Absolutely it will, to an extent. I'm a big analytical guy, but not so much of the advanced stuff for college as I feel it can negatively impact the game with not just the 56-game schedule but also over-reliability and more importantly - the NCAA restrictions of coaches time allowed with the team per week.
Find an assistant like Marcuzzo and my opinion will slightly change.
I'd rather the money go in to as-is resources to benefit the players. We have a lab that can take our pitching up a level, hitting can get a bump top, but we rarely, if ever, use it. Part of that is NU Athletics related with limited access. Part of it is not having dedicated people to use it correctly, so on and so on. Pay a pair of guys $60,000 each per year to solely focus on this and you'll see improvements. But, that's too much to ask for.
MLB/MiLB guys don't have school (required attendance + homework) to sweat, it's 110% baseball focused over a 7-8 month period including ST. And zero time restrictions. They also have "data coaches", which solely focus on that and a front office with nerds pumping the information to those dedicated coaches.
@HuskerBaseball can likely verify this. I was told by a former parent, we have a current pitcher (please keep his name out of this discussion) that went and visited with a specialist. In the very first or second visit, he diagnosed something that should be corrected. This specialist hasn't way less access to this player, no more access to analytical data than Rob Childress has and Rob never once mentioned this. I don't know if it's analytical or fundamentally related but the point is - our T5 pitching coach couldn't identify something that seemed minor but very beneficial.