It's the difference between getting an asset that you need now, that can make you money now. Or waiting, and adding that same asset at a later time when it has been potentially permanently devalued
.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
I think some of you are overstating the importance of the money. If you look at our athletic department budget, it's around $60m, roughly the same as Clemson, WVU, Rutgers, Maryland, and the like. If you look up a level to those that spend in the $70m range you're looking at UNC, UVA, Indiana, Kansas and Illinois. $80m ADs include Kentucky, Nebraska, South Carolina, Louisville and Arkansas. Personally I don't see a huge difference between what product most of them put on the field. Obviously some are better than others, but I don't think the correlation between performance and money is as great as some people seem to think. Most of the schools that spend over $100m are top notch year in year out, but you also have exceptions like Tennessee. Iowa spends about $90m but you'll have a very hard time convincing me they have a more successful athletic department than WVU who spends 2/3 as much.
Obviously money helps, but aside from stadium expansion we've pretty much bought all of our toys already, so I don't think earning $15-20m less than Rutgers is necessarily going to be the death blow that some people seem to think it'll be. Besides, our revenue disadvantage shouldn't last for too long.