A National Championship Built Through the Portal
Three years ago, Indiana was 3-9. Last month, the Hoosiers beat Miami 27-21 to complete a 16-0 season and win the national championship. The engine of that transformation? The transfer portal.
Indiana never signed a top-15 high school class under Curt Cignetti. They didn't need to. The transfer portal -- targeted acquisitions of experienced players who fit a specific system and produced immediately. In 2026, Cignetti refined the approach further, bringing in 23 transfers (down from 31 the year before), prioritizing fit over volume.
But here's what makes this more than just an Indiana story: Colorado did the same thing and went 3-9.
Both programs built rosters through the portal. Both were among the most aggressive portal users in the sport. One won a championship. One finished 15th in the Big 12. The portal doesn't guarantee anything -- but the programs that use it well are rewriting the rules of college football.
The Scale: Seven Years of Exponential Growth
The 2025-26 cycle was the largest and most compressed in portal history. The NCAA eliminated the spring transfer window, funneling all activity into a single 15-day January period. According to the NCAA, approximately 3300 FBS scholarship players entered the portal -- part of over 10500 entries across all divisions.
(A note on sources: On3's transfer tracker counted 3464 entries, a higher number because their tracker includes some non-scholarship and walk-on players beyond the NCAA's FBS scholarship count. Throughout this piece, we use the NCAA's figure for headline totals and 247Sports for class quality rankings.)
The year-over-year growth is relentless:
| Cycle | FBS Scholarship Entries |
|---|---|
| 2018-19 | 1561 |
| 2019-20 | 1680 |
| 2020-21 | 1770 |
| 2021-22 | 1946 |
| 2022-23 | 2303 |
| 2023-24 | 2707 |
| 2024-25 | 3000 |
| 2025-26 | 3300 |
That's a 111.4% increase over 7 portal cycles. No plateaus. No decline. Just steady acceleration. And the single-window format didn't slow anything down -- it compressed all of that activity into two weeks.
The most telling number: 39 FBS programs added 20 or more transfers this cycle. Heavy portal usage isn't a strategy for desperate programs anymore. It's standard operating procedure.
The 2026 Transfer Portal Impact Rankings
The title promises rankings, so here they are. The 247Sports transfer class rankings measure aggregate talent quality -- the closest thing to a definitive portal leaderboard.
| Rank | School | Conference | Key Addition |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LSU | SEC | Sam Leavitt (QB), Jordan Seaton (OT), Husan Longstreet (QB) |
| 2 | Ole Miss | SEC | Princewill Umanmielen (DL), Carius Curne (OT) |
| 3 | Texas | SEC | Cam Coleman (WR), Isaiah Bond retained |
| 4 | Miami | ACC | Darian Mensah (QB), Cooper Barkate (WR) |
| 5 | Ohio State | Big Ten | James Smith (DT), Qua Russaw (EDGE) |
| 6 | Penn State | Big Ten | ~24 Iowa State imports via Matt Campbell |
| 7 | Oklahoma State | Big 12 | 50+ additions in full roster overhaul |
| 8 | Indiana | Big Ten | 23 targeted additions, quality-over-volume approach |
| 9 | Texas Tech | Big 12 | Brendan Sorsby (QB) |
| 10 | Kentucky | SEC | Multiple defensive additions |
The SEC dominated with four of the top 10 classes. The Big Ten placed three. The Big 12 took two slots. The ACC had one -- Miami -- but that single class could reshape the conference race.
What Separates the Best Portal Classes
LSU earned the #1 ranking by landing the portal's most complete haul: Sam Leavitt, who Led ASU to the 2024 College Football Playoff as a redshirt freshman; offensive tackle Jordan Seaton from Colorado; and former five-star QB Husan Longstreet from USC as insurance. A proven playoff quarterback, an elite blind-side protector, and depth at the sport's most important position -- all in one window.
Miami pulled off the most targeted haul: quarterback Darian Mensah transferred from Duke with 3,973 pass yds and 34 TDs in 2025, and his favorite target Cooper Barkate came with him. When a QB and his top receiver transfer as a package, the chemistry advantage is immediate.
Ohio State made arguably the highest-upside additions. James Smith -- Former composite 5-star, 6.5 TFL in 2025 -- and Qua Russaw, Former 5-star, committed alongside Smith, both left Alabama for Columbus. Two former five-star defenders from a conference rival.
The Complicated Cases
Some programs defy clean categorization. They appear on both sides of the portal ledger, and their 2026 outcomes will depend on which side outweighs the other.
Oklahoma State lost 64 players after going 1-11 in 2025, then brought in 50 transfers under new head coach Eric Morris. Calling them a "loser" misses the point -- they're a controlled demolition. The old roster failed. The new one is an experiment. Whether 50 new players can gel into a functioning team in eight months will tell us a lot about the limits of portal-built rosters.
Ohio State lost six wide receivers to the portal, including Mylan Graham and Quincy Porter (both to Notre Dame). But the Buckeyes also landed James Smith and Qua Russaw from Alabama -- two former five-stars on the defensive line. Ohio State traded depth at one position for blue-chip talent at another. That's a deliberate gamble, not a roster crisis.
Penn State lost players to the portal under its previous staff and went 7-6 in 2025. Then Matt Campbell arrived from Iowa State and built the #6 portal class by importing roughly two dozen of his own players. Penn State's portal story is really two stories: one about a failing system and one about a coach rebuilding through relationships.
The Losers: Programs That Came Out Worse
The genuine portal losers aren't the programs with high turnover. They're the ones where the outgoing talent wasn't replaced -- or where volume couldn't compensate for the absence of a coherent plan.
Iowa State lost 50 players, including 15 starters, when Campbell left for Penn State. Many of those players followed their coach to State College. For Iowa State, the portal didn't just take their roster -- it handed it to a conference rival. That's the harshest version of coaching-carousel-meets-portal: you don't just lose your coach, you lose the players he developed.
Colorado is the cautionary tale. Through the 2024 cycle, the Buffaloes had imported 101 transfers -- more than any program in the country. They'd also exported 137. In 2025, the result of all that churn was a 3-9 record and a 15th-place finish in the Big 12. Colorado proves that portal volume without coaching integration produces roster churn, not wins. Compare that to Indiana's approach -- fewer transfers, better fits, a national championship.
Alabama suffered its second consecutive cycle of elite talent departures since Nick Saban's retirement. This year, former five-stars James Smith and Qua Russaw left for Ohio State, and Isaiah Horton went to Texas A&M. The common thread isn't scheme fit or playing time -- it's NIL. When a program's five-stars choose to leave for conference rivals, the financial incentives elsewhere have outpaced what the program can offer. The portal is the mechanism, but NIL is the engine driving elite talent movement.
The NIL Factor
Any analysis of portal movement that ignores NIL is incomplete. The portal provides the mechanism for player movement, but name, image, and likeness compensation is increasingly what triggers it.
ESPN specifically noted the rising "price" of portal quarterbacks this cycle. When a player like Darian Mensah (who threw for nearly 4,000 yards at Duke) transfers to Miami, scheme fit matters -- but so does the financial package that made Miami more attractive than staying in Durham.
Alabama's continued exodus is the clearest NIL signal. Saban-era players chose Alabama for culture and development. Post-Saban, those players have options, and programs with aggressive NIL collectives are exercising them. James Smith and Qua Russaw didn't leave Alabama because Ohio State runs a better defensive scheme. They left because the total value proposition changed.
This dynamic compounds the portal's impact on competitive balance. Programs with strong NIL operations can use the portal to poach elite talent from programs in transition. Programs without NIL infrastructure lose players to the portal and can't replace them at the same level. The rich get richer -- but the definition of "rich" has shifted from recruiting rankings to collective budgets.
Position Economics: What the Portal Market Reveals
The portal is a market, and the supply-demand dynamics reveal what coaches actually value.
Wide receiver was the deepest position group at the top of the rankings, with seven or more players carrying a 0.94+ rating. Deepest position group at the top of the rankings. 7+ players with 0.94+ rating. Ohio State lost 6 WRs to the portal. The depth at receiver reflects both the spread-offense era's demand for multiple pass catchers and the position's relative plug-and-play nature compared to linemen.
Quarterback grabbed headlines but was shallow at the elite level early in the window. Shallow at the elite level early in the window. Cycle ultimately produced Leavitt, Sorsby, Mensah, Raiola, and Longstreet among others. Programs that moved fastest -- LSU landing Leavitt, Texas Tech securing Sorsby, Miami grabbing Mensah -- gained a structural advantage over programs still evaluating options on day five of a 15-day window.
Defensive line and edge production was strong. Strong cycle headlined by Smith, Russaw, Chaz Coleman, and Umanmielen. Offensive tackle remains a premium portal commodity: Premium position: Seaton (Colorado to LSU), Curne (LSU to Ole Miss), Heard (Tennessee to Kentucky). When Jordan Seaton left Colorado for LSU, he was choosing to protect a proven playoff quarterback rather than anchor a 3-9 team. The portal lets elite players optimize their own careers, and the best players are making rational choices.
What the Portal Does (and Doesn't) Predict
The portal's predictive value is real, but it's more nuanced than "more transfers equals more wins."
Indiana and Colorado both aggressively used the portal. Indiana won a national championship. Colorado went 3-9. The difference wasn't volume -- it was integration. Cignetti built a system first and found portal players who fit it. Colorado imported talent without a stable coaching identity to build around.
The data suggests a more precise thesis than "portal strategy beats recruiting":
Programs with a clear scheme identity and a track record of developing transfers (Indiana, Arizona State in 2024) outperform programs that stockpile portal talent without a coherent plan (Colorado, Penn State in 2025).
This matters for anyone building preseason projections. A model that weights portal acquisitions by positional need and scheme fit -- not just star ratings -- would have flagged Indiana as a breakout candidate in 2024 and a championship contender in 2025. It also would have flagged Colorado's churn as a red flag rather than a strength. Recruiting rankings alone missed both calls.
For more on how team-level efficiency metrics inform projections, see our SP+ ratings explainer.
What This Means for 2026
The portal window is closed. Rosters are largely set. Three predictions:
1. LSU enters as a legitimate national title contender. The #1 transfer class isn't just a ranking -- it's targeted upgrades at quarterback, offensive line, and defensive line. Sam Leavitt provides a proven playoff quarterback. Jordan Seaton provides an elite blind-side protector. Brian Kelly has assembled his best roster since arriving in Baton Rouge.
2. Oklahoma State and Penn State are the highest-variance teams in the country. Both executed massive roster overhauls through the portal. Both have new systems and new players learning new schemes. If the integration works, either could surprise. If it doesn't, the same portal churn that fueled Colorado's 3-9 season is the cautionary tale.
3. Portal saturation is the emerging crisis nobody's talking about. Over 1200 FBS scholarship players remained without a landing spot when the window closed, per NCAA estimates. Another 561 withdrew from On3's tracker entirely. Elite talent will always find a home. But for three-star players hoping to trade up, the math is getting worse every year. The portal's growth rate is outpacing available roster spots, and the human cost -- players left without a team -- deserves more scrutiny than it's getting.
The transfer portal has permanently altered how college football rosters are built. Indiana's championship proved the model works. Colorado's collapse proved it can fail spectacularly. The difference is coaching, scheme fit, and increasingly, NIL resources.
The programs that understand all three will define the next era of the sport.
Related Analysis
- Understanding SP+ Ratings: What They Actually Measure -- The team efficiency metrics that inform projections
- The Saban Coaching Tree: Where Are They Now? -- How Saban's assistants are reshaping the programs at the center of the portal
- What is Coaching DNA? -- The analytical framework behind coaching evaluation
- Why Predicting College Football Is So Hard -- The complexity problem that the portal amplifies
Sources and Methodology
Transfer entry totals from the NCAA Division I transfer data reports. Transfer class quality rankings from 247Sports 2026 transfer team rankings. Individual player tracking data from On3 transfer portal tracker. Reporting context from ESPN and CBS Sports. Historical transfer data (2021-2024) from our internal database of 9923 tracked transfers. Data pulled February 2026.