On3's 2026 Transfer Portal Index Uses Performance Score to Rank Programs

1. Texas

Texas lands at the top of this story because FoxSports confirmed Auburn WR Cam Coleman committed to Texas, and 247Sports pegged Coleman as the top wide receiver and the fourth-ranked portal player. FoxSports’ line — “Longhorns quarterback Arch Manning has a new star to throw to next season” — is the clearest example of a single transfer that can swing a program’s On3 Performance score; On3’s tracker shows team rows with “5-stars/4-stars/3-stars/Adjusted NIL Value,” though the provided On3 excerpt did not include numeric P. Rating values.

3. Alabama

Alabama shows up in the 247Sports top-prospects excerpt multiple times (Keon Keeley and Qua Russaw listed at 0.9300 with Alabama affiliations), tying elite incoming talent to program-level impact. On3’s Team Transfer Portal Index would record those high-end additions in the “5-stars/4-stars/3-stars” fields and fold them into the proprietary algorithm that determines whether a school “improved its overall team talent, stayed the same, or declined.” The On3 snippet in our materials shows those UI fields but not the resulting team rating.

4. Ole Miss

Ole Miss’ portal story is anchored by Auburn QB Deuce Knight committing after the Rebels’ waiver denial for Trinidad Chambliss; FoxSports cites ESPN for the waiver context and 247Sports for Knight’s portal standing (19th-best). A quarterback of Knight’s recruiting pedigree — “one of the top quarterback recruits in the Class of 2025” — is the kind of swing-add that On3’s Performance score is built to quantify at the team level, though the provided On3 page fragment lacks the numeric team ranking to show Ole Miss’ net change.

5. Notre Dame

Notre Dame appears as a team row on the On3 fragment and also surfaces in 247Sports prospect lines (several entries note “+ Notre Dame” as a destination). On3’s tracker design — listing adjusted NIL and star-level additions per team — implies Notre Dame’s portal activity will be summarized visually on that page, but again the excerpt we have contains no Total Avg. P. Rating numbers to confirm whether the Fighting Irish gained or lost talent.

6. LSU

LSU Tigers were listed as a team avatar in the On3 fragment with the same “5-stars/4-stars/3-stars/Adjusted NIL Value” fields that appear across the tracker. The On3 language — that the index “is a live, data‑driven tool that measures how well programs manage the transfer portal for the 2026 cycle” — suggests LSU’s roster churn will be assessed by the P. Rating relative to the program’s baseline, but the supplied snippet didn’t include LSU’s numeric P. Rating.

7. Texas Tech

Texas Tech is notable in the On3 excerpts (it appears multiple times) and is one of the programs displayed with the interface elements On3 uses to summarize portal work. Repeated Texas Tech fragments in the excerpt underline that On3 treats every school as a discrete portal portfolio — counted by star-level add-ins and an Adjusted NIL Value column — yet the critical numeric outputs (Total Avg. P. Rating) were not present in the material we reviewed.

8. Texas A&M

Texas A&M Aggies show up in the On3 team list UI, flagged with placeholders for star counts and Adjusted NIL Value. Given On3’s claim that the Performance score is “compared relative against its roster and not a comparison against other schools,” A&M’s net portal movement would be read against the Aggies’ existing baseline rather than absolute transfer haul — a nuance the tracker promises but the supplied excerpt doesn’t quantify.

9. Auburn

Auburn is the original school for two high-profile transfer entries in the FoxSports excerpts — Cam Coleman (to Texas) and Deuce Knight (to Ole Miss) came out of Auburn — which is the kind of outbound attrition On3’s algorithm should penalize in a team-level Performance rating. The writeup preserves that Coleman “went for over 1,300 receiving yards during his time with the Tigers,” an objective production number that factors into how departures affect a program’s talent ledger on a team tracker.

10. Michigan State

Michigan State is relevant because its top portal wideout, Nick Marsh, committed to Indiana; Marsh’s two-season totals of 100 receptions for 1,311 yards and nine touchdowns are explicit in FoxSports. For On3’s index, losing a proven producer like Marsh would lower Michigan State’s relative roster production metric unless offset by incoming talent — the tracker’s design would capture that trade-off in a P. Rating change, but our excerpt did not show Michigan State’s numeric output.

11. NC State

NC State appears in the 247Sports prospect list with Hollywood Smothers (0.9400, RB, “Enrolled NC State + Texas”) and Terrell Anderson (0.9400, WR, “Committed NC State”). Those are clear incoming prospect entries that would populate On3’s “5/4/3-stars” fields and raise a team’s Performance score if they replace or upgrade existing roster pieces. The On3 snippet included fields for star-level counts, signaling where NC State’s portal value would be summarized, yet the team-level P. Rating number isn’t in the provided excerpt.

12. Arkansas

Arkansas is present twice in the compiled notes: in the On3 team row list (Arkansas Razorbacks Avatar) and in 247Sports (E’Marion Harris listed at 0.9300, OT, “Committed Arkansas”). On3’s “Adjusted NIL Value” column is visible in the UI fragments, and a front-line offensive tackle commit like Harris is exactly the kind of positional addition that drives a program’s roster evaluation in the tracker, though the numeric Total Avg. P. Rating for Arkansas wasn’t included in the excerpt.

13. Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech Hokies are shown in the On3 fragment and in 247Sports prospect mappings (e.g., Luke Reynolds listed with “Penn State + Virginia Tech” ties). On3’s stated method — using the On3 (P)erformance score to measure a team’s production during the transfer process — implies that Virginia Tech’s transfers will be evaluated relative to the Hokies’ roster baseline; however, the supplied page fragments lack the numeric P. Rating that would show where Virginia Tech landed on the 25-team tracker.

14. Baylor

Baylor Bears appear in the On3 row fragments with the same star-level and Adjusted NIL fields; the excerpt preserves the UI text (“Baylor Bears Avatar” and column headings). For program-building, Baylor’s portal moves would be reflected in those star buckets, which feed the proprietary algorithm that determines improvement or decline — an algorithm On3 describes explicitly — but the excerpt contains no Baylor-specific numeric values.

15. Iowa

Iowa Hawkeyes are another team avatar in the On3 snapshot and thus part of the Team Transfer Portal Rankings page. On3’s tool is “live” and “data‑driven,” so the Hawkeyes’ transfer additions and subtractions would be tallied into a P. Rating and a Total Avg. P. Rating display; our research notes include Iowa only in the team list UI excerpt and do not include any numeric ratings.

16. Louisville

Louisville Cardinals are listed in the On3 fragments and would be summarized on the Team Transfer Portal Index with fields for 5/4/3-stars and Adjusted NIL Value. Because On3 states the Performance score compares production relative to a program’s roster, Louisville’s portal hits or losses would be contextualized against the Cardinals’ existing baseline — but the On3 excerpt we have does not include Louisville’s numeric team score to show that change.

17. Rutgers

Rutgers Scarlet Knights are present in the On3 team-row fragments and therefore are part of the 25-team page header (“# 2026 College 25 Team Transfer Portal Rankings”). On3’s UI artifacts — avatars and repeated “Total Avg. P. Rating” headings — indicate Rutgers’ portal activity is captured visually, though the specific numeric P. Rating that would place Rutgers up or down the 25-team list is absent from the provided material.

18. Wake Forest

Wake Forest Demon Deacons appear as a team avatar in the On3 fragment and would be evaluated by the same Performance algorithm that On3 describes. The tracker’s explicit column layout (star counts and Adjusted NIL Value) suggests how the Deacons’ portal business will be communicated to readers, but the numeric Total Avg. P. Rating for Wake Forest was not included in our excerpt.

19. Houston

Houston Cougars are listed in the On3 fragment and included among the teams whose avatars and star-level fields are shown. Because On3 is explicit that its Performance score is “compared relative against its roster,” Houston’s net gain or loss from the portal would be represented by a change in that P. Rating; again, the supplied snippet lacks the numeric values to say where Houston ranks.

20. Tennessee

Tennessee is implicated in the 247Sports prospect block where an unnamed entry reads “0.9300 T Edge 6-5/ 245 Committed Tennessee,” which ties the Volunteers to a top-0.9300-tier prospect in the portal list. That sort of incoming edge rusher is the exact commodity On3’s index is trying to quantify at the program level via its Performance score, and the 247Sports timestamp (“Latest update includes announced and verified entries:2/27/2026 10:26:06 PMCST”) anchors when that prospect list was current.

21. Kansas State

Kansas State appears on the 247Sports list via Tobi Osunsanmi (“0.9400 T Edge 6-3/ 250 Enrolled Kansas State + Indiana”), tying a high-0.9400 prospect to K-State’s portal footprint. On3’s tracker would slot that addition into Kansas State’s star buckets and Adjusted NIL Value field to produce a team-level P. Rating change — the mechanism is explicit in On3’s methodology — but the On3 excerpt does not reveal the resulting numeric ranking for Kansas State.

22. Boise State

Boise State is in the 247Sports fragments via Ty Benefield (“0.9400 T (HS) S 6-2/ 205 Committed Boise State”). A committed high-tier safety like Benefield is the kind of prospect that inflates a program’s transfer ledger in On3’s model, and the On3 tool’s visible interface fields are designed to show that movement; the actual Total Avg. P. Rating reflecting Boise State’s net change wasn’t supplied in the excerpt.

23. California (Cal)

Cal figures in the 247Sports prospect notes with Cade Uluave (“0.9300 T (HS) LB 6-1/ 235 Enrolled California + BYU”), creating a two-school affiliation that highlights how prospects on the 247Sports list can move talent between programs. On3’s index measures transfer production “compared relative against its roster,” so a linebacker addition like Uluave is material to Cal’s P. Rating, but our On3 fragment lacks the numeric team result.

24. BYU

BYU is referenced in 247Sports lines as a destination (e.g., Cade Uluave shows “Enrolled California + BYU”), linking the Cougars to 0.9300-level prospects. Those cross-school prospect notations underscore why On3 models portal work at the team level: to judge whether a program “improved its overall team talent, stayed the same, or declined.” The On3 UI in the excerpt shows where BYU would appear, but not the numeric Total Avg. P. Rating.

25. North Carolina

North Carolina finishes this list because FoxSports explicitly reports Wisconsin QB Billy Edwards Jr. commits to North Carolina, giving the Tar Heels a portal quarterback add. That is the kind of roster-shaping move On3’s Team Transfer Portal Index is built to summarize with a Performance score; the On3 fragments show team avatars, star buckets and an “Adjusted NIL Value” column that would capture the Tar Heels’ net portal effect — unfortunately, the numeric Total Avg. P. Rating for North Carolina was not available in the supplied excerpt, so the precise on-page ranking remains to be pulled from the live tracker.