College football season is over. College sports chaos continues.

Less than eight hours after President Donald Trump took the oath of office last Monday, Ohio State and Notre Dame lined up to start the College Football Playoff national championship game. In at least one corner of the world, these were wholly connected events. With college sports and politics – and college sports and the legal system – any Venn diagram is becoming more of a circle.

Trump’s second term could have lasting effects on college athletics, an industry feeling sharp growing pains amid prolonged transition. And the title game, won by Ohio State, is that industry’s main event, the best illustration of how two things can be true at once: At the very top, college sports are a moneymaking machine for schools, coaches, sponsors and elite athletes, among others. Yet college sports, from top to bottom, have maybe never had a less certain future, making the coming year critical.

Some of that will be directly related to Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress. But the lawsuits also continue, meaning the foundation of college sports could be rocked – and rocked, and rocked – from many different directions. Here’s a look at how and why, a non-exhaustive list of the latest developments. If you prefer firm answers to complicated questions, reader discretion is advised.

Department of Education

With four days left in Joe Biden’s presidency, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a long-awaited memo on how Title IX could apply to name, image and likeness (NIL) money that schools pay their athletes. Why is this relevant now? If the House v. NCAA antitrust case is settled in April, many schools are expected to start sharing revenue directly with athletes by July. Under the proposed settlement terms, schools would initially have up to $20.5 million to share if they opt into the new system.

To this point, most major programs have planned to share a majority of that pool with football and men’s basketball players. But the OCR’s Title IX guidance said NIL payments count as financial assistance, calling for proportional treatment for male and female athletes. In a follow-up letter to Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Massachusetts), the OCR clarified that schools should provide a similar amount of financial assistance that is proportional to their number of male and female athletes.

So are we closer to a clear answer on how Title IX factors into revenue sharing? Not so fast. The memo was only guidance, not a law or regulation. And to that end, the Department of Education under Trump could easily rewrite the guidance or roll it back entirely. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the most vocal Republican lawmaker on college sports legislation, immediately opposed the memo, saying in a statement, “I predict this scheme will die on January 20th.” Or as one power-conference athletic director put it (speaking on the condition of anonymity because the AD’s school doesn’t permit the AD to discuss federal policy): “We’re still at square one. We’re just even more confused now.”

Department of Justice

A day after the Title IX memo dropped, Biden’s Justice Department had its last word on college sports. The DOJ took aim at the House v. NCAA settlement terms, saying the proposed cap of $20.5 million – which would incrementally rise each year for the next decade – violates free-market principals. Judge Claudia Wilken, having considered similar objections to the settlement, granted preliminary approval in October. And as with the Title IX memo, Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, could easily amend the DOJ’s view or strike it altogether. The final approval hearing is scheduled for April 7, the same day as the NCAA men’s basketball tournament championship game.

Employment

Soon – any minute now – Trump could appoint a new member of the National Labor Relations Board’s five-person panel, meaning Republicans also will control the federal agency that protects the rights of workers in the private sector. In anticipation of that, various groups recently withdrew their attempts to have college athletes classified as employees. They included the Dartmouth men’s basketball team; an advocacy group that brought an unfair labor practice charge against USC, the Pac-12 and the NCAA on behalf of USC athletes; and another advocacy group arguing Notre Dame, Northwestern, Dartmouth, the Ivy League and the NCAA are misclassifying athletes who should be considered employees.

The overarching strategy was to pause these efforts before a new-look NLRB would make rulings that could stunt both active and future pushes for athlete employment. The employment question is still being deliberated in federal court. For at least the next four years, the courts, not the NLRB, are the route for anyone who wants to join this fight.

Player movement

There’s a lot going on with linebacker Xavier Lucas, who recently transferred from Wisconsin to Miami. Wisconsin didn’t let Lucas enter the transfer portal after he signed a two-year revenue-sharing agreement. Lucas, who just finished his freshman season with the Badgers, left anyway and landed with Miami. Over the weekend, Wisconsin issued a sharp statement, saying Miami violated NCAA rules and the law by contacting Lucas when he wasn’t in the portal. Backed by a statement from the Big Ten, Wisconsin seemed ready to sue, should it come to that, even if the school didn’t say those exact words.

Lucas is represented by attorney Darren Heitner, who spent at least some of his Saturday picking apart Wisconsin’s statement on social media. This is a situation worth watching because a legal battle could further reshape rules around player movement. If players can change schools without entering the portal, as the NCAA suggested in a recent statement, the de facto college free agency could get even more chaotic. (NCAA rules still prevent an athlete from competing for two different schools in the same season.)

NIL

Speaking of legal battles worth watching, six former Florida State players sued Leonard Hamilton in late December, alleging the men’s basketball coach failed on a promise to pay each of them $250,000 in NIL money. According to the complaint, the players boycotted a practice before a game against Duke in February, then refused to play until Hamilton assured them they would be paid in the near future. Heitner also represents these athletes.

The suit came months after quarterback Matthew Sluka left UNLV midseason, alleging he was never paid $100,000 promised by an assistant coach. But in the FSU case, nearly half a roster is directly challenging an established, 76-year-old coach in court. In theory, revenue sharing should provide structure to how high-level athletes are paid. Contracts, already a norm, will become even more prevalent. The reality, though, in the frantic, never-ending race for talent is that it will be impossible to weed out every handshake deal. Depending on how this case goes, coaches and boosters might just proceed with a bit more caution.

Split on solutions

In the early years of NIL, college sports have often been referred to as the “Wild West,” a preferred catchphrase for adults uncomfortable with college athletes making big money. Again, as is often the case in this world, two things can be true: There’s nothing inherently wild or western about athletes finally sharing in the spoils they have generated for decades. Yet the system is wild, evidenced here by federal guidance that could vanish before spring, the still-rushing flood of lawsuits and a near-constant cry for change.

On one side, advocates say collective bargaining, which is typically only possible with employment, is the clear path to certainty. On the other side, the NCAA and most college administrators would say there’s one fix: a sweeping federal bill that provides antitrust protection and crushes the employment possibility for good. Then take all these factors and add in Trump, who is quite literally just getting started (again).

Buckling in won’t cut it. Strap a helmet on, too.