In the transfer portal era, does protecting your home state in recruiting really matter as much as it used to? We explore as it pertains to the Michigan Wolverines:
As the college football landscape continues to evolve, so too has high school recruiting. The obvious changes have been discussed ad nauseam, but there are also other more subtle changes at play. The introduction of NIL has made it easier to pluck players from anywhere in the country, so does that diminish the need to protect your home state?
The Wolverines have had at least one player from the state of Michigan sign with them as far back as 247Sports’ data goes back — 1999. However, Michigan’s 2026 class currently has zero in-state prospects committed. A look at the rankings of the top players in the state shows most of them have committed elsewhere, with Cass Tech’s CJ Sadler as the only prospect Michigan appears to be recruiting, though he may not be a take by the Wolverines at this juncture.
It’s looking more and more likely that 2026 will be the first Michigan recruiting class without an in-state prospect in it. The question of the day is this: is that a big deal?
Looking at the recent history is a good way to start. In the 2025 class, Michigan signed four in-state prospects: Bryce Underwood (No. 1 in the state), Elijah Dotson (No. 2), Avery Gach (No. 5), and Bobby Kanka (No. 10). In 2024, Michigan signed three of the top-seven in the state in Brady Prieskorn, Jeremiah Beasley, and Jacob Oden, though Beasley has already transferred elsewhere. In 2023, Michigan again signed three of the top seven players in the state, but two of those three have now transferred out, with only Semaj Morgan remaining. In 2022, Will Johnson was the top player in the state, but was also the only in-state prospect to commit to the Wolverines.
It’s pretty clear to see that in-state recruiting has not been a priority for Michigan as of late. This is a stark contrast to the mid-2000s when Michigan was routinely taking half of the top-10 in-state prospects or more. For example, six of the top-11 in-state prospects committed to Michigan in 2004, while five of the top-10 went to Michigan in 2005.
All this begs one big question — has the in-state talent decreased, or have the Wolverines simply focused less on in-state recruiting?
In the 2025 NFL Draft, nine players originally from Michigan were drafted . Interestingly, only 10 high schools had multiple players drafted this year with Detroit’s Cass Tech being one of them (Deone Walker and Kobe King). Looking historically, there has actually been a slight trend upward of players from the state of Michigan being drafted. While there is no true barometer of talent, this is a very strong indicator the talent level of Michigan prospects has not decreased.
If Michigan has focused less on in-state recruiting, how big of a deal is that? The answer appears to be “not very.”
Michigan has historically recruited the state well and supplemented that with other states such as Florida, Ohio and Texas. No one would have mistaken Michigan’s recruiting philosophy as a national search, but in the era of NIL and the explosion of television rights, it appears geography has become significantly less important.
Just a generation ago, most fans were only able to watch their local team and a handful of national broadcasts each week. In today’s market, nearly every game can be seen on TV any given Saturday.
On top of that, recruits who might have been unattainable 20 years ago can now be lured to Ann Arbor via NIL and the power of the brand. However, the same can be said of the opposite effect. Players from Michigan can easily be lured out of state by NIL promises. Why should a school like Michigan overpay to keep a local prospect at home if they can find a similar caliber player elsewhere?
Of course, schools like Michigan want to get in it early with elite in-state recruits like Bryce Underwood when they pop up throughout the years. However, players are going to make the best choice for them just as they always have. Now that NIL is in play, proximity to home is significantly diminished as a factor in that decision.