The actual 2025 college football season is now over for many schools, marking the start of another rollicking transfer portal season. We’ve got drama already, as one school out of the ACC has already seen 15 of its players announce intentions to transfer out of the program — and the portal doesn’t even open until January!

While the portal itself isn’t officially open for business until the third day of the new 2026 calendar year, with the actual regular season done, players are well within their right to announce that they do or do not plan to enter the portal. Frankly, for players outside of the College Football Playoff, their decisions almost need to be made before that actual 1/3 date.

That’s not going to be an issue at North Carolina, where 15 players have already decided they do not wish to return to Chapel Hill for the 2026 season, according to the On3 transfer tracker. The Tar Heels finished just 4-8 in head coach Bill Belichick’s first season, and as soon as it ended, a slew of players hit the doors. You can see the full list of guys who left right here:

List of 15 UNC transfers

The biggest losses among that crop? It may be the hit to the pass catchers. Green, Johnson, Gause and Culliver were, in order, the 4-7 spots on the team in terms of receiving yards — and all four of those guys posted more than 100 on the year. Added up, it’s not a small chunk of production. Plus, with what UNC loses at the top of the receiver depth chart, you’d think these guys were in for a big year in 2026. Alas, it’s not to be.

It’s no secret Bill Belichick’s first year coaching at North Carolina did not go well, but for 15 guys to immediately jump ship in the first week or so since the last game is definitely alarming. Is Belichick even planning to return? We haven’t heard otherwise, but the player movement signals something isn’t quite right at UNC.

Just take Auburn for instance. They fired their head coach yet have only had one player so far announce that he’s entering the transfer portal. The same is true for Arkansas, just one announced transfer thus far despite changing head coaches. Florida? Again, only one guy has transferred. That’s three SEC schools who changed coaches that have combined to have one-fifth the departures that North Carolina has already had.

If that’s confusing, we’re just saying… this many transfers so soon after the end of the season and still so far away from the actual portal opening… must mean something. Because at schools that didn’t even have coaches for months at a time, players are hardly leaving.

More on College Football HQ

ESPN’s Paul Finebaum is tired of non-Power Four schools so he called for the end of G5, or Group of Five (or Six) schools as we call them. He doesn’t want to see their inclusion in the College Football Playoff moving forward.

Amid an intense debate over Notre Dame, Miami and even Alabama, Tulane and James Madison found their way into the CFP by being conference champions. The Group of Five is guaranteed a spot considering the five-highest ranked conference champions get into the field. 

This year, because the ACC champion, Duke, was not ranked as high as James Madison, the Dukes got in along with top 20 Tulane as a second G5 school, the first in CFP history. But Finebaum called the product below the Power Four “unwatchable.”

“Well, it’s time to get rid of the G5 schools, and I know how they got in there. It was a compromise, but America does not want to see Tulane, nor do we want to see James Madison in the College Football Playoff,” Finebaum said on Get Up. “This is great in the NCAA basketball tournament, there are 68 schools. There are only 12 here, and we don’t need them around. And I’m not going to give you the with all due respect, because I don’t really care about Tulane or James Madison. They’re both going to lose by 25 to 45 points. They’ll be unwatchable games and get them out of a playoff.”

Despite the fact Tulane coach Jon Sumrall and James Madison coach Bob Chesney are leaving the G5 for Florida and UCLA, respectively, they want to finish the job this year. They’re guaranteed one more game, maybe more with upsets.

“I’ve said it a lot. I think just as important, if not more important than how you start at a place, it’s how you finish,” Sumrall said. “I’m forever indebted to Tulane. I was an assistant coach here over a decade ago. It’s been a complete privilege and honor for me to be the head football coach here. 

“And you know, I think in my introductory press conference two years ago I said, ‘We’re going to win the conference championship. We’re gonna go to the College Football Playoff.’ And I also said, ‘We’re going to win it,’ so we got work to do. Job’s not done.”

There never seemed to be much of a question about where Marcel Reed would play football next year, but in this era of multi-million dollar NIL deals, you never can be too sure, so the Texas A&M quarterback put to rest any possible anxiety from Aggies fans.

Griffin’s wife Grete, who co-hosts the podcast with her husband, got directly to the point, asking, “If Miami came today and offered you $4 million, what do you say?”

“I have to talk to my parents,” said Reed, before clearing up that he thinks Texas A&M is the best place for him to be.

Reed said he was offered deals from other schools after his freshman year with the Aggies. On the podcast, which is unclear if it was recorded before Texas A&M offensive coordinator Collin Klein got the head coaching job at Kansas State, Reed said he didn’t  consider those offers then and wouldn’t consider them now.

“I don’t think there’s any reason I need to leave Texas A&M,” Reed said. “I have the job and it’s mine to lose, and I don’t think I will. There’s no reason for me to leave. I think I have a great OC. I have a great coach, I have great players around me. We have the best stadium in college football. The best college town in college football … There’s no need for me to leave and go anywhere else.”

Reed didn’t say how much he makes in NIL currently, but did tell the Griffins, “I don’t live in the dorm, I’ll tell you that,” before revealing he lives in a four-bedroom house with 3 ½ baths.

“It’s pretty nice,” he said.

Reed also cleared up one rumor that has stuck throughout the football season. No, he is not dating Olympic gymnast Suni Lee.

With most of the country’s focus on who was snubbed by the College Football Playoff Selection Committee, college athletics reached another inflection point on Monday with the release of Athletes.org’s first-ever draft Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) framework. This document is designed to replace the current NIL-driven compensation model with a standardized, enforceable structure modeled on professional sports CBAs. While far from a final agreement, it’s the most detailed blueprint yet for what some players want a collectively bargained future to look like across NCAA Division I athletics. What do colleges and universities need to know about this step?

Where Things Stand: Labor Organizing and Legal Pressure Are Reshaping College Athletics

Over the last four years, momentum toward formal labor and employment rights for college athletes has accelerated dramatically.

NLRB Developments

For the moment, the National Labor Relations Board is the least likely source of any concerns for college athletics. Not only does it presently lack a quorum to legally act, the Presidential administration is decidedly opposed to granting student athletes “employee” status. Indeed, the 2021 NLRB General Counsel memo declaring student athletes to be employees was rescinded in February, and efforts pre-dating the Trump administration to unionize Dartmouth basketball players and claiming athletes at the University of Southern California were employees were both voluntarily dismissed by player-advocates even before the new administration started.

The Johnson Litigation

In July 2024, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Johnson v. NCAA that Division I student-athletes are not categorically barred from bringing claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Instead, the court held that athletes “may be employees” when they perform services for their school (or the NCAA) primarily for the institution’s benefit, under the school’s control (or right of control), and in return for compensation or other benefits. This decision rejected the long-standing defense that the traditional concept of “amateurism” automatically excludes student-athletes from employee status. Johnson is now on remand in the District Court which is considering another round of motions to dismiss. It remains one of the most significant employment-law threats to the traditional collegiate model.

The House Settlement

The House settlement, while monumental in providing a revenue-sharing mechanism to student athletes, does not resolve long-term legal exposure. Judge Wilken expressly acknowledged that the agreement does not carry the protections of the non-statutory labor exemption because it is not collectively bargained. Athletes.org echoed this point in its own amicus briefing, emphasizing that without a CBA, universities remain vulnerable to antitrust claims, compensation-related challenges, and future litigation over inconsistent athlete treatment.

Inside the CBA Proposal: Key Components of the Athletes.org Framework

Athletes.org is a newly formed players association seeking to organize college athletes and position itself as the negotiating representative in any future restructuring of college sports. While still early in its development and lacking formal recognition, it claims to represent more than 5,000 student athletes and is actively pushing for a collective bargaining model that would shift many operational and financial decisions away from institutions.

For campus leaders, the framework serves as an early signal of the issues that could arise if collective bargaining becomes part of the collegiate athletics landscape. The 38-page draft CBA framework is ambitious and built consciously on the architecture of professional sports CBAs. Its stated goal is to provide “a sustainable, enforceable structure for college athletics” that consolidates athlete compensation, standardizes contractual terms, and reduces litigation risk.

Five components stand out:

1. A Standardized Athlete Services Contract