After five years of lawsuits and litigation, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken gave final approval of the landmark House vs. NCAA antitrust settlement recently, which in essence ended the 119-year amateurism model that organization vowed would never change.

It was roughly 10 years ago when then-NCAA President Mark Emmert said that college athletes would be paid over his dead body. Emmert is still with us, but his desire to never see college athletes get a piece of the pie ended officially and legally with Wilken’s decision.

The decision allows schools to share as much as $20.5 million of their revenues with players during the upcoming academic year. The settlement also includes $2.8 billion in back payments for athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024.

The new revenue-sharing cap will increase by at least 4% each year during the 10-year agreement.

As has been noted, written about and discussed at length, Idaho State, being an NCAA member school, is on the hook to help pay for this. Estimates are they are responsible for anywhere from $260,000 to $300,000 a year over this agreement even though they, like many other mid-major and smaller institutions, were not responsible for the issues that brought the lawsuits into play in the first place.

As far as the NCAA is concerned, they are breathing a sigh of relief that at least some of the seemingly never-ending lawsuits brought to the courts are at an end and the settlement is a solid first step in perhaps slowing down the “Wild West” mentality that has become the new normal in college sports.

But — you knew there was going to be a “but” in there, didn’t you? — this settlement is not a be-all, end-all solution to things. In fact, as national broadcasters and writers who follow college sports have pointed out, if the NCAA believes they don’t have to worry about defending themselves in court anymore moving forward, they are sadly mistaken.

Mike White, coach of the national champion Texas softball team, called it “the great unknown right now.”

“My athletic director, Chris Del Conte, said it’s like sailing out on a flat world and coming off the edge; we just don’t know what’s going to be out there yet, especially the way the landscape is changing,” said White at the Women’s College World Series in Oklahoma City. “Who knows what it’s going to be?”

Here are three scenarios that many expect to happen given some time:

As part of the settlement, an outside organization called the College Sports Commission, or in short NIL Go, has been created to oversee and police any deals worth more than $600. What happens if they rule against an agreement between an athlete and, say, a local business or a booster? If past is prologue, that athlete, booster or business is liable to say, “See you in court.” And they have a reasonable chance of winning based on restraint of trade. It is unconstitutional to restrict a citizen’s right to earn a living or an income.

The NCAA is also asking — demanding? — that schools who participate in the settlement agreement sign a document that says they will abide by the new rules, but if they don’t and are found to be in violation, the NCAA reserves the right to expel them from their respective conference. On paper that sounds great, but in reality? The Big Ten may be willing to try to expel a Northwestern or an Indiana or Minnesota, but would they seriously take on an Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State? The SEC may be willing to say, “see ya” to a Vanderbilt or Missouri, but would they tackle Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Florida or Kentucky? Probably not, and if they did, those schools would say “See you in court.” To those who say, “But you signed an agreement,” frankly those don’t mean much today. A good lawyer can usually find a loophole to get out of it.

Finally, you could start to see Title IX issues and lawsuits filed by female athletes who aren’t getting what they feel is their fair share. It is thought that most schools, especially those that support football programs, are going to give the vast bulk of their allotted money to that program. Estimates are saying as much as 75%. Those same estimates are saying 15% will go to men’s basketball, 5% to women’s basketball and 5% to all the other sports. These are general estimates, remember, and don’t apply to all schools. The Big East Conference, for example, does not have football, so the bulk of their money is expected to go to men’s basketball instead. Some schools have opted to mirror the gross revenue each sport averages, which could lead to more than 85% of the salary pool being set aside for football players.

To that end, it was announced Wednesday that eight athletes from three different schools have filed an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the settlement.

The group of women’s sports athletes are arguing the House settlement violates the Title IX gender equality statute since it doesn’t include any language that directly addresses Title IX.

The Title IX appeal will not impact future revenue-sharing plans, but could delay the $2.8 billion back damage payment process for college athletes from 2016-2024 that opted into the settlement.

Again, the House settlement is a good start, but the issues surrounding college athletics in the new age are far from settled.

Is there an answer, a “final solution?”

Far be it from me to be able to answer that question, although more and more I’m reading and hearing that ultimately the only way to get a permanent solution is something that is anathema to the NCAA and many — not all — university presidents: that is making all college athletes “employees” and then having collective bargaining with what would be a union on their behalf.

That probably isn’t going to happen, at least in the near future, but then again, who would have thought 10 years ago that athletes now would be openly paid, with some even getting seven-figure deals.

As I’ve said and written before, this is not your father’s or grandfather’s college sports anymore.

Stay tuned.