A week out from the transfer portal officially opening, some top college football stars have indicated the intention to move on to a new school. Per On3sports’s rankings, here are the top five portal prospects, and a likely landing spot (or two) for each.

Sam Leavitt, Arizona State QB

Despite many more QBs entering the portal, Leavitt remains at the top of the list of the top portal passers. Leavitt’s 2025 season was limited to just seven games, in which he threw for 1,628 yards and 10 touchdowns. He showed more in 2024, taking ASU to the College Football Playoff with over 3,300 all-purpose yards and 29 touchdowns.

Leavitt is thought to be focusing in on Indiana and Oregon as potential landing spots. He’ll have two years to play and figures to be one of the top passers in college football, wherever he lands.

In 2024, he helped Arizona State reach the College Football Playoff by passing for 2,885 yards and 24 touchdowns and rushing for 443 yards and five more scores. His 2025 season was cut short by an injury in October, but in the portion of the year he could play, Leavitt passed for 1,628 yards and 10 scores in just seven games.

Chaz Coleman, Penn State DE

Colemani is an elite 6’4″ edge rusher who didn’t see a ton of time at Penn State in 2025 as a freshman. Coleman played in nine games, making eight tackles, including three tackles for loss with one QB sack.

Coleman has been projected as likely to end up at Ohio State, where the Buckeyes have done well in developing pass rushers. His position coach at Penn State has now been hired at South Carolina, so the Gamecocks might be a surprise contender on his recruitment.

Drew Mestemaker, North Texas QB

Mestemaker is one of those players who seemingly emerged from nowhere. A former-walk on, he passed for 4,129 yards and 31 touchdowns as a redshirt freshman at North Texas. The 6’4″ QB has three years of eligibility left.

The likely landing spot for Mestemaker remains Oklahoma State, where his North Texas coach Eric Morris has settled. He has also been linked with Texas Tech as one of several other schools interested in the talented young QB.

Byrum Brown, South Florida QB

Brown has spent four years at South Florida, but did preseve his redshirt year in 2022. Last season, he threw for 3,158 yards and 28 touchdowns while running for another 1,008 yards and 14 scores on the ground. He’s the premier dual-threat QB in this transfer class.

Brown’s most likely landing spot will be Auburn, where his USF coach Alex Golesh has landed. Florida is another school that has been documented as a possibility, as former Tulane boss Jon Sumrall will need a talented passer to lead his offense.

Jontez Williams, Iowa State CB

Williams was injured in late September and missed most of the 2025 season, but is a talented defensive back. The 6’2″ defender picked off four passes in 2024 and broke up five more passes. He’ll have two years of eligibility remaining.

Williams hails from Florida and Miami has been notable as a contender for his next landing spot. Of course, Iowa State coach Matt Campbell has moved on to Penn State, so the Nittany Lions should probably be in the conversation as well.

UAB star Iverson Hooks is choosing to enter the transfer portal. His decision not to continue his college football career creates an interesting situation regarding his NIL money.

Does he owe it all back to the Blazers?

I do not know the specific terms of Hooks’ agreement with the university but it appears as though he is on the hook (pun intended) for every single penny he has ever received while in Birmingham. This could get litigious.

Who is Iverson Hooks?

Hooks is not a name you would know unless you are a diehard fan of college football. He was one of the best players on the Group of Six level in 2025.

The former three-star recruit committed to UAB in the Class of 2022 over 11 other offers from schools like UCF, Arkansas State, Western Kentucky and Troy. His first three years with the program saw him record 25 catches for ~300 yards and three touchdowns.

This past season was a huge breakout year for the 5-foot-10, 175-pound pass-catcher.

Hooks caught a team-high 72 passes for a team-high 927 yards and seven touchdowns. He has two years of eligibility remaining.

However, the rising redshirt junior does not plan to finish out his career in Birmingham. Hooks is going to enter the transfer portal.

How much money does he owe back to UAB?

This is where things get murky.

The exact details of Iverson Hooks’ financial agreement at UAB are unknown. Perhaps it had already reached its conclusion after four seasons. I don’t know. Maybe there is no buyout attached to his deal.

However, there is a specific clause for termination attached to a majority of contracts with Blazer Impact, the primary NIL arm in Birmingham.

“If Blazer Impact terminates the Agreement pursuant to Section 13.1.2, 13.1.3, 13.1.4, or 13.1.7, Licensor shall pay Blazer Impact a lump sum payment, as liquidated damages and not a penalty, 100% of all Licensing Fees and Endorsement Activity Fees that were paid to Licensor under the Agreement through the date of termination, or 100% of the total Licensing Fees and Enforcement Activity Fees that were scheduled to be paid to Licensor under the remaining term of the Agreement, whichever amount is more. Licensor shall pay the above liquidated damages within 30 days of termination by Blazer Impact.”

This may not apply to Hooks. He might be exempt based off of the unique language in his unique contract. We don’t know.

If he is not exempt, Hooks will be expected to pay back every last dollar he was paid by Blazer Impact over the last four years. Maybe the bigger school that ultimately receives his commitment will pay the buyout? Maybe this will go to court. We’ll see.

In the wake of the University of Georgia Athletic Association (UGAA) recently suing him for $390,000 over a breached NIL deal, Missouri defensive end Damon Wilson II—who played for the Bulldogs in 2023 and 2024—sued UGAA and others on Tuesday. Wilson insists his NIL deal wasn’t a contract and thus isn’t enforceable, and that UGAA falsely told other schools he had to pay a $1.2 million buyout to transfer.

Wilson’s complaint was filed in Boone County (Mo.) Circuit Court, a potentially friendlier forum for the Tigers star than Athens-Clarke County (Ga.) Superior Court, where UGAA sued him in October.

Advertisement

More from Sportico.com

As detailed by Sportico, UGAA seeks a court order to compel arbitration. On Dec. 21, 2024, Wilson signed what UGAA says was a 13-month, $500,000 NIL deal with Classic City Collective (CCC)—a Georgia-aligned former NIL collective that shut down after U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the House settlement. In that process, CCC assigned its Wilson contract to UGAA, meaning the athletic association has the legal right to enforce the contract.

Four days after he signed the original agreement—Christmas Day 2024—CCC paid Wilson $30,000. In early January, the player entered the transfer portal and then joined Missouri. UGAA contends that Wilson breached his NIL deal by entering the transfer portal and that the deal contains a $390,000 liquidated damages provision. In general, a liquidated damages provision is designed to clarify the amount of money a contracting party owes in the event of a breach.

Through Jeff Jensen, Bogdan Susan and other attorneys from Torridon Law and Holder Susan Slusher, Wilson offers a very different retelling of events.

Advertisement

Wilson argues he only signed a term sheet that “contained a non-binding list of key terms” that “would be used to create a legally binding document.” The term sheet, Wilson says, went so far as to say it “precedes” a “full License and Option Agreement” that would reflect a “full legal contract.” The term sheet also allegedly directs Wilson to “seek legal counsel” before signing a “full License and Option Agreement.” Wilson says CCC didn’t present him with the full agreement and thus he wasn’t in contract with CCC.

Wilson’s complaint implies he was surprised when, four days after signing the term sheet, he was paid $30,000. When CCC later demanded he pay $390,000, Wilson says that was part of UGAA’s “coordinated effort” to “strong-arm” the player and “punish” him for entering the portal. Wilson contends that UGAA has violated confidentiality provisions in the term sheet by leaking term sheet provisions “to sympathetic news outlets and affiliates to tarnish Wilson’s reputation.”

Further, Wilson claims that UGAA has no right to compel arbitration since—he says—he never agreed to mandatory arbitration. As described by Wilson, the term sheet ambiguously references “arbitration” and omits key details including the method for appointing an arbitrator, the applicable procedure for arbitration and a specific scope of topics subject to arbitration.

Wilson describes UGAA and by extension “sophisticated and prominent universities like Georgia” as “exploiting their bargaining power” in the aftermath of the House settlement. Among other features, the settlement allows participating colleges to directly pay athletes a share of up to 22% of the average power conference athletic media, ticket and sponsorship revenue. Wilson points out this new framework means schools can “directly enter into NIL agreements” with athletes and “thus no longer rely on a collective or similar intermediary to arrange NIL deals.” He contends schools are abusing this newfound power to convince athletes “to sign NIL agreements with unconscionable and unenforceable provisions that the universities can use to threaten a student-athlete who is considering transferring and prevent the student-athlete from realizing the benefits of free and open competition for their athletic services.”

Advertisement

Much of Wilson’s complaint rebukes the liquidated damages provision. Wilson claims UGAA “weaponized this provision” by “falsely representing” to coaches of at least three other schools where Wilson “actively discussed potentially transferring” that he would be liable for a $1.2 million buyout.” These alleged representations, Wilson argues, financially harmed him since it denied him a chance to realize “the benefits of free and open competition for his athletic services and his NIL licensing rights.”

The Missouri DE also attacks the structure of the liquidated damages provision. He argues it “makes no attempt” to connect what he would have to pay with a “reasonable estimate of the harm to CCC that would result from a breach.” In other words, Wilson describes the provision as imposing an excessive penalty that is more about punishing him than compensating CCC. Wilson says the provision is “masquerading” under the moniker “liquidated damages” when it should be better understood as an unconscionable “penalty provision” designed to retaliate against him for entering the transfer portal.

Wilson’s complaint seeks a judicial declaration that the term sheet is unenforceable, or if it is enforceable, the arbitration and liquidated damages provisions within it are unenforceable. Claims for tortious interference, civil conspiracy, defamation and breach of confidentiality are included, too.

“Damon never had a contract with them,” Jensen, Wilson’s attorney, said in a statement. “I don’t see how Georgia thinks intimidation and litigation will help their recruitment efforts—maybe players could bring lawyers with them to practice.”

Advertisement

In the coming days and weeks, expect attorneys for UGAA to raise several counterarguments.

They will assert the dispute should be heard in Georgia, not Missouri, since UGAA filed first and the center of the controversy arguably occurred in Georgia. UGAA attorneys will also contend that Wilson and CCC signed an enforceable contract that contains the basic elements of a contract, including offer, acceptance and, with Wilson accepting the $30,000 payment, a bargained-for exchange.

Similarly, UGAA will insist the arbitration and liquidated damages provisions are reasonable in the context of NIL at a power conference school and binding. To that end, expect UGAA to note that Wilson was an adult when he signed the NIL contract/term sheet—he was 19 years old and thus not a minor—and that CCC’s recommendation he hire an attorney didn’t create an obligation on the part of CCC to stop negotiating with him if he hadn’t secured an attorney.

Best of Sportico.com

Advertisement

Sign up for Sportico’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.