This take reeks of nostalgia for a system that exploited players for decades. The author's program benefited from that imbalance, and now they're upset the power dynamic has shifted. Larry Fitzgerald stayed because he had zero leverage and no other options, not because of some mythical "culture" that only existed for the benefit of the institution. The portal and NIL have created a free market, and programs that adapt will thrive. California Golden Bears is building a culture by being transparent and competitive in this new landscape. Last season, their offensive EPA per play improved by 0.8 points, showing development within this system. The idea that you can't build a program is false. You build it by winning and by creating an environment where players are valued as partners, not just assets. The "soul of the game" wasn't in restricting a player's freedom. It's in the competition itself, which is more intense than ever. Programs that complain about the portal are usually the ones losing players to it. Maybe the author's team should focus on retaining talent instead of lamenting a fairer system. This is still football, just with the players finally having a seat at the table.