The effect of the transfer portal on high school recruiting

[ZooCougar]

Guys can just transfer instead of quit now, true, they can also enter the portal and not be picked up, whether that be voluntold or simply on their own.

In the old system, the same guys would just retire. Now they are getting second and third chances. So that means less scholarships are available to HS kids because overall attrition is lower.

 

[ZooCougar]

LMAO. You know what that articles shows us -- that giving everyone an extra year of eligibility due to COVID without increasing overall scholarships available decreased the number available for incoming high school students. Well, duh.

When there are numbers to compare from pre-COVID years to years after all the COVID players are gone, wake me up. Because otherwise you're not going to convince me that the openness of the portal is going to have any effect on the number of first year players being granted scholarships in any year.

LMAO. Read every other article then. Plus the Athletic Article that shows a 20% reduction. Your read on this is very simplistic.

 

[noeynox]

Talk to HS coaches who tell you their kids are being squeezed out due to the portal.

 

[AllHusky]

Consider a highly rated, but not 5* recruit who might not see the field at a P2 for a few years. Does Mora sell the potential to see the field earlier, impact the program ala Fenway and move on to a bigger payday for 2-3 years to this type of HS recruit, netting a higher rated class than we are accustomed? Isn't this years HS class was better than we've had recently?

 

[businesslawyer]

LMAO. Read every other article then. Plus the Athletic Article that shows a 20% reduction. Your read on this is very simplistic.

I agree that my take is simplistic. Math is often simplistic.

I don't doubt others take the view that the Athletic does. I just doubt that many others sportswriters even care as much about whether what they're writing makes mathematical sense than the Athletic does. But numbers don't lie. Unless someone is going to show that teams are carrying fewer scholarship players than they used to because of the portal, only increasing the playing life of existing players changes things. There is a glaring and obvious fact that explains longer average playing lives. If, when COVID is done, someone shows me others, so be it.

 

[ZooCougar]

I agree that my take is simplistic. Math is often simplistic.

I don't doubt others take the view that the Athletic does. I just doubt that many others sportswriters even care as much about whether what they're writing makes mathematical sense than the Athletic does. But numbers don't lie. Unless someone is going to show that teams are carrying fewer scholarship players than they used to because of the portal, only increasing the playing life of existing players changes things. There is a glaring and obvious fact that explains longer average playing lives. If, when COVID is done, someone shows me others, so be it.

Your math is incomplete.

You aren’t accounting for the people that normally would just quit football altogether instead of just transferring.

And all the schools like UConn that are taking smaller classes of freshmen.

And like 19 other things.

Go eat a snickers big boy.

 

[Scrutineer]

It's no way to run a railroad. And according to our "friend" Mike Farrell, it is drastically reducing the amount of scholarship offers being made to high school seniors. Easier for most teams to recruit from the portal, especially those with deep pockets.

Let's face it, we're in the G-League for college football.

The NCAA, NBA and NFL are like a cabal operating for the benefit of the pro leagues and the athletic departments.

The NFL and NBA dump the cost of evaluating kids and developing them onto the universities who use the internet hype about the "future pros" on their rosters to increase donations and pay for lavish facilities, ever larger staffs and increased payrolls.

Everybody wins.........if they're high enough on the food chain.

I believe it won't be long before the house of cards starts to collapse. Even SEC schools have empty seats for games and the numbers of empty seats will rise when it becomes apparent that only a handful of schools have a chance to win championships.

We boast about UConn fan support at the Garden, tournaments and bowl games, but what was it like before Hurley and Mora?

Charlie Baker is failing so far, so the solution (if any) will come when the university Presidents become sufficiently embarrassed with the behavior of their Athletic Departments (tampering, etc.) or, the more likely scenario, don't see the promised increases in applications for admission, the increased flow of dollars into their endowments promised by their AD's, or the red ink from ballooning staffs and facilities becomes unsustainable.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I agree that my take is simplistic. Math is often simplistic.

I don't doubt others take the view that the Athletic does. I just doubt that many others sportswriters even care as much about whether what they're writing makes mathematical sense than the Athletic does. But numbers don't lie. Unless someone is going to show that teams are carrying fewer scholarship players than they used to because of the portal, only increasing the playing life of existing players changes things. There is a glaring and obvious fact that explains longer average playing lives. If, when COVID is done, someone shows me others, so be it.

Teams are going to migrate to older players because the transfer portal reduces the return of gambling on marginal players as freshmen. The fact that players can be paid, even if it is modest amounts, will keep older players in college longer. This will be especially true for players that are clearly non-NFL/NBA caliber players. Many of them would leave after graduation because what was the point of staying for a graduate degree they didn't need? They just wanted to get on with their lives. Now, even MWC and AAC players can make something for playing a 5th year.

So tell me, Mr. Math Wizard, where will the roster spots for the older players come from?

 

[Patman]

Guys can just transfer instead of quit now, true, they can also enter the portal and not be picked up, whether that be voluntold or simply on their own.

They could do that before as well

 

[kibblesnbits]

I’ve posted three credible articles showing how opportunities have declined.

FBS programs will be less likely to sign big freshman classes. They will let lower division programs sign those kids and then go get them in the portal.

True, but at the end of the day FBS programs will still have 85 (or whatever the new number is) scholarship players per year. Oddly, it will just invert the weighting. In the old days they had 25 freshmen and then had net attrition throughout the years (say 25, 20, 17, 15 and 8 where the later number is redshirt seniors) while now they will bring in fewer freshmen because they’ll have more upper class players via net gains, I.e. raiding lower programs, from the portal (perhaps 15, 18, 20, 22, 10).

 

[Get a Job]

I’ve posted three credible articles showing how opportunities have declined.

FBS programs will be less likely to sign big freshman classes. They will let lower division programs sign those kids and then go get them in the portal.

The articles you posted don't address the point I am making. I am not saying the recruiting landscape hasn't changed. I am saying as long as there are a fixed number of scholarships per team, and as long as teams fill all their scholarships, and as long as each player has the same number of years of eligibility, there will always be the same number, on average, of players who didn't have a scholarship the previous year getting one in a given new year. Transferring could be banned completely, or allowed absolutely with no restrictions, or anything in between, and it would not affect the mathematics of the claim I am making.

Your second paragraph above is 100% compatible with my claim. It does not follow from your second paragraph, however, that high school students are losing opportunities.

 

[TheDrifter75]

There isn't just an unlimited number of "older" players in colleges. Every player starts as a child, proves their worth in highschool, and if they are good enough moves on to a college of some sort. After all the moving chess pieces in college, the draw is from the highschool ranks. When players get drafted, it creates open spots, players quit, creates open spots, players enter the portal and aren't picked up, creates open spots. The older players that join a team are former highschool players or the international equivalent that move around but neither diminish nor increase the number of spots available. If anything the number of spots is going up, 85 to 105 per team, not going down. Where do people think these older players are coming from that eliminates a spot for someone coming up? COVID is only taking up additional spots for a limited time.

 

[Get a Job]

Someone requested we stop filling the tampering thread with the discussion of the effect of the transfer portal system on high school recruiting. Ask and you shall receive!

To summarize my point made over several posts in the other thread: Since the number of FBS scholarships is fixed, all players leaving FBS each year need to be replaced by players that weren't in FBS the previous year. This is true regardless of who transfers and where. Every player who receives a new FBS scholarship was once a high school student, regardless of whether he went from high school directly to FBS, or if he had one or more stops in between. Therefore, transfers have no net affect on the number, on average, of high school players each year who will get an FBS scholarship. In other words, before the transfer portal, it was the case that X number of high school students from every graduating class ended up on FBS rosters (where X = (Number of teams x number of scholarships allowed per team) / 4 years of eligibility). After all the rule changes, and ignoring the anomaly of covid eligibility rules, the number of high school students from each high school class that will end up on FBS rosters is still X.

 

[uconndogs]

I think this ends the vast majority of Covid year extensions. Once they are though the system, the number of portal players may go down and the need to fill rosters with high school players may go up. Hard to figure.

I think that's probably right. What also makes sense to me is that high school players may now not see meaningful playing time until later in their college careers. Teams can go to the portal to balance their rosters with experience and more maturity. That, in and of itself, would not be such a bad thing.

 

[TheDrifter75]

Someone requested we stop filling the tampering thread with the discussion of the effect of the transfer portal system on high school recruiting. Ask and you shall receive!

To summarize my point made over several posts in the other thread: Since the number of FBS scholarships is fixed, all players leaving FBS each year need to be replaced by players that weren't in FBS the previous year. This is true regardless of who transfers and where. Every player who receives a new FBS scholarship was once a high school student, regardless of whether he went from high school directly to FBS, or if he had one or more stops in between. Therefore, transfers have no net affect on the number, on average, of high school players each year who will get an FBS scholarship. In other words, before the transfer portal, it was the case that X number of high school students from every graduating class ended up on FBS rosters (where X = (Number of teams x number of scholarships allowed per team) / 4 years of eligibility). After all the rule changes, and ignoring the anomaly of covid eligibility rules, the number of high school students from each high school class that will end up on FBS rosters is still X.

I think you need to include FCS, and as a trickle down, all levels of college ball. Players will move up and down across all levels. But in essence, yes, this is correct. There is a fixed number of schollies at the college level that needs to be filled.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Someone requested we stop filling the tampering thread with the discussion of the effect of the transfer portal system on high school recruiting. Ask and you shall receive!

To summarize my point made over several posts in the other thread: Since the number of FBS scholarships is fixed, all players leaving FBS each year need to be replaced by players that weren't in FBS the previous year. This is true regardless of who transfers and where. Every player who receives a new FBS scholarship was once a high school student, regardless of whether he went from high school directly to FBS, or if he had one or more stops in between. Therefore, transfers have no net affect on the number, on average, of high school players each year who will get an FBS scholarship. In other words, before the transfer portal, it was the case that X number of high school students from every graduating class ended up on FBS rosters (where X = (Number of teams x number of scholarships allowed per team) / 4 years of eligibility). After all the rule changes, and ignoring the anomaly of covid eligibility rules, the number of high school students from each high school class that will end up on FBS rosters is still X.

Nope.

More players that would have quit or gone pro are sticking with football for longer because they are getting paid to do so. Every player that sticks around an extra season reduces the need for one freshman recruit.

The old transfer rules really reduced the value of transfers to their new school, and increased the cost of transferring to the player. On top of that, a player could only transfer once.

Even the inter-school movement within the P4 is not a zero sum game. Player talent balances out quickly between teams at this level. In the old days, if a team was 5 deep at cornerback in a class, the coach would run off one or two of the players around junior year, and the extra player would have a hard time finding a new team. Now, each roster reallocates every season, and less effective players simply drop to a lesser program, rather than getting run out of the sport.

Furthermore, now, a 21 year old MAC starter or top reserve is much more valuable to a major conference team than a 3* and even many 4* frosh. Why bother gambling on a frosh that won’t stay if they are good when you can use that spot on an older sure thing? In addition, FCS upgrades also provide a source of older talent, so even the lower level schools are incentivized to grab transfers rather than a marginal freshman.

This phenomenon is more dramatic in basketball.

 

[Get a Job]

I think you need to include FCS, and as a trickle down, all levels of college ball. Players will move up and down across all levels. But in essence, yes, this is correct. There is a fixed number of schollies at the college level that needs to be filled.

I specified FBS because I'm not clear on how many, if any, scholarships are awarded at the various levels. It may very well be true that fewer high school seniors each year are receiving a scholarship to play football the next year, and that this is due to transfers who are going from a college where they do not have a scholarship to a college where they do receive one. I wanted to be clear that my overall point does not preclude that possibility.

 

[HartfordHank]

How is that possible? There are still the same number of scholarships across division 1. If Georgia State loses its ten best players, it's filling those spots from somewhere. And someone has to be filling them with high school seniors.

If you have anything that actually shows fewer high school kids entering the ranks more believable than an unsourced tweet from an idiot like Farrell, I'd love to see it.

Please, you are unfairly giving idiots a bad name.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

How is that possible? There are still the same number of scholarships across division 1. If Georgia State loses its ten best players, it's filling those spots from somewhere. And someone has to be filling them with high school seniors.

If you have anything that actually shows fewer high school kids entering the ranks more believable than an unsourced tweet from an idiot like Farrell, I'd love to see it.

FCS provides a source of ready to play older players but does not always offer full scholarships. So an FCS player taking an FBS scholarship is not always replaced by a scholarship player.

I know several families dealing with this now at the D2 hoops level, and the problem exists there too. Coaches are not giving firm offers to borderline players until they see what they can get in transfer portal.

 

[Get a Job]

Nope.

More players that would have quit or gone pro are sticking with football for longer because they are getting paid to do so. Every player that sticks around an extra season reduces the need for one freshman recruit.

The old transfer rules really reduced the value of transfers to their new school, and increased the cost of transferring to the player. On top of that, a player could only transfer once.

Even the inter-school movement within the P4 is not a zero sum game. Player talent balances out quickly between teams at this level. In the old days, if a team was 5 deep at cornerback in a class, the coach would run off one or two of the players around junior year, and the extra player would have a hard time finding a new team. Now, each roster reallocates every season, and less effective players simply drop to a lesser program, rather than getting run out of the sport.

Furthermore, now, a 21 year old MAC starter or top reserve is much more valuable to a major conference team than a 3* and even many 4* frosh. Why bother gambling on a frosh that won’t stay if they are good when you can use that spot on an older sure thing? In addition, FCS upgrades also provide a source of older talent, so even the lower level schools are incentivized to grab transfers rather than a marginal freshman.

This phenomenon is more dramatic in basketball.

OK, I can see the situation you describe in your first two paragraphs resulting in fewer spots for high schoolers. (I would note, however, that the pearl-clutchers decrying the fact that the transfer portal takes opportunity away from high school recruits would likely also view players staying in school longer as an unambiguously good thing.)

I do not follow the point in your third paragraph. It looks to me like what you describe is exactly a zero-sum game. And, similar to my parenthetical point above, this also strikes me as a positive aspect of the transfer portal, resulting in more opportunity for young people, albeit perhaps not high school recruits, per se.

Your fourth paragraph seems irrelevant to my point. It has already been acknowledged that a team that can pick between a seasoned college player and a promising high school player will often opt for the former. But somewhere at the end of the chain a new player who didn't have a scholarship the previous year is getting one for the new year (be that a high school recruit or someone else).

 

[Get a Job]

FCS provides a source of ready to play older players but does not always offer full scholarships. So an FCS player taking an FBS scholarship is not always replaced by a scholarship player.

I know several families dealing with this now at the D2 hoops level, and the problem exists there too. Coaches are not giving firm offers to borderline players until they see what they can get in transfer portal.

I suspected as much. That's why I phrased my original post the way I did.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

OK, I can see the situation you describe in your first two paragraphs resulting in fewer spots for high schoolers. (I would note, however, that the pearl-clutchers decrying the fact that the transfer portal takes opportunity away from high school recruits would likely also view players staying in school longer as an unambiguously good thing.)

I do not follow the point in your third paragraph. It looks to me like what you describe is exactly a zero-sum game. And, similar to my parenthetical point above, this also strikes me as a positive aspect of the transfer portal, resulting in more opportunity for young people, albeit perhaps not high school recruits, per se.

Your fourth paragraph seems irrelevant to my point. It has already been acknowledged that a team that can pick between a seasoned college player and a promising high school player will often opt for the former. But somewhere at the end of the chain a new player who didn't have a scholarship the previous year is getting one for the new year (be that a high school recruit or someone else).

I am not making moral judgments on any of this, just pointing out that there are fewer scholarships available for college seniors. Maybe it is 10% less, maybe 20% less, which may not seem like much, unless you or your kid is part of that 20%.

One thing that I think is unequivocally good for the sport is that kids who were not discovered in the high school recruiting process that is a cesspool of corruption, exploitation and promotion, now have a much better chance to play at the highest level of sports.

 

[TheDrifter75]

Nope.

More players that would have quit or gone pro are sticking with football for longer because they are getting paid to do so. Every player that sticks around an extra season reduces the need for one freshman recruit.

The old transfer rules really reduced the value of transfers to their new school, and increased the cost of transferring to the player. On top of that, a player could only transfer once.

Even the inter-school movement within the P4 is not a zero sum game. Player talent balances out quickly between teams at this level. In the old days, if a team was 5 deep at cornerback in a class, the coach would run off one or two of the players around junior year, and the extra player would have a hard time finding a new team. Now, each roster reallocates every season, and less effective players simply drop to a lesser program, rather than getting run out of the sport.

Furthermore, now, a 21 year old MAC starter or top reserve is much more valuable to a major conference team than a 3* and even many 4* frosh. Why bother gambling on a frosh that won’t stay if they are good when you can use that spot on an older sure thing? In addition, FCS upgrades also provide a source of older talent, so even the lower level schools are incentivized to grab transfers rather than a marginal freshman.

This phenomenon is more dramatic in basketball.

To your point, and others who have said that the transfer portal prolongs a playing career. Thus eliminating a spot for a highschool player. I've read and I believe it was posted here in previous years that about half of the players in the portal do not find a new team. Which of course opens a new spot that is filled from highschool.

Not every player is making money, not every player transfers for money, not every transfer makes money. The ones at the lower fringes talent wise are the ones likely to fall off before graduation and also the ones to make little to no money.

 

[Get a Job]

So to the extent that the transfer portal rules encourage players who would have otherwise quit to stay on the team, the transfer rules reduce the number of high school students that eventually get football scholarships. The trade-off, then, is that fewer kids get a chance to play on scholarship, but more kids, presumably, get a degree than would have otherwise with more restrictive transfer rules.

 

[TheDrifter75]

So to the extent that the transfer portal rules encourage players who would have otherwise quit to stay on the team, the transfer rules reduce the number of high school students that eventually get football scholarships. The trade-off, then, is that fewer kids get a chance to play on scholarship, but more kids, presumably, get a degree than would have otherwise with more restrictive transfer rules.

Half of players entering the portal do not find a new team. Basically puts us back in the same boat.