After a long hiatus from writing, I’m back with a very hot topic – the transfer portal. Every time a player enters the transfer portal, fans immediately bust out their voodoo dolls to A; punish the players leaving their team and B; lure the stars from other teams to their team. After the dust and/or voodoo magic settles, what comes of the players careers that enter the transfer portal? Do they improve? Do they stay the same? Do they regress? I took 31 players of the biggest names that transferred last year (31 is the magic number in statistical trends) to answer if the transfer portal was worth it…statistically (riding the bench for a bag of money is subjectively worth it so there’s no argument there).
Things to think about before looking at the data:
– I did not add weight to an “upgrade” transfer – upgrade being a Group of 5 school to a Power 5 school or a bottom tier Power 5 school to an upper tier Power 5 school.
– Examples:
– Group of 5 to Power 5 = Braden Fiske – Western Michigan to Florida St.
– Bottom Tier Power 5 to Upper Tier Power 5 = Keon Coleman – Michigan St. to Florida St.
– I did not add weight for strength of schedule into the games. Strength of schedule is one of the most biased and unpredictable metrics in college football, therefore I didn’t use it.
– I did not add weight for “success.”
First and foremost, it seems that the transfer portal had a negative effect on players – 13 players had a negative change with an average of -69.05 (see the data for reference) to their production vs 5 having Positive Change by a 37.97. There are many factors as to what could “change” production and your production may also be weighted differently based on where you transferred to (as stated previously I did not take this into account in my equation). If a player going from the Group of 5 to the Power 5 statistically improved, stayed the same, or lessened fractionally, I would consider that a positive change, even though the numbers say otherwise – keep that in mind when evaluating my chart and if any math-magicians are reading this, a formula to add weight for that would be greatly appreciated.
Out of the (31) players selected, five players really jumped off the page to me – MarShawn Lloyd, Travis Hunter, Braden Fiske,Sam Hartman, and Keon Coleman. Here are my thoughts on those players and why they jumped off to me:
MarShawn Lloyd, RB – South Carolina to USC
Reason for shock: No change in production after leaving a worse offense in which he was the focal point, to a high-octane passing attack in which he was a supporting cast member. MarShawn Lloyd’s production “No Change” is in large part due to, surprisingly, having the same number of touches at USC as he did at South Carolina – 5 more carries and 5 less receptions at USC. If I had to say something negative about Lloyd, it’d be that this transfer was statistically neutral, but I don’t think it did much to help his draft stock.
Travis Hunter, ATH (WR/CB) – Jackson St. to Colorado
Reason for shock: Travis Hunter went from Jackson St. where the competition was very scarce – especially for a 5-star talent that was the highest rated HBCU recruit of all time – to a Power 5 Colorado team, and somehow increased his production…drastically. His defensive production stayed the same, which at first seems bad, but it stayed the same while going against top competition. That should be a positive change in my book, but I’m not smart enough to account for that using math. Hunter also increased his offensive production in every single category except for…rushing attempts. I think this transfer was positive, but I’m not sure it affected his stock that much as Hunter was already highly touted and spotlighted at Jackson St – just a change of scenery for him.
Braden Fiske, DT – Western Michigan to Florida St.
Reason for shock: Braden Fiske went from Western Michigan to Florida St. and his stats virtually stayed the same…think about that. This guy went from playing in the Group of 5 to playing on a playoff caliber team and didn’t miss a beat. He averaged one less tackle per game, and a third of a tackle for loss per game, while vastly increasing his competition level. This guy is listed as a “No Change,” but if you look at what he did, I believe he should be slotted as a “Positive Change” – sometimes numbers don’t tell the whole story. This transfer was very beneficial for Fiske.
Sam Hartman, QB – Wake Forest to Notre Dame
Reason for Shock: Sam Hartman started off the year as someone I was beating the table for as a Heisman candidate. However, the move to South Bend from Winston Salem did not fare well for the signal caller. Not only did Sam Hartman get labeled as a “Negative Change,” his production plummeted, making him the third most negatively changed transfer in the data pool…ouch. But what caused this massive drop in production? Lack of targets? Different offense? Missing rib? Who knows? What I do know is, Hartman’s passing numbers dropped 84 yards per game, totaling over 1,000 yards for the season while also throwing 14 less TD’s than he did at Wake Forest. In a move that was seemingly to show scouts that he could play an NFL style offense, Hartman not only had a drop in production, but also, a drop in his draft stock.
Keon Coleman, WR – Michigan St. to Florida St.
Reason for Shock: This one was probably the biggest shock to me. Keon Coleman came blazing on to the scene with dominating performances against the likes of LSU and Clemson. However, the star wide receiver saw a dip in production. Coleman saw an uptick in TD’s (better overall offense usually leads to this), but that’s the end of his positive changes. The wideout averaged one less catch per game and almost twelve less yards per game. That doesn’t seem like a lot, but for a player that was receiving the buzz that Coleman was, the stats really don’t show improvement. Now this should come with a disclaimer as Coleman was a stud WR at Michigan St. and was a stud WR at Florida St., but I thought I’d see more positive change for a guy entering an offense with a great, veteran QB in Jordan Travis. Overall, I think this transfer still helped Coleman’s draft stock – I just thought I’d see more.
Overall, I’d have to say that transferring did not help players statistically – life or financial reasons are not taken into account. With 13 players in this data pool being rated as “No Change,” my take is that the grass is not necessarily greener for players looking to leave their program. In most cases, these players that are transferring are going to be who they are – transferring doesn’t change their ability to run, jump, change direction etc., the only things that’s changing is that they’re in a new uniform. Maybe you earn more success from a team’s perspective, which can help your draft stock, but odds are, if you roll the dice and go somewhere else, you’re going to be the same and you have to leave your fate to your uncontrollable situations (supporting cast, team record, playoff potential, etc.). Obviously leaving for personal reasons or a coaching change happens (and should), but jumping schools is not leading to statistical growth. This is not a take, by any means, against the transfer portal, in fact I think the transfer portal is a very good thing. However, players need to realize that leaving their school doesn’t equate to statistical improvement.
Thank you for taking the time to read this! Find me @walkonmoose on X (formerly known as Twitter) or Instagram – walkonmoose or williamcockerill82 and let me know what jumped off the page to you? What would you change about the data? Who else should be looked at? I appreciate any and allfeedback and can’t wait to hear from you!
Shoutout to Beans for the article idea…if the article sucked, blame him ( @brysonjohnson07 ).
