​When college football entered the NIL era, many believed it could foster greater parity across programs. The idea was that smaller schools might tap into support from athletic boosters to recruit higher-caliber talent, potentially narrowing the gap with traditional powerhouses. Yet the NCAA moved too slowly to establish clear, enforcement-driven regulations. As a result, NIL has largely devolved into a permissive, open market, and smaller programs continue to face steep challenges against the sport’s biggest powers. That reality became even more evident after the College Football Playoff expanded.
On his show, college football analyst Paul Finebaum was asked whether smaller programs could level the playing field with sustained effort from the NCAA. His answer was straightforward and blunt: they cannot. “The truth is they cannot,” Finebaum said. “They can compete in their own league. They may get grandfathered into the playoff, like we saw last year … but there’s no way they can compete with the big boys.” Before NIL, recruiting was already tough for smaller schools, and it has become clearer than ever that NIL has not changed that fundamental dynamic. Wealthier boosters continue to fund larger athletic budgets, giving bigger programs a persistent edge.
Finebaum pointed to Ohio State as a prime example, noting reports that the Buckeyes could eventually operate with a $500 million athletic budget. In a landscape with weak NIL enforcement, smaller schools still struggle to close the gap. Even stricter rules might not fully resolve the challenge. When smaller programs break through and enjoy success, they often witness their top players and head coaches leave for programs with more resources, further widening the gap.
The practical reality is that there is no simple, one-size-fits-all fix to the current landscape. Even notable cases illustrate the difficulty: Indiana head coach Curt Cignetti left James Madison University for a College Football Playoff-caliber opportunity, underscoring how mobility and the lure of greater resources complicate stability for smaller programs. Despite this, a definitive path to leveling the field remains elusive.
Efforts at the federal level, such as the Protect College Sports Act currently under review by the U.S. government, could offer some relief. Yet there is no guarantee that new legislation would fully equalize opportunities or erase disparities in power and resources. The question remains: will Finebaum and skeptical fans someday be proven wrong? Could an ambitious program like James Madison University someday emerge as a legitimate College Football Playoff contender, challenging the established order and redefining what parity might look like in modern college football?
As the NIL era unfolds, the debate continues about how to best balance competition, fair play, and the evolving incentives that drive recruitment and retention. For now, the reality remains that the biggest programs—with their deep pockets, robust booster networks, and expansive facilities—hold a substantial, enduring advantage. The rest of the college football landscape continues to operate under a set of rules that, many argue, still favor the haves over the have-nots, even as the appetite for playoff access grows and the sport evolves.