Lot of programs have always been able to outbid most of the dominant sports schools when it comes to resources, facilities, etc...but haven't. I don't know that all of a sudden because they can get some funds to players that things will change much.
If we're strictly going off the math equation of rich alumni base = unfair advantage and winning, then no SEC program would really be good at anything. Yet the conference pretty much owns a lot.
The winners of the above equation should be UVA, Notre Dame, Stanford, Michigan, Northwestern, USC, UCLA, Texas...all top wealthiest alumni basis in the country, probably world. Michigan has 2 titles in 50 years, Texas about the same. Neither have done anything in basketball. USC had a pop in football...nothing with staying power. All the other rich schools haven't done much.
Aggies for all their wealth, have only ever managed to fight with OSU, KSU, Tech, and more recently Ole Miss, Miss St, Auburn to sniff the farts of the big dogs.
Things may change, who knows, but thus far consistent success over multiple decades in sports hasn't belonged to the alma maters of the very wealthy. They're generally not as specifically and intensely interested in college sports. That's more of a thing for working middle classes who grow up, live, work in the same area, invest at least casual time/money/fandom in the same school for generations.
The uber rich who want to be involved in sports buy sports franchises and would just as soon get an ROI if they sell a portion if not all of the team. Mark Cuban could've single handedly made IU basketball the premier destination with what would amount to money he found in a sofa and rounding error for his accountant that he could've donated and written off as a loss on his taxes. He hasn't and won't.
Wal-Mart heirs can piss on whatever amount of money Aggies think they have, yet Arkansas is Arkansas.