It was not until 1991 that all Division I athletic programs carried catastrophic insurance and that the N.C.A.A. used some of its Final Four basketball revenue to cover the cost.

''I want someone to step up and say we made a mistake with Kent Waldrep and we need to set that right,'' Waldrep said in a recent interview. But more importantly, I want the N.C.A.A. to admit that they've made a mistake all these years by not protecting the kids who bring in the millions of dollars and make college athletics possible. It's the right thing to do.''

In a broader context, Waldrep's case challenges the N.C.A.A.'s ability to view itself simultaneously as an academically oriented amateur sports organization and a revenue-producing business, according to Allen L. Sack, a professor of management at the University of New Haven in Connecticut. ''It's a pure court challenge to the N.C.A.A.'s amateur mythology,'' said Sack, who played football at Notre Dame and has written frequently on college athletics.

''The question is not should athletes be paid,'' he said. ''They already are, with a salary cap, which is now tuition, room, board and fees. Now the issue is, should they be paid more?

''This case could change that cap. If an athlete is an employee, why can't he or she endorse a product, be involved with a sponsor, do what their coaches do? This could be the beginning of a labor market.''

The N.C.A.A. is aware of the significance of the case, according to a spokesman, Wally Renfro, but has yet to become involved. A ruling in favor of Waldrep could open challenges to the N.C.A.A.'s not-for-profit status, as well as privileged legal and tax considerations that are accorded amateur sports organizations. ''It's a very important issue,'' Renfro said.

Waldrep's lawyer, John Collins, said he would argue three simple points to prove that the running back was an employee: that T.C.U. had a written contract with Waldrep, that the university paid him, and that the university had the right of control.