Getting to a baseline in football is going to remain elusive for some time. Other sports not named football or men's basketball will actually get to a baseline much sooner and some are damn near there. This is due to the lack of star value across the board for most of the others sports. What I mean is that there isn't a big market for even the best female point guard in the country, or the best libero, or golf star. That's not to say there cannot be outliers or that some money isn't available, because there is some money and shit does happen.
Paradoxically, the greater the star power on a football team or basketball team, the harder it is to get to an overall baseline for the roster. The battles for the standouts are happening at really expensive levels right now, and the incumbent schools are mostly winning on the retention side, but not without a lot of pain. More than what a baseline of $50k per 85 players has been committed in this cycle on less than 25% of the roster at Texas. This isn't unique to Texas.
Some of the premiums will get knocked off by the general unsustainability, even for very rich people, of what's happening now, nationally. That will help. Then more maturity in the base itself and the familiarity with the concept will grow, and more crowdfunded money will come in. Then corporate work will continue to develop. So 2025 probably looks a lot different, and not coincidentally, for Texas in a positive way.
But to address the rest of your post, yes, I believe the portal has now become an extremely convenient way for coaches to dump dead weight. That's the case already. When Blue was making it clear he was going to look, they encouraged it, allegedly. Not to get rid of him, but to get the bullshit out of him. Either he'd land a badass deal for himself somewhere else or he'd realize he has it pretty good where he's currently playing and schooling.
Caveats for the thinking in this post:
1) Baseball is a weird one. LSU allegedly spent like $4M in the last cycle to put together this super team that they're entering the season with in 2023. Texas lost bids on like 6 guys to them. That's just not super sustainable for anyone, much less LSU alums. Texas has won a number of battles lately. There are enough schools that care about baseball that there will always be some high dollar activity, but not close to the levels of football or basketball.
2) There may never be a "floor" for basketball. It just may be about whatever the market bears for the stars and if there is anything left and the program is doing well, program guys get whatever that is that's available when the dust settles. I would expect Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, and maybe someone like UCLA or Michigan State to have a floor, but that would be about it. Maybe UH too since Fertitta and Mattress Mac, among others, are putting a lot of resources into that program.
3) Hot females, irrespective of sport, who are willing to market their hotness, will get paid corporate money that dwarfs almost everyone else except QBs and star basketball guys. That will either make them completely fluid when it comes to program allegiances or make them totally disinterested in ever pondering a transfer. The better the weather and local scenery, the more likely a program is to attract and retain this type of athlete. Austin being incredibly "Insta-friendly" has legitimate monetary value for various females considering a school.
4) A transfer rule change making it hard to leave after one transfer might be coming from the NCAA and would, again, dramatically impact ongoing market decisions for players and programs.