Anonymous #1 20h

Yes because 5 years ago Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, Miami, and Indiana were so successful. There may have been a couple of programs (Alabama, LSU) paying a lot for players, but not nearly as bad as it is now

1

Anonymous OP 20h

Sure some programs have ramped up their spending but look at your graph, the top spenders are mostly the blue bloods and historically good programs, nothing is different from 5 years ago except for a few programs like Indiana taking advantage of NIL. The blue bloods are still by and large dominating the sport, the payment just isn’t under the table now

1

Anonymous #1 19h

Only 3 of the top 10 spenders are blue bloods (4, if you want to include Texas). Oklahoma and Nebraska are blue bloods who don’t have the money to buy elite players consistently now, and yes I know Nebraska has sucked for a while. You can’t really succeed without a ton of money unless you have an ELITE coaching staff like Georgia

1

Anonymous OP 19h

Yet the top 20 are pretty much all historically elite programs and most of those programs are still having success now. It’s no different than it was 5 years ago, it’s just that more programs can fundraise and compete for some of these players now which helps increase parity, which I think is a good thing for the sport. But really overall the blue bloods are still making CFPs every year and are spending more than most programs, nothing has drastically changed

1

Anonymous #1 19h

Please let me cope and think that the reason my school sucks is because we’re too broke

1

Anonymous #3 11h

All that and still missed the playoffs 🤣

1