Last week, Marshall University associate athletics director Jeff O’Malley met with the university’s board of governors. In his report, he told the board that 60 current athletes were in the transfer portal, a huge uptick from a traditional year of 15 to 20 athletes. “That’s a big change that is going to impact Marshall athletics in the future, both with kids leaving and kids coming in,” O’Malley said.

With the Division I transfer regulations now consistent across all sports, several thousand athletes across Division I have moved into the portal. It’s a moment unlike any other. Speculation is building around programs that the Football Championship Subdivision could become a de facto feeder system to the Football Bowl Subdivision if players can “prove” they are ready to play.

In men’s basketball, insiders believe players will look to “transfer in” with other stronger players, harkening back to when LeBron James took his “talents to South Beach” and joined Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in changing the fortunes of an NBA franchise. Will this be the next version of one-and-done?

Imagine the name, image and likeness deals that could be made around that news. A pay-per-view Zoom conference could be developed, announcing several players joining together to transfer for the 2021-22 year to a specific program. Don’t forget to include the promos to follow the players’ TikTok or Instagram accounts for future sponsorship opportunities.

Years ago, many schools began to utilize an exit survey with their athletes at the end of the season. Last week, the Marshall board asked athletics director Mike Hamrick if those could be made public considering how many athletes had entered the portal; he deferred on the request, indicating the reason for entering the transfer portal should remain between an athlete and the coach. But as the West Virginia Gazette reported, “Hamrick said in most cases the decision becomes a mutual one after a meeting with the coach. ‘In all cases we’ve allowed our coaches to make that decision. In most cases, our coaches are saying, “Once you enter that portal, see ya.”’”

A transfer portal cannot end up like the wild, wild west, yet it appears headed that way. 247Sports’ Jeff Hansen told the Deseret News: “The transfer portal has changed the game for the way college programs manage their roster, but maybe not in the way it appears on the surface. Players hit the transfer portal seemingly every day now and on the surface, that seems like players are really quick to give up on their school and look for greener pastures elsewhere.

“That’s true in some cases, but I think the transfer portal has also convinced college coaches that it’s easier to ask players to move on from their program. When you look at the number of players who enter the portal and don’t find a new home, it’s hard not to wonder if many of those players didn’t have a choice to enter their name into the transfer portal.”

How do administrators know if athletes are being run out of the program? There are differences between men’s and women’s players, and also revenue and non-revenue sports. Men’s revenue coaches have often had the latitude of informing players they no longer “fit” in the upcoming scheme or roster, giving them a head’s up to start looking elsewhere, without any penalty in their employment or contract. On the women’s side (and particularly with non-revenue sports), athletes are more traditionally inclined to report their dissatisfaction with their experience to an administrator first before jumping into the portal.

Both Lead1 and Women Leaders in College Sports, national associations for athletic directors, have recently published “sport supervision” guides, providing their view of best practices on providing administrative oversight of coaches and programs. Each gives a quick mention of performing an exit interview with senior and/or transferring athletes, but what should a sport supervisor do when a number of athletes give no reason (or don’t participate in the survey)? How can they effectively measure a coach’s program management if half the athletes don’t communicate why they are leaving?

There are moments when investigative journalism steps in. Daniel Libit and Jori Epstein wrote a detailed story for USA Today concerning the alleged toxic environment present in Texas Tech’s women’s basketball program. Athlete Mia Castaneda described her experience like this: “It was just the feeling of fear, anxiety, depression. And it wasn’t just a few people—it was our entire team. They were breaking not just the athletes, they were breaking people. And they didn’t realize that.”

If the new transfer portal provides an opportunity for a Division I player to quickly escape an unhealthy situation, that decision can still have negative consequences for her future playing opportunities. The WNBA’s Cheryl Reeve, head coach of the Minnesota Lynx, recently told the Star-Tribune, "I know this is a little bit of the old school coming out, but I probably share the view of most college coaches, that the idea of not seeing something through would be frowned upon. The idea that you didn't take the time and make your decision for the right reasons, and be committed somewhere. But that sounds a little bit old-fashioned.'' She indicated that before the Lynx draft a player, they review their past very carefully. "We vet very closely, maybe the reasons why it happened. If they transferred three times I think you really ought to read into that. They have commitment issues. I think you should really read into it.''

Much has been written about athlete’s rights in the last few years, but less has been discussed about the athlete’s experiences and how that translates into their satisfaction. Certainly, the athlete has a big stake in their athletic experience; it is fair for coaches to expect each player to put in the maximum amount of effort into making it work. However, there are variables outside of the athlete’s control that should be a part of evaluation process as well. Finding the best possible match between a school, coach and player needs to be the goal; an end of season exit survey should only be a starting point.