[Goose]

Only 13 of the top 25 teams were top 25 in the transfer portal, which compares to 20 being top 25 in the talent rankings (anybody still think it's not Jessies and Joes when 80 percent of the top 25 can be predicted by recruiting rankings?).

Certainly not me. I never thought that even before there was a transfer portal.

The top 25 includes 8 teams that were below average in the transfer portal, all of whom were elite overall talent composite teams. The closest thing to an outlier in that respect is Oregon State, totally mediocre in the transfer portal and well below average in total on paper talent.

The Beavers are instructive outliers here. It is still possible to have a very good team based on Xs and Os and culture. Jonathan Smith is a hell of a coach. As you can see above, this model is also succeeding at Kansas State....and that's it. Smith and Chris Klieman are excellent coaches that should have a lot of suitors. But they're outliers. Only two of the top 25 programs don't belong in terms of on paper composite talent. RIP Xs and Os as the major explanation for success.

When I look at this - again, a year at the apex of transfer portal salience and chaos - it seems clear to me that the overriding factor in college football competitiveness is not the transfer portal at all but rather the blue bloods that always compete at the top are continuing to compete at the top, transfer portal be damned.

This I do not at all agree with. Your definition of "success" in the portal is based on total numbers. That isn't a good metric IMO. Many of the "blue blood" programs don't get many transfers, BUT the ones they do get are often key to their future success. The have mostly good players and don't need many, but they may have serious deficiencies. They fix that in the portal. Look how many QBs in the top tier of the PAC-12 are transfers. That really matters and helps continue the "blue blood" success.

 Because it's extremely hard to break into that group if you're not already one of those programs, some look to inspired coaching hires to overcome talent deficits. But it's hard to identify the next Smith or Klieman, and even if you do it's tough to hold on to a coach like that.

To me the model to aspire to is something like what Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin are accomplishing. Be ambitious enough to demand good coaching and then pair it with good enough recruiting. If you can recruit in the upper half of Power Five football - even if just barely - and have enough pride in the program not to accept results worse than that, you can be a relevant program. Stanford had that going on for almost a decade but when the results slipped we didn't have any pride to demand better. I think we can and should do more to put ourselves in position to be like the Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin types of the world. But we don't act with that level of ambition. When Washington had an opening, they got a supernova Group of Five coach who had also won three NAIA national championships. When Wisconsin had an opening, they got one of the most proven and long-coveted coaches in the nation. When it was out turn, we went with a guy with three years of FCS coaching experience. We choose to roll the dice and hope to strike gold like the Oregon States and Kansas States of the world. Much lower probability of success, and I think that should be beneath the Home of Champions.

Can't say I disagree. However, I don't know what options Stanford explored. IMO many ambitious up and coming coaches do not want to come to Stanford because recruiting is much harder than say Kansas State. Winning is hard enough without having an additional handicap. That may have tipped the scales to where we are now.

[Goose]

Only 13 of the top 25 teams were top 25 in the transfer portal, which compares to 20 being top 25 in the talent rankings (anybody still think it's not Jessies and Joes when 80 percent of the top 25 can be predicted by recruiting rankings?).

Certainly not me. I never thought that even before there was a transfer portal.

The top 25 includes 8 teams that were below average in the transfer portal, all of whom were elite overall talent composite teams. The closest thing to an outlier in that respect is Oregon State, totally mediocre in the transfer portal and well below average in total on paper talent.

The Beavers are instructive outliers here. It is still possible to have a very good team based on Xs and Os and culture. Jonathan Smith is a hell of a coach. As you can see above, this model is also succeeding at Kansas State....and that's it. Smith and Chris Klieman are excellent coaches that should have a lot of suitors. But they're outliers. Only two of the top 25 programs don't belong in terms of on paper composite talent. RIP Xs and Os as the major explanation for success.

When I look at this - again, a year at the apex of transfer portal salience and chaos - it seems clear to me that the overriding factor in college football competitiveness is not the transfer portal at all but rather the blue bloods that always compete at the top are continuing to compete at the top, transfer portal be damned.

This I do not at all agree with. Your definition of "success" in the portal is based on total numbers. That isn't a good metric IMO. Many of the "blue blood" programs don't get many transfers, BUT the ones they do get are often key to their future success. The have mostly good players and don't need many, but they may have serious deficiencies. They fix that in the portal. Look how many QBs in the top tier of the PAC-12 are transfers. That really matters and helps continue the "blue blood" success.

 Because it's extremely hard to break into that group if you're not already one of those programs, some look to inspired coaching hires to overcome talent deficits. But it's hard to identify the next Smith or Klieman, and even if you do it's tough to hold on to a coach like that.

To me the model to aspire to is something like what Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin are accomplishing. Be ambitious enough to demand good coaching and then pair it with good enough recruiting. If you can recruit in the upper half of Power Five football - even if just barely - and have enough pride in the program not to accept results worse than that, you can be a relevant program. Stanford had that going on for almost a decade but when the results slipped we didn't have any pride to demand better. I think we can and should do more to put ourselves in position to be like the Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin types of the world. But we don't act with that level of ambition. When Washington had an opening, they got a supernova Group of Five coach who had also won three NAIA national championships. When Wisconsin had an opening, they got one of the most proven and long-coveted coaches in the nation. When it was out turn, we went with a guy with three years of FCS coaching experience. We choose to roll the dice and hope to strike gold like the Oregon States and Kansas States of the world. Much lower probability of success, and I think that should be beneath the Home of Champions.

Can't say I disagree. However, I don't know what options Stanford explored. IMO many ambitious up and coming coaches do not want to come to Stanford because recruiting is much harder than say Kansas State. Winning is hard enough without having an additional handicap. That may have tipped the scales to where we are now.