On Jan. 23, Clemson’s head coach, Dabo Swinney, appeared at a press conference, well-prepared with evidence, chronologies, and allegations.
For years, coaches have lamented the unbridled nature of illicit player recruitment across collegiate football. Yet, this event was unusual: a leading coach publicly revealing the exact ways his program had been wronged. And it wasn’t just any coach, but one with a pair of national championship titles.
He delineated the narrative of Luke Ferrelli, a transfer linebacker from Cal, who had just enrolled at his institution, moved into an apartment, and completed a week of academic instruction and physical training. Then, quite unexpectedly, he departed for greater financial compensation at Ole Miss.
What caused this alteration? Swinney asserted that the new Ole Miss coach, Pete Golding, had messaged Ferrelli during his 8 a.m. class, inquiring, “I know you’re signed. What’s the buyout?” Swinney alleges Golding even transmitted a photograph of a $1 million contractual proposal. Within merely two days, Ferrelli re-entered the transfer portal.
“To me, this scenario resembles having an affair during your honeymoon,” Swinney remarked.
Typically, coaches have been hesitant to go to such public lengths when their athletes are improperly solicited and snatched by rival programs. By now, most acknowledge the inherent double standard: it’s akin to those in fragile structures casting stones.
“We are engaging in the same practices ourselves,” an ACC general manager stated. “If we’re doing it, we’re not going to report others for it.”
However, for Swinney, the situation is distinct. Clemson remained uninvolved in transfer portal recruitment for its initial six years until the previous year, granting Swinney a degree of ethical authority on this matter. He can safely denounce what is improper. Crucially, he is urging the NCAA to take action regarding the situation.
“We will never gain control over this until we begin implementing some repercussions,” Swinney declared. “It’s simply not possible. It’s that straightforward.”
ESPN conducted a survey of over a dozen general managers and sports agents concerning the current state of player tampering in college football amidst the Clemson-Ole Miss dispute. They were granted anonymity in exchange for their forthrightness.
The objective was not to further criticize but to clarify the methodology: How does player tampering actually function in 2026? What are the unwritten conventions, and when are these conventions violated?
We will dissect it into three categories: Tampering 101 (engaging with players before they enter the portal), 201 (finalizing agreements with players before their portal entry), and 301 (the actions Clemson accused Ole Miss of committing).
Any form of interaction between an athlete and a school prior to the athlete’s entry into the transfer portal is deemed impermissible. Nevertheless, the arrival of agents in this evolving era of NIL completely transformed the landscape. Now, it is simpler than ever to pursue an athlete from another institution through their representative, with these dialogues commencing well before the season concludes.
The synergy between agents and general managers, coupled with the introduction of revenue sharing, has dramatically reshaped tampering over the last two offseasons, affecting both strategies and the evolving perception of what is considered legitimate.
The NCAA is currently threatening to intensify enforcement against the rampant pre-portal dealings between agents and educational institutions. Yet, in a period where seemingly no one fears disciplinary action, the actual regulations and ethical boundaries of tampering are being improvised and are subject to debate. Acknowledged, Clemson’s coach does not perceive it this way.
“What is right remains right, even if no one performs it,” Swinney articulated. “And what is wrong remains wrong, even if everyone performs it.”
Tampering Basics: How it Operates Today
As Swinney presented his case against Ole Miss to journalists, he mentioned perceiving three distinct levels of tampering in the contemporary landscape. The most fundamental form—or “tampering 101,” as Swinney termed it—involves corresponding with players who are not yet in the transfer portal.
This communication can manifest in various ways, ranging from text messages and direct messages to postgame handshakes. Virginia Tech defensive lineman Kemari Copeland asserts he even observed a recruiter from a tampering institution present at a game last season.
For numerous years, if college coaches and staff members wished to pursue an athlete from another school, they would find a method to reach them. They would contact their high school coach or connect with a trainer or a family member to convey interest and attempt to convince them to transfer. Coaches understood they risked NCAA penalties for improper contact, thus necessitating caution in making these overtures.
However, now that athletes retain agents, improper contact has significantly escalated.
“The illicit contact became much more audacious and overt,” one agent commented.
The current transfer regulations now render it seemingly impossible to navigate the tumultuous portal process without the assistance of an agent and their extensive network of contacts. This year, the portal window commenced on Jan. 2 and was accessible for only two weeks. To meet registration deadlines, relocating players had to swiftly arrange official visits and negotiate arrangements.
For all stakeholders, tampering has become indispensable. Teams must ascertain who will be available. Players require assurances that they will have a destination. Agents assume the role of facilitator throughout December, if not earlier.
Agents report commencing calls from general managers as early as September last season, and numerous agencies will circulate their client rosters to front offices to initiate discussions. Purdue coach Barry Odom stated his staff obtained a list of impending transfers from an agency that erroneously included Purdue players. By now, these general managers are aware they cannot be naive. While they are conducting preliminary scouting, their own athletes are also being marketed.
“You must recognize that everyone is a potential target at any given moment,” a Big Ten GM remarked.
A Big 12 general manager mentioned having “pacts” with a few GMs within his geographical area. Should an agent market one of their players to him, he will inform his colleagues with the expectation of reciprocity.
“Nobody is going to prioritize others, but we must, in a sense, look out for each other by dealing truthfully,” he elaborated. “Regarding some of them, you’ll think, ‘Yes, I suspected that.’ And with others, you won’t.”
An ACC GM informed ESPN he received a communication in late October and discovered his top wide receiver already had seven-figure proposals on the table from SEC and Big Ten programs. This neither astonished nor troubled him. If you possess talented players, it is unavoidable. There is no point, he expressed, in telephoning the GMs at those schools and condemning them. All one can do is exert effort to try and retain them.
“I do not believe anyone will ever hold a press conference and declare, ‘I lost a player because he approached his agent and conveyed a desire for more compensation in the portal, circulated his name, and received three offers,’” the GM stated. “That is currently referred to as recruitment.”
From the agents’ standpoint, it is not truly tampering or tortious interference when discussing players on expiring one-year contracts. As they perceive it, their clients are entirely within their rights to explore their alternatives.
“I don’t even comprehend why schools become upset about it,” one agent commented. “If you prefer your athlete not to be tampered with, secure them with a fair agreement and
the youngster will not be seeking opportunities elsewhere.”
If a head coach is dismissed mid-season or is evidently under pressure, it’s open season on recruiting their roster. Opposing mentors were pursuing Florida, LSU, and Penn State players long before December arrived. And when a Group of 5 athlete such as North Texas quarterback Drew Mestemaker emerges prominently, Power 4 programs begin forming queues.
There is little enigma remaining. An athlete is not obliged to enter the transfer system to ascertain his worth on other teams. When agents engage in discussions with institutions, they are already aware of the prevailing market value for their client – especially if they are representing multiple athletes in the identical role.
“You are occasionally compelled to engage in illicit contact with these schools, as they are reluctant to compensate their existing athletes,” the same representative contended. “They simply refuse.”
The ongoing growth of administrative departments in college football is reshaping how clubs manage portal recruiting. They are employing a broad search strategy as they develop their transfer target list throughout the playing period.
An illustration provided by an agent from the most recent transfer period: An SEC institution sought a key offensive lineman. Their talent acquisition team conducted thorough research, compiling a roster of desired seasoned athletes. They reached out to representatives of top prospects and indicated their readiness to offer $1 million or more for the ideal candidate.
Does that constitute illicit contact? Or is it merely standard operational practice?
“They likely communicated that to 18 different tackles,” a general manager from a smaller conference institution remarked. “Among major programs, one endeavors to determine the cost and the achievable and unattainable terms.”
Subsequently, the school refines its choices and determines if it will cover the complete cost for SEC experience or economize somewhat with a Group of 5 starter with potential for growth. And whether the linemen desired to join that institution or otherwise, it confirms they are poised for a significant financial reward should they become available for bids.
“Everyone is attempting this approach,” the G5 GM further stated. “Because except for institutions like Texas Tech or Miami, no one possesses the capital to simply bide their time and say, ‘Well, who represents the premier defensive tackle nationwide this season? Let us acquire him.’ We are all seeking athletes effectively on entry-level agreements, figuratively speaking.”
In the initial phase of the transfer system, talent acquisition teams engaged in improper contact with athletes they recognized as pivotal performers and crucial components for the upcoming campaign. With transfer classes of 25 individuals becoming commonplace rather than exceptional, it has transformed into a continuous operation.
“Currently, one might engage in illicit contact for a month with an individual who will be the 80th member of your team’s lineup,” one agent said. “That is the point at which it has merely turned disorderly.”
Tampering 201: The pre-portal deal
Once the transfer window commences, recruitment contests for transfers are rapid and intense and may shift suddenly in unforeseen manners. A key insight general managers and representatives conveyed following the transition to a fortnight-long transfer period: No one can permit themselves to squander any duration.
GMs whose discussions with coveted transfer prospects failed were urgently seeking alternative choices. Representatives were hastily arranging further visits for players whose primary institutions withdrew. For both parties, it’s a fortnight of intense pressure, continuous telecommunications, and scant rest.
Thus, the attractiveness for all involved becomes apparent in securing pledges during December. This practice is termed pre-transferring.
If a GM can persuade a representative to concur on an arrangement prior to the transfer window commencing and ensure their institution receives the initial and sole formal visit, they are prepared to offer a higher sum. Representatives will not dispatch athletes for visits unless both factions are in mutual understanding regarding the agreement’s conditions. If they can bargain solely with an institution favored by their client and circumvent the difficulties of an extended pursuit, it proves advantageous for them as well.
The shift of the transfer period to January rendered December fundamentally a period for illicit contact, resembling, in certain aspects, the NFL’s permitted negotiation window. Athletes certain of their departure declared their intention to join the transfer system on January 2nd. General managers and representatives concurred that upon such a declaration by an athlete, they become legitimate targets. The reason? They desire to be approached and sought after.
As per representatives, the simple method to enable December illicit contact involved tripartite teleconferences. The representative would phone the general manager or mentor, subsequently incorporating the athlete into the conversation. Thus, the representative’s name appears in call records, not the athlete’s. Several even conducted these pre-transfer agent conferences via video call platforms.
“It’s an unpredictable environment, yet if one abstains from such actions, one falls significantly short in the competition,” an SEC general manager remarked.
A representative chuckled while recollecting a press briefing held in December wherein a head coach lamented the numerous flaws within collegiate football.
“They had conducted tripartite calls with their mentors for four distinct clients even in November,” the representative stated. “He stands there delivering eloquent speeches on the evils of illicit contact, while I have been assisting your efforts in illicit contact for a month.”
Pre-transfer discussions do not become earnest, though, until squads are thoroughly engaged in the recompensation process with their current athletes during December and possess a clearer understanding of who remains and who departs. Swinney and fellow mentors have, in certain instances, compared the renegotiation procedure to blackmail and are aware they are competing with representatives who might be exaggerating proposals from rival institutions. However, such is the operational reality in the absence of information or clarity regarding the remuneration of collegiate football athletes.
“To what extent did we contend with deceptive influence in this period? I mean, it is immeasurable,” a Big 12 general manager remarked. “I would estimate a great deal. Nevertheless, I am unable to substantiate it.”
Should a general manager and representative reach a mutually agreeable figure for a pre-transfer accord involving a transfer candidate, then the matter hinges entirely on confidence. Upon the transfer window’s commencement and the moment to finalize the arrangement, will all parties honor their pledges?
A representative who facilitated a defensive lineman’s move to a competitor for a sum exceeding $900,000 declared his covenant with the squad’s general manager was virtually an “unbreakable pledge” upon reaching the agreed-upon figure. He had no intention of betraying them by returning to demand a higher amount or arranging supplementary visits for the athlete, and they would not abandon the athlete if another celebrated defensive end surfaced.
An SEC general manager conveyed exasperation that a pre-transfer understanding for a reserve defensive lineman collapsed when the representative exploited it to procure a more profitable arrangement elsewhere.
“Should you secure a young athlete, you are obligated to fulfill your commitment,” the general manager stated. “Such is the operational standard.”
Numerous other institutions suffered detriment from this with pre-transfer accords that were surpassed by superior proposals or prospects in other locations. Several even missed out on athletes who had consented to arrangements prior to opting to exit the transfer system and remain with their existing institution.
“Within the NFL, if one were to have an individual assent to conditions and subsequently relocate elsewhere two days hence, that would indeed pose a f—ing problem,” a Big Ten general manager commented. “However, it frequently transpires within this domain.”
The situation is reciprocal. A representative for a pass rusher had an arrangement in place with an SEC institution for $800,000. Upon the athlete’s visit and meeting with the head coach, the proposal abruptly diminished to $400,000.
Numerous representatives concluded this rapid transfer period with analogous occurrences of consented agreements that failed to materialize due to administrative departments diminishing their proposals or altering their intentions and withdrawing.
“I would estimate that 90% of the time, I endeavor to ensure the athlete adheres to his commitment,” a different representative mentioned. “However, I have been deceived by the institutions. I would prefer to state that we would never act in such a manner, yet I would
be deceiving you.”
Interference 301: Through any available method
The Clemson-Ole Miss dispute prompts an intriguing inquiry about the illicit contact practice: What do general managers and agents consider overstepping boundaries?
The majority polled by ESPN contend that Golding having immediate communication with Ferrelli after the linebacker registered at Clemson would be an audacious action by a head coach. If the player is contracted and attending school, it’s time to desist.
“Once the student-athlete arrives at the institution, that kind of activity must cease,” an SEC GM stated. “To me, that was the primary transgression in that particular scenario.”
“He’s actively attending lectures,” an agent added. “There’s no justification for it.”
Swinney also asserted that Trinidad Chambliss and Jaxson Dart — Ole Miss’ starting quarterbacks over the past two seasons — participated in messaging Ferrelli to entice him to Ole Miss. General managers view that as a bit of an ambiguous zone, contingent on whether one can substantiate the coaching staff coordinated those endeavors. As one ACC GM put it, “It’s not not an infringement.”
General managers would ideally function in a world where returning players and incoming transfers are unavailable for contact once they’ve formally executed their revenue sharing contracts. But in the concluding period of the portal window, they watched several schools become frantic. In Ole Miss’ case, the Ferrelli pursuit intensified after the Rebels forfeited their primary linebacker TJ Dottery to LSU.
Swinney’s recount of the narrative did elicit some surprise among general managers and agents. Several conceded Ole Miss’ campaign for Ferrelli could’ve ended with the player’s agent, Ryan Williams of Athletes First, curtailing it immediately. Some pondered the reason why Clemson didn’t have Ferrelli secured by an executed profit-sharing agreement, which would’ve given the school a lawful path to claim a termination fee or compensation subsequent to his switch.
“It’s Clemson’s clear culpability for failing to finalize the agreement,” one agent argued. “If you know all this is transpiring, what’s causing such a protracted period to implement the contract?”
The Ferrelli situation was not unique in this transfer window. Multiple general managers told ESPN they had players who had already re-committed receive overtures from Power 4 schools inquiring about the expense of their release clause. The agents typically considered voiding agreements as too problematic to attempt and guaranteed to damage connections with schools. Some said they would even cease representing the athlete if placed in such a predicament.
One ACC GM felt the Ferrelli move was significantly less concerning than Miami snatching prominent quarterback Darian Mensah from Duke at the transfer cutoff. The Hurricanes’ eleventh-hour endeavor to persuade Mensah to switch away from the ACC champs led to Duke initiating legal action against the quarterback and settling for an undisclosed sum to discharge him from his two-year contract.
“It’s like they plundered a financial institution openly, exited unmasked and without any alerts sounding,” the ACC GM said with a slight laugh.
One month after Swinney’s press briefing, NCAA vice president of enforcement Jon Duncan dispatched a memorandum to constituent institutions cautioning that his group has been tasked with seeking “substantial sanctions” for illicit contact infractions — encompassing any communication linking representatives and mentors regarding athletes not listed in the transfer system. He pledged efforts are progressing to modernize and streamline the investigative process for quicker conclusions.
“In essence, engaging in dialogue with a representative for an athlete who is not in the transfer portal constitutes an interference breach,” Duncan wrote.
The NCAA says its compliance unit handled approximately 90 unauthorized contact incidents last year, including significant breaches by Oklahoma State’s women’s tennis program and UCLA’s cross country and track programs.
There have been scarcely any prominent instances of Power 4 programs incurring NCAA sanctions for tampering, though Iowa did get punished for contacting Michigan quarterback Cade McNamara before he joined the transfer database in 2022. The penalties comprised coach Kirk Ferentz and an assistant serving single-game bans — two years after the infraction’s occurrence.
General managers polled by ESPN said they haven’t reported rival programs for illicit contact in recent years because they perceive it as unproductive. It’s challenging to acquire substantiation and establish guilt like Swinney did. More importantly, staffers don’t want the NCAA forensically examining their mobile devices and uncovering evidence of their personal illicit contact endeavors.
That’s one of the numerous obstacles Duncan and his enforcement staff confront: Coaches label the NCAA ineffective but lack enthusiasm for collaborating and submitting pertinent data.
“No one is blameless — except maybe Dabo,” the Group of 5 GM said.
Swinney submitted Clemson’s holdings to the NCAA but asserted this matter should conclude in three days, not three months or three years. There’s another long-standing issue for the NCAA: Schools anticipate immediate retribution and severe sanctions when they’re the complainant and seek equitable procedures and repercussions reduced to an inconsequential level when implicated.
After years of perceived investigative inaction, general managers and agents say they’ll believe accountability will arrive when it materializes.
“Reluctantly, I must admit,” one agent argued, “but the regulations are merely recommendations at this point.”
“Let’s say they do actually sanction Ole Miss or one of these teams,” an SEC GM added. “Ultimately, it’s still going to end up in a courtroom.”
Yet a further hurdle for Duncan and his staff in confronting tampering in major college football: Does membership want to treat this akin to minor traffic infractions with a higher volume of Level III violations? Or do they want harsher repercussions even if it means fewer cases?
The Big 12 GM contends it’s opportune to commence discussions regarding severe sanctions and argued that programs apprehended for serious interference shouldn’t be eligible for the College Football Playoff or the postseason.
“There’s got to be some type of effective consequence to it in order for people to stop doing it,” he argued.
The NCAA’s FBS Oversight Committee offered a window into its thought process last month when it shared proposed penalties for trying to prevent “blind transfers,” preparing for the likelihood that teams will try to convince players to transfer later this spring by circumventing the portal.
The consequence for teams attempting this? A six-game suspension for the head coach, a fine amounting to 20% of the school’s football budget and a reduction of five roster spots for next year.
Tulane accomplished this feat last July when it admitted erstwhile BYU quarterback Jake Retzlaff as a walk-on enrollee months after the transfer deadline. Teams will unavoidably encounter requirements after contending with ailments and roster shortcomings in spring practice. One agent said schools have already talked with him about orchestrating these moves.
“They’re saying get him to exit the institution, he’ll join us as a non-scholarship player, then we’ll compensate him and award him a scholarship a few days later,” the agent said.
Should those sanctions be ratified by the Division I cabinet next month, they’ll likely face legal challenges. But it would send an unequivocal signal the NCAA is prepared to adopt harsher provisions as a deterrence.
Illicit contact has grown so simple to execute that trying to stop it might be futile. Perhaps it’s wiser to confront some of the contributing factors such as rectifying the calendar, regulating agents or dealing with the institutions who are expending considerably past the revenue sharing cap.
Or, perhaps, it’s finally moving in the direction of worker classification for athletes and collective bargaining. By the end of his 90-minute press briefing, Clemson’s head coach admitted he had started to come around to that conclusion, too. Of course, Swinney merely voiced a common sentiment. The current setup has left everyone grasping for answers to a complex problem.
“It’s like trying to halt an uncontrolled locomotive, man,” an ACC GM said.