As the calendar shifts toward a single transfer portal window, many college football programs find themselves grappling with strategic challenges that were once predictable. While past offseason training and spring practice allowed teams to strategically move players, the loss of a spring portal window has created unprecedented tension among some institutions. This adjustment, though necessary for consistency, has left some teams particularly vulnerable. Let’s explore which colleges were most affected by this change.
Clemson (https://www.on3.com/sites/tiger-illustrated/): Dabo Swinney and Clemson were proactive in the transfer portal this cycle, adding 10 new players but failing to address the quarterback position. The Tigers’ offensive line now relies heavily on inexperienced talent, leaving behind a roster that may struggle to produce in 2026. Personally, I think this shift highlights the growing importance of scouting and adapting to evolving player needs.
Iowa (https://www.on3.com/teams/iowa-hawkeyes/): Despite its steadiness, Iowa’s lack of a transfer portal window has exposed a deep-rooted issue. The Hawkeyes’ defensive group is underfunded and lacks a proven production, even with a strong starting lineup. What many people overlook is that talent acquisition doesn’t always come easily—this pipeline requires careful management to avoid complacency.
Iowa State (https://www.on3.com/sites/cyclone-report/): Jimmy Rogers is rebuilding the program after years of instability, while Matt Campbell brings valuable talent to Penn State. However, the absence of a transfer portal means Iowa State can’t fully explore other defense options or develop backups effectively. A second window could’ve offered more opportunities for offensive linemen, potentially improving the team’s overall performance.
LSU (https://www.on3.com/teams/lsu-tigers/): Lane Kiffin’s return to LSU was initially met with skepticism, but the spring transfer portal window allowed him to rebuild his coaching style. Similar to how many schools prioritize experience over youth, LSU aims to build a strong foundation before stepping into uncertain roles. Personally, I think this trend shows how football programs are increasingly focused on building legacy rather than just short-term gains.
Ohio State (https://www.on3.com/teams/ohio-state-buckeyes/): Ohio State returned much of its offense during the portal, showing promise in 2026. But a second window could’ve provided more flexibility for defense. The hope is that the backups developed better from now until the season began. What many people don’t realize is that depth comes from both strength and experience.
Tennessee (https://www.on3.com/teams/tennessee-volunteers/): Tennessee’s reliance on Ryan Staub and freshman Brandon led to uncertainty regarding future quarterbacks. With a portal window, they might have found a more experienced option, but the Vols will settle for what they have. Personally, I think this highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing tradition with innovation in football strategies.
Texas (https://www.on3.com/teams/texas-longhorns/): Texas improved its offense through the portal, adding Cam Coleman and Arch Manning. However, the lack of depth raises questions about potential injuries. If a player is injured, the portal might have helped secure backup positions earlier in the season.
Texas Tech (https://www.on3.com/sites/red-raider-sports/): Texas Tech built its roster with the portal, showcasing its ability to adapt. The Red Raiders won the Big 12 and reached the playoffs last year, which would have been ideal with the portal. However, the QB’s indefinite leave for gambling adds uncertainty, making the portal a less attractive option now.
These changes show how football programs are adjusting to new formats, emphasizing the importance of scouting and player development. As the portal window remains a key part of college football, it continues to shape the landscape of the sport.
