Spending Alone Doesn't Win, But Advantages Compound
Context
Show response to the broader 2035 / spending-cap discussion. The key distinction: writing the biggest check doesn't guarantee a championship — Texas Tech spent and didn't score in the playoff; Indiana spent far less than the teams it beat — but the schools that can afford the infrastructure (coaching, facilities, retention, scouting, support staff) accumulate compounding advantages that smaller programs cannot catch.
Ohio State's 2024 title came from years of recruiting depth and retention, not from one offseason's portal class. They added Caleb Downs from the portal and paid Jeremiah Smith out of high school, but those decorations rode on top of the structural advantage that being Ohio State produces year over year.
The implication for the spending-cap conversation: a salary cap addresses the visible spending number while leaving the underlying infrastructure inequality untouched. The show isn't opposed to a cap, but isn't convinced it solves the actual problem.
Subject(s)
- Spending and championship outcomes
- Structural inequality in college football