I believe the Aggie fan base is too hyped about the transfer portal. It is nice to get a player that can add a new dynamic to their side of the ball or add overall depth. However, I believe A&M should focus on HS talent evaluation & retention. This argument is based on data from the corporate world, and anecdotal evidence from teams that heavily used the portal for their 2024 season.
Studies [1][2] show that it is easier to keep employees compared to acquiring new ones. There are hard cost (time and money spent getting someone into the door) and soft cost (fixing trainee mistakes, and general training). Sure, A&M has the funds to cover the hard cost for getting a new guy in the portal, but so do all the other competitive programs in the SEC. Soft cost will kill us. New players coming into the program will have to learn a new system, learn their role within the team, and acclimate to their new school. Also, do we really want our coaches spending time not focusing on coaching? Keeping a majority of players on the roster allows coaches to focus on football, allows the program to maintain "tribal knowledge", and keeps morale high.
Look at Army and Navy…Do we think that two military academies can out recruit the other FBS programs they compete with? The reality is they don't [3] [4]. However, both programs had major success this year because they keep their guys. Those players know the in's and out's of their schemes. Army has a better win percentage than A&M since 2020.
The modern portal area is a year old now. Do major portal overhauls predict success? Not sure there is enough data to make a conclusion…but OSU went 10-2 (worst record since 2020) and supposedly paid millions to get those players. Ole Miss paid millions to build their roster and went 9-1, which is worse than 2023 and on track to meet 2021 win totals. I'd argue the portal only helped Texas, Colorado, and Miami. This argument is not based on any analysis expect an eye test. How were Texas and Miami different from the other top 10 transfer classes? They were smaller/very targeted. Texas got the WRs they needed and some great D players who contributed immediately. Miami picking up Cam Ward & Damien Martinez were immediate impacts…if not the entire offense. Colorado was successful because they got the bodies they needed to field a team.
Imagine this season if we kept Fadil Diggs, Walter Nolan, Bryce Foster, and Evan Stewart. We'd have a different looking defense and a downfield threat that probably stops defenses from "creeping up" on runs.
So how do you think we should use the portal?
PS -> This ASU - ISU game is a stinker.
[1] https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/talent-acquisition/real-costs-recruitment
[2]
https://resources.skillwork.com/cost-of-hiring-new-employee-vs-retaining
[4] https://247sports.com/season/2024-football/compositeteamrankings/?Conference=IND
[5]https://247sports.com/Season/2024-Football/TransferTeamRankings/
Studies [1][2] show that it is easier to keep employees compared to acquiring new ones. There are hard cost (time and money spent getting someone into the door) and soft cost (fixing trainee mistakes, and general training). Sure, A&M has the funds to cover the hard cost for getting a new guy in the portal, but so do all the other competitive programs in the SEC. Soft cost will kill us. New players coming into the program will have to learn a new system, learn their role within the team, and acclimate to their new school. Also, do we really want our coaches spending time not focusing on coaching? Keeping a majority of players on the roster allows coaches to focus on football, allows the program to maintain "tribal knowledge", and keeps morale high.
Look at Army and Navy…Do we think that two military academies can out recruit the other FBS programs they compete with? The reality is they don't [3] [4]. However, both programs had major success this year because they keep their guys. Those players know the in's and out's of their schemes. Army has a better win percentage than A&M since 2020.
The modern portal area is a year old now. Do major portal overhauls predict success? Not sure there is enough data to make a conclusion…but OSU went 10-2 (worst record since 2020) and supposedly paid millions to get those players. Ole Miss paid millions to build their roster and went 9-1, which is worse than 2023 and on track to meet 2021 win totals. I'd argue the portal only helped Texas, Colorado, and Miami. This argument is not based on any analysis expect an eye test. How were Texas and Miami different from the other top 10 transfer classes? They were smaller/very targeted. Texas got the WRs they needed and some great D players who contributed immediately. Miami picking up Cam Ward & Damien Martinez were immediate impacts…if not the entire offense. Colorado was successful because they got the bodies they needed to field a team.
Imagine this season if we kept Fadil Diggs, Walter Nolan, Bryce Foster, and Evan Stewart. We'd have a different looking defense and a downfield threat that probably stops defenses from "creeping up" on runs.
So how do you think we should use the portal?
PS -> This ASU - ISU game is a stinker.
[1] https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/talent-acquisition/real-costs-recruitment
[2]
https://resources.skillwork.com/cost-of-hiring-new-employee-vs-retaining
- If we are being real this is more of an ad than a study or paper
[4] https://247sports.com/season/2024-football/compositeteamrankings/?Conference=IND
[5]https://247sports.com/Season/2024-Football/TransferTeamRankings/