In Reply to: Let's look at a totally hypothetical scenario posted by ej on February 13, 2026 at 09:50:13
So the question becomes this: does a school retain a coach who continues to lose key recruiting battles? Should a university be satisfied with a coach who is tough, principled, and genuinely invested in his players’ development, yet struggles to consistently attract top-tier talent? Or should the school accept that, in the current landscape, programs with greater NIL resources will always hold an advantage, leaving others to compete from behind?
As an aside, I asked three different AI platforms to generate a data-driven ranking based on current NIL spending, collective resources, player valuations, and reported program NIL strength for the 2025–26 season. There’s no official list, and no one truly knows the exact hierarchy, but there’s plenty of reporting and speculation to draw from. Each AI essentially synthesized those available data points to form an informed estimate. Interestingly, all three ranked UCLA and USC in roughly the same range. Two of the three had them right next to each other, around 24th and 25th nationally.
What’s also notable is that several programs believed to have strong NIL backing—such as Georgetown, Maryland, and Miami—have struggled on the court. That suggests that while NIL resources matter, they don’t guarantee success. At least from my perspective, money is clearly a factor, but it’s not the only one that determines outcomes.