NIL’s Impact on College Football: Changing the Game, or Business as Usual?

Despite widespread debate about Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) legislation, the landscape of college football remains largely unchanged, with the same programs continuing to dominate. Traditional powerhouses such as Georgia, Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State consistently occupy spots in the AP Top 25, while storied programs like Notre Dame, Texas, and Michigan maintain their historical relevance. Meanwhile, teams from the Group of Five conferences continue to struggle for national recognition, remaining largely relegated to the margins of college football.

The reality is that the use of financial incentives to attract top talent is not a new phenomenon in college sports. The emergence of NIL legislation in July 2021 may have formalized these practices, but the underlying dynamics of recruiting have long been influenced by financial resources. Most famously was the Reggie Bush scandal, where the NCAA found that he and his family received improper benefits, including cash, a car, and a house in San Diego. As a result, USC faced significant sanctions, including vacating wins and a two-year bowl ban. Bush also had to forfeit his Heisman Trophy. Similarly, it was widely rumored that Tennessee engaged in the practice of handing recruits McDonald’s bags filled with cash during visits. These anecdotes highlight the uneven playing field that has persisted in college football, where elite programs with abundant resources have consistently enjoyed a competitive advantage.

Mack Brown, head coach at the University of North Carolina, has expressed concern about the disparities in NIL funding. In a 24/7 Sports interview, Brown noted that "the collectives that have the best players and are winning the most games have about $12 or $13 million in the collective," adding that North Carolina falls significantly short of that figure. His remarks underscore a broader issue: while NIL legislation has introduced more transparency to the recruiting process, it has also laid bare the significant resource gaps between top-tier programs like Alabama or Ohio State and teams outside the traditional "blue blood" status.

Ultimately, NIL has not fundamentally altered the competitive landscape in college football. The gap between Power Five and Group of Five programs remains as pronounced as ever, with financial powerhouses continuing to outspend their rivals in the race for top recruits. Although NIL has legitimized the practice of compensating players, it has also illuminated the disparities that have long existed, making it more apparent just how much of an impact financial resources have on recruiting success.

The introduction of NIL may have changed the rules, but it has not changed the game itself. The same programs that thrived before NIL continue to do so, while programs with fewer resources still struggle to compete. Rather than leveling the playing field, NIL has exposed and, in some cases, exacerbated the structural inequalities that define college football's recruiting landscape. For non-blue blood programs like North Carolina, the challenge remains the same: how to compete in a system where financial power continues to dictate outcomes.