2026 Transfer portal

[MSSportsGuy]

So, it's ok for a regular student to transfer anytime, and it's ok for any coach to move anytime, just not players? I'm neither for or against, just throwing out some devil's advocate stuff. I'm also just happy that I was able to see some great things happen in my lifetime, because it looks pretty messy going forward.

I hear this quite a bit and get the thought process, but here is my counter argument (and not emotionally invested, just putting in my two cents).

1. Athletes are on scholarships that pay their cost of attendance. I'd wager most regular students who have institutional aid for academics or need are not likely to get the same package if they transfer to another university. Federal need based aid can be transferred, but institutional aid is just that. Regular students who pay out of pocket for their education, knock yourself out. But WCBB basketball players have been getting full scholarships (and some sports only offer partial) so to get a scholarship elsewhere should come with at least a modicum of restrictions.

2. Students who sat out a year still received the scholarship, could practice, received most advantages of being on the team, but couldn't play in contests. If a person transferred after playing two years somewhere, the year they sat out didn't count against their eligibility clock. Eliminating the sit out rule was done for coaches, not the players. I believe the NCAA was too rigid about transfers years back when the coach was not retained or left for another job.

3. Coaches. These are grown adults who accept full time roles and manage a staff and team within an organization. They are not the same as students and should not be considered as such. If a coach leaves a job and is under contract, I suspect many of them have to pay their school at least some form of restitution. Maybe their new employer pays it. Whatever the case, it is not typically a clean break. Maybe some of these NIL deals have similar language, can't say for sure.

4. Playing a college sport is a privilege. There are high school athletes who would jump at the chance to play but never get an opportunity. I wish a few more players acted as though they are grateful to have it rather than strike out for a greener pasture every single off season just because their feelings are hurt or they think they can get another $10K.

The student athletes really had too little power for too long. The solution should not be flipped to the point they have all the control and the schools and coaches have none. One way to address this is a student gets a five year eligibility clock from when they first enter school regardless of circumstances that may happen in that time. The first transfer is free, but another one the student must sit out unless their coaching staff change.

My post isn't intended to attack or inflame because what I think doesn't matter to anyone. I'm just someone who enjoyed college sports more when it wasn't a revolving door of rosters, coaches, and constant requests for more money to do (fill in the blank). I hope the comment is well received by you and not as trying to start an argument.

 

[azfan]

So, it's ok for a regular student to transfer anytime, and it's ok for any coach to move anytime, just not players? I'm neither for or against, just throwing out some devil's advocate stuff. I'm also just happy that I was able to see some great things happen in my lifetime, because it looks pretty messy going forward.

I think this is an important observation and consideration. As you say mobility has always been a hallmark for participants in the academic arena as well as coaching and administration.

In fact my freshman year I transferred from to Arizona State.... exemplary of student mobility not halfling mobility..lol

I think we also have to remember that at the elite level that is P4 there are significant financial considerations to football and basketball and I'm always cautious and skeptical about denying freedom to a subset of a population. Treating some students treating some students differently from other students or participants in the community professors, administrators, coaches is by definition discrimination and would require I think pretty a pretty significant rationale.

With that in mind there is now a new framework for women's college basketball particularly at the elite level.

Finally I've always been a believer that there's significant learning through making mistakes and failure. Up here in Flagstaff NAU rookie Naomi White who is a bucket at the Big Sky level takes a trip to Tennessee. Now Tennessee is a special case but it's still a P4 school and plays a P4 schedule and while the 5-8 Naomi White has proven she could score against Big Sky competition and received tremendous accolades this year I'm not certain that would be duplicated by moving to P4 if that ever happens. White sacrificed certainty here in Flagstaff in terms of athleticism and legacy for a very unknown future.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

Tonya Cardoza just began following Zamareya Jones on IG.

 

[bayern7]

So, it's ok for a regular student to transfer anytime, and it's ok for any coach to move anytime, just not players? I'm neither for or against, just throwing out some devil's advocate stuff. I'm also just happy that I was able to see some great things happen in my lifetime, because it looks pretty messy going forward.

Appreciate the devils advocate bit, and fair points. But coaches are held to contractual agreements if I’m not mistaken, which are legally and financially binding. And regular students are paying for their education or subsidizing it with exemplary academic work.

Student athletes are subsidized by the school and by extension other students, alumni, and tax payers. And when you boil it down, we’re talking all they have to do is just play a sport… So yeah I do think there’s more of an obligation for student athletes to honor their commitments to a school and its program than a regular student.

Again we’re talking about college sports. The academic side of this matters, the vast majority of these student athletes are not going to compete in pro leagues after. But they are getting a degree essentially for free (something the majority of college students are going into massive amounts of debt to obtain) along with measurably more academic and personal resources than regular students while they do so.

I understand it’s a big commitment for the student athletes and it’s not a cake walk. But it’s a pretty sweet deal for them. And this seems to be totally taken for granted now and the academic aspect as others have mentioned is now basically irrelevant in how this issue is talked about… it’s quite bizarre the whole student athlete thing is built around the idea that they are students competing for a school. But now it’s like the school is supposed to work for them, pay them, ply them.

This has gone so far beyond what college athletics is supposed to be about. It’s essentially turned the college sports into like a pseudo professional league and the reason why I take issue with it, is it’s pretty clear that if this keeps going on the way it is, it’s not sustainable and it’s going to erode the college sports landscape to a point where it will become lose relevant. It’s like we’re purposefully degrading the aspects that set college sports apart from pro leagues. What do we think is going to happen if we keep doing that??

 

[azfan]

I hear this quite a bit and get the thought process, but here is my counter argument (and not emotionally invested, just putting in my two cents).

1. Athletes are on scholarships that pay their cost of attendance. I'd wager most regular students who have institutional aid for academics or need are not likely to get the same package if they transfer to another university. Federal need based aid can be transferred, but institutional aid is just that. Regular students who pay out of pocket for their education, knock yourself out. But WCBB basketball players have been getting full scholarships (and some sports only offer partial) so to get a scholarship elsewhere should come with at least a modicum of restrictions.

2. Students who sat out a year still received the scholarship, could practice, received most advantages of being on the team, but couldn't play in contests. If a person transferred after playing two years somewhere, the year they sat out didn't count against their eligibility clock. Eliminating the sit out rule was done for coaches, not the players. I believe the NCAA was too rigid about transfers years back when the coach was not retained or left for another job.

3. Coaches. These are grown adults who accept full time roles and manage a staff and team within an organization. They are not the same as students and should not be considered as such. If a coach leaves a job and is under contract, I suspect many of them have to pay their school at least some form of restitution. Maybe their new employer pays it. Whatever the case, it is not typically a clean break. Maybe some of these NIL deals have similar language, can't say for sure.

4. Playing a college sport is a privilege. There are high school athletes who would jump at the chance to play but never get an opportunity. I wish a few more players acted as though they are grateful to have it rather than strike out for a greener pasture every single off season just because their feelings are hurt or they think they can get another $10K.

The student athletes really had too little power for too long. The solution should not be flipped to the point they have all the control and the schools and coaches have none. One way to address this is a student gets a five year eligibility clock from when they first enter school regardless of circumstances that may happen in that time. The first transfer is free, but another one the student must sit out unless their coaching staff change.

My post isn't intended to attack or inflame because what I think doesn't matter to anyone. I'm just someone who enjoyed college sports more when it wasn't a revolving door of rosters, coaches, and constant requests for more money to do (fill in the blank). I hope the comment is well received by you and not as trying to start an argument.

Well said.

Considerations that I've had floating around in my mind for some time.

The general student population are consumers. They are most often making payment to the college or university. The college or university puts no limit on their time as a student. That is the colleges are more than happy to continue to collect revenue as students take as long as they want to graduate. I'm assuming that the structure here in Arizona at ASU, NAU, and the school down in the dirty t reflects that across the country. I believe the last time I heard the average length of time for a student to graduate from ASU is slightly under 6 and 1/2 years.

For most colleges for most sports, athletes are truly student athletes. The exceptions of course are many sports in the P4 and football and basketball. Here the students have a more complicated relationship with the institution as an addition to customers who often have the fees waived they are also employees and at the very top level generates significant revenue for the University.

I saw an analysis about the University of Connecticut for either the year 2024 or 2025 discussing revenue. The article did indicate that Connecticut is one of a very few schools that funds basketball at a higher level than football. As I recall the basketball program generated just under $7 million dollars. That's really not chump change and a lot of small businesses would love to have that kind of revenue stream. Of course like all programs basketball ran a deficit after considering salaries approaching 6 million dollars and the related costs associated running an elite women's basketball program.

Obviously that revenue would not exist without the players.

I'm not sure how worthwhile any of this is but it's led me to wonder if anyone is given consideration to simply asking athletes to sign a contract similar to the contract the coach signs?

 

[Gael]

Jay Bilas made this point during a College Game Day show over the weekend. A collective bargaining agreement would solve all of these issues as the athletes would have contracts which would be much more binding.

I don't understand why the entire apparatus of federal labor law, unionization and collective bargaining would have to be instituted in order to have student-athletes bound by contracts.

The NCAA could institute a regime of appropriate anti-transfer provisions in the contracts student-athletes sign when they get their promises of scholarships, grants in aid, revenue sharing money, school NIL money, and whatever else the school provides to them.

No one has to be an employee of someone else, or part of a union, in order for those parties to sign binding legal contracts that specify financial obligations, temporal duration, prohibitions, exclusive rights and obligations, and the like.

 

[ABCDFE]

@BRS24 Hopefully this helps with that spreadsheet you're working on. 😉

astounding. we need some real leadership to fix the problem with college athletics, just doesn't make sense anymore

 

[BRS24]

 

[cancontent]

Well said.

Considerations that I've had floating around in my mind for some time.

The general student population are consumers. They are most often making payment to the college or university. The college or university puts no limit on their time as a student. That is the colleges are more than happy to continue to collect revenue as students take as long as they want to graduate. I'm assuming that the structure here in Arizona at ASU, NAU, and the school down in the dirty t reflects that across the country. I believe the last time I heard the average length of time for a student to graduate from ASU is slightly under 6 and 1/2 years.

For most colleges for most sports, athletes are truly student athletes. The exceptions of course are many sports in the P4 and football and basketball. Here the students have a more complicated relationship with the institution as an addition to customers who often have the fees waived they are also employees and at the very top level generates significant revenue for the University.

I saw an analysis about the University of Connecticut for either the year 2024 or 2025 discussing revenue. The article did indicate that Connecticut is one of a very few schools that funds basketball at a higher level than football. As I recall the basketball program generated just under $7 million dollars. That's really not chump change and a lot of small businesses would love to have that kind of revenue stream. Of course like all programs basketball ran a deficit after considering salaries approaching 6 million dollars and the related costs associated running an elite women's basketball program.

Obviously that revenue would not exist without the players.

I'm not sure how worthwhile any of this is but it's led me to wonder if anyone is given consideration to simply asking athletes to sign a contract similar to the contract the coach signs?

This sounds like the collective bargaining point Jay Bilas made this weekend during College Game Day in this clip below. Treat athletes like employees and have them sign an employment contract.

 

[cancontent]

Surprised by this one.

 

[WBBTakeover]

Wait! Didn't Kim just say that they're all coming back?

 

[WBBZen]

Wait! Didn't Kim just say that they're all coming back?

She did lol. This is a surprise

 

[HuskyNan]

 

[Stagnant]

To me, Bella Hines seems like Mulkey’s kind of player. But Kim is probably looking to bring in guards via the portal.

 

[cancontent]

I don't understand why the entire apparatus of federal labor law, unionization and collective bargaining would have to be instituted in order to have student-athletes bound by contracts.

The NCAA could institute a regime of appropriate anti-transfer provisions in the contracts student-athletes sign when they get their promises of scholarships, grants in aid, revenue sharing money, school NIL money, and whatever else the school provides to them.

No one has to be an employee of someone else, or part of a union, in order for those parties to sign binding legal contracts that specify financial obligations, temporal duration, prohibitions, exclusive rights and obligations, and the like.

The NCAA could but they don't want to based on their actions. A collective bargaining agreement would give students more of a voice however.

The video I recently posted that includes the conversation where this was discussed on College Game Day does a better explaining the point.

 

[Geew1992]

To me, Bella Hines seems like Mulkey’s kind of player. But Kim is probably looking to bring in guards via the portal.

I want there a video with her and mulkey about her not transferring or was that someone else?

 

[darrell]

Tonya Cardoza just began following Zamareya Jones on IG.

I saw this and it’s not making a ton of sense considering we have 4 guards (as of now) 5’9 or smaller on the depth chart for next season.

 

[Geew1992]

 

[BoomBoom]

Tonya Cardoza just began following Zamareya Jones on IG.

Qadence pro quo.