need to be heavily utilized in this new college football environment with the greater emphasis on building upward from the foundations of high school recruiting.
Where "star-gazing" can start to have some merit is on the macro-level. Simple question: if all other things being equal (heart, grit, etc.), would you rather have a team composed of 65% 3-star rating players, or a team composed of 65% blue-chip rated players? Be intellectually honest. But one might argue, "the portal now changes everything!" It does change a lot, but do we have enough data yet to demonstrate that prioritizing the portal with your resources over high school recruiting leads to long-term success on the field? There is a statistically significant correlation that the teams who maintain high blue-chip ratios tend to be the teams that have the depth to consistently challenge for conference championships and playoff spots. Some highly-rated individuals out of high school won't pan out—just as some 3-star players won't pan out. It's a luxury of depth if you can replace a 4-star kid who didn't pan out with the athleticism of another 4-star kid who did pan out. That's why on the team-level, the ratings actually do matter.
Indiana is now the prime example of how a program can quickly go from a doormat to a world-beater: significantly use the portal for experienced players who have shown production at the CFB level—regardless of their high school high school ratings. It certainly worked for them in two years, but they have a great coach. The questions are: can other coaches pull all the right strings together and replicate what Cignetti was able to do? And, will even Indiana find sustained, success over the long-haul doing things the same way they have the past two seasons?
The second question has a problem, though. With the incoming recruiting class, Indiana is set to bring in the same number of blue-chip recruits in one class as it currently has on its entire team. And after this season, I'm willing to bet that ratio only increases for them with the next class. So, what does that mean? Well, the Indiana experiment with building a winner based on proven portal guys who came in as 3-star prospects in high school is now certain to evolve; it's not going to remain the same model. In other words, we may not necessarily see, at least from Indiana, whether the model they are currently using can have sustained success over the long-term. What has been proven over the long-term is that if you maintain a high blue-chip ratio, then you at the very least set yourself up for being in the mix for playoff spots on a regular basis. Using the portal for upgrades at that point becomes the potential enhancer at that point, especially if you target production in the portal over potential.
It's worked out really well for Cignetti. They really hit on their "misfit" portal transfers. A year ago, how many people really saw Mendoza winning the Heisman and leading his team to the national championship game? But, can that be easily replicated? One of the dirty secrets about transfer players is that there is no guarantee that the collection of players you bring in who were developed elsewhere will mesh well within your program and how you want to find success on the field. Now, the same applies to bringing in high school recruits. However, the advantages there are 1) there is more time to evaluate and to get to know those recruits, 2) you control their early development pathway, and 3) there is more time for them to find how their fit into your program and system. In conclusion, I do not yet see enough evidence to prioritize resources in the transfer portal over prioritizing high school recruiting. They both need to be heavily utilized in this new college football environment with the greater emphasis on building upward from the foundations of high school recruiting.
New QB, new RBs, new WRs, a new TE, and mostly a new OL. New DTs, a new DE, 2 new LBs and a couple of new DBs. If that's not rebuilding I don't know what is.
I said from the beginning that it will likely take PSU 3 years to get back in the top 10. I could be wrong but I actually think I'm being optimistic. I'm predicting 9-3 this fall based on the schedule, returning player and five 4* transfers. That seems pretty good to me but some of those guys will only be at PSU for a year and there are few star recruits behind them.
I don't understand your statement that nobody reloads with HS kids. OSU recruited Carnell Tate out of high school as the #5 prospect in the country. They also recruited Jeremiah Smith as the #1 recruit in the country. Why did they recruit those guys instead of shopping th portal? Why didn't they leave and go elsewhere? Last year they recruited the #4 & #5 prospects in the country. Why did they bother? It seems clear to me that they reloaded with HS kids.
OSU’s wr recruiting was largely or even solely due to Hartline. Watch what happens to them now with wr recruiting post Hartline.
Maybe but OSU is top 5 in recruiting almost every year and that's not just at WR.
OSU's 2026 class has nineteen 4/5* prospects. Oregon has sixteen. USC has twenty two. Michigan has eleven. PSU has ONE. I think it's silly to thing we can simply make that up in one year in the portal.
All this talk about where these players are coming from is humorous. I just read an article that ranked the top three teams in who they got from the portal:
Texas Tech- top players are from Cincinnati, San Diego State, Wake Forest, and Kansas State.
Texas- top players are from Auburn, Arizona State, and NC State.
Indiana- top players are from TCU, Tulane, Boston College, Kansas State, PSU, and Montana State.
Not exactly loaded with guys from big name teams. One from Penn State and none from any other big time school.
Texas Tech- top players are from Cincinnati, San Diego State, Wake Forest, and Kansas State.
Texas- top players are from Auburn, Arizona State, and NC State.
Indiana- top players are from TCU, Tulane, Boston College, Kansas State, PSU, and Montana State.
Not exactly loaded with guys from big name teams. One from Penn State and none from any other big time school.
Sure. I think the better point is that it would be ideal if Penn State were one of the teams ranked highly in terms of portal additions. At this point, we rank well on lists that add total additions (because we have added a lot of players) but not as much on ones that are ranking by "peak" (i.e. how many top players signed).
I had hoped Campbell might be able to stag some more elite players from the portal to supplement the retained PSU and incoming ISU core.
We have one in the class for obvious reasons. I would not look at this year‘s class decimated by the coaching search as a basis of comparison for what we will be moving forward. OSU has 30 people in the transfer portal. I think Hartline did more for them than we knew.
The offense is Ames East as far as relocated coaches and players goes. Defense will be the rebuild IMO. We have a good punter , and FG kicker , with one of the best special teams coaches. Incoming KO specialist from JMU announced. Special teams are set . Should field a very competitive team in the fall.
He won the Johnny Unitas award for the best quarterback in college football and made an NFL squad. These are facts; not a reflection of whether I like him as a player or not.
Last edited:
Nice write up. The only issue I find with your observations is the impact of the transfer portal on retention. I think it is a counterfactual to assume as a premise that you have "time" to evaluate them, and compensate them as they develop, when they can skip every year. But in the end I generally agree with your analysis, though I think it is weighted too heavily towards high school recruiting given the economic realities of roster construction and the impact of the portal. If you look at Indiana's recruiting class for 2026 you will only see two 4* recruits out of 23. and four 4* recruits. Is it that Cig did not want hire rated players after his success last year? Or is his approach different given the current parameters of college football?
Bottom line for me is this: What is your return on investment on high schools players who need to sit and develop when you have no assurance that they will stick? IF the ROI is low for these players why not look to culture fits of players who are mature and have produced on the field at a high level. In short, in terms of economics, do you rather pay Jven Williams to sit on your bench as a 5* recruit for three years versus paying a ready player for less than the 2 to 3 years of expenditure you committed to a player who never panned out.
Those are incredible hauls for OSU, USC and Oregon, but I wonder how many of those players will be on different teams in 2 years? Probably most of them. It's hard to get excited about college football in 2026.
I mean sure, but most of those players who "will be on different teams" will be in that situation because they aren't really all that good so the team gives up on them or because they are buried on the depth chart behind better players. Sure, there might be the occasional player than excels and then seeks a payday elsewhere but you are more likely to be able to build a competitive roster by getting great recruits and retaining them (even if they want a payday, you have the first shot to pay and retain them before they even hit the portal).
You are right to point out the added issues of retaining players. Retention affects the economics of this whole situation. The fact is that now you need to continue to recruit the players you already have in program is new. You also have to determine a value you believe is fair for players in relationship to their overall contribution to the program—that's why it's good to now have a GM on staff instead of the head coach making those final decisions. Some kids will move on more quickly if they believe they can 1) get into a starting role elsewhere more quickly, and 2) make a bit more money (I think those two are quite related to each other). However, there is also usually a "discount" for most players already in your program in terms of NIL money if they choose to return versus going out into the portal to secure the services of a player of similar ability at the same position. The incentive structure from a program's standpoint is still tilted toward retention and development of players you recruited.
There will always be guys that jump—especially the not-yet-starters with a lot of upside. You just can't avoid it in the current setup. But not all of them do. For every highly rated not-yet-starter that enters the portal from Oregon, or Bama, or Georgia, there are still others (even more) who do not jump. That provides some consistency for these programs. As long as you avoid big coaching changes and take care of the important contributors while finding a balance with those you project to soon be important contributors, then you should be able to avoid desperate situations requiring a lot of portal acquisitions.
I am hoping this model as currently constituted will get some needed reforms in the near-ish future. This is not free agency. It's worse than FA because this is more transitory and temporal. With NFL free agency, at least they typically sign multi-year contracts that they are bound to. This is an every single year problem. I can't see how this is sustainable in the long run.
Great topic and lots of interesting points you make. If you don’t mind I’d like to share a few counter points to both your recent posts within this discussion thread.
Number of portal acquisitions
I don’t think the word desperate is applicable to programs like Ohio State, Oregon, and USC. Over the past couple years, these teams have had years where their portal count has been in the 20-30+ range. This is a normal trend in my opinion. There was nothing desperate about the portal movement by these teams.
Indiana roster loaded with 3 star players
For some inexplicable reason, some posters are under the mistaken impression that Indiana and Coach Curt Cignetti are the first 3 star loaded team to become playoff bound and defeat opponents loaded with 4/5 star players.
Tiny TCU had a roster of 60 3 star players when they made the 4 team playoff in 2023. TCU dropped 51 points on a Michigan team loaded with 4/5 star players.
Washington relied on many 3 star starters including 3 star recruit Michael Penix when they made the 4-team playoff in 2024.
The huskies defeated a Texas team loaded with 4/5 star players.
Annual portal movement (problem or legacy mindset)
When you say the movement of players is an ”every single year problem”, who exactly is complaining about player movement being an annual problem? Not a single fan in Indiana, LSU, Ohio State, Oregon, or Miami is complaining. Not a single college football player is complaining. Fans of teams who are thriving in this portal environment are not complaining. Players certainly are not complaining because they have freedom to make tons of money just like their coaches. The media corporations shelling out billions to the B1G and SEC are not complaining.
So, that leaves disgruntled or jealous fans of less successful programs (in the portal era) who are complaining. It’s human nature for some people to struggle in adapting to change and yearning for the old days. It’s a legacy mindset fixed on the past instead of looking forward.
The fact that a traditionally bottom dweller program like Indiana can make it to a National Championship game is a beautiful thing. The fact that players can get compensated based on a free market is wonderful for those players and their families.
If a school gets 25 blue chip players and loses 12, isnt that better than getting none?
Thanks, and thanks for the thoughtful responses.
Respectively, I did not apply the term desperate to those schools. The “desperate” portal situation I referred to is the one Penn State finds itself in now due to a coaching staff change. Penn State has not been in this situation before during the portal era. As long as PSU doesn’t fire Campbell anytime soon, we won’t have to repeat the mass exodus we had this year.
If one follows my argument in my previous two posts, I’m interested in the question of what leads to sustained success over the long-term. Neither TCU nor UW followed those seasons up with sustained threats to be in contention for the playoff. The teams we do see more consistently in the playoffs recruit very well.
I’m not sure I know what to say other than there have been a lot of people, including coaches, who have talked about how the current model is not good for the sport or even sustainable. The criticism is so available that I, respectfully, don’t think I need to provide links to support my supposition.
There are a lot of assumptions baked into this part, so I’ll just deal with a couple things. I don’t know what I said to draw out the reaction of “disgruntled” or “jealous” or “yearning for the old days.” Perhaps you’re not referring to me personally? But, I’m looking at things going forward and how certain things can be made better. I also agree with you that players, who inevitably are responsible for making millions of dollars for their school’s athletic departments, should properly be compensated for their work. This is a non-sequitur from my argument, though.
I believe that the issues that are problematic right now—having over 1/3 of all players in the portal, and some of which will never find a team to sign with—can be solved with going to a professional model. Collective bargaining, player contracts, etc. This half-way approach of being somewhere between an amateur model and a professional model is having some chaotic results.
- Thanks for your clarification on what you meant by desperate! I had inadvertently misinterpreted your original statement. Also, I agree with you on that point.
- In terms of sustainability, we most likely have a very different definition of what that word means in this context. To me, sustainability means consistently making the playoffs not just competing for the playoffs. Teams that do not make the playoffs are irrelevant and there are no points for competing or being close to making the playoffs. You either make it, or you don’t. In this context, making the playoffs consistently is very difficult for nearly all P4 programs under the 12 team playoff format.
- Of course, the disgruntled or jealous comment was not directed at you specifically. My comment was based on general observations. There is a natural tendency for confirmation bias to creep in and rarely do people consider the opposite camp (those not complaining). Rarely, have I seen any reputable media outlet representing the players views on the portal system.
- I do realize there are many people who do not like the current direction of college football. My point was that most of them tend to be fans or associated with teams who may be losing the portal wars. Where I live, I am surrounded by Ohio State and Michigan fans. Rarely do they complain about the current state of college football. The fact that those schools have won the last 2 National Championships has a way of influencing how they feel.
In summary, the current model allows any P4 program to become competitive virtually over night. No more waiting years to rebuild, or decades to reach the top echelon. That is a good thing for college football.
Last edited:
Here's an example of even players themselves not being happy with the way things are currently being run in college football. I think a lot of people find this problematic, both inside the sport and those looking on from the outside. Something will need to change since the incentive structures related to money tend to give preference toward players you don't have yet versus the players you do have. Retention can obviously also cost a lot (see Donte Moore), but beating out other schools for new guys will cost even more in a number of situations. I don't blame players for being upset in these situations, and I can't imagine Ole Miss' locker room being the only one with tension in it over NIL compensation matters. This is one of the reasons I favor collective bargaining, professional-style contracts, etc. for solving a lot of issues that are part of the system right now.
Having a CBA-type structure is a good start, but it won't eliminate comp issues as long as NIL, provided by third-parties and off the books of the schools as it should be, remains. What Hath the NCAA Wrought?