Here is why the transfer portal is good for the fans, but not for the sport—or the players.

Let’s be real, any fan, of any sport, appreciates competition. With a select few programs dominating the recruiting process—and, in turn, the annual College Football playoff rankings—there is less opportunity for programs in one of the Power 5 conferences to truly contend for a championship, let alone any team in the Group of 5.

First, teams (in most cases) must win their division, and then hope that their strength of schedule aligns with the level of standard set by the playoff committee, if to contend for a bid. To win a division, a team needs to be well-coached, deep at many positions on the roster, and be afforded a few favorable bounces in close games. While the latter can be out of a team’s hands, they can control how they build a team—now, especially, more than ever.

Now that the transfer portal has effectively rendered the sport a new rendition of the wild wild west, there is an argument to be made that the playing field has been leveled, allowing programs like Michigan State to matchup with powerhouses like Georgia and Alabama, as it goes for constructing a competitive roster. However, as new opportunities have arisen, for student athletes to choose a new school based on their liking—while considering the standing depth chart and coaching staff in place—with current transfer rules in place (no requirement to sit for one year after transferring), these same student athletes are being deprived of one of the greatest core values in the sport of football: overcoming adversity.

Life, by nature, is not linear. There are conflicts, issues, and overall unfair circumstances that are bound to arise for any individual. By allowing a player to effectively pick up and leave, after being slotted as a backup, or not aligning with the coaching staff or culture of a program in the way that they expected, the sport has in turn allowed this group of student athletes to step around the very hurdle that would otherwise force them to think twice about their decision.

In regards to the previous transfer portal terms, one year is a long time for a student athlete to be sitting on the bench in street clothes while waiting for their eligibility to kick in—the level of maintenance required for their bodies and overall conditioning required to compete is no small feat, and cannot be underestimated. However, in the grand scope of life, one could also argue that a single calendar year is rather miniscule. Moreover, the idea of making a student athlete sit out for a year theoretically requires them to put more thought into their decision to commit to a school in the first place; so, while it reduces some of the risk in making the wrong choice during the commitment process, it also dilutes the importance of making the right decision in the first place.

Objectively speaking, the human brain is still developing during the years of a student athlete’s career, and one could argue that challenging that individual to think critically is more important than ever during this span of time.

If allowing student athletes to operate with this precedent—that the consequences for one’s decisions are reversible, and in ways, mitigated, by their ability to pivot and reverse course by selecting a more favorable situation—the institutions are failing the individual. Not only does this way of operating deprive the individual from experiencing—and learning from—difficult situations, it encourages them to always be looking for something better. There is also a world in which that ideal situation does not exist.

The world is filled with bad employers, toxic environments and adversity in a multitude of different situations. There is no getting around this, and no ‘hall-pass’ when it comes to the real world. Perhaps more than anything, what precedent does this set for this next generation of young adults going forward, by erasing one of the more substantial obstacles as they operate in a relatively protected, yet heavily scrutinzed, environment? 

As a fan of the sport, for the many reasons that it differs from its professional counterpart, there is reason to be concerned about the impact that this new precedent will have on not only the sport itself, but also the ones who make it possible.