If you're predisposed to treat anything that speaks poorly about the transfer portal as gospel, then the article is for you, but where are the actual quantifiable facts to support the supposition? HS kids aren't getting pinched because there's a transfer portal, they're getting pinched because it's a portal artificially bloated with Covid Basketball mercenaries - guys in school for their 5th/6th/7th year of being on a basketball roster. Provided the years a player can actual play isn't permanently extended to 5, and scholarship limits don't get cut, there's not a rational argument why (collectively) there will be less opportunities for freshman. Also note, the new rules should, theoretically, reduce the number of scholarships being burned on guys sitting out - transfers won't have to sit and, unless it's a medical, I don't think many coach's are going to keep redshirting able bodied players (just a guess). Shortening the amount of time these guys take up space on a roster(s) should actually create MORE new scholarships. The influx, and probable explosion, of foreign born players in MBB probably ends up having a bigger impact over time to US High School players.
As for women's scholarships, their endangerment is probably more tied to the fact Title 9 requirements may not be as applicable if there's a delineation between revenue sport, with the participants treated as employees.
There's actually more teams playing D1 Football now than in 1979, albeit by 1 team. Simply put, if you live in a state that gives a shit about having good college sports programs at the public level you'll have them. Nobody here seems all that interested in paying for it, politicians, alunni, students, so I can only go so far with
the "woe is me" stuff.
Ah the law of unintended consequences. Because it is so easy for a kid to transfer, schools are less willing to take a chance and invest in a kid. If I take a kid out of HS, 1) he is less likely to make an immediate impact, and 2) if he does, he is likely to transfer. Therefore, it is better to go the JC/transfer path to stocking your team.
This applies to the other things that are eroding the amateur status. College Football supports so many college athletes in non-revenue sports. How many schools will stop funding 2nd tier women's sports (I mean this from a revenue standpoint) if they have to pay athletes? When I was young, every University had a football team. Now, there are essentially 129 schools that compete at the highest level.
The impact of the current rules (or lack thereof) will mean the rich continue to get richer and the P5 schools become impossible to compete with. I recall the days when LB was regularly ranked in MBB. Due to the enormous difference in money, that has become nearly impossible. Truth is our institution is supposed to be about education and the Athletics are the fun side. How long until the inability to compete makes the fun side not worth pursuing? If this happens to a 100 universities, how many young kids who could have gotten an education by playing sports will not get that opportunity?