Both of these points are fair. A few thoughts:
(1) If we measure parity based on the team champion alone, then yes, NCAA DI wrestling has not even sniffed parity . . . maybe ever.
(2) If we measure parity based on the Top 10, I think we do see more turnover or cycling there in team finishes.
(3) Another measure of parity might be the # of teams per season with an individual champ. I don’t have time right now to analyze what those numbers look like over the past 10+ years, but it would be a valid measure.
(4) While the answer may ultimately be that — based on an averaging of the above 3 measures —parity and NCAA DI wrestling have never really been strong partners, it is reasonable to expect NIL & lax transfer rules to decrease parity even further, perhaps in all 3 messures.
Nagao might end up being the best “first example” of how traditional powers could utilize smaller programs (or any program in a down cycle) as farm teams to maintain a stanglehold on Top 1-5 team and/or individual champion finishes. This new era is really early in the going, and so we’ll just have to wait and see how it actually influences parity.
We might point to Woods and Truax as examples of the rich getting richer, but a move like Griffith to Rutger would temper that a tad. We’ll just need more data before declaring a trend.