As a crucial House-NCAA hearing approaches, leaders are trying to establish a new system to manage revenue sharing

This Saturday, at college football stadiums across the country, games kick off to mark the sport’s second full weekend.

Arkansas takes on Oklahoma State in an SEC vs. Big 12 matchup, Iowa State takes on Iowa in the CyHawk rivalry game, and Tennessee meets NC State in a neutral-court clash in Charlotte. In Ann Arbor, the biggest game of all begins: No. 3 Texas vs. No. 10 Michigan.

While the eyes of the sport are on these high-profile showdowns on the field, there are perhaps even bigger battles taking place off the field — most of them tied to the NCAA’s landmark settlement in the House antitrust case, a deal that is expected to usher in a new model for athlete revenue sharing in the industry this July.

Away from the touchdowns and field goals, there are legal plays being played. Strategic moves. And crucial decisions that can impact the future of college sports.

There’s a lot going on.

Quietly, conference and NCAA leaders are working to establish a regulatory system to manage and enforce this new revenue-sharing model. Seeking to hire outside entities to oversee the management and enforcement systems — not the NCAA — conference officials have attended presentations from some of the world’s largest professional services providers, such as PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Meanwhile, the deal itself still needs approval, which could happen at a preliminary level this Thursday in a virtual hearing before California District Judge Claudia Wilken. She will hear arguments from those who think it should be approved (the attorneys for the House plaintiffs and the NCAA/power leagues) and from the deal’s main opponent: the attorneys in a separate antitrust case, Fontenot v. NCAA, who argue their case should proceed because their claims are not disclosed in the deal.

On the eve of the hearing, in two separate interviews conducted recently, the two lead attorneys for the House plaintiffs, Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, expressed confidence that the judge will approve the settlement, even if it means requiring changes to the language in the agreement — something many expect.

“We are confident that she will override (Fontenot’s) objections,” Berman said, adding: “There could be minor changes.”

At the local level, school leaders are preparing for the approval of the agreement and the advent of the revenue-sharing concept. They are maximizing previously untapped revenue sources (think naming rights and sponsorships); they are beginning to restructure their departments to resemble a more professional model (general manager and other professional-type staff positions); and they are revising their budgets to prioritize sports (investing more in sports that attract attention, generate revenue, and/or have the potential to compete for championships).

Meanwhile, on the national scene, work has begun…