I'll vote for the one that at least sort of helps even the playing field.
Don't each of these somewhat accomplish that?
For the most part, the networks have evenly fattened the pockets of conference mates. And we seem so far removed from the facilities arms race heyday (which P5 school doesn't have 2-4 shiny and massive buildings central to football these days?) that the old boys are simply tidying up what they already had (paying for fancier new versions to replace the fanciness that had become slightly out of date) while the new money is catching up in a big way (replacing dinginess with new-age fanciness).
There's no building a helmet can construct these days to "change the game" versus other helmets or to uphold a heavy advantage versus the non-helmets. So all new growth, on average, narrows the gap rather than widening it.
That doesn't mean there aren't still arms races. The new arms races seem to be about other things -- as a Michigan fan, I think that assistant salaries and the size/quality of football experts on staff to sit in desks and do film-watching/spreadsheet- or analytics-magic are part of this. I also think trips abroad could become part of this.
We should also note that not every A.D. equally returns their football revenue to football. Some are giving large fractions back to non-revenue sports. Which is almost a form of charity. Not technically, as these are supposedly non-profit entities, but if you were to compare, e.g., the extent to which the Big Ten funds track&field, softball, and swimming facility construction versus that of the SEC, I'd expect a significant difference (in both raw terms and in terms of the fraction of gross revenue diverted to non-revenue construction).