The landscape of college athletics continues to evolve, with a new dynamic emerging in the wake of the transfer portal. Whereas the portal itself is designed to provide athletes with opportunities to change schools, a “workaround” involving agents contacting General Managers (GMs) prior to the portal’s opening has come to light, raising questions about the process and potential implications for recruiting. The practice, as highlighted by sports attorney Kristi Dosh, suggests a proactive approach to athlete movement that exists outside the formal transfer system.
Dosh, who frequently comments on the intersection of law and college sports, brought the issue to public attention on July 2, 2025, noting that agents are reaching out to GMs before the transfer portal officially opens. This suggests an attempt to gauge interest and potentially secure landing spots for athletes before they formally enter the portal. The implications of this practice are still unfolding, but it points to a growing sophistication in navigating the complex rules governing college athlete transfers. The transfer portal for football athletes closed on January 19, 2026, according to Forbes, indicating a recent focus on regulating athlete movement in that sport, and potentially influencing practices in basketball and other collegiate sports.
The Evolving Transfer Portal Landscape
The NCAA transfer portal, established to streamline the process for athletes seeking to change schools, has become a central feature of modern college athletics. Initially intended to increase transparency and athlete agency, the portal has too created new challenges for coaches and administrators. The influx of athletes into the portal, particularly in basketball, has led to increased competition for roster spots and a more fluid player movement. This has prompted discussions about potential reforms to the system, including stricter transfer windows and limitations on the number of transfers allowed per team.
The recent developments regarding agents contacting GMs add another layer of complexity. While not explicitly prohibited, this practice raises concerns about potential undue influence and the possibility of circumventing the intended rules of the transfer portal. It also highlights the growing role of agents in college athletics, as they seek to represent athletes and navigate the increasingly complex landscape of name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals and transfer regulations.
What Does This “Workaround” Mean for Athletes?
For athletes, the practice of agents proactively contacting GMs could offer both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it could potentially lead to more favorable landing spots and quicker resolutions to their transfer requests. Having an agent actively seeking opportunities on their behalf could increase their visibility and potentially secure them a spot on a team that aligns with their athletic and academic goals. However, it also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the possibility of athletes being pressured into making decisions that are not in their best interests.
The situation is particularly relevant for athletes who have been cut from their teams due to new roster limits, as Dosh pointed out in her Instagram post. These athletes may be particularly vulnerable and eager to find new opportunities, making them potentially susceptible to undue influence from agents or other parties. The reopening of the transfer portal, as mentioned in the post, provides a crucial lifeline for these athletes, but navigating the process can be challenging.
The Role of Agents and General Managers
The involvement of agents and GMs in this “workaround” suggests a strategic effort to anticipate and influence the flow of athletes through the transfer portal. Agents, acting on behalf of their clients, are seeking to identify potential opportunities and secure commitments from schools before the portal officially opens. GMs, representing the interests of their institutions, are likely evaluating potential transfers and assessing their fit within their programs.
The “workaround” has been agents contacting GMs prior to the transfer portal, but if it wasn’t clear that…
This proactive approach could be seen as a natural evolution of the recruiting process, as agents and GMs seek to gain a competitive advantage in the transfer market. However, it also raises questions about the fairness and transparency of the system. The NCAA has not yet issued a formal statement on this specific practice, but We see likely to be closely monitored as the transfer portal continues to evolve.
Looking Ahead
The NCAA is continually evaluating and adjusting its transfer policies, and it is likely that further changes will be made in the coming years. The organization is facing increasing pressure to balance the rights of athletes with the require to maintain competitive balance and academic integrity. The practice of agents contacting GMs prior to the transfer portal opening will likely be a topic of discussion in these ongoing deliberations. The next key date to watch is the potential release of updated NCAA transfer guidelines, expected before the start of the 2026-2027 academic year.
The evolving dynamics of the transfer portal and the emergence of this “workaround” underscore the need for continued vigilance and adaptation in college athletics. Athletes, coaches, and administrators must navigate this complex landscape with transparency and integrity, ensuring that the interests of all stakeholders are protected.
Have your say: What impact do you feel this practice will have on college athletics? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Related reading
