College football’s January transfer portal window was fast and furious, with no shortage of drama. With the vast majority of player movement complete, The Athletic surveyed 14 people who work in front offices around the country to dive deeper into the storylines.
In part one, published yesterday, we asked staffers which teams had the best classes, which players were their favorites and more. Today, in part two, we hit topics such as tampering, roster budgets and the new portal window.
Staffers were granted anonymity in exchange for their candor.
Is it possible to successfully acquire priority transfers without tampering?
ACC staffer 1: No, not at all. You need to do it. And every school in the country does it. It sucks. It shouldn’t be that way. There should be strict rules. But if you want to compete, you’ve got to operate in the gray, unfortunately, if you want to be able to win games.
Big 12 staffer 1: I think it is. We took some guys we didn’t know about until the portal opened. You have to be very diligent, you have to work very fast to make up ground, but I do think it’s possible.
Big Ten staffer 1: I’d say it’s very difficult. The few we reached out to once they went in, you’re late or it’s done.
Group of 6 staffer 1: It’s difficult. Very difficult.
SEC staffer 1: A stern f— no. It’s impossible. Some guys start during the season. If it’s not the agent, it’s the cousin or the best friend or the Pop Warner coach. Somebody is going to reach out and say this guy is going in the portal and we want to see where you guys are at.
ACC staffer 2: I think so. I’d never want to get mixed up in that because it’s just one screenshot, one text message, one recorded phone call away from someone holding that leverage on you. I want more than anything to win a national championship, but it’s not worth my job. Agents are going to text you the names of (clients) they have and whether those players are entering the portal. It doesn’t mean you’re asking about it — you’re just getting a list of names.
Big 12 staffer 2: No. They’re getting tampered with by someone if it’s not you.
Big Ten staffer 2: I think priority is a tricky word there. If you hear priority, most people are going to do what they need to do beforehand. If you say quality transfer, I think you can. Priority, it’s going to be really hard to fight people off. College football is always going to be a world of if you’re not doing it, someone else is.
Group of 6 staffer 2: No. Nope. You can get good ones, but there has to be some level of discussion. It doesn’t have to be with the kid, but there has to be something with an agent or someone. It’s not different than recruiting the ’27 and ’28 class. Technically, you can’t communicate with underclassmen until June 15, but you’re still getting young kids on campus, you’re still getting early offers out there and all that stuff. It’s no different in the portal. If you’re not having a touch point with someone, somebody else is.
ACC staffer 3: No. It’s impossible. Here’s the thing, you could do it without talking to the kid directly, for sure. And you could do it without reaching out directly to the agent, but if you’re saying no to agents sending you client lists and you’re not reaching back out saying, “I’m interested in X, Y, Z kids on your list,” then you can’t do it.
Group of 6 staffer 3: It depends on what the term tampering means. Who is starting the conversation? Because it’s mostly the agent. Our compliance department was telling me I was in violation because I talked about a kid who wasn’t in the portal. First and foremost, I’m gonna take each and every call. Now, if I get on the phone and call the kid? Total violation. But if the agent is talking for the kid, what am I supposed to do?
SEC staffer 3: Yes, absolutely. Now, the question is what school, what league and what price point? In some conferences, you can do it without (tampering). In the SEC and the Big Ten, for $500,000-plus players, it’s going to be really hard (to acquire them without tampering). You can absolutely find good players that are done the traditional way, but any of the really big names, no way.
Group of 6 staffer 4: It’s possible. We did it. We had a couple guys we liked that fell to us or came on later in the process. For us, going straight to the agent is technically not considered tampering, but you’re operating well ahead so you definitely have to be ahead of the game. I would imagine at the bigger levels it’s even harder.
Clemson coach Dabo Swinney publicly called out Ole Miss and its coach, Pete Golding, for tampering with transfer linebacker Luke Ferrelli. (Ken Ruinard / USA Today Network via Imagn Images)
What surprised you the most about how the portal window played out?
ACC staffer 1: How many deals were done before the portal window opened. An agent sent me a list of his clients in the first week of December, and I’d say, “Hey, I’m interested in this guy.” And he’d say, “Well, his process is wrapped up.” I’m thinking, “What do you mean it’s wrapped up? It’s December 1!”
Big 12 staffer 1: Just the sheer number of players who tested the market and the amount of money involved. Thankfully, we didn’t have to sign 20 or 30 guys, but there were teams that had to do that, and I can’t imagine trying to find that many players and dealing with all the agents and stuff. A lot of these kids are overvalued, but you have to pay because there’s no (established) market. As a whole, we probably need to get better from a public data perspective.
Big Ten staffer 1: The amount of tampering, the amount of deals done before the portal even opened. I think it was more than people even anticipated, even if you knew there was going to be a good bit of it.
Group of 6 staffer 1: I thought there would be more guys who signed the same day they got into the portal. More guys went in, actually took visits and that kind of stuff before signing than I anticipated. I thought it was all going to be done behind the scenes before we even got to Jan. 2, but there were more guys on the open market than I expected.
SEC staffer 1: A lot of kids were going on visits and signing quickly. If you didn’t get a kid on the first visit, you probably weren’t going to get them. Normally, you wanted your team to be the second visit or the last visit. Names were coming off the board faster this time. I think a lot of it had to do with the one portal window.
ACC staffer 2: It didn’t surprise me, but everything happens really fast. You have to have your systems and processes in place well before and hopefully you’re able to do evaluations in a timely, efficient manner. But if you don’t have an in with (a player’s) agent, what good is it? The agents are the key.
Big Ten staffer 2: It was more of a mad entrance at one. Before, it’s obviously been a mad first couple of days with big players, but there was never another big spike. The last couple of days, we were expecting something to hit for some of the guys trickling in, and it never did.
Group of 6 staffer 2: How efficient it was if you had a really good plan. This was the first cycle where I really felt like the kids and their agents really felt the urgency, so by the time that dead period hit, we were done at all except one position. I think there’s an understanding on both sides now that this process is going to be crazy, but if you have a good plan and are ready to execute, both parties are willing to try to get an agreement done earlier so you don’t have to sit there and be left with nothing.
SEC staffer 2: There were a lot of people using the portal to just get raises from their schools. They played it really well. Some guys announced they were going in the portal, but never went and used the leverage to get more money. Like (Louisville running back) Isaac Brown never went in the portal. Got himself a raise.
ACC staffer 3: The fact we went as long as we did without a major tampering story being a thing with the amount of egregious stuff that was going on. It pleasantly surprised me how Dabo (Swinney) handled the (Luke) Ferrelli situation. I never thought someone would go quite as aggressive as they did.
Group of 6 staffer 3: Maybe how desperate some of the agents were at times when (the portal) was getting close to closing. It went from asking for $3,000 to $5,000 a month to okay, “We’ll be good with a scholarship stipend, and do you have any walk-on spots?”
SEC staffer 3: I was worried about getting kids in school, but we got way more commitments in a timely fashion than I would have initially guessed. Kids are committing on the first, if not the second visit now and not really taking three, four, five, six visits. I was surprised by just how fast it opened and closed.
Group of 6 staffer 4: After the first few days, there were not that many people going in. Everyone had all of December to make those decisions, so it was a huge wave right at first. Then the second week of it, I was expecting more guys to pop in, but that wasn’t the case.
How big a roster budget does a school need to be competitive in your conference?
ACC staffer 1: Probably $20 million. If you go the Indiana route and coach your ass off and hit on every guy that you bring in, maybe it could be $10 million to $15 million.
Big 12 staffer 1: I would say at least $15 million, but that’s probably the bottom. Probably somewhere between $15 million to $18 million. We know people are living above the (cap), which is legal until somebody comes and does something about it.
Big Ten staffer 1: $30 million. To be in that tier (near the top), yeah.
Group of 6 staffer 1: To be competitive, $5 million is where it starts. Anything below that, you’re playing catch-up.
SEC staffer 1: Texas Tech set the standard. You have to be in that $35 to $40 million range and up. It’s hard to only spend $20 million. Unless you’re going to get a bunch of Group of 6 guys that are gritty and want to prove themselves. $10 million is what one quarterback can cost these days. The most we spent on one guy was no more than $5 million.
ACC staffer 2: At least $10 million if you want to be legitimate.
Big 12 staffer 2: Around $20 million to $25 million to be competitive. Around $30 million if you want to win it.
Big Ten staffer 2: It’s getting up to $35 plus (million), if not $40 million.
Group of 6 staffer 2: At least $5 million. If you’re not at least at $5 million, you’re way behind. Now, to win it every year, you’ve got to be above that. But that’s the baseline competitive number.
SEC staffer 2: $25 million minimum.
ACC staffer 3: Between $14 and $16 million. You need to be full rev share with the typical football allotment to be baseline competitive. And if you want to compete for a conference championship in the ACC and not in a “we went 7-5 like Duke” way, I think you need to be in the low $20 million range unless you do a real bang-up job evaluating.
Group of 6 staffer 3: If it was a starter kit for Conference USA, you can get away with $2 or $3 million. You can do some damage. Obviously, everybody wants more. For other Group of 6 conferences, I’d say $8 to $10 million easily.
SEC staffer 3: To be competitive, I think you gotta be between $30 million and $35 million. I’ve heard some low $40 million on teams. Administrators aren’t believing these numbers are real. The coaches and personnel guys are getting the information from agents, players and peers in the industry. But if you’re saying teams in your league are spending $40 million, how can you be competitive in the low-to-mid $20 million range?
Group of 6 staffer 4: I think you’re going to really, really struggle if you’re not over $4 million in our conference.
Did the new portal window dates and format work? If not, what would you change?
ACC staffer 1: I think it’s too late. It shouldn’t be the week after the season ends, but it shouldn’t be Jan. 2, because all that happened is there was rampant tampering the whole month. Maybe you tweak it where guys can get into the portal (earlier) but can’t take visits right away.
Big 12 staffer 1: We kind of liked it. There’s obviously a bunch of things you’d still want to tweak, but we liked the dead period before it with the coaches not being on the road (in December), so we could get them caught up with “here’s the guys we’re targeting,” so we were on a unified front before the portal. So I would say yes, but there’s still some things we’d want to tweak.
Big Ten staffer 1: I think it was a train wreck for all parties involved. I think you have to put the portal in February or spring and change the calendar and have OTA-style practices in the summer. The portal opens and if you make a bowl game, you’re preparing for a bowl game. You just signed your high school class. You’re trying to retain your roster and handle the portal. You should have more time to retain your roster and more time for the portal.
Group of 6 staffer 1: Yes and no. Yes, in that, it narrowed it down to one negotiation period for retention purposes. But no, in the fact that the timing of it is terrible. It’s speak now or forever hold your peace. If you don’t like what you have by the end of it, it is what it is. It’ll be interesting to see what happens during spring ball when people have needs or kids figure out they’re not going to play.
SEC staffer 1: Jury is still out. I still think this format is going to change. I strongly believe there’s gonna be another portal window after spring. I almost want to bet one of my toes.
ACC staffer 2: It’s difficult to do all this when you’ve got bowl games going on and you’re figuring out your own roster retention. In a perfect world, you’d have it like the NFL. They have the Super Bowl, then free agency, then the draft. If we could have the national championship, then have the portal open in February.
Big 12 staffer 2: It worked for us. But if I could, I’d change the entire calendar. Keep the portal window where it is and move the national championship and the season up.
Big Ten staffer 2: I’d say they’re a little better than they were last year. I think people in our building were pretty pro-winter period initially and now after this cycle ended up kind of being like well, we definitely still need a spring window. You can’t do it all in the winter.
Group of 6 staffer 2: I’d say it worked better than I thought it would. I’ll take this window over the previous ones any day of the week because at least now we have our team, we have our culture that we’re going to try to build. I would rather the two to three weeks of absolute chaos right before and after the portal than having to do it twice.
ACC staffer 3: I would love a spring portal for just grad kids, and I think a shorter window would be great. I think the Jan. 2-16 just screws up a lot of schools with enrollment dates and the start of classes and all that. But I thought the portal window was fine.
SEC staffer 3: For the players and the agents, it did. When you create one portal window, you create an incredible sense of urgency from the teams. When you create urgency, you create desperation. And when you create desperation, you create mistakes, and that’s where you look at some of these prices. But the problem is you have new staffs, you have old staffs coming off bowl games, you had staffs coming off the Playoff, and how on Earth can you do it “the right way?” Everyone wants to compare college to the NFL, but the NFL has 18 months in their draft process and they pick seven players. On the flip side, viewership and attendance numbers are going up, not down. So we can complain and bitch about it all we want, but at the end of the day, the sport is becoming more popular.
Group of 6 staffer 4: I think it was better. We had the month of December to negotiate with our current players, know who we’re keeping, know who’s leaving and just attack the portal in January. And now we have the whole team here. I like it. I think it’s a whole lot better. It’s probably tougher for new staffs when you might not know what’s on your roster.