And that's what will really count moving forward.

Ask yourself: why should OU be any better than aTm or Mizzou? Less money, fewer people, etc.

Only reason is past success, which was built on cheating the system. OU is almost certainly the most consistently dirty program in CFB. Other programs have been as dirty in spurts, but never ad consistently over decades — from GI bill shenanigans to Bud Wilkinson's slush fund in the 60s to Switzer paying players and covering up their crimes to more of the same under Stoops.

Maybe aTm and Mizzou wouldn't be as willing to cover up actual criminal acts, but they can now pay players the way OU was. So what inherent advantage should OU have at this point?