I see a problem with the portal system in that money buys results, and teams that do a lot of coaching, and improve their players get nothing in return. I think that this can be fixed with a new rule that required any team that takes a player from the portal to compensate the team from which the player came.

Thus, if Ohio takes a freshman, and coaches him up, but then loses him to the portal, they would get some compensation. On the other hand, if Ohio were to take a Division 2 or FCS player from the portal, they would have to give up compensation.

That would reward the teams that are actually doing the best job of coaching up their players, and would help to slightly equalize resources, as money would, in general, flow down to P3 to G6, and down from G6 to FCS. I don't know if their is a legal way to actually do this, but I do think it would improve the overall function of the system, and enhance fan interest.

It is already happening. A local Power 4 university is signing multi-year rev share contracts with players with buyouts included if they want to leave early.

So, that could become part of the scholarship offer in the future? That would certainly be a way to accomplish it that could be done right now.

This is actually the 6th recruiting class since the portal and coaches I would think know at this point how to identify players. 5th recruiting class where NIL has been allowed but only the 1st with revenue sharing. A provision in the Score Act is to limit the use of student fees IF your media income is under 50 million but right now there is no limit to using student fees or institutionl money and the cap is to increase to 23 million for 2026-27.

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/nil/college-p...

The question for schools like Ohio what is the best use of resources? Is it for multi-year NIL contracts or bigger signing or performance bonuses for retention? The G6 seems to be sticking toward smaller freshman classes to maximize portal flexibility while the P4 is concerned more about deep NIL pockets for retention. Oregon by even a couple of years had 1 billion in its NIL collectives. In the G6 conferences are beginning to be defined by minimum contributions.

https://www.essentiallysports.com/ncaa-college-football-n... /

I could see a breakaway SBC requiring a 8 to 10 million annual revenue share for participation in it to place distance on other conferences spending less. For Ohio the media revenue probably wouldn't pay for all of that and could have to soak student fees to meet that type of a rule but its possible.

I like it, and of course we can't expect the NCAA or any type of formal structure to bring us change like this so including buyout clauses in NIL deals seems like an option to explore. It might harm the quality of original recruits but if you believe in your player development, it could serve as both a tool to retain your top end guys and a way to obtain resources for future recruitment.

Many colleges have been hesitant to test the legality of buyout clauses when a player transfers mid-NIL contract.

Georgia is testing its clause in court, asking for $390k from standout pass rusher Damon Wilson, who transferred to Mizzou in January. https://t.co/Qg0cvnOmSQ

— Dan Murphy (@DanMurphyESPN) December 5, 2025