Transfer Portal Ratings are Misguided

[Solar]

I noticed how Dillon Gabriel is rated out of the top 10 best portal transfer rankings, then saw Dante Moore in the top 3, then it dawned on me how much years of Eligibility remaining affects the ranking.

 

I think this is misguided. Coaches don't primarily go into the portal for development prospects, the go to fill gaps with people that can start right away, which usually means they've already got a lot of experience and have fewer years of Eligibility remaining.

 

And I think this weighing of eligibility also mis-values risk. Dante Moore could still be kind of a bust, never good enough to start for a national title contender, whereas Dillon Gabriel elevates you to a title contender with little doubt.

 

Therefore I think portal transfers should be rated with no consideration of years of Eligibility and let each year take care of itself.

 

What do you all think?

Edited December 21, 2023 by Solar

[JabbaNoBargain]

Lots of flaws with rating systems abound, especially at QB. With transfers, I do think 2 years versus 1 remaining should increase the rating, all other things being equal. But yeah, if we could only take one QB for next year, no way I take Moore over Gabriel.

[Charles Fischer]

I agree with you: why do teams recruit from the portal?  To get help RIGHT NOW, and thus a Gabriel should be rated ten times higher than an unproven Moore.  

 

[Nevada Dawg]

I don't know the Ducks roster well I admit, but I can see how a talent with multiple years of eligibility would be very attractive if the team has no absolute stud QB already there to be developed. This comment has nothing to say on the subject of immediate portal rankings, but not all guys taken are necessarily valued for their immediate contributions. I suspect Lanning is savvy enough to see such future value in Dante Moore, I applaud the pickup.