Huge media deals, NIL, transfer portal, TV access to everyone. A lot has changed in college football the last decade or even the last couple of years. Has the game become more even, is there more parity than ever? I'm going with the yes and no answer. I believe that parity is more prevalent than ever but it is in tiers.
The B1G and SEC have separated from the rest, mostly with money. Money buys players, coaches, facilities, staffs etc. Almost all the rule changes have given the ruling conferences more advantages to the other conferences. The huge media contracts allows boosters to donate towards NIL and into their collectives. B1G and SEC teams don't need boosters lined up to keep their athletic departments in the black. A large amount of those annual donations can be redirected and donated into the collective to pay players. The big budgets allow more staff, more recruiting staff, more analysts, more player development guys, bigger and better training and recovery staff and facilities.
A big factor in the separation of the B1G and the SEC from the rest is the talent migration. The B1G/SEC can pay more and give more visibility to people than the other conferences. Players that do good in other conferences can move up to the B1G/SEC for a payday and for exposure. Coaches, assistant coaches, nutrition folks, S&C folks, video folks, all move from the smaller conferences to better jobs in the B1G/SEC. Better resources, better facilities, better exposure. The system has changed so that top talent in every area can easily move up and get paid more. The changes have also allowed the top programs to make room for the rising talent. A recruit that doesn't pan out can be sent to the portal and make room. Roster holes are filled with quality late blooming stars from lower ranks.
At the same time parity within these ranks is at an all time high. The B1G/SEC has separated from other conferences, but at the same time become a bit of a jumbled mess. The difference between Georgia and Mississippi State was 10 points. All that money that conference teams get is being spent with the same goals, having a top football team. I can't remember a time where the bottom teams in these conferences were as close to the top teams. Really messy in the middle, 3 -15 in the B1G could be any of 12 teams. B1G and SEC play is becoming more NFL like, close games, not a huge talent difference. There are still a few outliers, tOSU obviously has a talent advantage over Purdue, but Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, USC, Washington, Rutgers, Michigan, and Wisconsin all have pretty similar talent levels. The transfer portal keeps it that way. No stocking up talent on the bench, it gets spread out and payed.
It's just becoming two separate levels of play. Maybe 3 with the B1G/SEC, then the Big 12/ACC, then the G5, but I don't expect the Big 12/ACC to maintain much of an advantage over some G5 teams. Shoot a lot of the Big 12 was G5 a few years ago. They just aren't going to get the money. When revenue sharing happens that is really going to stretch AD budgets not in the B1G/SEC. Media isn't going to pay, people want to watch the top teams and that is B1G/SEC and the B1G/SEC have enough games to fill all the important time slots. Sanders can bitch about his kickoff time, but that's part of the Big 12, the B1G/SEC get the good time slots. Good coaches and players are going to move up, that's the way the system is now.
So parity has come, at least conference wide, but parity between conferences is not coming and the differences are growing. How many non B1G/SEC teams would have a winning record in the B1G/SEC? 3 if you count Notre Dame, maybe a few more. Much has been made of the B1G/SEC pulling away from the NCAA, I'm not sure they need to as it is already happening in football.
