In the world of college football, the offseason chaos of the transfer portal is drawing renewed scrutiny. The spring transfer window, a short but impactful 10-day period, has been blamed for high-profile disruptions like the departure of Tennessee quarterback Nico Iamaleava. But as coaches publicly lament the portal's timing and its effect on team cohesion, a deeper question emerges: why are the same coaches calling for player restrictions allowed to leave their teams at will—often just days before major games?

Let's not forget: player mobility is a relatively new phenomenon, but coach mobility has long been the norm. Case in point—Brian Kelly. He left Cincinnati before their bowl game to take the Notre Dame job, then bailed on Notre Dame before their bowl game to head to LSU. These aren't isolated examples; they're business as usual in college football. Coaches sign multimillion-dollar contracts with buyout clauses that give them the freedom to chase bigger and better opportunities—often with zero regard for the players and programs they leave behind.

So why the double standard?

At Saluja Law, we believe in fairness and consistency. If coaches are serious about fostering stability and commitment, they should start by holding themselves to the same standards they demand from their players. After all, coaches are mentors—leaders tasked with guiding young student-athletes not just in sport, but in life. When those mentors are the first to jump ship for a better payday, what message does that send?

Yes, the current NIL and transfer landscape is complex. Players seeking better deals or better fits are sometimes portrayed as mercenaries. But can you blame them for following a path that coaches have blazed for decades?

The spring portal window may be imperfect, but it also offers athletes a second chance—especially those who find themselves in unstable or mismatched environments. Coaches frustrated by late roster changes should consider whether the system would be less chaotic if they modeled the very loyalty they now expect from 18- and 19-year-olds.

Let's be clear: we're not against coaches pursuing career growth. But if they want to restrict when and how student-athletes move, they should be willing to apply the same rules to themselves. Until then, attempts to limit player freedom ring hollow.

At Saluja Law, we advocate for a level playing field—on the field, in the classroom, and in the evolving business of college sports.