Do NCAA Transfer Portal Recruits Improve FBS Football Teams? The Surprising Truth

In today’s college football world, the NCAA transfer portal isn’t just a new trend—it’s a full-blown revolution. With over 3,400 FBS players entering the portal in the 2024–25 cycle, programs are scrambling to either capitalize on or survive the chaos. But one question keeps rising above the noise: Does bringing in a large number of portal recruits lead to more wins the following season?
 
The Transfer Frenzy—But Is It Worth It?
 
Take a look at programs like Florida State, which transformed its roster under Mike Norvell with the help of portal stars like quarterback Jordan Travis (from Louisville) and edge rusher Jared Verse (from Albany). In 2023, they went 13–0 before being controversially left out of the College Football Playoff, with a roster heavily shaped by strategic portal additions.
 
Compare that to Colorado, where Deion Sanders recruited over 50 new players via the transfer portal in 2023. Despite the hype, Colorado finished 4–8, with significant questions about team cohesion, depth, and whether too much turnover had sabotaged the rebuild.
 
The lesson? While the transfer portal offers immediate access to experienced talent, success depends not on volume, but on fit, timing, and balance.
 
What the Numbers Say
 
A study by Bruins Sports Analytics revealed that an increase in a team’s average high school recruit star rating had a far stronger correlation with wins than the number of portal recruits. Specifically, a one-star increase in the average high school recruiting class led to 3.7 more wins per season—a result far outpacing gains from transfers.
 
Meanwhile, a University of Oregon analysis found inconsistent correlations between the size of the transfer class and on-field results. Some teams improved with large transfer hauls, while others stagnated or regressed, particularly when the incoming talent didn’t align with the scheme or culture.
 
The Coaching Tightrope: Results vs. Stability
 
No one is feeling the pressure of the transfer era more than FBS coaches.
​
After a disastrous 2022 season, Arizona State attempted a portal-heavy rebuild under Kenny Dillingham. The Sun Devils brought in over 25 transfers but still finished 3–9 in 2023, citing depth issues and lack of chemistry.
 
Even elite programs are cautious. Nick Saban added just 13 transfers in 2024 before retiring—focusing on plug-and-play starters like Maryland CB Trey Amos rather than volume. Similarly, Kirby Smart’s Georgia added only 11, preferring to develop from within.
 
In contrast, Michigan State under Mel Tucker leaned heavily on the transfer portal in 2021, producing an 11–2 season largely thanks to Kenneth Walker III, a Wake Forest transfer who went on to win the Doak Walker Award. But when the talent well dried up and high school recruiting lagged, the program quickly regressed, and Tucker was fired amid scandal by 2023.
 
Legal and Academic Problems in the Portal Era
 
The transfer boom has also brought hidden complications.
 
Academic ineligibility is a growing issue. The NCAA’s transfer guidelines caution that not all academic credits are guaranteed to transfer, particularly for athletes transferring from one Power Five institution to another. In 2023, several Pac-12 and ACC programs privately acknowledged to The Athletic that “a significant number” of portal recruits failed to qualify academically upon arrival, costing them scholarships and roster depth.
 
Legal trouble isn’t uncommon, either. In 2022, Chris Steele, a former five-star recruit who transferred from Florida to USC, was part of a team that faced internal discipline issues related to alleged off-field conduct, raising concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding players who switch schools under disciplinary clouds.
 
Title IX compliance also presents a risk. In 2023, multiple SEC athletic departments raised concerns about the insufficient vetting of incoming male athletes with prior misconduct accusations, an issue complicated by the lack of centralized background sharing between schools.
 
Conclusion: The Portal Helps—but It’s Not a Blueprint
 
The portal is a valuable tool—but it’s not a blueprint for sustainable success.
 
Programs like Florida State and Washington (under Kalen DeBoer) have demonstrated how to utilize it effectively: targeting positions of need, vetting candidates for character and academics, and maintaining a developmental culture. On the other end of the spectrum, teams chasing short-term fixes through massive roster overhauls—like 2023 Colorado or 2022 Nebraska—often find that chemistry, experience, and locker room trust can’t be bought.
 
The data is precise: portal usage correlates weakly with success unless strategically aligned with the scheme, stability, and long-term recruiting pipelines. The most successful teams treat it as a supplement, not a substitute.