The opening week of the NCAA Men’s hockey transfer portal was busy to say the least with over 300 players entering the portal and over 150 commitments thus far through the first six days. We break down where things stand as we head into the final week.
Teams
Portal Entrants
Roughly 15% of college hockey players are in the NCAA Transfer portal so far. There are 16 teams who have at least 25% of their roster in the NCAA Transfer portal (not including Mercyhurst which is no longer an NCAA D1 program).
| Team | Portal Entrants |
| Alaska-Ancorage | 12 |
| Alaska-Fairbanks | 11 |
| Arizona State | 10 |
| Lake Superior | 10 |
| New Hampshire | 9 |
| RPI | 9 |
| UMass Amherst | 8 |
| Merrimack | 8 |
| Maine | 8 |
| St. Cloud | 8 |
| Northern Michigan | 8 |
| Ferris State | 7 |
| North Dakota | 7 |
| Lindenwood | 7 |
| Minnesota | 7 |
| Sacred Heart | 7 |
Portal Commitments
As of Sunday monring, over half the NCAA portal is uncommitted so there is far less players on the incoming said than the exiting side but there are 9 teams who have 5 or more commits at this time.
| Team | Portal Commits |
| Arizona State | 10 |
| Minnesota | 6 |
| New Hampshire | 6 |
| Ferris State | 6 |
| Alaska-Fairbanks | 6 |
| Canisius | 5 |
| Lake Superior | 5 |
| Sacred Heart | 5 |
| St. Thomas | 5 |
Portal Class Rankings
Our scouts have broken down the recruting class rankings for both Incoming Freshman and Transfer Portal. For a snippet of what is there:
Top 10 NCAA Transfer Portal Recruiting Class – Aggregate
| Rank | School | League | Commits | Avg Rate | Points |
| 1 | Arizona State | NCHC | 10 | 3.9 | 683.13 |
| 2 | Minnesota | Big 10 | 5 | 4.15 | 491.13 |
| 3 | Notre Dame | Big 10 | 4 | 4.06 | 387.54 |
| 4 | Maine | Hockey East | 6 | 3.83 | 360.21 |
| 5 | New Hampshire | Hockey East | 6 | 3.79 | 328.27 |
| 6 | Canisius | Atlantic | 6 | 3.67 | 299.14 |
| 7 | Michigan State | Big 10 | 3 | 4.08 | 287.81 |
| 8 | Wisconsin | Big 10 | 3 | 4.17 | 286.18 |
| 9 | Alaska Fairbanks | Independent | 6 | 3.58 | 283.62 |
| 10 | Sacred Heart | Atlantic | 5 | 3.75 | 282.81 |
Top 10 NCAA Transfer Portal Class – Quality (Avg Star Rate)
| Rank | School | League | Commits | Avg Rate | Points |
| 1 | Connecticut | Hockey East | 1 | 4.25 | 100.19 |
| T-1 | Providence | Hockey East | 1 | 4.25 | 121.09 |
| T-1 | Ohio State | Big 10 | 2 | 4.25 | 216.82 |
| 4 | Wisconsin | Big 10 | 3 | 4.17 | 286.18 |
| 5 | Minnesota | Big 10 | 5 | 4.15 | 491.13 |
| 6 | Western Michigan | NCHC | 2 | 4.13 | 193.16 |
| 7 | Michigan State | Big 10 | 3 | 4.08 | 287.81 |
| 8 | Notre Dame | Big 10 | 4 | 4.06 | 387.54 |
| 9 | UMass Amherst | Hockey East | 1 | 4 | 72.07 |
| T-9 | Penn State | Big 10 | 1 | 4 | 72.07 |
| T-9 | Colorado College | NCHC | 1 | 4 | 82.4 |
| T-9 | Northeastern | Hockey East | 3 | 4 | 239.08 |
Winners / Losers of Week #1
It’s only halfway through the portal season so things are still subject to chagne but so far we identifieid three of the biggest winners and losers.
Winners
Minnesota – The Gophers lost five players ranked in the Top 80 portal prospects on Day #1 with four of those players in the Top 50 but just one in the Top 25. They replaced that with five commits from the Top 10 Portal Prospect Rankings. They also upgraded at the goaltending position which was a priority for them this off-season. Gophers are a much better team than last year given their portal entrants alone which is saying a lot.
Wisconsin – The Badgers didn’t lose anything in the portal and pick up three of the best players in three different positions. They landed the #1 ranked goalie in the portal this cycle; they landed the #3 ranked forward and the #11 ranked defenseman. Wisconsin didn’t go for quantity – they went for quality upgrades in specific positional groups and have upgrades at each position. These players all have multiple yeas of eligibility as well with real experience under their belt.
Notre Dame – The Fighting Irish didn’t lose a single player ranked in the Top 80 Portal Prospect Rankings and pick up four players ranked in the Top 50; three of which are in the Top 25. They added sized, talent and all four are immediate impact players for them next season.
Honorable Mentions: New Hampshire lost 9 players in the portal and picked up 6 so far; that might initially look like a net loss but they moved on from depth players and added upgrades at each position. They lost one player in the Top 80 and picked up three; they have two potential quality starters in net, a versatile defenseman and goal scoring upfront. Michigan State only has two in the portal at this point as their recruiting prowess is in the Incoming Freshman Class (currently ranked #3) but they hauled in the nations best portal prospect in Cullen Potter and #44 ranked forward out of Minnesota who will play an important role for the Spartans. Ohio State has only two commits at this point but they didn’t lose anyone ranked in the Top 50 yet added the #1 ranked defenseman in this portal class and #43 ranked forward with Big 10 expereince. Arizona State makes the list because they lost 10 players in the portal including seven in the Top 80 and the #1 overall ranked player and yet responded with the #1 ranked NCAA Transfer Portal Class Ranking. They have added 10 in this class with six of them ranked in the Top 50.
Losers
Lindenwood – The Lions had a strong recruiting class last year for incoming coach Keith Fisher but lost their top five scorers – all of which are underclasmen. They were quick to get Mercyhurst’s best players but losing three players in the Top 60 and proven players with 2 and 3 years of eligibilty is tough to overcome.
Alaska Anchorage – Anchorage have lost 12 players in the portal which leads the country so far and only have one player to replace them which is Connor Brown out of the USHL who previously played for Western Michigan. They’ll likely make moves in week two but at this point they took hits in their top six forwards, top four defenders and starting goalie.
St. Cloud – The Huskies made a homerun hire in Nick Oliver but timing wasn’t ideal as he walked into the new job with three of his best players in the portal; three of the top ten prospects in the portal. To their credit they’ve added three players in the Top 80 so far to help fill some of the void.
Players
With over 300 players in the portal; we break down the prospects and their star ratings and rankings.
Star Rating Breakdown
| Rate | # of Players | % of Players |
| 5 | 0 | 0% |
| 4.75 | 0 | 0% |
| 4.5 | 3 | 1% |
| 4.25 | 12 | 4% |
| 4.0 | 42 | 14% |
| 3.75 | 120 | 40% |
| 3.5 | 99 | 33% |
| Below 3.5 | 24 | 8% |
While the transfer portal is a crucial time for both players and coaches – there isn’t a ton of high-end prospects in the protal each year. The 4.25-star prospects and above are “difference maker” level players and they represent 5% of the transfer portal this cycle. Of the 4.0’s who are impact players, they represent an additional 14% of the player pool so in total there are roughly 20% of the players who would be considered uppper eschlon players. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of the portal, 80%+, are pieces of a teams puzzle but likely not feature players. The 3.75-calber prospects are average to above average NCAA D1 players who can play a role, typically stay for four years and provide depth and balance on a roster.
The top prospects have mostly been taken at this point except for Justin Poirier at Maine who hasn’t officially entered the portal but rumored to be soon.
| Rate | # of Players | # Commited | % Committed |
| 4.5 | 3 | 2 | 66.67% |
| 4.25 | 12 | 11 | 91.67% |
| 4.0 | 42 | 38 | 90.48% |
| 3.75 | 120 | 71 | 59.17% |
| 3.5 | 99 | 28 | 28.28% |
| Below 3.5 | 24 | 0 | 0.00% |
Top 10 Transfer Portal Commitments
| Rank | Name | Pos | 25-26 | 26-27 | Rate |
| 1 | |Cullen^Potter| | F | Arizona St | Michigan State | 4.5 |
| 2 | |Sascha^Boumedienne| | D | Boston University | Ohio State | 4.5 |
| 3 | |JJ^Wiebusch| | F | Penn State | Wisconsin | 4.25 |
| 4 | |Austin^Burnevik| | F | St. Cloud | Minnesota | 4.25 |
| 5 | |Alexis^Cournoyer| | G | Cornell | Wisconsin | 4.25 |
| 6 | |Tanner^Henricks| | D | St. Cloud | Minnesota | 4.25 |
| 7 | |Evan^Murr| | F | Minnesota State | Minnesota | 4.25 |
| 8 | |Jeremy^Loranger| | F | Nebraska-Omaha | Connecticut | 4.25 |
| 9 | |Finn^Loftus| | D | St. Cloud | Minnesota | 4.25 |
| 10 | |Leo^Gruba| | D | Minnesota | Notre Dame | 4.25 |
Navigating the Portal
There are a finite number of rosters spots and a finite number of scholarship and NIL opportunties in college hockey so navigating the transfer portal is a balancing act. While programs are looking to add immediate impact players – they also need to balance recruiting and retaining their incoming freshman classes. This dynamic has led to some de-commitments, it has led to reallocating money and it has pushed several players back a year in their commitment window. It’s not as simple as pick up a player from another school – there are ripple effects that are felt at the junior level.
The dynamics of the portal are largely overblown by media who run on rumor mill and not direct knowledge; the reality is top prospects in the portal can garner financial attention but outside of the top 25 players or so; there NIL is quite limited. In fact, talking with over a dozen coaches this weekend they explained their allocation is weaited heavily on retention of current players and incoming freshman with trasnfers being the third priority. As we reported early on, the transfer market is more geared towards opportunity, fit, coaching and relationships.
We have seen some of the top programs like Denver, Michigan, Boston University, to name a few, haven’t committed a single player out of the portal yet. Those programs are trying to land some elite players out of the CHL and making sure they have room both in roster and in NIL to make that work. The issue comes down to the calendar becasue there are a lot of uncommitted 4.25 star and above prospects in the CHL but remain uncommitted at this point. Some are still in playoffs, some are at World U18’s and some are preparing of the upcoming NHL Draft. A lot of things need to be settled before someof them are ready to make a decsiions and for older players they’ll llikely wait until NHL training camps training camps so teams without rosters spots will miss out on some of these opportunities if they fill up in the portal. Hense the delicate balance and the highly influential role agents play in this portal period.
What to expect this week?
As of now only the top tier goalies have committed, they typically set the market as plug and play starters and the rest settle after that. There are a lot of talented goalies without a home in the portal and wouldn’t be suprised to see a run on goalies this week.
Independents and smaller market programs, in aggregate, took a hit on week 1 but what we are hearing is they’ll make a strong push in week 2 to recoup some of what they lost. Also, there are a few 4.0 stars and above who are still contemplating entering the protal so while most of the field is set at this point – there could be a few more noteable names to enter this week.
There is roughly 50% of the transfer portal already laded in NCAA D1 schools; typically there are about 70-75% will commit so there is roughly 75 or so players left to commit if those historical trends hold. However, we are hearing several names slooking at ACHA programs and NCAA DIII programs so wouldn’t be suprised to see some of those commitments this week.
Our subscribers can follow along this week to see up to date changes on Transfer Portal Class Rankings, Transfer Portal Player Rankings and Top Free Agent Portal Rankings. For Free we have a transfer portal main page where fans can see up to date player movement in the portal.