Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

UCLA had a strong program until the late 1990s/early 2000s when the administration decided not to keep up with the football arms race.

Way back when I was working on my athletics case (back in the aughts), it was well understood that UCLA had de-emphasized football spending. I think they may be trying to right that ship, but it's proven difficult.

I've noted before that 4 or 5 poor coaching hires in sucession can just about kill a program, I think that has changed with NIL though.  Back in the day, a program that fell off the map just wouldn't get "noticed" by elite athletes.  They'd all want to go to "Bama" or "OSU".

Now, consider Oregon, I think we'd all agree they are "significant", and why"  Money, it's much more a factor today of course than when Nike took an interest.  Someone with billions might look at Minnesota and decide to make them relevant again, would take a few years, I think it's doable.

if it was possible at Indiana, it's possible anywhere

anywhere there is money

Yes, and I think there is a snowball effect. 

Consider this:
According to the AI Overview on a google search of "purdue football nil spending", Purdue's NIL was around $15M for football.  According to a similar search Ohio State's is around $25M.  I'm not vouching for the accuracy of any of this but the example isn't all that dependent on the numbers being exactly right it is just dependent on the ratio being somewhat close. 

Now suppose that our most frequently posting Purdue grad had the kind of cash to spend $2-3M/yr on Purdue's Football NIL.  If he does, that moves Purdue's NIL from $15M or 60% of tOSU's up to $17-18M or 68-72% of tOSU's.  As I see it, this probably has an immaterial or at best minimal impact on Purdue's competitiveness.  Looking at last year's results, with a few million more worth of roster they *might* improve enough to win the Minnesota (lost 27-20) and Rutgers (lost 27-24) games and they might even upset Michigan (lost 21-16) but their other seven losses were all by double-digits so AT BEST, that extra $2-3M probably only gets them to 3-6/5-7 rather than 0-9/2-10.  @betarhoalphadelta 's RoI is practically nil (get it, NIL/nil). 

As I see it, it only makes sense for Brad to throw in that $2-3M if he or the school can also convince two or three other similarly situated Purdue supporters to also kick in an extra $2-3M each because then you'd be looking at increasing Purdue's Football NIL from ~$15M to approximately $21-27M.  That would be enough to put you up in the Championship stratosphere.  As we all know, that doesn't guarantee a Championship nor even double-digit wins but it at least brings those things within the realm of possibility. 

I called it a "snowball effect" because if those hypothetical three or four wealthy Purdue grads are contributing in that range then each additional contribution has at least the potential to have a meaningful impact.  Maybe an extra $1M gets you the safety that makes the stop that wins the NC.  However, at Purdue's current level an extra $1M does no more than *MAYBE* get you the safety that wins you the Rutgers game so you finish 1-8/3-9 instead of 0-9/2-10.  Who freaking cares? 

Also, as I'm sure we've covered, money, by itself, is not enough. They don't grow Curt Cignettis in orchards. You've got to find the rare one in a forest of average ones.

Also, as I'm sure we've covered, money, by itself, is not enough. They don't grow Curt Cignettis in orchards. You've got to find the rare one in a forest of average ones.

I'd say money is necessary but not sufficient, to coin a term, heh.  But deep pockets obviously allows one to attract very good POTENTIAL coaches like Dan Lanning and Cignetti.  You might bust out a couple coaches who were too fickle before finding a smart one ....

I'd say money is necessary but not sufficient, to coin a term, heh.  But deep pockets obviously allows one to attract very good POTENTIAL coaches like Dan Lanning and Cignetti.  You might bust out a couple coaches who were too fickle before finding a smart one ....

I think this is a good way to put it.  

Last year, Wisconsin spent ~$10M in NIL. @medinabuckeye1 

The money went up significantly this year, obviously, and without my help.