“College football is at a tipping point … an existential threat to the future of the game.” — ESPN commentator Paul Finebaum.
“Players can transfer and be immediately eligible … makes it really convenient and easy to think that the grass is always greener.” – Legendary former college football coach Nick Saban.
Finebaum and Saban’s comments echo what is often considered conventional wisdom about the current state of college football. The unprecedented changes to transfer portal and name, image, and likeness (NIL) policies have led to record player movement and compensation. The fans, media personalities, and coaches believe that college football has entered the “wild west.”
Is this actually true? A closer examination of player movement data often tells a largely different version of the “conventional” story. Instead of running from competition and development, players are seeking programs with better opportunities consistent with more traditional labor markets. In particular, we found player movement to be consistent with what a functioning matching market looks like: high mobility with clear and consistent pathways to achieving desired professional outcomes.
How did we come to this conclusion? We examined a dataset of 7,993 FBS transfers (2018–2024) linking players’ recruiting star ratings, NIL valuation, change in program quality, change in games played and started, and professional football outcomes. Since the introduction of NIL in 2021, 3,061 players have transferred to higher-rated schools, 3,114 to lower-rated ones, and 248 laterally to equally successful programs.
To determine a higher-rated school, we defined programs ranked above a player’s prior school based on a three-year, time-weighted end-of-season ranking system. The time-weighted system places greater emphasis on recent seasons to reflect current program strength while smoothing short-term fluctuations.
For players transferring to higher-rated schools, 49.3% played in more games and 27.2% started more games. Our analysis shows that gains in games played and started are statistically significant across the players we examined.
These findings may seem counterintuitive for players transferring to higher-rated programs, given there is increased competition for starting positions. Yet, the data indicates players exchange tougher competition for a better pathway to professional success through exposure and development with better teammates, coaches, and facilities. Our logistic regression analysis shows that transferring to a higher-rated school nearly doubles the likelihood of playing in the NFL.
Players are not the only ones accruing benefits in this system. For college football programs, recruiting these upward movers seems to serve two purposes. The most obvious is that successfully recruited players frequently provide immediate on-field improvements, given they are playing and starting more games.
The less obvious reason is that the transfer portals and NIL actually create a more predictable market because there is evidence that spending more on average translates into more success. A recent Opendorse report found that every $2 million in NIL incremental spend averaged one more win per college football season. College football programs that are openly willing and able to invest resources (NIL money) present clear signals to players that they can attract, compensate, and optimize elite talent.
Moving down to a weaker program is also more likely to be a systematic path from bench to field rather than a blind “grass is greener” jump. For those transferring down to weaker schools, roughly 60% played in more games than the previous season, and 40.1% started more.
Similar to upward transfers, downward transfers have benefits for both players and coaches. A downward transfer can turn a bench player into an immediate contributor. For coaches, the transfer portal enables programs to convert backups into immediate contributors on their team. Downward moves trade prestige for usage, making rational transfer decisions based on opportunity costs and self-interest.
Our player analysis also identified a second-order impact that has received relatively little attention. NIL has now replaced high school recruiting stars as the clearest metric of a player’s likelihood of future NFL success.
Recruiting star ratings have been traditionally the standard metric used for football players’ future success. “5-star” recruits typically have the strongest correlation to an NFL future. Yet, star ratings are a pre-market signal formed at age 16–18, based on projected ability from high school performance. Star Ratings have similarity to SAT scores – they both can predict future success, but occur at static moments in time.
NIL valuations and upward transfer moves are dynamic, in-market price signals, formed after players have accumulated observable college production, visibility, and demand. In the multivariate model we developed for our college football analysis, NIL valuations are a statistically significant predictor of NFL participation. Recruiting star ratings become statistically insignificant once NIL and transfer direction are included. This result indicates that NIL values better capture the dimensions of player capital relevant for professional advancement.
NIL vs star ratings are another indicator of the “method in madness” in the transfer portal. Player movement is functioning like a labor market with rules, incentives, and a visible hierarchy. Upward transfers, especially with a high NIL value, are the pathway to the NFL, while downward transfers are the path to more immediate playing time. NIL values can also largely replace recruiting stars as the currency of who is most likely to make it to the NFL.
To clarify, we are making no judgment on whether college players should actually be treated as employees. The data in our analysis, however, revealed many similarities in a labor market where value is priced, talent is reallocated, and adaptability among programs. This strongly suggests the transfer portal and NIL did not turn college football into the Wild West. What looks like chaos is more likely sorting for players and schools based on opportunity and return.
The article solely reflects the views of the authors in their capacity as professors and a student of Northwestern University’s Master’s in Sports Administration (MSA) program. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Seregh or ROAR about any topic or subject addressed in this article.
Adam — always so great to hear about your accomplishments!
Check out the latest Northwestern University School of Professional Studies podcast episode on this topic. https://sps.northwestern.edu/masters/sports-administration/podcast.html