1. Like most of the FBS Marshall does not have the resources to get into a bidding war. That's just fact. Our two top donors have passed and the other sits in the capital and is at odds with MU because he can't have his way with who coaches.
2. LOL! if you think Saban is going to get exposed. You don't think The University of Alabama with the greatest HC in the history of the sport isn't still going to be at the front of the field? I wonder just how you think the recruiting is going to change so drastically that Alabama is going to keep pace with talent.
3. What has been going on since the early 80's is not the same as what is going now. Comparing a could donors giving loaded handshakes and cars to the very top recruits like Eric Dickerson to Corporate sponsors and local businesses investing in players is completely different. Eventually the free-for-all we're seeing with subside because the justification for giving a 5th string LB that never sees the field 36k year won't be there. You'll see the top players getting deals, but this "buy a roster" stuff won't last. It's 100% unsustainable.
Also Marshall doesn't need to keep pace with SMU. It needs to keep pace with Appy, CC, and ULL before worrying about those outside the conference that we do not directly compete with. We do not compete with SMU for players and we do not compete with SMU for championships. Once we can check off establishing SBC dominance then we can turn our focus to elevating our selves to the outside.
I actually just said MU doesn't need to get into a direct bidding war for recruits. What they need to do is be creative with incentives that have allure for athletes. Local businesses can be a major help in that.
As for Saban, yes, I do think that. It's the same thing that happened to UK with basketball. Once programs began to use their model, teams were capable of winning, who nornally weren't.
You really think the likes of Alabama are going to keep financial pace with Texas, or SMU, or others? Bama is winning, but even they have financial limits, and if a program like Stanford, decided to just knock 3% off their acceptance rates to let in ridiculously good athletes, given their alumni reach and wealth? Would literally bury Alabama's resources.
Let's just get closer to home with someone like Vanderbilt deciding to actually try to compete with the rest of the SEC...the resources there far exceed the top performing programs.
Toss in a coach who's had to work extra hard with lesser talented athletes, who now can buy some good ones, you'll have more Purdue/ohio state games of 2018.
The roster buying? You're comparing one program, SMU of today, to the 80's. I don't know of other programs who are giving their entire student athletes a salary, but I do know plenty who are doing the Dickerson approach.
As I said, there are historically bad programs with a ton of wealth who can now even out the playing field. The amount spent on this roster for SMU is a pitifully small total for them...and its SMU, they have largely been irrelevant for a long time but still have very, very deep pockets.
That's why Texas may be a solid fit for the SEC, they can financially keep up with everyone and their alumni base is not only larger, but likely wealthier. They can enter bidding wars and can bleed out Alabama, Auburn, LSU, etc.
Plus, offering a 4th string LB a salary of some sort from SMU, is more than what Alabama is willing to give them. This also doesn't limit other outside businesses to sign top athletes to NIL deals beyond what we see here.
Oh, and MU does need to do something. Regardless of if this trend is a long term solidly good thing (it's not, and I agree with you, it'll become very complicated, but not quite the trainwreck you say), they have to join the trend somehow or else risk being 7-6 every season because we took the moral high ground in a corrupt system that has no morals, thus the high ground doesn't exist.
But, we can be creative and necessarily spend money.
That is a universal G5 thing that has kept us alive.
