The cap you can push. Title IX you cannot.
A program runs on two budgets. One is competitive, the NIL and revenue-share money you spend to win, priced elsewhere. This is the other one: scholarships, equivalency splits, the roster limit, your slice of the department's revenue-share pool, and Title IX. It is less glamorous and far more binding, because this is where the hard caps and the legal exposure live. Get the competitive money wrong and you lose a game. Get this wrong and you lose the case.
One budget wins games. This one keeps the program standing.
Money into a program splits two ways, and they answer to different masters. The competitive budget chases wins and lives under a soft cap you can push. The structural budget is bound by hard limits and federal law. This surface is the structural one, and no NIL tool touches it. Here is a composite department's structural picture.
The competitive money is where the attention goes. This is where the program lives or dies, because a scholarship over the limit or a funding split that fails Title IX is not a bad game, it is a violation. Less glamorous, more binding.
Illustrative engine read on the real structural-budget structure (equivalencies, roster limit, rev-share slice, Title IX). Composite department, demonstration figures.
Fund by value. Hold the line.
The engine does not just spread money evenly, and it does not just chase impact. It recommends a hybrid: a fixed base to every athlete that holds the Title IX proportion, plus a variable slice informed by value to the team, so the money that is left to move chases wins. The base keeps you standing; the variable makes you better.
Every athlete gets the base, which is what keeps the gender proportion legal. The variable slice rides on value to the team, so the high-PTV starter earns more of the money that is free to move. The structural spend keeps the whole thing standing; the competitive spend chases wins; the hybrid does both at once.
Illustrative engine read on the real hybrid-allocation structure (fixed Title IX base plus PTV-informed variable). Composite roster, demonstration figures.
Revenue sharing is distributed by the school. That makes it Title IX.
Because the institution hands out the revenue-share money, it almost certainly falls under Title IX proportionality. Load it onto the men's revenue sports and you have a plausible lawsuit no matter how many games it wins. The engine runs the gauge live, and flags the shape that loses the case before you commit to it.
The first shape might build a winner and end in court. The second wins within the law. The engine will not manufacture defensibility it does not have, but it shows you the line, live, so you never find it the hard way. Change the funding shape and the gauge re-prices before anything commits.
Illustrative engine read on the real Title IX proportionality gauge. Composite department, demonstration figures. Not legal advice.
The competitive money has a soft cap, and half the sport is spending its energy figuring out how far to push it. This surface is about the money that does not bend: the roster limit, the scholarship equivalencies, the proportion the law requires. The engine funds by value where the money is free to move, and holds the base where the law says it must, so you chase wins without walking into a lawsuit. One budget decides games. This one decides whether the program is still standing to play them.
Spend to win. Spend to stay standing.
Funding and Scholarships holds the structural money to the line while funding by value.