No my point is
A) they've done less on the field and have trended down year after year compared to us trending up year after year
B) have spent substantially less on their roster up to this point as evidenced by them having a worse recruiting class each of the last 3 years compared to us, AND having a much worse portal class than us. This allows them to have more money to spend on this HS class, which should be obvious. ... (of and they haven't spent substantially less for their roster up to this point that is just blatant evidence of them NOT being well run lol)..
C) And NOW because they have all the money in the world to spend, are landing the top class our of HS (that wont help them any this year on the field), you say if we were more like them we'd have a top 5 class... Well uh yeah it's easy to do well in recruiting and look 'so competent' when you have the most money to spend. It's like USC is the team in FA that has the most money to spend like the Patriots this offseason and we are the packers, and then being like 'If we were as well run as the patriots, we'd be much better!'.... riiiiight.....
And see you say we may be north of $28M... well that doesn't matter much if there are 10 other programs at that same spending level, now does it? It's all relative. And it doesn't help us much for THIS HS recruiting class if most of our money available is tied up to guys currently playing and that we expect back next season. $28M roster doesn't mean you have ability to spend at top 3 level for this specific HS class. And maybe if it did it'd likely mean we had no ability to spend in the portal. Would you prefer that? or the more balanced approach of maybe a slightly worse HS class than you're capable of and getting a slightly better portal class?...