It really depends on the school. If you're probably throwing money at basketball players, not football players.
Sure, you could blow your entire budget on hiring the best football players, but (hopefully) KU is smart enough to realize that Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky and others will be in a basketball arms race. If you can only spend $20m, schools will have to think about their opportunity cost. By arming up in football, a school like Kansas may be directly hindering their basketball chances.
This gets tough for a school like Ohio State or Michigan State, who have historically been pretty good at both sports. Or NU Football AND Volleyball. Essentially, every dollar we give John Cook is one less dollar we can give Matt Rhule.
it will be interesting to see how schools divvy up these funds. Again, if you are a school like Creighton it's pretty straightforward. But what about schools like Stanford or Texas who have pretty solid Athletics across 10 or 15 sports?
Again this is good for Nebraska. I'm sure the bulk of our money will go to football. But if you are Wisconsin football, you are not only competing to outspend other Big Ten football teams, but you are also competing against Wisconsin hockey, Wisconsin wrestling, Wisconsin basketball, and so forth.