quote:
I'm totally fine if we focus our resources on retaining existing players and getting young guys out of the portal. A huge benefit of getting a sophomore or RS freshman out of the portal is that they'd have to sit a year if they transfer again, so it's unlikely you'll have to play the annual "this guy isn't happy and we gotta keep him" dance.

It’s a balancing act to be sure, but I think the fact that it’s a one time transfer really changes things from a recruiting strategy standpoint.

To your point, those RS FR and SO recruits are much less likely to transfer again, so in theory you’d want to prioritize HS players who are low-risk to transfer and players in the portal with 3+ years of eligibility.

That being said, the fact that you get extra initial counters for some number (7?) of lost transfers mitigates this to some extent as well. You can afford to take some risks on highly talented guys knowing that if they do leave, you’ll have an opportunity to replace their scholarships.

The optimal strategy might vary by position group and year-to-year roster needs. At positions like OL where experience and knowledge of the system are (arguably) more important than raw talent, I think you’d want to focus on high character guys who you can develop over 3-4 years. But maybe you go all in on a “high risk/high reward” prospect at, say, OT if you’re flush at the position and can afford to lose him to the portal.

A position like WR or CB where raw talent > experience might be the opposite - go get the best guys you can find knowing that if they transfer out, you can probably plug someone in from the portal.

Ultimately I think you still want to minimize the attrition from your HS classes though. All other things being equal, I’d rather sign 25 every year without losing anyone to the portal than sign 32 and lose 7 every year.