I do find it amusing that their flagship school in Kentucky has had about as many NCAA wins as a rebuilding ND despite 25 win seasons and draft picks left & right, but it is depressing to see the broader rise of the conference where it previously seemed like a distant #2 to football, similar to much of the ACC with football. I think you're 100% correct on NIL, and others have mentioned TV money has helped them elevate their budgets and programs on the official athletic department side too.

-Florida understandably tailed off after Donovan, but looks to be somewhat stabilized again
-Barnes has done a great job at Tennessee, another former "football-first" school.
-Arkansas has been a solid program, but being able to bring Musselman with NBA experience was nice
-Alabama actually had a better historical track record than I expected, but was a Mars-level distance from the importance they place on football. They've unfortunately now made a Final Four and are recruiting well, and seeing them being able to outbid more established programs like Ohio State, Michigan, & Louisville to keep Oats was a surprise.
-Auburn was a middling program, but Pearl elevated them to a pretty
consistent team, and also made a Final Four
-South Carolina was another afterthought since the McGuire days other than that out of nowhere Final Four, but has become solid
-Vandy has struggled for most of my life with an occasional run, but did make a nice under the radar hire in Byington, whom I thought would have better offers.

The one that has always stumped me is UGA, as the flagship in a talent-laden state with no real in-state competition, a fairly open conference until recently, booster money out the wazoo, and the sort of school that in theory (for example, Duke football will only go so far) could excel at both, but they're closer to a Central Texas in basketball than a UT.

what it used to mean to many players. I think the coach and ability to get playing time are the greatest factors.