American Athletic Conference coaches are increasingly open about something that used to be whispered: their programs are part of a feeder system in modern college football, sending standout players to higher-profile schools through the transfer portal.
East Carolina defensive coordinator Blake Harrell captured that shift in attitude with a blunt assessment reported by the New York Times: “If somebody’s not taking your players, you’re probably not doing the right thing.”
His comment reflects a broader, if not universal, acceptance among American Athletic Conference staffs that losing top players upward is now built into the sport’s structure — and that resisting it may be less realistic than learning to work within it.
Coaches Reframe the Transfer Pipeline
The transfer portal is an NCAA mechanism that allows college athletes to declare their intent to transfer and be recruited by other schools. According to the New York Times account, coaches in the American Athletic Conference are not just living with that system; many are reframing it as evidence that their programs are developing talent at a level that attracts national attention.
Harrell’s remark, delivered in that context, suggests a shift from seeing transfers primarily as setbacks to viewing them as a kind of validation. If bigger-budget programs in more prominent conferences are pursuing American Athletic players, the logic goes, those players must have been scouted well and coached effectively.
Within that framing, departures become part of the sales pitch to recruits: come here, perform, and you may play your way into opportunities that once felt out of reach. The Times reporting indicates that this perspective is gaining traction across the league, even as individual coaches may differ on how enthusiastically they embrace it.
A Feeder System, Mostly Embraced
The New York Times report describes American Athletic coaches as “mostly” embracing their place in what amounts to a feeder system for more powerful programs. That qualifier matters. It signals that while the dominant tone is one of acceptance — and, in some cases, strategic use — there are still reservations and variations in how fully coaches buy in.
What is clearer from the reporting is the pattern: American Athletic teams develop players, those players excel, and then some leave for schools with larger brands, bigger stadiums, or more lucrative name, image and likeness (NIL) opportunities. Rather than deny that hierarchy, coaches are starting to speak about it directly.
In practical terms, this means:
- Acknowledging that rosters will turn over more quickly as players test the market.
- Positioning their programs as launchpads rather than final destinations for a portion of their athletes.
- Measuring success not only in wins and losses, but also in how many players draw interest from higher-profile teams.
The Times account grounds this in direct comments from coaches, with Harrell’s quote serving as a concise expression of a mindset that has taken hold around the conference.
Why This Matters for Competition and Strategy
For the American Athletic Conference, the feeder dynamic has direct competitive consequences. When a breakout player leaves, it can reshape a team’s season and alter the balance of power within the league. The New York Times reporting underscores that coaches are adapting their strategies in response, even if the details of those strategies vary by program.
Accepting the feeder role can influence how coaches:
- Recruit high school players, emphasizing development and exposure.
- Allocate playing time, knowing that a strong season may put a player on the radar of larger programs.
- Build depth charts, anticipating that key contributors might depart after a standout year.
While the Times report focuses on the American Athletic Conference, the underlying structure — a hierarchy in which some leagues routinely lose their best players upward — is visible across the sport. What distinguishes this moment, based on the reporting, is how openly American Athletic coaches are talking about it and how they are folding that reality into their public message.
Technology, Scouting and a Global Talent Lens
The New York Times account centers on American college football, but it also sits in a broader landscape where data, video technology and global scouting networks shape how talent is identified and moved.
In that wider context, organizations such as FIFA — world soccer’s governing body — have long overseen international transfer systems in another sport where smaller clubs often function as feeders to wealthier teams. While the Times report does not draw a direct connection between FIFA and the American Athletic Conference, the existence of mature, technology-enabled scouting and transfer structures in global soccer offers a point of comparison for how talent pipelines can evolve and be regulated.
The American Athletic coaches’ comments, as reported, highlight how a similar logic of upward movement is being normalized in college football, even if the rules, institutions and oversight differ substantially from those in FIFA-governed soccer.
What to Watch Next
The New York Times reporting makes clear that many American Athletic coaches are no longer treating the transfer pipeline as an aberration; they are planning around it and, in some cases, using it as proof of concept for their programs.
For readers, the key takeaway is that this is changing how success is defined in parts of college football. In the American Athletic Conference, developing players who move on to bigger stages is increasingly seen — and described publicly — as a sign that a staff is “doing the right thing,” in Harrell’s words.
As additional reporting emerges, the central questions will be how far this acceptance spreads within the conference, how it affects on-field competitiveness, and whether other leagues follow the same path in how they talk about — and build around — the transfer system.
