Teams have had trouble retaining depth at QB in a system where players can transfer every year. Oregon has been blessed by having Dillon Gabriel follow Bo Nix, and then having Dante Moore be willing to sit a year before taking over. While Dylan Riola's performance over three games has been uneven, without him we would have lost all three games he played in, rather than one.

Next weekend we play an Illinois team that will need to start a true freshman. The same seems likely for Ohio State.

You can only play one QB at a time, and alternating QBs in a game has rarely been productive, although substituting when a QB has not been productive can be, and has been for Oregon the past three weeks.

Other than freshmen, the trend has been for non-starter QBs to transfer. They want to be on the field, which is understandable. Until recent times, having to sit it out a year discouraged transferring until it became apparent that a QB would never start at his present school. Having to redshirt after transferring in most circumstances disincentivized transferring.

As I understand, the rules have been changed effective a date I am not aware of, where the first transfer a player makes does not require sitting a year, but a second transfer would impose that requirement. This might return some level of stability on the QB depth charts. It should also put some breaks on NIL bidding wars.

1 hour ago, Jeff Gilligan said:

Teams have had trouble retaining depth at QB in a system where players can transfer every year. Oregon has been blessed by having Dillon Gabriel follow Bo Nix, and then having Dante Moore be willing to sit a year before taking over. While Dylan Riola's performance over three games has been uneven, without him we would have lost all three games he played in, rather than one.

Next weekend we play an Illinois team that will need to start a true freshman. The same seems likely for Ohio State.

You can only play one QB at a time, and alternating QBs in a game has rarely been productive, although substituting when a QB has not been productive can be, and has been for Oregon the past three weeks.

Other than freshmen, the trend has been for non-starter QBs to transfer. They want to be on the field, which is understandable. Until recent times, having to sit it out a year discouraged transferring until it became apparent that a QB would never start at his present school. Having to redshirt after transferring in most circumstances disincentivized transferring.

As I understand, the rules have been changed effective a date I am not aware of, where the first transfer a player makes does not require sitting a year, but a second transfer would impose that requirement. This might return some level of stability on the QB depth charts. It should also put some breaks on NIL bidding wars.

Sitting out a year if you transfer twice is part of the yet-to-be-approved Protect College Sports bill that has cleared the Senate but will not be addressed by the House until after the November elections.

The "rule" changed July 1, 2026.

But, the new rule requires a transfer during a designated portal period - January, I think. If the athlete meets the calendar requirements, then he/she can transfer more than once and be immediately eligible.

I think that means if a QB has already transferred once and been immediately eligible, he can not do it again unless it is in the January portal. If he goes through spring practice, then wants to transfer again during the summer, he cannot be eligible.

Or, it is possible I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. laugh

I was actually thinking of the legislative proposal, but somehow thought the NCAA had already changed the rule. I think Trump said he would sign it.

"The Senate passed legislation that would create federal rules for college athlete transfers, compensation, eligibility and NCAA enforcement. The Protect College Sports Act passed 77-22 on September 28 and now moves to the House.

Trump has indicated he would sign it. Given the large majority in the Senate, I guess it will pass in the House as well.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Jeff Gilligan

Well, apparently, a difficult hurdle in the House of Representatives.

"Current House Status & Timeline

• Senate Passage: The Senate passed the bill (S. 4668) by a 77–22 vote on September 28, 2026, and sent it to the House.

• House Schedule: House GOP leadership and lawmakers opted not to schedule or take up a vote prior to the midterm elections.

• Next Return Date: The House is on hold until returning on November 9, 2026, for the post-election lame-duck session, though a vote faces significant political and factional hurdles.

Key House Obstacles

• Friction & Alternative Legislation: The bill faces resistance from the House Freedom Caucus, House staff, and members who favor rival proposals like the SCORE Act (which approaches employee restrictions differently).

• Opposition Groups: The Congressional Black Caucus and civil rights organizations have voiced strong opposition to certain provisions.

• Vote Counting: Supporters currently lack a guaranteed path to the 218 votes needed for passage in the House amid debates over conference realignment caps, labor/employment neutrality, and foreign athlete limits."