Bennett Stirtz played point guard for Northwest Missouri State’s men’s basketball for two seasons before following former head coach Ben McCollum to Drake University for the 2024-25 season. There, the duo reached the second round of the NCAA Tournament. Stirtz followed McCollum again to Iowa for the 2025-26 season, reaching the Elite Eight.
Stirtz parlayed that success into being selected by the Memphis Grizzlies with the 16th overall pick in the first round of this year’s NBA Draft, before being traded to the Oklahoma City Thunder shortly after.
Stirtz’s path from Division II to the NBA is one example of the opportunities the transfer portal has created for student-athletes to move between levels of college sports. It is also one example of why Division II athletic directors are closely watching the Protect College Sports Act, which the U.S. Senate passed by a vote of 77-22 last week.
The bipartisan bill would limit student-athletes to one transfer in their collegiate career without losing a year of eligibility. A second transfer would generally result in a loss of eligibility during the first academic year, with exceptions including a coaching change, a discontinued sport and more.
The proposed legislation — which is backed by major conferences, President Donald Trump and others — would give the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption, allowing the association and its conferences to establish and enforce rules on student-athlete eligibility, transfers and compensation without facing lawsuits.
The bill embraces the five-year eligibility rule, where students have five consecutive years to compete collegiately from the time they turn 19 years old, and eliminates redshirts and eligibility extension waivers — including for medical reasons.
Proponents of the measure said it would create consistency for name, image and likeness rules and provide more predictability for roster management and student-athlete retention. Critics, however, have raised concerns that the bill would limit the earning power of some athletes, especially Black football and basketball players who make up the majority of the rosters in those revenue-generating sports.
Effect on smaller schools
The legislation is largely focused on Division I athletics, but certain provisions would also affect Division II and III schools. Some athletic directors at smaller schools in Missouri believe that while the bill isn’t flawless, it could benefit their programs.
“It's not perfect by any means, but it's a step in the right direction, and hopefully, it'll provide some stability,” said Matt Howdeshell, athletic director at the University of Central Missouri.
Howdeshell said Central Missouri has seen the most transfer portal activity in the school’s basketball and football programs.
“I tell people all the time, you know, previously before the transfer portal, you used to be able to retain about 70% of your roster, and you'd see about 30% change,” he said. “Well, in the last few years, that model has been flipped on its head entirely.”
Howdeshell said unlimited transfers have made it more difficult to develop players over several seasons, and he hopes the bill can bring back a four-year model of watching student-athletes grow, develop and ultimately graduate.
“You miss seeing that freshman come in who's maybe a little undersized and scrawny and you know immature, but you see him come in as a sophomore and he's a little more athletically gifted, and he's a little more mentally prepared,” Howdeshell said. “Then by junior year, he's a starter on the team. Then by senior year, he's all-conference or all-American, even.
Better for the classroom or the playing field?
At Missouri Western State University in St. Joseph, director of athletics Andy Carter said he does not think student-athletes should be limited in their ability to transfer, but that unlimited transfers can be detrimental to students’ academics, which is why he supports participation penalties for transfers.
“I know people will laugh at me if I say this, especially ones that maybe are at the higher level: we are still all about the educational opportunity and young people using sport to help them get their degree so they can go on and become better at whatever they decide to do,” Carter said.
Carter said that while clearer regulations are necessary, student-athletes have so far been left out of the processes of determining those rules.
“I think the biggest crime in all of this thing is there's nobody representing the students,” Carter said.
Carter said he does not view the Protect College Sports Act as a cure-all for the broader issues facing college athletics. He also raised concerns about universities directing more money toward athlete compensation.
“And if we, in turn — and I say we athletics — in turn think the answer is to raise the cost of education for every student so that we can pay student athletes, again, think about that statement. That's not right,” Carter said.
New rules are needed
Northwest Missouri State University Athletic Director Andy Peterson, whose school lost Stirtz after an NCAA tournament run, said he believes the bill needs to pass to give college sports more guardrails.
“We've kind of been in purgatory. We are waiting, and we have to react to what that level is doing because everything does trickle down,” Peterson said.
Peterson said he does not expect Division II to be affected beyond the provisions that specifically mention the division.
“I don't think that any of them are really concerned or worried about Division II or Division III athletics,” Peterson said. “I think it's just we're not innocent bystanders, but we kind of are just collateral on the whole thing.”
Opponents of the bill, such as labor groups, athletes' organizations, some members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and civil rights organizations, have argued the measure would give the NCAA and conferences greater power over student-athletes without adequately including them in the discussion. They have also raised concerns that it does not address collective bargaining and schools’ Title IX obligations to keep women’s sports on an equal footing with men’s sports.
For these reasons and possible changes that could come to Washington following next month's elections, the bill faces an uncertain future in the U.S. House, which is in recess until after the November midterms.