Transfer Portal Logic Flaws

this needs more attention! I like that the portal is finally accurate but they need to really fix deal breakers and i feel 90% of upperclassmen in the real world would want playing time over anything else even if it meant not playing for a championship contender or brand exposure. There is a serious problem with players transferring from schools where they started 13 games to a school to become a career backup. To more accurately reflect real life, there should be 2 portal stages. This could fix problems such as a team bringing in a starter, and the projected starter (now 2nd string) leaves in the portal if they are an upperclassman. This would also help more accurately round out rosters around the sport and less program reaching 50 overall by year 3.

Your so right, high profile seniors need to have playing time as their nr 1 priority with championship contender a close second and pro potential third

the Miami example is really the worst one as the other ones could be explained, some go to bigger schools expecting to beat the competition. But no one going to a Qb starved Miami is just straight up crazy

Yes, but there aren't position battles in dynasty mode (I wish there was). So you have 85+ ovr seniors transferring to teams just to sit on the bench.  Also, the default roster, (which replicates real-life) has only ONE player that is a senior, 80+ overall that isn't the starter and that's Michigan's Mikey Keene, 81 ovr. So based on real-life, even seniors aren't transferring for position battles, it's too risky. Some real-life examples is Carson Beck, he wouldn't go to Miami if Cam Ward was still there in hopes of a position battle. John Mateer probably wouldn't have went to Oklahoma if Jackson Arnold didn't transfer. Darian Mensah wouldn't have went to Duke unless guaranteed a starting spot over Maalik Murphy, who transferred to Oregon St. Fernando Mendoza choose Indiana over Georgia because he knew he would have a position battle against Gunner Stockton and would potentially have to sit on the bench all season if he lost that battle. That is why Mendoza chose Indiana (smaller, but promising school) over Georgia. 

I agree, actually why not give us options to stop certain players from transferring altogether, it could be a setting in the player profile like transferable: yes/no

Also to add to this.  Players seem to not have a clue that they will most likely be the starter next season.  Had a LT transfer because of playing time, but the SR above him on the depth chart graduated.   Guess who I recruited to be the starting LT next year?  I was able to re-recruit my player back to the team because my playing time at the position was now an A+

They need to factor in snap counts to playing time.  i have had staring HBs in a loaded room, who were 7 or 8 points better OVR than their back up, want to transfer just cause i had a lot of HBs.  yet, as long as he was healthy, he was playing.  similar scenarios with OL.  Since offline hasn't fixed position changes, sometimes i have more of one position and i move them around in the depth chart.  they play every snap, but they wanna transfer cause of playing time

They need to adjust the freshman logic too. It doesn't matter what rating a Freshman QB has on my team he always transfers because of playing time. I am in year 7 of a dynasty and I have had only 1 freshman QB stick around. I had one that was going to start the next year and still transferred. It's not realistic most True Freshman do not play unless they are uber talented or they are at a small school. I always end up with a portal QB and couple true freshmen to backup that will transfer the next year. 

This is an excellent suggestion. Since we already have the ability to view all player transfers and see which players went to the NFL from each team, it would make sense to introduce a setting that allows users to override transfer decisions, not just for their own team but for the CPU as well. A setting called “Transfer Override” could give users direct control, enabling them to force players to stay, similar to the current persuasion mechanic but with guaranteed results when the setting is active. While the ideal solution would be for EA to overhaul and improve the transfer logic to make it more realistic and nuanced, a transfer override option would still add significant value for players who want greater control over roster management. This would be in line with features like Madden’s trade override, providing flexibility and customization for users who care about maintaining competitive balance or simply want to shape the game world according to their preferences.

It seems like the playing time dealbreaker currently only takes into account a player’s immediate playing time situation, rather than factoring in their potential opportunities for playing time in the future. This approach makes sense for seniors who need to see the field right away, but it doesn’t reflect how many younger players actually think about their careers, especially those who are two- or three-star recruits. In real life, it’s common for freshmen, particularly at larger programs that attract a lot of four- and five-star talent, to expect limited playing time during their first year and still be content with their long-term prospects. For a three-star recruit choosing a smaller school, immediate playing time might matter more, but the motivations can vary widely. That’s why it would be more realistic if each player’s transfer or commitment decision was influenced by factors like their age, projected development, star rating, and the competitive landscape of the program they’re joining. For example, Arch Manning committed to Texas knowing he’d likely sit behind Quinn Ewers for a year, but also knowing he would almost certainly be the starting quarterback in 2025. Modeling these nuances would make player decisions far more authentic and dynamic.

I agree completely. A player’s desire for a specific factor, like playing time, should be shaped by variables such as their star rating, overall rating, and class year. Take, for instance, a three-star freshman with a 72 overall and impact potential who commits to Florida. At a powerhouse program like that, he will start low on the depth chart and has yet to prove himself, so if playing time is his dealbreaker, the importance of that factor should reflect his situation. Realistically, his playing time dealbreaker should not be graded higher than a C or C minus, given that he is a newcomer competing for snaps on a stacked roster. If Florida is loaded with upperclassmen at his position, he would have been aware of this before committing, so it is reasonable to expect he would be satisfied with limited playing time, maybe 200 snaps or less, rather than expecting a major role.

For example, the five-star quarterback Malachi Nelson spent last season on the bench at Boise State behind Maddux Madsen. Nelson got limited snaps and sat on the bench majority of the year. The coaching staff informed Nelson that Madsen would remain the starter in 2025, Nelson made the decision to transfer. He ended up at UTEP, a much smaller school, where he could secure guaranteed playing time. Nelson’s situation is telling because as a five-star quarterback, he transferred from two large schools seeking immediate playing time, which he was only able to achieve by going to a small school even. By contrast, seeing three-star freshmen transfer simply because they are not getting snaps is a bit unrealistic. While it does occasionally happen in real life, the frequency with which it occurs in the game does not reflect how these decisions actually play out. Adding this kind of context would make player behavior feel far more authentic.