The winter holidays mark a time of joy and celebration for some, but are more defined by anxiety for others. Amid college football’s annual holiday-season tradition of bowls games, the sport’s shift from the long-held postseason customs to an expanded playoff heightens anxiety.
Regardless if one falls in the category of joyful reveler or cantankerous Scrooge, consumerism plays a critical role in the season. College football is no different, with the recent advent of NIL becoming a foundational element of the game evident in the remaining Playoff field.
As the bracket whittled down from 12 to eight with last weekend’s opening-round games, the College Football Playoff demonstrated an exercise comparable to Eddie Murphy’s monologue about Christmastime spending in the seasonal classic Trading Places: “I ain’t gonna have money to buy my son the G.I. Joe with the kung-fu grip, and my wife ain’t going to make love to me ‘cause I got no money.”
Well, reaching the Playoff and advancing are similar. The eight quarterfinalists stand as testament to spending power — though it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly how much, which contributes to rising anxieties.
A CBS Sports article ahead of the 1st Round broke down the tournament into NIL-spending tiers, with five of the 12 labeled “elite spenders.” Four of those play on in the round of eight: reigning national champion Ohio State, Oregon, Texas Tech and Miami, which outlasted fellow elite spender Texas A&M in what was perhaps uncoincidentally the most competitive of the four opening-round games.
James Madison and Tulane were both routed against deep-pocketed opponents in Oregon and Ole Miss, which isn’t necessarily a data point worth applying to any NIL discussion. Athletic departments with more funds through television revenue, merchandising, etc. have long had advantages against their counterparts from conferences with fewer resources, and that disparity is a defining trait of the underdog stories fans love.
In the case of this year’s Playoff other historical underdogs, however, NIL spending is an undeniably crucial factor in Indiana and Texas Tech pursuing the national championship.
The top-seeded, undefeated Hoosiers head into their first Rose Bowl Game in almost six decades behind the Heisman Trophy winner Fernando Mendoza. The Indiana quarterback has an NIL valuation of $2.6 million per On3.com estimates, up from the $1.6 million estimate shortly after Mendoza’s transfer from Cal.
And while less dramatic in a historical context than Indiana’s rise to prominence, Texas Tech competing for the national championship is a significant jump for a program previously destined to also-ran status. The Red Raiders are underdogs in the sense that they were rarely competitive on a national level previously, but Texas Tech reportedly spends on NIL with a fervor comparable to top-tier soccer clubs.
The soccer parallel works in part because, like a once-middling Manchester City became an English Premier League powerhouse coinciding with an infusion of cash, Texas Tech owes much of its rise to oil money.
On3 reported Texas Tech spent a whopping $28 million on its 2025 roster, making it one of the highest-priced lineups in college football. The public face of Tech’s NIL collective, former Red Raiders lineman Cody Campbell, sold his energy company Double Eagle for a reported $4.1 billion earlier this year.
So does this year’s Playoff foreshadow all our football holiday seasons to come? Does a program need its own version of Landman to strike it rich in order to compete?
Looking at the other closely contested 1st-Round matchup — Alabama’s comeback win at Oklahoma — offers fascinating perspective. It pit against one another two historically outstanding programs that CBS Sports designated as “good, but not as elite as you think” spenders.
That’s an interesting description, as it aligns particularly with Alabama’s drop-off from the most dominant program in the sport in the years just before the Supreme Court allowed NIL payments in 2021, to the Crimson Tide’s current positioning as a consistent winner but hardly a world-beater.
Now, it’s overly simplistic to credit Alabama’s marginal slide to NIL spending and discredits just how remarkable Nick Saban was as the Tide’s head coach. But it is noteworthy that Saban has been an outspoken critic not of NIL, but its lack of structure.
“I’m all for the players making money,” [but] I don’t think we have a sustainable system right now,” Saban said last spring. I think a lot of people would agree with that. In terms of the future of college athletics period, not just football, how do we sustain 20 other non-revenue sports that create lots of other opportunities for people in the future?”
In its parallel with the holiday season, Saban’s comments about the long-term health of college athletics during this present-day era of unregulated spending might bring to mind nightmares of credit-card bills coming due after a gift-buying spree.
You have perhaps noticed much of the information on NIL spending is presented in estimates. The lack of concrete oversight or regulation makes evaluating the landscape difficult, and only adds to the anxiety surrounding NIL.