Ohio State coach Ryan Day said Tuesday that he’s not a fan of the proposal that would bring major changes to the transfer portal windows in college football later this year.
The NCAA announced last week that the FBS Oversight Committee voted to move the winter transfer portal window from December to January, shifting to a 10-day period that would start on Jan. 2, 2026.
The committee also supported eliminating the spring transfer window in April, meaning FBS players would have 10 days in January to enter their name in the NCAA transfer portal if they wish to transfer to another school for the 2026 season.
The Division I Administrative Committee must approve the legislative changes before they’ll go into effect, with a vote expected to occur before Oct. 1. The head coach of the defending national champions hopes it’s not too late to change course.
“No, I don’t think it’s a good idea at all,” Day told reporters at his weekly news conference. “And the conversations we had with the Big Ten coaches, I think the majority of them agree. I just don’t quite understand how teams that are playing in the playoffs are expected to make the decisions and sign their upcoming players while they’re still getting ready to play for games. It doesn’t make any sense to me.”
The January transfer window, if approved, would open one day after the College Football Playoff quarterfinals are completed. This year’s CFP semifinals, the Vrbo Fiesta Bowl and the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl, are scheduled for Jan. 8 and 9, respectively. The transfer portal window would then close on Jan. 11.
Coaches and administrators have been seeking a solution to the difficulty of the December calendar, in which coaching changes, bowl practices and games, transfer recruiting and the high school signing day all collide.
In January, AFCA executive director Craig Bohl said the FBS head coaches he met with at the AFCA convention expressed unanimous support for a single transfer window starting on Jan. 2, viewing the change as a positive to delay departures and ensure more players stay with their teams to finish the season before transferring. Last year’s winter transfer window extended from Dec. 9-28.
Ohio State had nine scholarship players enter their names in the transfer portal during their playoff run, including backup quarterback Devin Brown, and four more departed in late January after the national championship game.
Their schedule and preparation for four playoff games made it challenging to heavily recruit the portal in December and resulted in just six portal additions, though the Buckeyes did add more during the spring transfer window from April 16-25.
“I know the calendar is funky, but I know the Big Ten and [commissioner] Tony Petitti have been working hard, because he doesn’t believe it either,” Day said. “The coaches in the Big Ten, we’ve had a lot of long discussions about that and tried to work through the different windows, but I don’t agree with it being in January.”
How might unlimited transfer windows impact the stability of coaching staff and team dynamics at institutions like Ohio State?
Ohio State’s Day Opposes Proposed Transfer Portal Changes: Concerns About Potential Impact on NCAA Rules and Player Autonomy
Gene Smith’s Stance on Transfer Portal Reform
Ohio State Athletic Director Gene Smith has publicly voiced strong opposition to recent proposals aimed at modifying the NCAA transfer portal rules. His concerns center around the potential for unchecked player movement and the erosion of existing NCAA governance structures. Smith’s statements, made during several media appearances and athletic director forums, highlight a growing tension within college athletics regarding transfer portal rules, NCAA regulations, and player empowerment.
Key Concerns Regarding the Proposed Changes
Smith’s opposition isn’t a blanket rejection of the transfer portal itself.He acknowledges the portal’s benefits for student-athletes seeking new opportunities. However, he’s deeply worried about specific proposed changes that he believes could destabilize the collegiate landscape. These concerns include:
Unlimited Transfer Windows: Proposals to eliminate restrictions on when players can enter the portal are a major sticking point. Smith argues this could lead to constant roster churn, hindering team building and coaching stability. the current system,while imperfect,provides some predictability.
Standardized Transfer Windows: While seemingly a compromise, Smith believes standardized windows could still incentivize players to enter the portal even if they aren’t genuinely seeking a new school, simply to test their market value. This ties into concerns about NIL (name, Image, Likeness) and the increasing influence of collective bargaining.
Reduced Academic Requirements: Loosening academic eligibility requirements for transfers is another area of contention. Smith emphasizes the importance of maintaining academic standards for all student-athletes, arguing that relaxing these standards undermines the core mission of higher education.
Impact on Coaching: Frequent roster turnover makes long-term program building incredibly challenging. Coaches spend notable time recruiting and developing players, and a constant stream of departures disrupts this process. This impacts recruiting strategies and player development.
the Autonomy Debate and player Rights
A central theme in Smith’s critique is the balance between player autonomy and maintaining a fair and competitive playing field. He isn’t against players having more control over their careers, but he fears the proposed changes will disproportionately benefit a small number of elite players while creating chaos for the majority.
Collective Bargaining Concerns: Smith has alluded to the potential for the transfer portal to become a tool for de facto collective bargaining, where players leverage transfer threats to demand more favorable NIL deals.
Power dynamics: He worries that the current trajectory will further concentrate power in the hands of agents and collectives, potentially exploiting student-athletes.
Fair Competition: unlimited transfers could exacerbate existing disparities between programs with significant resources and those with limited budgets. This impacts competitive balance within college sports.
Ohio State’s Position and the “Kilometer Ivy” Factor
Ohio State, as a prominent “Kilometer Ivy” institution – a term referencing large, comprehensive public universities with strong athletic programs – has a significant stake in this debate. The university’s academic reputation and athletic success mean it’s a frequent destination for transfer students.
Maintaining Academic Integrity: OSU’s commitment to academic excellence means it’s less willing to compromise on eligibility standards.
Program Stability: The football program’s consistent success under Ryan Day relies on a degree of roster stability. Frequent transfers could disrupt the team’s chemistry and performance.
Big ten Conference Alignment: Smith’s stance aligns with a growing sentiment within the Big Ten conference to advocate for more measured reforms to the transfer portal.
Potential Solutions and Choice Approaches
Smith hasn’t simply offered criticism; he’s also suggested alternative approaches. These include:
- Tiered Transfer System: A system where transfer eligibility is determined by factors such as academic standing, reason for transfer, and length of enrollment at the previous institution.
- Enhanced Oversight of NIL: Increased clarity and regulation of NIL activities to prevent undue influence on transfer decisions.
- Strengthened Academic Support: Providing more robust academic support services for transfer students to ensure they can succeed academically.
- Standardized Contracts: Exploring the possibility of standardized contracts for student-athletes that address transfer rights and responsibilities.
The Broader Implications for College Athletics
The debate surrounding the transfer portal isn’t just about roster management; it’s about the
