Blue White Illustrated

t's hard to tell where the line is drawn. Between amateurism and professionalism. Who deserves the money, and who doesn't. (The con- ference, universities, or, gasp, the stu- dent-athletes?) At this point, it's un- clear who is even in charge. It's even more difficult to determine when all the madness began. With the first year of a college football playoff looming, was 2013 the last season of rela- tive normalcy? Will the latest decisions in the NCAA boardroom and federal court take effect soon, or will it be a few years before college athletes are cashing pay- checks and starring in shoe commercials? Or maybe this can of worms has been open for decades; they're just now begin- ning to squirm out. There is an aura lingering over college football entering this season, and it's being described with words like "his- toric," "landmark" and having a "pro- found impact." In late July, NCAA representatives met at corporate headquarters to ultimately grant sweeping autonomy to the Power Five conferences. Like pulling a carpet from under its own feet, the move limits the NCAA's governance over the coun- try's main leagues. Also, the Big Ten, along with the ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC, will be deemed major sports in- dustries – like they weren't already? – and will eventually be expected to com- pensate their student-athletes as such. There's still going to be an override vote, so by the time this column hits news- stands, the storyline could have changed (once again). But it's unlikely to undergo a radical alteration. Making the pay-for-play scenario even more realistic, a few days after the NCAA's board meeting, a federal judge in California ruled in favor of Ed O'Ban- non, who was suing the NCAA in a his- tory-altering antitrust cast. By deciding in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken determined es- sentially that the NCAA is a price-fixing cartel and is in a violation of antitrust laws. There's a jungle of appeals before the wheels go in full motion, but as it stands, neither the NCAA nor any insti- tution underneath its umbrella can profit from a student-athlete's likeness without proper compensation. "I think amateurism took a huge blow in this case," said ESPN's Jay Bilas on "Mike and Mike in the Morning." Bilas is a practicing lawyer with degrees from Duke. He added that amateurism "as we know it, at least to this point, is dead." But that doesn't mean college athletics are dead. Bilas believes sports that don't typically generate revenue – wrestling, swimming, lacrosse, etc. – aren't even in much danger. Football and basketball, meanwhile, could prosper. With new television contracts and stadium deals, more money is flowing in than ever before. Throw in this season's playoff, in which only teams from the Power Five will be participating, and the major conferences want to be sure they get to decide how the pie is cut. But it looks like they will finally be ob- ligated to give the athletes their piece. Which, as I wrote in this column in the 2013 kickoff edition, is long overdue. It has been said that the 2016 recruit- ing class would be first affected. Penn State already has two prospects – two of the nation's 50 best players – verbally committed. How does PSU make sure they sign their letter of intent? Will it simply require James Franklin to con- tinue his persistent recruiting? Or will it come down to PSU offering a sweeter fi- nancial package than, say, Alabama or Ohio State? If Penn State is going to compete in the Big Ten, or on a national level, it will have no other choice but to join the arms race. And knowing Penn State's new forward-thinking leadership and with a total revenue ($104,751,464 in 2013, according to USA Today) that ranks among the nation's 15 highest, Penn State has the potential to be an arms leader. Following the O'Bannon decision, Wilken held that the NCAA and its members could offer players deferred compensation of up to $5,000 per year, which on the surface would seem af- fordable to some of the smaller-budget programs. But even a $5,000 stipend doesn't appear as if it it'll stand. It is still a cap, or a price-fix, that limits an athlete's earning potential, thus violat- ing antitrust regulations. In time, a col- lege athlete's value could be determined by the free market, rather than limited to a universal amount. At her introduction, new Penn State athletics director Sandy Barbour said she believes "that student-athletes ought to have access to cost of atten- dance," which would still be an expense that differs from school to school. With television contracts reaching into the billions, however, cost of attendance might not even suffice. But Barbour made clear that, even if players do receive compensation, at Penn State the athletes would still be considered students first. Receive the best of both worlds – a paycheck and a solid education. "Our student-athletes are students; they're not professionals," she said. "We're going to be about students and about students first." But they'll make some money while they're at it. At a school like Penn State, which has more financial resources than most programs in the country, it could be a pretty lucrative deal. Who's to know where to draw the line? ■ LAST WORD T I M O W E N | O W E N . T I M . B W I @ G M A I L . C O M I A lot on the line

• Cover