[Goose]

Isn't there still a limit on scholies/team?  If so, I'm not sure how you can more effectively "cut" players and replace them in transfer portal world, if that player wants to stay at the university.  You always had coaches who ran off "steak eaters" from the roster, even at Stanford (though admittedly, much less common).  I do agree that the teams on top are much more likely to stay there in free-agency, transfer portal world.

In the past the "steak eaters" had to sit a year if they left the university and went elsewhere. That was a big downside to the player that encouraged them to stay where they were. It made "running a player off" harder because they effectively had no place to go. If they kept showing up despite it being made clear they weren't wanted they kept the scholarship and the "slot". Now, they have every reason to go elsewhere. It also lowers/removes the bar to suggesting to an athlete they move on. Before, that would end their career for at least a year if they could find a place that would take them and forever if they couldn't. I am not sure how the scholarships worked when a player transferred, but I think the "new" school couldn't put them on scholarship while they sat. Now, it is much easier to "justify" telling a steak eater they should move on because they actually can. In many cases it will benefit both parties, because the coach can use the slot to fill a need and the player can go someplace where they can play (or think they can). No year in the penalty box. That makes programs who can recruit lots of talent even stronger because they can much more easily get rid of players (and their associated scholies) who they don't need and replace them with players that the may/do need.

.

The ones I feel most sorry for are the coaches of lower level (or even division) schools, who find the diamond in the rough, give that kid a platform to shine, only to have that player bolt for Bigger Programs.  Don't blame the kids; but man, that would suck as a coach.  (Seems to me the transfer portal world will only make coaches bailing on their schools for greener pastures MORE likely than it is today).

This will for sure happen. Hopefully some of the players will have enough loyalty to remain, but it is hard to argue against moving from a small stage to a larger one. I would argue that in many cases this also involves moving from a small school to a larger school, which often increases the academic opportunities available as well. From that point of view it is hard to say moving is a "bad idea", even if it doesn't work out athletics wise. It does make coaching more difficult at the "lower division" schools, but I suspect most coaches in that situation will also take a "bigger stage" if offered independent of the player transfer effects. There will also be flow in the other direction of players who may have talent but for whatever reason didn't "fit" the program they chose initially. That will help compensate for the transfers out.

[Goose]

Isn't there still a limit on scholies/team?  If so, I'm not sure how you can more effectively "cut" players and replace them in transfer portal world, if that player wants to stay at the university.  You always had coaches who ran off "steak eaters" from the roster, even at Stanford (though admittedly, much less common).  I do agree that the teams on top are much more likely to stay there in free-agency, transfer portal world.

In the past the "steak eaters" had to sit a year if they left the university and went elsewhere. That was a big downside to the player that encouraged them to stay where they were. It made "running a player off" harder because they effectively had no place to go. If they kept showing up despite it being made clear they weren't wanted they kept the scholarship and the "slot". Now, they have every reason to go elsewhere. It also lowers/removes the bar to suggesting to an athlete they move on. Before, that would end their career for at least a year if they could find a place that would take them and forever if they couldn't. I am not sure how the scholarships worked when a player transferred, but I think the "new" school couldn't put them on scholarship while they sat. Now, it is much easier to "justify" telling a steak eater they should move on because they actually can. In many cases it will benefit both parties, because the coach can use the slot to fill a need and the player can go someplace where they can play (or think they can). No year in the penalty box. That makes programs who can recruit lots of talent even stronger because they can much more easily get rid of players (and their associated scholies) who they don't need and replace them with players that the may/do need.

.

The ones I feel most sorry for are the coaches of lower level (or even division) schools, who find the diamond in the rough, give that kid a platform to shine, only to have that player bolt for Bigger Programs.  Don't blame the kids; but man, that would suck as a coach.  (Seems to me the transfer portal world will only make coaches bailing on their schools for greener pastures MORE likely than it is today).

This will for sure happen. Hopefully some of the players will have enough loyalty to remain, but it is hard to argue against moving from a small stage to a larger one. I would argue that in many cases this also involves moving from a small school to a larger school, which often increases the academic opportunities available as well. From that point of view it is hard to say moving is a "bad idea", even if it doesn't work out athletics wise. It does make coaching more difficult at the "lower division" schools, but I suspect most coaches in that situation will also take a "bigger stage" if offered independent of the player transfer effects. There will also be flow in the other direction of players who may have talent but for whatever reason didn't "fit" the program they chose initially. That will help compensate for the transfers out.