Connect with us
https://yoursportsnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/call-to-1.png

NIL

College football's hopes to rein in transfers with one portal window gaining momentum

With the House v. NCAA settlement finally approved, the people in charge of college football are turning quickly to the sport’s next potential rules changes. At the top of the list: moving to a single transfer portal window for football, instead of the current two in December and April. At SEC meetings last month, Georgia […]

Published

on

With the House v. NCAA settlement finally approved, the people in charge of college football are turning quickly to the sport’s next potential rules changes. At the top of the list: moving to a single transfer portal window for football, instead of the current two in December and April.

At SEC meetings last month, Georgia coach Kirby Smart called it “the biggest decision that has to be made in college football right now, by far, to me.”

Advertisement

During a call next Monday, its first meeting since the House settlement’s approval, the Football Bowl Subdivision Oversight Committee is expected to have a deep discussion on a single portal window. The hope is to come out with a recommendation and begin a path to solidify a change before the upcoming season.

“I’m confident we’ll get there,” committee chair and Buffalo athletic director Mark Alnutt told The Athletic.

But when would that single window be? And what would it mean for players and teams?

According to several people involved in the process, granted anonymity in order to describe the state of discussions before a formal decision, early January is the option with the most momentum; one person described it as an 80-20 split. At its annual convention this January in Charlotte, the American Football Coaches Association proposed the window run Jan. 2-12 beginning in 2026, following a unanimous vote of dozens of FBS head coaches in attendance.

That date would allow most schools to finish the season with their full team, a response to rising numbers of opt-outs from bowl games and even College Football Playoff teams losing players off their roster. It would also help set teams in place heading into spring practice, especially as rosters begin to shrink with the House settlement roster limits.

“I want January,” Texas Tech head coach Joey McGuire said. “I want to get my team, and I want to roll and get ready for winter conditioning, spring football, and take that team into the fall.”

The institution of a transfer window only restricts when players can enter the portal. They aren’t required to pick a new school in that time, though their prospective schools’ academic calendars may create a deadline.

One player agent, granted anonymity to discuss his work with players, told The Athletic he prefers January and tells his clients to avoid the spring portal anyway unless they’re an elite athlete. The agent was concerned that a later portal could cause kids to check out and create a limbo period, or that it would open up even more opportunities for springtime tampering.

Advertisement

“Kids are going to know they’re leaving before they even talk with their coaches,” the agent said. “With January, kids are home for the holidays, talk it over with your circle, people you trust, and if you leave, you can find a school and enroll in time for class. If it’s spring-only, you may have kids fall into a mental ditch.”

Not everyone is on board with a January portal window. Multiple people involved in the process said some power conference schools prefer spring, especially those whose academic calendars run on a quarter system and start class earlier in January, before the portal closes.

There’s also the issue of the portal opening and closing before the College Football Playoff ends. This past season’s national championship game took place on Jan. 20. Current rules give players an extra five-day portal window if their season runs long. Another player agent told The Athletic a client of his couldn’t schedule a transfer visit to Columbus in January because the CFP schedule bumped events around.

“If we didn’t have the second transfer portal window, it’s very, very difficult,” Ohio State coach Ryan Day said in February on “The Joel Klatt Show.” “We’re trying to make decisions about next year, yet our year isn’t even done yet. So that affects your current roster, and it’s just messy. I think you’ve gotta have two portals unless you’re finishing the season sooner.”

Smart, who supports a January window, said top programs would just have to handle it for the sake of everyone.

“It’s really hard to be playing in a championship setting and having to deal with that,” he said last month. “When I brought that up as a complaint or a problem, I was told there’s no crying from the yacht.”

A move to a single portal would be the latest in a long list of rule changes since 2021, when NCAA committees approved a one-time transfer with immediate eligibility in football and basketball. When players began entering the portal during the season, coaches asked for windows to restrict their movement. Fall and spring sports got two windows, while winter sports got one because they take place over two semesters. All sports’ windows lasted 60 days.

Advertisement

Then in late 2023, a series of lawsuits and court rulings forced the NCAA to allow players an unlimited number of transfers without sitting out, sparking a surge of player movement and leading to calls from coaches to shrink the windows they’d asked for. NCAA committees changed the windows from 60 to 45 to now 30 days over the past few years. A single 10-day portal in football would be the most dramatic change yet.

Athlete advocacy groups have pushed back on moving to a single portal window. Oversight committee members have tried to emphasize the benefits of stability. Messages left with multiple players on the Football Student-Athlete Connection Group were not returned.

“A single portal window likely reduces players’ leverage by limiting transfer timing options,” said Darren Heitner, a lawyer who represents numerous players. “Two windows allow more negotiation flexibility. One could rush decisions, especially for non-stars.”

There has also been discussion on the oversight committee about removing the automatic 30-day portal window for players who have a head coaching change, the theory being it would give a new coach an opportunity to convince players to stay before the regularly scheduled portal opens. But there is some concern that going too far in shrinking the portal could invite a legal challenge and create more problems than it solves.

Some also question whether portal windows matter. There is nothing to stop players from unenrolling at one school and enrolling at another like a normal student. In January, former Wisconsin cornerback Xavier Lucas, represented by Heitner, enrolled at Miami after Lucas said Wisconsin refused to let him in the portal. Wisconsin alleged Miami had impermissible contact with Lucas because he hadn’t gone in the portal and that he’d signed a two-year name, image and likeness deal with the school based on the pending House settlement.

“Enforcement is shaky, schools can block portal entry, even if it is against NCAA rules, as seen with Lucas,” Heitner said in an email to The Athletic. “Wisconsin appears to have escaped punishment, at least for the time being, despite the clear rules violation. He is eligible at Miami and practicing with the team.”

The oversight committee is also discussing changing spring football around that window, with a focus on an AFCA proposal of NFL-style OTA practices that would add six non-padded practices to the existing 15 practices, with the ability to spread the 21 workouts over two different flexible periods from January to June. If a single portal were instituted in the spring, this change would allow schools to hold more practice after the spring window closed. But other members of the committee told The Athletic they’re concerned about the mental strain of putting players through multiple spring practice sessions.

Advertisement

It’s also not yet clear who the oversight committee’s portal recommendation would go to. The Settlement Implementation Committee (made up of 10 athletic directors) handles post-House rules, and the NCAA is undergoing a larger governance change. One person involved in the discussions said the process is still under discussion.

Previous attempts to move to a single portal window have been stopped by athlete pushback, but the approval of the House settlement has college football’s leaders trying to regain control of the sport. Uncontrolled player movement is the most visible issue with the current system in the eyes of many coaches and fans. Momentum for a single window is strong, wherever on the calendar it lands.

“Do I think it’s better for a player? Not necessarily,” said the second agent. “But it makes logical sense for the sport.”

(Photo: Peter Aiken / Getty Images)

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NIL

They pulled off huge March Madness upsets. Now they’re opting out of revenue sharing

Associated Press Saint Peter’s, Fairleigh Dickinson and Maryland-Baltimore County — three schools that have taken March Madness by storm at various points in the past decade — have declined to opt in to college sports’ new revenue sharing model. The newly formed College Sports Commission, which oversees revenue sharing following the House settlement, posted a […]

Published

on


Associated Press

Saint Peter’s, Fairleigh Dickinson and Maryland-Baltimore County — three schools that have taken March Madness by storm at various points in the past decade — have declined to opt in to college sports’ new revenue sharing model.

The newly formed College Sports Commission, which oversees revenue sharing following the House settlement, posted a list of schools that have opted into revenue sharing. All members of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conference are participating, and other Division I schools had to opt in or out by June 30.

Saint Peter’s, which reached the men’s Elite Eight as a No. 15 seed in 2022, did not opt in. Iona and Manhattan, who play with Saint Peter’s in the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference, didn’t either.

UMBC and Fairleigh Dickinson, the only two teams to pull off a 16-over-1 upset in the men’s basketball tournament, opted out as well. Fairleigh Dickinson is part of the Northeast Conference, which had just one school — Long Island University — opt in.

“It’s expensive to opt in,” Idaho athletic director Terry Gawlik told the Lewiston Tribune. “We don’t have that kind of money to pay for that.”

Idaho is one of several Big Sky schools opting out.

In addition to the costs of sharing revenue directly with athletes, Title IX concerns and scholarship limitations are among the reasons a school might opt out.

“Revenue sharing and scholarship limits are really one piece, but the big thing for us is the roster limitation,” Central Arkansas athletic director Matt Whiting told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette while explaining his school’s decision to opt out.

Military rules prevent Navy, Air Force, and Army from compensating athletes through name, image and likeness deals, but aside from them, the Football Bowl Subdivision leagues have full participation in the settlement.

Other conferences with all full members opting in included the Atlantic 10, Big East, Coastal Athletic, Horizon, Missouri Valley, Southwestern Athletic, Western Athletic and West Coast. The Big West had everyone opt in except Cal Poly and UC Davis, which play football in the Big Sky.

Nebraska-Omaha is the lone full member of the Summit League to opt out, and Tennessee State is the only full Ohio Valley member to do so.

The Ivy League said in January that its eight schools — which do not award athletic scholarships — would not participate. The Patriot League didn’t have any full members opt in either, although Fordham, Georgetown and Richmond — associate members who play football in that conference — did.

Of the 68 schools that made the NCAA men’s basketball tournament last year, only American, Nebraska-Omaha, Saint Francis and Yale have opted out of revenue sharing. Five schools that made the women’s tournament opted out: Columbia, Fairleigh Dickinson, Harvard, Lehigh and Princeton.

Commissioners of historically Black conferences have expressed concern that the push to make athletes school employees could potentially destroy athletic programs — but the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference and Southwestern Athletic Conference had everyone opt in except North Carolina Central.

Some schools that don’t play Division I football or basketball opted in — such as Johns Hopkins with its storied lacrosse program. Augusta University, which is located in the same town as the Masters and perhaps unsurprisingly competes in Division I in golf, was on the list of teams opting in.

___

AP sports: https://apnews.com/sports





Link

Continue Reading

NIL

Title IX Goes Head to Head with Antitrust: NCAA NIL Settlement Challenged by Female Student-Athletes in House v. NCAA | Venable LLP

For anyone who thought an unprecedented $2.8 billion settlement agreement actually resolved one of the many murky issues of student-athlete compensation in college athletics —not so fast. On June 6, federal Judge Claudia Wilken officially approved the class action antitrust lawsuit House v. NCAA. The landmark settlement turned the amateurism model of athletics in higher […]

Published

on


For anyone who thought an unprecedented $2.8 billion settlement agreement actually resolved one of the many murky issues of student-athlete compensation in college athletics —not so fast. On June 6, federal Judge Claudia Wilken officially approved the class action antitrust lawsuit House v. NCAA. The landmark settlement turned the amateurism model of athletics in higher education on its head and is set to provide back pay to Division I student-athletes for name, image, and likeness (NIL) earnings. While it took five years of litigation to get approval of the settlement, it took just five days for a group of plaintiffs to appeal it.

NCAA NIL Settlement in House v. NCAA Faces Immediate Title IX Challenge

On June 11, a group of female student-athlete plaintiffs in House noticed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals registering their objection to the back-pay provision of the final settlement. Although no appellate briefs have been filed yet, these female student-athletes are expected to assert that the settlement’s terms for paying out back-pay damages violates the prohibition on sex discrimination under Title IX because the settlement is set to overwhelmingly pay out most of the back-pay damages to male athletes.

Allegations of Unequal NIL Compensation Based on Gender

More specifically, the settlement’s formula for paying out back-pay damages has allocated 75% of the fund to men’s football players and 15% to men’s basketball players in the five premiere athletic conferences in NCAA Division I, with only 5% of the damages fund allocated to women’s basketball players and the remaining 5% to all other student-athletes.

Proponents of this formula argue that it tracks the gross revenue averages of college sports, and accordingly football players should get the biggest piece of the pie. Opponents, including the appealing female student-athletes, argue that the back-pay damages formula in the agreement will pay male athletes 90% more than female athletes, which they assert is an unlawful disparity based on gender.

The anticipated argument is, essentially, that if the schools and/or the NCAA on behalf of schools had allocated 90% of their revenue to the male athletes during the plaintiffs’ college athletic careers, then they clearly would have violated Title IX’s requirement to provide “substantially proportionate” financial assistance to male and female student-athletes. In short, the schools would not have met their obligation to ensure equitable opportunities for both men’s and women’s sports programs.

Judge Wilken’s view in approving the settlement was that the litigation was an antitrust case, not a Title IX case, and the Title IX compliance, unionization, and collective bargaining issues are outside the scope of the House litigation. She nonetheless left the door open to a Title IX challenge on appeal, indicating that future lawsuits can be filed if the way that schools compensate athletes violates Title IX. Despite the appeal putting the brakes on the payout of back-pay damages under the settlement, the other terms of the agreement were left uninterrupted and went into effect on July 1. This includes roster limits, scholarship limits, and the rules regarding direct pay and revenue-sharing with student-athletes.

What’s Next: Ninth Circuit to Weigh Title IX and NIL Backpay

The Ninth Circuit now has an opportunity to weigh in on whether Title IX does have a bearing on these back-pay damages. It may simply decide that Judge Wilken did or did not abuse her discretion in approving the settlement. Or it could take on the larger controversial and contested issue: How does Title IX apply to NIL payments and revenue sharing with student-athletes, and does the revenue-sharing model set forth under the settlement agreement terms for future compensation for student-athletes run afoul of Title IX?

Regardless of how far-reaching the Ninth Circuit’s opinion ultimately goes in the House appeal this is not the last Title IX challenge we will see to the allocation of direct payments and revenue sharing funds to student-athletes in the near future.

The federal government’s current position on the issue of direct pay and revenue sharing with regard to Title IX does not currently provide decisive direction to courts that may grapple with this issue in the future. The U.S. Department of Education guidance under the Biden administration indicated payments to student-athletes would have been considered “athletic financial assistance,” which requires proportional allocation among male and female athletes at a given institution. The Trump administration rescinded that guidance in February, and in the current landscape, it is unclear whether compensating student-athletes will be viewed by the Office of Civil Rights—the agency division tasked with Title IX enforcement—as subject to Title IX.

Division I schools have been mulling over their options since the proposed settlement agreement was under review. However, the thorny issues of direct pay to student-athletes, equitable sports programming, and NIL deals are not reserved exclusively for D-1 schools and their athletic departments—any college or university with an athletic program should closely track the developments in federal and state law in this space.



Link

Continue Reading

NIL

Vandal Soccer to Host WSU, BSU as Part of 2025 Schedule

Story Links MOSCOW, Idaho – Idaho Vandal soccer plays host to Washington State, Boise State, South Dakota, and UTEP in non-conference play while traveling to Washington, Grand Canyon, Bakersfield and making an East Coast swing to face UMass Lowell and Stonehill College.   In Big Sky play, Idaho welcomes Montana, […]

Published

on


MOSCOW, Idaho – Idaho Vandal soccer plays host to Washington State, Boise State, South Dakota, and UTEP in non-conference play while traveling to Washington, Grand Canyon, Bakersfield and making an East Coast swing to face UMass Lowell and Stonehill College.
 
In Big Sky play, Idaho welcomes Montana, Eastern Washington, Northern Colorado and Northern Arizona to the dome while traveling to Idaho State, Weber State, Sacramento State and Portland State.
 
The schedule is among the best in program history and includes some of the Northwest’s top programs.

Idaho opens the season with a pair of exhibition games in early August. The Vandals welcome in West Coast Conference team Gonzaga on Monday, Aug. 4 before traveling to Oregon to play the Big Ten member Ducks on Friday, Aug. 8.

 

The regular season opens in the dome with a contest against UC Riverside on Aug. 14 before closing out the week against Big Ten Washington on Sunday, Aug. 17 in Seattle.

 

The Vandals have a Northeast swing with games against UMass Lowell on Aug. 21 before playing Stonehill College (Mass.) on Aug. 23.

 

Idaho hosts Washington State on Aug. 28, South Dakota on Aug. 31 and UTEP on Sept. 4 before heading road to play at Grand Canyon on Sept. 11 and CSU Bakersfield on Sept. 14.

 

The Vandals host Boise State on Sept. 18 at 7 p.m. to close out non-conference play.

 

Idaho hits the road for games against Idaho State (Sept. 25), Weber State (Sept. 28) and Sacramento State (Oct. 2) to open Big Sky Conference action.

 

Montana comes to the dome on Oct. 5 followed by Eastern Washington on Oct. 12.

 

The Vandals’ final road game will be at Portland State on Oct. 19 before closing the season with home games against Northern Colorado (Oct. 24) and Northern Arizona (Oct. 26).

 

Idaho has played in the Big Sky Championship match each of the last three seasons, winning the title in 2023.

 

Season tickets are on sale now at GoVandals.com/Tickets.

 



Link

Continue Reading

NIL

Josh Heupel drops truth bomb on Nico Iamaleava’s departure at Tennessee

The post Josh Heupel drops truth bomb on Nico Iamaleava’s departure at Tennessee appeared first on ClutchPoints. Tennessee football coach Josh Heupel has had a lot on his plate this offseason, as the team lost their starting quarterback. Nico Iamaleava decided to leave the program, after a dispute over NIL compensation. Now, Heupel is commenting […]

Published

on


The post Josh Heupel drops truth bomb on Nico Iamaleava’s departure at Tennessee appeared first on ClutchPoints.

Tennessee football coach Josh Heupel has had a lot on his plate this offseason, as the team lost their starting quarterback. Nico Iamaleava decided to leave the program, after a dispute over NIL compensation. Now, Heupel is commenting on that entire incident.

Advertisement

“It’s never about who is not in your building. It’s about who is in your building,” Heupel said, per ESPN.

Iamaleava is now at UCLA, after entering the transfer portal. He threw for 2,616 passing yards last season with the Volunteers. He also finished the season with 19 touchdown passes.

The situation also made waves across college football. It caused a national discussion about new guardrails for NIL. NIL stands for name, image and likeness. It allows college players to get paid.

The Volunteers made the College Football Playoff last season, before losing to Ohio State. Tennessee won 10 games on the campaign.

Advertisement

Tennessee football has competition at quarterback for 2025

The Volunteers currently have three quarterbacks that are fighting for the starting spot. They are: Joey Aguilar, Jake Merklinger and George MacIntyre. Aguilar is considered the top man to beat for the job. He has the most experience at the college level, although he has never started a game for a power 4 program.

Aguilar came to Tennessee in the transfer portal. He spent last season at Appalachian State, but had briefly been with UCLA after his time with the Mountaineers. Last season with App State, Aguilar threw for 3,003 yards and 23 touchdowns. He has thrown for at least 3,000 yards the last two years.

MacIntyre is considered a top prospect, who was highly ranked by college football recruiting services in the 2025 class. He is from the state of Tennessee and was considered the top recruit in the state this past year by many scouting services.

Advertisement

Merklinger was used sparingly in the 2024 season by the Volunteers. He ended up taking a redshirt after playing a few games. The young quarterback is also a highly regarded prospect.

Tennessee football starts their 2025 season against Syracuse. The two schools meet on August 30.

Related: Georgia football QB Gunner Stockton confidently brushes off Paul Finebaum criticism

Related: Steve Sarkisian reveals major point of emphasis that cost Longhorns national titles



Link

Continue Reading

NIL

Tyler Atkinson announces commitment between Oregon, Texas, Georgia

One of the top-ranked players in the 2026 recruiting cycle came off the board on Tuesday morning, with 5-star linebacker Tyler Atkinson announcing his commitment live on The Pat McAfee Show on ESPN. Unfortunately for Dan Lanning and the Oregon Ducks, it was not the Oregon hat that Atkinson pulled on. Instead, the 5-star LB, […]

Published

on


One of the top-ranked players in the 2026 recruiting cycle came off the board on Tuesday morning, with 5-star linebacker Tyler Atkinson announcing his commitment live on The Pat McAfee Show on ESPN. Unfortunately for Dan Lanning and the Oregon Ducks, it was not the Oregon hat that Atkinson pulled on.

Instead, the 5-star LB, ranked as the No. 9 overall player and No. 1 LB in the 2026 class, announced that he would be committing to the Texas Longhorns, choosing Steve Sarkisian’s team over both the Ducks and Kirby Smart’s Georgia Bulldogs.

The commitment to Texas comes as a bit of a surprise in the grand scheme of things, seeing as Atkinson is rated as the No. 1 player from the state of Georgia, and pulling a 5-star defender out of the Peach State is nearly impossible. However, there are talks of a massive NIL deal from Texas that neither Georgia nor Oregon was willing to compete with in the end.

For the Ducks, this is a tough loss on the recruiting trail, but not one that will break things. On Wednesday, 4-star linebacker Nick Abrams II will announce his commitment, with Oregon and Georgia as finalists for his pledge. Beyond that, there are several other players on Oregon’s board that the Ducks will look to land when all is said and done.

Contact/Follow @Ducks_Wire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Oregon Ducks news, notes, and opinions.



Link

Continue Reading

NIL

Chris Webber on how NIL would’ve changed Fab 5 history

The Michigan basketball program is currently gearing up for what they hope will be a successful 2025-26 season. The Wolverines are coming off of a 2024-25 season in which they made the Sweet 16 under first year head coach Dusty May but saw considerable talent head to the NBA Draft this past June. Wolverine fans […]

Published

on


The Michigan basketball program is currently gearing up for what they hope will be a successful 2025-26 season. The Wolverines are coming off of a 2024-25 season in which they made the Sweet 16 under first year head coach Dusty May but saw considerable talent head to the NBA Draft this past June.

Wolverine fans likely can’t help but reminisce about the days of the “Fab Five,” led by Chris Webber in the early 1990s. Recently, Webber stopped by ESPN NFL insider Adam Schefter’s podcast and discussed what impact that NIL rules (Name, image, and likeness) may have had on the Fab Five’s success three decades ago.

“If somebody could have paid you now multiple millions of dollars to stay in school…” wondered Schefter.

“To stay with Jalen, Juwan, Ray, and Jimmy? What are you talking about, yes we could’ve extended and we would have gotten an NIL for all of our players. We would’ve had our 12th man with an NIL deal because we loved our teammates that much,” said Webber. “You know, almost like a quarterback giving his offensive linemen go-karts or whatever. Two more years to be able to be kids? Yeah.”

Webber himself was caught up in an incident where he was accused of borrowing money from Michigan booster Ed Martin, something that never would have been an issue now with the current name, image, and likeness rules in place.

Joining Webber as members of the Fab Five were Jalen Rose, Juwan Howard, Jimmy King, and Ray Jackson, who helped lead the team to championship game appearances in both 1992 and 1993.

Unfortunately, those Final Four appearances were vacated due to Webber’s incident with Martin.

Today’s college sports landscape is drastically different, with players routinely inking deals in the millions to allow themselves to benefit off of their name and image, and with the transfer portal now affording players an opportunity to take their talents elsewhere much more easily.






Link

Continue Reading

Most Viewed Posts

Trending