NIL Budgets Reshape College Football Playoffs: Are Big Spenders Winning or Losing?

As college football transitions to a 12-team playoff format, the significance of name, image, and likeness (NIL) roster budgets has become a focal point in discussions about competitiveness among top teams. Roster budgets, limited by how much third-party NIL collectives can raise, show a staggering variance across programs vying for playoff supremacy. This season, it's estimated that budgets range from as low as $3 million to as high as $20 million for teams with 85 scholarship players, highlighting the financial disparities that could influence playoff outcomes. A noteworthy mention is Ohio State, whose athletic director Ross Bjork estimated that the Buckeyes players collectively received around $20 million in NIL funds over the past year. This figure, believed to represent one of the highest budgets in the sport, was a hot topic as Ohio State soared to a 5-0 start but ultimately faltered, losing their last four games including a critical matchup against Michigan, which cost them a shot at the Big Ten title. The question lingers: Is spending $20 million the key to playoff success, or does it merely serve as a costly ticket to the dance? The pressure to deliver results intensifies alongside financial commitments, as teams like Florida State, which spent $12 million yet ended with a dismal 2-10 record, illustrate. Meanwhile, Ole Miss, also a sizable spender with an estimated budget between $10 million and $13 million, finished just shy of playoff contention with a 9-3 record. A comprehensive understanding of NIL budgets remains elusive. Many collectives are guarded about their financial details, often due to the competitive landscape of college football recruiting. As Brittani Willett, executive director of the Sun Angel Collective at Arizona State, pointed out, revealing budget specifics can be a double-edged sword. Lower figures risk damaging recruitment efforts, while higher figures can lead to discontent among current players expecting similar compensation. The dynamic is further complicated by the ongoing evolution of NIL regulations and the roles of collectives. For instance, Oregon's Division Street, led by Rosemary St. Clair, is among the most well-funded but doesn't publicly disclose specific figures beyond its association with Nike and Phil Knight. Transparency issues are compounded by the fact that collectives are private entities, making detailed financial data harder to obtain compared to public university budgets. In the quest for playoff success, many collectives predominantly focus on roster retention over external recruitment. For example, Brent Blum of the We Will Collective supporting Iowa State noted that the majority of their budget—about 95 percent—was aimed at retaining talent rather than acquiring new prospects. This sentiment is echoed by other collectives, which recognize that keeping existing players is just as crucial as attracting new talent. Moreover, the anticipated settlement concerning athletes' sharing of television revenue could dramatically alter the financial landscape of college sports. The prospect of sharing up to $20.5 million next year poses both opportunities and challenges, particularly as collectives explore options for aligning more closely with athletic departments. The unpredictable nature of college football is evident in the current playoff race. Despite disparities in NIL spending, success is not solely a function of financial muscle. The parallel narratives of Florida State and Ohio State—both heavy spenders yet unable to secure a playoff spot—underscore that financial investment does not guarantee victory. Conversely, teams like Iowa State and Arizona State have shown that strategic management and a focus on retention, coupled with effective recruitment, can yield fruitful results regardless of budget size. As the college football landscape continues to evolve under the influence of NIL agreements, programs must navigate the delicate balance of investment, expectations, and performance. The dialogue around NIL budgets is not merely about money—it's about how effectively teams can leverage financial resources to build competitive rosters and ultimately, achieve success on the field. As college football's playoff format becomes increasingly competitive, the true impact of NIL budgets remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the financial stakes have never been higher.