Matt Hayes

The announcement was barely a blip in the week that was. You know, with the 24-hour Tom Brady ankle/girlfriend cycle.

Meanwhile, a little thing happened in Indianapolis that could have profound impact on amateur sports: The NCAA lost another lawsuit. This time, it involved players and money and will be impetus to something much grander.

Pay for play.

Earlier this week, the NCAA "settled" a lawsuit by two former football players and a former basketball player from California. The federal antitrust lawsuit argued that NCAA limits on scholarships — which cover tuition, books, housing and meals — are a restraint of trade because of the gazillions the NCAA (see: the universities) makes from television, apparel, sold out stadiums, etc., etc.

The lawsuit specifically stated that the scholarship limits "deny a legitimate share of the tremendous benefits of their enterprise to the student-athletes who make the big business of big-time college sports possible."

First, the NCAA claimed the case had no merit. Then it offered to gloss things over with a $10 million payoff.

It's a track record, folks: Deny then capitulate.

Let's look over the recent history of the NCAA in key court cases, shall we?

• In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled the NCAA could not restrict teams' appearances on television. This, of course, led to the utter explosion of football games on television and allowed conferences to negotiate their own television deals. That let to the CFA (College Football Association), which led to the Bowl Coalition, which led to the Bowl Alliance, which led to — tada! — the BCS.

• In 1999, the NCAA paid $54 million to restricted earnings coaches, whose salaries were unfairly limited — in many cases, as little as $8,000-$10,000 a year — by association rules.

• In 2004, the NCAA paid former Washington coach Rick Neuheisel $2.5 million in damages after his wrongful termination trial. Try and wrap your mind around this: Gambling is the NCAA's unspeakable sin. But Washington didn't understand the NCAA's gambling rules, and the NCAA didn't understand its own rules about gambling investigations. Yet both tried to punish Neuheisel for not knowing or abiding by those rules. And lost.

Now here we are with yet another momentous case. NCAA president Myles Brand admitted that scholarships don't cover the full cost of college, and a recent study shows college athletes spend about $2,500 a year to make up the difference. Yet college sports is bathing in black ink.

You see where this is headed, right?

The NCAA is in the middle of an 11-year, $6.2 billion — that's billion with a "B" — contract with CBS to televise a glorified basketball tournament for degenerate gamblers. Let's face it, without gambling, the men's basketball tournament isn't nearly as attractive to CBS advertisers.

Without those office pools and weekends in Vegas, it's just another NCAA championship.

With so much money on the table — including Fox's four-year, $320 million contract to televise four bowl games a year — it's only a matter of time before some bright attorney takes on the NCAA and pay-for-play becomes a reality.

Slideshow   The Week in Sports Pictures The Giants on top of the football world, getting ready for the London Olympics and more. more photos

Considering the NCAA's track record in groundbreaking cases and considering the organization still holds a tax-free exemption, why in the world would it argue such a case and lay its financial laundry out for everyone to see — and jeopardize its tax-free status?

When restricted-earnings coaches won their lawsuit in 1999, the NCAA wasn't half the engorged monster it is now. If that same lawsuit happened now instead of a decade ago, it never would reach a courtroom. There's too much to lose for the NCAA.

This isn't about pay-for-play in college — both sides have compelling arguments. We're on the verge of change in amateur sports that only few can fathom.

I mean, it's not as important as Tom Brady's ankle or Tom Brady's love life. But it's close.