Written from 31 named sources · Oct 24 · first result Big Ten Football 2025–26 Roster Turnover, NIL Efficiency and Midseason Performance Snapshot: Saturday, October 24, 2026. The season is about half over, so every verdict is a midseason judgment. Read this first Records. They come from the Big Ten standings [9] and the Cleatz Week 8 table [2]. Both agree. They reflect games through Friday, October 23. Saturday's games were unfinished, and several kicked off after the Cleatz timestamp (12:17 p.m. ET) [2]. Spending baseline. Your attached report is the baseline. Its figures match the nil-ncaa.com roster-cost model [27]. They are a single-source model, not audited payroll. Other trackers place several programs higher, so treat spending ranks beyond the top two as soft. NR means "not reported," never zero. These fields could not be filled from any retrieved source: Scholarship players retained from the 2025 roster, by school. NFL-draft departures and eligibility-exhausted departures. Any current AP poll after the mid-September snapshot on Wikipedia [13]. Reported cash for retention versus acquisition at most schools. Conflicting numbers are shown side by side and never averaged. Single-source figures are marked ¹. Part 1: Program-by-program roster turnover 1A. Incoming transfers and high school classes Three portal measures disagree, and each counts something different: On3's July article counts transfers on the whole 2026 roster [17]. On3's portal index counts this window's in and out movement. The second figure is read here as outgoing; this is an inference, and the page does not label it [14]. 247Sports counts commits in its transfer ranking, updated 10/14/26 [12]. School On3 roster transfers [17] On3 index: in / out, B1G order [14] 247 transfer commits, B1G rank [12] 247 Composite HS class, national rank, Dec 3 [10] HS class, B1G rank (On3/Rivals · 247) and signees, June 22 [13]¹ Illinois 24 20 / 29, #4 20, #11 21 6 · 6, 37 Indiana 23 17 / 11, #1 (national #1 among displayed teams) 17, #3 31 8 · 9, 22 Iowa 19 total, 15 this cycle 15 / 8, #11 15, #17 25 7 · 7, 18 Maryland 23 14 / 13, #10 14, #16 42 11 · 11, 19 Michigan 20 Not in national top 50 19, #5 11 4 · 4, 26 Michigan State 39 Not in top 50 29, #14 41 14 · 12, 21 Minnesota 25 Not in top 50 19, #13 26 9 · 8, 31 Nebraska 25 16 / 17, #6 17, #8 112 18 · 18, 12 Northwestern 23 17 / 10, #8 17, #10 55 13 · 13, 23 Ohio State 20 Not in top 50 17, #2 7 2 · 3, 28 Oregon 22 16 / 30, #9 15, #4 2 3 · 2, 23 Penn State 39 38 / 46, #7 39, #1 150 15 · 16, 15 Purdue 49 29 / 19, #5 29, #12 53 12 · 14, 25 Rutgers 20 total, 19 this cycle Not in top 50 16, #18 44 10 · 10, 23 UCLA 55 43 / 27, #2 43, #6 83 16 · 15, 20 USC 17 10 / 21, #12 11, #7 1 1 · 1, 35 Washington 29 Not in top 50 14, #15 13 5 · 5, 27 Wisconsin 42 33 / 23, #3 33, #9 67 17 · 17, 23→15 (see note) Wisconsin's signee count is 15 in the June table [13]; the "23→15" entry above is a typo-free reading of that table as 15. Read it as 15. Where the portal rankings conflict (not blended): Penn State. 247Sports ranks it #1 in the Big Ten transfer table [12]. On3's index puts it 34th nationally, with an index score of 6 [14]. Indiana. On3's index has it first nationally (score 53) [14]. 247Sports has it third in the Big Ten [12]. Ohio State. 247Sports has it second [12]. On3's index does not place it in the top 50 [14]. Counts. On3's roster count exceeds the 247Sports commit count at nearly every school. Oregon is 22 versus 15, USC is 17 versus 11, and Maryland is 23 versus 14 [17][12]. Scope differs: "on campus" versus "this window." HS-class caveats: The December 3 ranks are 247 Composite early-signing snapshots [10]. The Wikipedia June table [13] is secondary and does not define its columns. Both are provisional, and neither shows an On3 national class rank. Of the 18 programs, 14 were in the 247 national top 55 on December 3 [10]. 1B. Returning production, departures and coaching Returning production (RP) is Bill Connelly's final 2026 figure; it counts incoming transfers [3]. Big Ten rank is derived from his national list order. Ohio State and Indiana tie at 60%, and Rutgers and Michigan State tie at 47%. School RP % (national rank) B1G rank Portal-out, On3 index [14] NFL draft / eligibility exhausted / other Head coach change before 2026 Maryland 72% (2) [3] 1 13 NR Locksley still coaching in preseason [8]; ESPN headline later references his firing [16] Nebraska 69% (4) 2 17 NR No Minnesota 68% (8) 3 NR NR No UCLA 67% (10) 4 27 NR Yes. Foster fired Sept 14, 2025; Bob Chesney hired Dec 1 [15][13] Oregon 66% (12) 5 30 NR No (two new coordinators [28]) Washington 65% (14) 6 NR NR No USC 64% (16) 7 21 NR No (Gary Patterson as defensive coordinator [26]) Michigan 63% (19) 8 NR NR Yes. Moore fired Dec 10, 2025; Whittingham agreed Dec 26 [15] Northwestern 62% (26) 9 10 NR No Ohio State 60% (33) 10 NR NR No (Arthur Smith as OC [7]) Indiana 60% (35) 11 11 NR No Wisconsin 59% (38) 12 23 NR No Purdue 58% (42) 13 19 NR No Penn State 52% (69) 14 46 NR Yes. Franklin fired Oct 12, 2025; Campbell hired Dec 5 [15] Illinois 51% (72) 15 29 NR No Rutgers 47% (92) 16 NR NR No Michigan State 47% (95) 17 NR NR Yes. Smith fired Nov 30, 2025; Fitzgerald hired Dec 1 [15] Iowa 44% (102) 18 8 NR No Vintage conflict: A March video put Indiana at 56% (52nd) [5]. ESPN's final table has 60% (35th) [3]. The final table is used above. Other notes: Retained scholarship counts are NR for all 18. No roster file was retrieved. The 105-man roster cap applies [27]. Maryland's 2026 coaching change is flagged from a headline only [16]. The Big Ten site also carries a video on candidates for the Maryland job [9]. The details are unverified. Treat it as a midseason change, not a pre-2026 change. Dylan Raiola left Nebraska for Oregon [7][26]. Part 2: Spending to keep versus spending to add Method Baseline S is your roster-spend figure, which matches nil-ncaa.com's model [27]. Evidence types are kept apart. An On3 valuation is a modeled valuation, not cash [23]. Reported cash deals need an outlet and date. Almost none are attributable to a Big Ten school here. No player-level cash ledger exists for retained versus incoming players. A dollar-based retention share is therefore not computable. Substitute: an indicative acquisition-share range. Take the school's 247 transfer commit count [12] divided by the 105-man cap [27]. Multiply by an assumed 1.0–1.5× per-head price premium for portal players versus the roster average. The premium is an analyst assumption, not a sourced number. The result is a scenario, not a finding. Estimates and confidence School S ($M) [27] Indicative acquisition share of S Notable retention wins / losses and acquisitions Confidence Oregon 43.405 14–21% Retained QB Dante Moore. On3 valuation is $5M [30], but another list shows $3.0M [23]; both are shown, neither is blended. A reported $10M+ multi-year return package was not on a named primary outlet [23]. Added Raiola from Nebraska [7][26]. Medium Ohio State 40.421 16–24% Jeremiah Smith reportedly turned down an offer "over $10 million, easy" to transfer; his On3 valuation is $4.2M (modeled) [23]. Sayin is valued at $2.4M [23]. Medium USC 34.728 10–16% Maiava ($2.2M valuation) returned [23]. On3 says USC is investing in high school recruiting [17]. Low Michigan 32.964 18–27% Underwood's landmark deal is reported at $10.5M base over four years, up to $12M. It is not annual cash. His valuation is $3.1M per year [23]. On3 describes the 2026 approach as retention-focused [17]. Low Penn State 29.208 37–56% 39 transfers, including QB Rocco Becht and RB Carson Hansen [28]. Low Nebraska 27.440 16–24% Lost Raiola. His $2.3M valuation was from spring [23][7]. Low Indiana 27.253 16–24% Added Hoover from TCU ($2.3M valuation) [23][17]. Lost much of the Cignetti-era core [7]. Low Washington 26.357 13–20% QB Demond Williams was "coaxed back." No dollars reported [7]. Low Wisconsin 24.484 31–47% No player valuations retrieved. Low UCLA 24.332 41–61% 43 incoming and 27 outgoing on On3's index [14]. Largest portal-driven rebuild in the conference. Low Maryland 23.720 13–20% Nothing retrieved. Low Iowa 23.649 14–21% Nothing retrieved. Low Michigan State 23.115 28–41% Nothing retrieved. Low Minnesota 22.575 18–27% Nothing retrieved. Low Illinois 21.854 19–29% Nothing retrieved. Low Rutgers 21.321 15–23% Nothing retrieved. Low Northwestern 21.035 16–24% Added QB Aidan Chiles and OC Chip Kelly [31]. Low Purdue 20.367 28–41% Nothing retrieved. Low Treat the 247 commit counts as an imperfect proxy: they differ from On3's counts [17][12]. Retention share is the remainder after the incoming high school class, which cannot be separated here. No retention total is stated. Part 3: Midseason performance (through Oct 23 games) Conventions: SP+ delta is the final preseason rank [3] minus the current national rank [2]. Positive means the team improved. Standing delta is the preseason projected finish minus the current standing. Positive means ahead of projection. Projected finish comes from the cleveland.com preseason media poll [13]. The conference did not publish its own. Current standing follows the Big Ten's published order [9]. The "Cur. AP" column is NR for every school. Cleatz's AP column is blank [2]. Wikipedia's AP data stops in mid-September [13]. The March SP+ projection [7] differs from ESPN's final preseason table. For Purdue, the March figure was 82; the final figure is 78. ESPN's final is used. School Overall Conf. Cur. AP Pre SP+ → Cur SP+ (national) SP+ Δ Proj. → current standing Standing Δ UCLA 6-0 4-0 NR 46 → 19 +27 13 → 1 +12 Ohio State 6-1 4-0 NR 1 → 1 0 1 → 2 −1 USC 6-1 3-1 NR 12 → 17 −5 4 → 3 +1 Indiana 6-1 3-1 NR 5 → 5 0 3 → 4 −1 Northwestern 5-1 2-1 NR 50 → 26 +24 14 → 5 +9 Iowa 5-1 2-1 NR 22 → 22 0 8 → 6 +2 Oregon 4-2 2-1 NR 2 → 11 −9 2 → 7 −5 Wisconsin 4-2 2-1 NR 53 → 43 +10 12 → 8 +4 Minnesota 4-2 2-1 NR 40 → 60 −20 10 → 9 +1 Nebraska 5-2 2-2 NR 33 → 16 +17 11 → 10 +1 Purdue 3-4 2-2 NR 78 → 73 +5 18 → 11 +7 Michigan 4-2 1-2 NR 15 → 23 −8 5 → 12 −7 Illinois 3-3 1-2 NR 28 → 52 −24 9 → 13 −4 Rutgers 2-4 1-2 NR 61 → 91 −30 17 → 14 +3 Washington 4-3 1-3 NR 18 → 44 −26 7 → 15 −8 Penn State 3-4 0-4 NR 17 → 47 −30 6 → 16 −10 Michigan State 2-5 0-4 NR 62 → 79 −17 16 → 17 −1 Maryland 2-5 0-4 NR 48 → 88 −40 15 → 18 −3 Preseason AP context only (August 17 poll) [31]: Ohio State was No. 1, Oregon No. 2 and Indiana No. 6. USC was No. 14 (tied), Michigan No. 16, Washington No. 17, Penn State No. 18 and Iowa No. 22. Notable results: Ohio State beat Indiana on October 17 [9]. Michigan is ranked 23rd in SP+ with the 76th-ranked offense and the 3rd-ranked defense [2]. Part 4: Efficiency verdict and value-for-money rankings Method (balanced composite, as assumed) C1 (40%): spending rank minus current standing. C2 (30%): SP+ delta. C3 (30%): standing delta. Each component is a z-score across all 18 schools. No component is missing, so all schools get full scores. The returning-production tiebreaker was not needed. Tier rules were applied in order. Where no rule fit, the closest tier is flagged. Value-for-money ranking Rank Program Spend rank [27] Standing C1 Composite Tier 1 UCLA 10 1 +9 +1.76 1 2 Northwestern 17 5 +12 +1.74 1 3 Purdue 18 11 +7 +1.01 1 4 Iowa 12 6 +6 +0.60 1 (closest) 5 Wisconsin 9 8 +1 +0.55 2 (extended) 6 Indiana 7 4 +3 +0.25 2 (extended) 7 Nebraska 6 10 −4 +0.18 3 8 Minnesota 14 9 +5 +0.17 1 (closest) 9 USC 3 3 0 +0.09 2 10 Ohio State 2 2 0 +0.06 2 11 Rutgers 16 14 +2 −0.08 4 12 Illinois 15 13 +2 −0.36 4 13 Michigan State 13 17 −4 −0.47 4 14 Oregon 1 7 −6 −0.68 3 15 Michigan 4 12 −8 −0.90 3 16 Maryland 11 18 −7 −1.14 4 (closest) 17 Washington 8 15 −7 −1.18 3 18 Penn State 5 16 −11 −1.60 3 Tier 1: Got the most out of their money UCLA. The Bruins have the top composite score, sit first in the conference and made the biggest SP+ jump (46th to 19th). They did it with 43 incoming and 27 outgoing portal players on On3's index, under first-year coach Chesney [14][15]. ESPN's preseason SP+ had already flagged a 14.1-point jump from the coaching change [3]. They rank 10th in spend [27]. Northwestern. The Wildcats rank 17th in spend, fifth in the standings, and rose 24 SP+ places. They were projected 14th [13]. They brought in QB Chiles and OC Chip Kelly [31]. Their rank-26 returning production helped [3]. Purdue. Last in spend, they are 11th in the standings. They are 3-4, which is only slightly better than the preseason SP+ rank of 78th. Their gain is modest but real. They made 49 transfers, the second-most on On3's article list [17]. Iowa (closest-tier). The Hawkeyes are sixth in the standings against 12th in spend, at 5-1. Their SP+ rank is unchanged, so they fail the "SP+ must be positive" test. Their returning production is the lowest in the Big Ten at 44% [3], so continuity was not the reason. Minnesota (closest-tier). The Gophers beat their spend rank by five places, but their SP+ rank fell 20 places, so the tier is a stretch. Tier 2: Spent big and got what they paid for Ohio State. They are second in spend and second in the standings, with an unchanged No. 1 SP+ rank at 6-1 [2][9]. The one conference loss is not recorded; their Big Ten mark is 4-0. They were built on retention, including Smith's reported $10M-plus refusal, and few transfers [17][23]. USC. Third in spend and third in the standings at 6-1. SP+ slipped five places [2]. Only 17 transfers [17] and a No. 1 class [10]. Indiana (extended band). Seventh in spend, fourth in the standings. SP+ is steady at fifth despite a conference-record 11 outgoing portal players and a rebuilt roster [14][7]. Wisconsin (extended band). Ninth in spend, eighth in the standings, up 10 SP+ places. Their 42 transfers show a heavy portal approach [17]. Tier 3: Spent big and underperformed Oregon. The most expensive roster is 4-2, and their SP+ rank fell nine places [2][27]. Their roster-building won the offseason, but they lost at Oklahoma State on September 12 [13]. Michigan. Fourth in spend, 12th in the standings, 1-2 in conference play. Retention was the approach under a new coach [17]. The offense ranks 76th in SP+ [2]. Penn State. Fifth in spend, 16th in the standings and 0-4 in conference play. This is the worst composite score [2][9]. Campbell brought 39 transfers [28]. Nebraska. It holds value on SP+ (up 17 places) and was a strong pick on returning production (69%) [3]. But it is 10th in the standings against sixth in spend [27][9]. Washington. Eighth in spend, 15th in standings and down 26 SP+ places [2]. Even with Demond Williams retained [7], the results were not there. Tier 4: Low budget, no margin for error Rutgers (survived, narrowly). Rutgers is 2-4 but 14th, three places ahead of its preseason projection [13][9]. It has the second-lowest SP+ preseason delta (−30). Illinois (survived on pace). At 3-3, a 6-6 pace keeps a bowl in reach. It is 13th in the standings against 15th in spend. SP+ fell 24 places [2]. Michigan State (did not survive). 2-5, 0-4, and below its preseason projection [9]. Fitzgerald brought 39 transfers [17]. Maryland (closest-tier, did not survive). 2-5, 0-4, down 40 SP+ places [2][9]. This is the worst SP+ fall in the conference despite the league's top returning production at 72% [3]. Continuity did not help. Part 5: Strategic takeaways Does high turnover hurt or help right now? It has done neither in a consistent way. The six heaviest portal users on On3's article counts are UCLA, Purdue, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State and Washington [17]. Their mean composite is +0.01. The six lightest users are USC, Iowa, Rutgers, Ohio State, Michigan and Oregon [17]. Their mean composite is −0.15. That gap is tiny for n=18. The high-turnover group holds the best result (UCLA) and the worst (Penn State). Returning production did not decide outcomes either. Maryland (72%) has the worst SP+ drop. Iowa (44%) is among the better performers [3][2]. Is retention a better use of NIL money than portal shopping? The evidence does not support a firm answer. Dollars for retention versus acquisition are not reported (Part 2). Two of the cleanest retention cases, Ohio State and Oregon, both produced top-tier spending but split results: Ohio State on target, Oregon below [2][9]. The efficiency gains came instead from low-spend programs that rebuilt through the portal and coaching (UCLA, Northwestern, Purdue). Which coaching changes drove the most turnover, and did it pay off? Change Turnover signal Midseason payoff UCLA (Chesney) 55 roster transfers (On3) / 43 in per index [17][14] Yes. 6-0, first in the standings, up 27 in SP+ Penn State (Campbell) 39 roster transfers [17] No. 3-4, 0-4, down 30 in SP+ Michigan State (Fitzgerald) 39 roster transfers [17] No. 2-5, 0-4 Michigan (Whittingham) 20 transfers, retention-first [17] Mixed. 4-2 but 1-2 in conference play, SP+ down 8 UCLA's gain was forecast: ESPN's SP+ projected a 14.1-point rise after the coaching change [3]. Michigan's offense is the weak point [2], and the Big Ten site is running coverage of the quarterback situation [9]. The October 24 results could move several placements, notably Indiana at Michigan, Oregon at Illinois and USC at Wisconsin [13]. Sources [2] SP+ Rankings 2026: Projections & Betting Lines — https://cleatz.com/cfb-sp-plus-rankings [3] Final preseason college football SP+ rankings, takeaways for 2026 - ESPN — https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/49593338/final-preseason-college-football-sp+-rankings-takeaways-2026 [5] 2026 Returning Production Rankings: Are Georgia, Oregon, Texas, & Notre Dame The Best Four? — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSA3TAB5fyo [7] Big Ten football 2026 SP+ rankings — https://wolverineswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/wolverines/football/2026/03/27/big-ten-football-2026-sp-rankings/89348254007 [8] All the Head Coaches for Big Ten College Football in 2026 — https://www.nbc.com/nbc-insider/big-ten-college-football-conference-head-coaches [9] Big Ten Conference — https://bigten.org [10] Football signing day Big 10 recruiting class team rankings 2026 — https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2025/12/03/football-signing-day-big-10-recruiting-class-team-rankings-2026-big-ten-top-players-recruits/87593961007 [12] 2026 Transfer Big Ten Football Team Rankings — https://247sports.com/season/2026-football/transferteamrankings?Conference=Big+Ten [13] 2026 Big Ten Conference football season - Wikipedia — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season [14] 2026 College Football Team Transfer Portal Rankings — https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/team-rankings/football/2026 [15] 2025 college football coaching carousel: Firings, hirings - ESPN — https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/46615017/2025-college-football-coaching-carousel-firings-hirings [16] College Football Scores - Big Ten Conference 2026 Season - ESPN — https://www.espn.com/college-football/scoreboard/_/group/5 [17] Ranking Big Ten football programs with the fewest transfers entering 2026 season - On3 — https://www.on3.com/news/ranking-big-ten-football-programs-with-the-fewest-transfers-entering-2026-season [23] Top NIL Earners in College Football 2026: Rankings & Deals — https://blog.rallyfuel.com/highest-nil-earners-college-football [26] Projecting The Top 25 College Football Teams For 2026 — https://roadtocfb.substack.com/p/projecting-the-top-25-college-football [27] NIL & NCAA Revenue Sharing by School& NIL — https://nil-ncaa.com [28] College Football Rankings: ESPN Reveals Top 25 Preseason Poll for 2026 — https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/rankings/college-football-rankings-espn-top-25-preseason-poll-2026 [30] Big Ten quarterbacks reveal how they navigate NIL — https://www.on3.com/nil/news/big-ten-quarterbacks-reveal-how-they-navigate-nil-theres-a-lot-that-comes-with-it [31] Preseason Magazines – CU At the Game — https://www.cuatthegame.com/2026/preseason-magazines-13 Wisconsin Football 2026 Recruiting Class Currently ... — https://www.reddit.com/r/WisconsinBadgers/comments/1ivwg20/wisconsin_football_2026_recruiting_class 2025-26 College Football Coaching Carousel Tracker: Every Fire, Hire, and Rumor — https://saturdayblitz.com/2025-26-college-football-coaching-carousel-every-firing-hire-and-rumor-so-far 2026 College Football Consensus Top 25 - TheTwoDeep.com — https://www.thetwodeep.com/college/top-25 2026 Football Commits — https://247sports.com/season/2026-football/commits Analyzing Big Ten Basketball Roster Turnover in Two Charts — https://www.theonlycolors.com/basketball/46530/analyzing-big-ten-basketball-roster-turnover-in-two-charts Big Ten college football recruiting class rankings for 2026 — https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/big-ten-college-football-recruiting-class-rankings-for-2026-all-18-programs/ss-AA1XUsWv Big Ten Rankings and Projections After Week 6 — https://www.uwdawgpound.com/big-ten-conference-news/77966/big-ten-rankings-and-projections-after-week-6 College Football Head Coaching Changes 2025-2026 - The Game Haus — https://thegamehaus.com/college-football/college-football-head-coaching-changes/2026/08/04 ESPN unveils 2026 Big Ten projections — https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/espn-unveils-2026-big-ten-090131372.html Featured Content — https://www.dawgscentral.com/featured?page=2 Grading the Big Ten's transfer portal classes (Minnesota: B-) — https://gopherhole.com/boards/threads/the-athletic-grading-the-big-ten%E2%80%99s-transfer-portal-classes-minnesota-b.121056 Untitled - The Big Ten Huddle Podcast — https://bleav.com/shows/the-big-ten-huddle-podcast?post_type=gp_podcast_episode&amp%3Bp=920