With the news the NCAA and Power Five schools have agreed on a settlement to pay former college athletes $2.78 billion to resolve three antitrust lawsuits that also sets up a model for schools to pay athletes directly, there are seemingly more questions than answers at this early stage. 

We know the plan calls for the pay for play model to commence with the 2025-26 academic year and the belief is schools would be able to share revenue with athletes up to a cap equivalent to 22% of the average revenue for power conference schools. That total could be in the $22 million per year range in year one. 

But how that revenue is actually distributed to student athletes is widely unknown and considered to be at each school's discretion. It's also important to note Title IX is not contemplated in the terms of the settlement and while it still applies, who know how it applies? 

Will schools ultimately be required to share the revenue 50/50 with men and women athletes? 

What happens to NIL collectives in this model? Could they become even more important that today to create an edge in financial competitiveness for top players in football and mens' basketball? If so, will the NCAA and Power Five schools create the proper framework to stay in line with the spirit of NIL? 

With scholarship limits likely eliminated, will cool stories like football walk-ons carving out meaningful roles cease to be a thing? 

Will some schools feel a need or incentive to reduce the number of varsity sports they field? 

Bottom line - what are your chief concerns with the model based on what we know today and do you have any concerns the to-be-determined finer points of the overall framework could compromise some of Ohio State football's current advantages which help keep the Buckeyes among the most elite tier of college football?