The spring portal period has not been a blockbuster one as some people were expecting. It has been about like it was last year. There have been some big names, but not many. There have, however, been a lot of backups looking for more playing time. There also has been some Processing going on in places to make sure teams can hit the 85 scholarship limit.
I remember hearing some predictions that the spring portal period might include more fireworks. One I can point to is that there was an edition of the Athletic’s Until Saturday podcast on April 12, which was a few days before the spring portal window opened. Hosts Chris Vannini and Max Olson both discussed expectations of more movement, with the latter mentioning he heard stories about a decent number of players entering the portal who’d just transferred over the winter.
The main reason why anyone expected more transfers this time around is the fact the NCAA no longer has any transfer restrictions. A court had forbid the NCAA from enforcing those rules months ago as a result of an ongoing lawsuit. Then last week, the organization recognized its defeat and officially got rid of the transfer rules entirely. The windows for entering the portal still exist, but there is no more sitting out a year for transfers due to NCAA rules.
The SEC still has its rule requiring players to sit out a year if they move during the spring portal window from one member school to another. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t expect that rule to be struck down. The NCAA basically has a monopoly on college sports, so a player looking to transfer and play right away after already using his one free undergraduate or graduate transfer couldn’t go to a comparable institution. An SEC player looking to transfer in the spring portal period can go to a comparable institution by going to a Big Ten, ACC, or Big 12 school. I don’t think there’s an antitrust angle to the SEC’s rule like there was for the NCAA’s rule.
Anyway, I suspect Vannini and Olson weren’t entirely wrong; I’m sure they had heard whispers of more transfers this time around. They aren’t the type to go out and say completely unfounded things.
I have a feeling that we got a peek at what happened a lot in the shadows with USC DT Bear Alexander. On April 9, there were reports at multiple outlets that he was going to put his name in the portal again (he transferred to USC from UGA last year). Then on April 10, he put out a statement denying he was leaving and claiming ignorance as to where the reports came from.
I don’t have sources, so maybe the reports were completely spurious. However, the most likely explanation is that there was a new, higher NIL offer for Alexander somewhere between the reports of him planning to transfer and his statement the following day.
Without any transfer restrictions, every good player now has extra NIL leverage. Previously someone in Alexander’s shoes wouldn’t have been able to try to use the threat of leaving due to having previously transferred, but now he could if he wanted to. I bet a lot of negotiations between players and collectives have happened in the last few weeks, but the vast majority have stayed out of the headlines.
I am curious to see if we get an increase of transfers, especially guys moving both in January and April, before we get to the point where players have binding employment contracts.
There is a well documented pattern in the overall US job market that employees on average get larger wage increases by changing jobs than by staying and getting raises. Research re-affirmed that dynamic in 2022, as a wave of post-pandemic job quitting and churn prompted academics to look into the topic again. It’s been true for quite some time, though.
I don’t see any reason why college athletics should work any differently than the job market as a whole now that nearly every amateurism rule has gone the way of the dodo. It can be that way in the pro sports level, after all. Teams will nearly always be willing to pay up to keep their essential superstars, but it’s tempting to see anyone below that tier as expendable. “We don’t need need him for that price, we can probably find someone comparable at that pay level.”
Plus, the player’s current team will (or, should) know exactly his strengths and weaknesses. A team looking to lure him away probably won’t know the weaknesses as well without having seen him everyday at practice. Someone who disproportionately sees the upside is probably more willing to pay a higher amount for the player.
Plus if a contender sees the guy as a/the missing piece to get to a title, they might willingly overpay because of how outsized the rewards are from flipping the switch from not-championship to championship. The costs to overpaying are a lot lower in college anyway, as there aren’t any albatross ten-year contracts when guys have five years to play four. Those kinds of awful deals only come in the coaching ranks.
Maybe next year will be the year when the spring portal period starts popping more because of this dynamic. Or maybe it’ll be a slow burn of increased activity. Or maybe it won’t pop at all, because 18-22 year-olds don’t tend to keep up on academic economics research findings. There also is the fact that spring transfers don’t get spring practice at their destinations, which could hurt first-year playing time prospects, and that coaches do get wary of players with each additional transfer they make.
If spring transfer rates do eventually pick up, then it probably won’t calm down until we get to an employment-contract scenario. Employment law is a lot more varied and complicated than antitrust, so I won’t even hazard a guess there. However, I am curious to see if the spring portal period does start picking up since job-switching can offer greater remuneration options. Maybe next year.