Those in positions of power would describe full-fledged rebellion as "inmates running the asylum," and refer to such a concept in some derogatory manner. As this pertains to college football, empowering the student-athletes to seek more leverage elsewhere, based on earning potential, is something that can only benefit the sport.
Seeing stud quarterbacks Dillon Gabriel, Cam Ward, Kyle McCord, and former five-star quarterback recruit Dante Moore all enter the transfer portal at once was surprising, but not shocking. Yes, they all could've had success at their current programs next season, but the grass always appears greener on the other side of the street.
With higher earning potentials available elsewhere for both Gabriel and Ward at schools that'll offer them more visibility during their senior seasons, it was understandable that they had loftier expectations. As for McCord and Moore, a change of scenery that better positioned them for immediate success was needed -- and perhaps they can reel in a few more bucks along the way.
The evolution of destigmatizing the college transfer portal happened slowly, but quickly became the expectation, as opposed to the anomaly. From 2018 to 2020, three consecutive No. 1 NFL Draft picks had previously transferred. Others taken later, like Jalen Hurts and Justin Fields, also switched schools.
Between Hurts, Joe Burrow, and Kyler Murray, it's proven that transferring is sometimes a necessity that enables someone at the game's most important position to find a better fit for themselves. There's nothing wrong with an 18-year-old admitting he made the wrong choice. Teenagers are mistake-prone.
Situations are fluid, priorities shift, and the coaches so insistent on grooming young men often fail to keep promises. As a matter of fact, those who preach the value of loyalty are usually the first ones to leave a school for the slightest raise at another institution. The hypocrisy in the situation and the enablement from coaches -- allowing them to line their pockets with endless amounts of cash and flashy lifestyles for years -- speaks to why a change was necessary. While coaches are the most impacted, they profited off the labor of student-athletes who weren't able to receive a single penny. Now, that's changed.
The notion that college-athletes shouldn't be able to make millions of dollars is almost more foolish than the complaining coaches. Players should be paid based on production and their value to a specific program. Perhaps watching a guy like Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders drive around in a Maybach has raised questions about how student-athletes should spend their money. But this discussion should be more about better educating high-earners on managing finances, not taking away their cash because it's "unfair."
In contrast to playing another position, where multiple players see the field, typically just one quarterback gets to play, making their situation particularly unique. When you're the starter or relegated to signaling in the plays on the sidelines, the need to find a perfect destination is that much greater. This is why the recent developments in Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), and the transfer portal are so beneficial to college quarterbacks, specifically. Maybe trends favor schools with the most money, but that's free-market capitalism.
With a limited supply of talented signal-callers and a high demand for them, they ultimately have the most leverage. They have higher marketability than any other position in college football, and can afford to be extremely picky when picking a school and vetting potential transfer destinations. Trying to downplay the reality of the matter only lessens the credibility of someone who argue that it's not morally right.
There's also the learning curve and schematic fit aspect of this. Adjusting to the level of play in college is a lot different than it is in high school, meaning there's typically a learning curve. Also, the revolving door of coaches and an inability to anticipate how one's skills will translate to a specific scheme make it much harder for a player to adjust. If one place isn't going to position them for success or maximize their production, then how can someone force them to stick around?
While college football's twist on free agency might feel more like a game of musical chairs than selecting a match on "The Bachelor," allowing blue-chip pieces of a program to be the main beneficiaries outweighs any perceived negatives. Therefore, college football's new quarterback carousel is a rare exception where opening up the jail cells and letting the prisoners write the rules is the best move.
