I don't quite get this argument. First off, most rankings favor classes with more recruits so that is a tad misleading. Second, good players have gone and will continue to go to the Louisiana Lafayettes of the world and they always will. There's just too many underdeveloped or undersized athletes in places like Mississippi. Room will always be made for kids like that. But I agree with most of what you are saying.![]()
Literally every school in the top 50 recruiting rankings has at least 15 recruits for the 2026 class, right now. 6 months out from signing day. Outside of Oregon with 15, the rest of the teams that played in the CFP have 20 or more, again with 6 months to go.
Good high school players, in the US, aren't going to go to a MAC school with the hope of getting a portal offer after a year. With roster limits shrinking, there may be a year or two in the next few years where the portal numbers will be extraordinarily high, but I don't believe any successful team is going to have a recruiting class that is 50/50 high school to transfer portal. Mostly because good teams aren't going to take the risk that Joe 4 or 5 star is going to be unhappy with his original choice and enter the transfer portal.
When the rosters get to 105, teams will have already weeded out the players that can't play at a top D1 level.
Lastly, walkons are a thing of the past.
If teams are recruiting only 15 high school players per year, that would leave a huge number of players going to smaller schools. I am not talking about the outliers that are good players that are under recruited and go to those smaller schools.I don't quite get this argument. First off, most rankings favor classes with more recruits so that is a tad misleading. Second, good players have gone and will continue to go to the Louisiana Lafayettes of the world and they always will. There's just too many underdeveloped or undersized athletes in places like Mississippi. Room will always be made for kids like that. But I agree with most of what you are saying.