The college sports landscape could see a massive shift depending on the result of Alston v. NCAA, CBSSports.com's Dennis Dodd reported Monday. 

Dodd noted the case centers around NCAA scholarships and the fact schools are limited in terms of the benefits they can offer prospective recruits. He wrote a win for the plaintiffs would potentially result in conference realignment because conferences would be allowed to determine how student-athletes are compensated.

Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick agreed with the assessment.

"It would be fascinating," Swarbrick said. "It would be a disaster ... but fascinating. I think there is a very significant chance that ruling would produce a new wave of conference realignment."

Dodd hypothesized schools would focus less on geography for conference affiliation and "reorganize around like-minded schools with the same spending philosophy toward athletes."

One university administrator posited the Florida State Seminoles and Clemson Tigers, for example, might want to leave the ACC since the bulk of the conference wouldn't want to make the commitment necessary to build a national title contender.

Sports Illustrated's Michael McCann provided a thorough breakdown of Alston v. NCAA in September. 

Shawne Alston and Justine Hartman are the co-lead plaintiffs. Alston was a running back at West Virginia and Hartman played center at California.

Together, they argue the NCAA's limitation on benefits violates antitrust law and want to see schools granted more freedom for scholarship compensation. In lieu of a completely free market without any scholarship restrictions, Alston and Hartman would prefer conferences be allowed to set their own standards for how to cap the overall value.

Dodd noted the idea of "super conferences" larger than those in the current Power Five structure isn't anything new. Allowing each conference to set its own level of financial compensation for recruits would seemingly bring that shift closer to fruition.