[Cactus Jack]

I think the pendulum is going to swing back on NIL and transfer portal. Don't see either being eliminated entirely, but think we see some changes that limit the amount of times a player can effectively transfer and play at and be paid by any other school "just because".

Most likely, I think we're going to see (more) modifications to the windows that players can enter the portal, get evaluated, and sign. Also seems pretty likely that we see stricter requirements for the number of years that a player has to compete (e.g., a standard “five years to compete in four seasons” absent qualifying for a medical redshirt, graduating, or getting some type of waiver) and reverting back to standard penalties for transfer (e.g., one free transfer then you sit out a year after the second unless [your previous school’s coach left, you are entering a different division, your previous school grants a waiver, etc.).

I don’t like the term "non-compete"**, but I could see some conferences getting their members on board with some type of agreement that effectively imposes tiers or penalties based on where a player later tries to transfer to [against the former school/conference’s wishes]. Depending on their circumstances, there’s incentive for schools to seek different types of compensation if a player were to transfer within the conference, to an SEC/Big Ten school, to “non-2” power conference school, etc. From the SEC to the MAC, I'd think this would apply to schools and conferences across the FBS, but implementation probably depends on having the major player's weight behind it. Would think that for it to be effective, they’d have to carve out some exceptions for transferring back to a school within certain parameters as well (e.g., trying to block a transfer from a more expensive, far-away out-of-state school to a less expensive, in-state school was one of the images that got pounded when trying to loosen restrictions on transfers under the previous models).

Could also see bigger schools want to implement multi-year contracts for some players, but would think that all of the programs with lots of money and influence are going to be reluctant to do that right now given how much they benefit from the system as is. As of now, it makes the most sense to try to extend if it's a really good player who might not be ready to play right away, which is a bit contradictory in and of itself. You can see why Texas would want to lock in a freshman Arch Manning since he needs time to develop and you don't want to develop him for someone else, but most players aren’t top 100 recruits and most positions still see the field (special teams, as a back-up playing some meaningful snaps, or in select packages). The problem with multi-year options is that the schools have so much leverage over the player’s education (best example for how this goes wrong: a school essentially being in control of what credits may transfer and leaving the academic path of a player they no longer want in flux).

Multi-years would also get tricky if you are a school that may be looking to move on from their current coach in the near future. Those tides can shift quickly (e.g., Alabama now versus four years ago, points in Ohio State or Notre Dame’s seasons last year, etc.).

It won’t happen, but we could see change if all of the schools with the least bargaining power would stand together and insist on locking all of their meaningful players were into multi-year options and/or deals with huge buyouts to prevent (or at least get heavily compensated for) a school like Buffalo losing a Khalil Mack. It isn't as if the players going to those schools have tons of leverage at the time they're signing. Again, won’t happen, but if it did, the have-nots could at least get something more than “come to us and you might develop to the point that someone else will buy you away and leave us with nothing in return other than the promise we sell the next recruit”.



** I don’t like “non-compete” because they are largely disfavored and unenforceable, with those that are enforceable being fairly complex. It isn’t something that’s intended to keep the regional manager for Pizza Hut from going to Papa John’s or the mid-level engineer at Apple from going to Microsoft. But absent an NFL-like CBA, I could see some arguments (even if they aren’t winners) for a school like Texas to add a short (think ~30 days, or enough time to miss some practices [but no class]), well compensated (~$500K-$1 million) non-compete clause to Arch Manning’s deal should he transfer to select schools. This hypo probably works best if it were to a school that is a recurring [and pivotal] game on upcoming schedules and for a player like a QB who would have intimate knowledge of schemes/game plans. Again, I’m not saying it’s a winning argument, but I also wouldn’t be shocked to see someone try it, or for it to at least be a footnote in some type of collective reform.

I could also see buyout/non-compete arguments coming from NIL sponsors whose returns on investment are very dependent on “brand-loyal” customers and greatly diminished by transfer. How interesting would it be to have a booster lay out the numbers when an Alabama car dealership’s investment is scorched the moment a former “ambassador” goes to LSU or Tennessee? Maybe it wouldn’t prevent the transfer, but it could have an effect on the amount of NIL money that a player is able to get at their new program (or at least in how the new school has to try to structure it).