The ongoing federal corruption saga jumped the tracks from college basketball into the football realm.

And there’s local significance.

Marty Blazer, a cooperating federal witness who already pleaded guilty to wire fraud, made allegations under oath Tuesday of paying college football players. The schools he listed included Pittsburgh, Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Northwestern, North Carolina and … Alabama, according to reporters in the Manhattan courtroom.

The payments were made between 2000 and 2014, according to tweets from reporters in the courtroom. They would range from $100 to $3,000 a month via Western Union, CBS Sports reported.

So, what does this mean from an NCAA compliance standpoint?

First, none of the reporting to this point indicates Blazer named any recipients of the alleged payments. He gave context clues for at least one player at Penn State but didn’t use his name.

Any potential NCAA investigation into these allegations would seemingly hinge on Blazer identifying the recipients of these payments in court. Since the NCAA does not have subpoena powers over someone outside of its athletics departments or those intending to work/compete under their umbrella, there would be no requirement for Blazer to cooperate with any potential investigation that could result from this.

AL.com has reached out to the University of Alabama for reaction but has not received one as of publication.

There is also the matter of the NCAA’s statute of limitations.

The NCAA doesn’t typically investigate allegations of violations after four years. There are four exceptions to that, according to the NCAA website.

The eligibility of a current student-athlete A pattern of willful violations that began before the four-year window but continue into the four-year window or A blatant disregard for certain fundamental rules (recruiting, extra benefits, academics, ethical conduct) or An effort to conceal violations.

Any such allegation of cash payment to a player or recruit would qualify as an extra benefit but would it be considered “blatant disregard” for the rule?

Of course, that is all for discussions down the road if that road even materializes.

But in this environment where the underbelly of college sports is being exposed in a federal courtroom, everyone is on edge. The NCAA enforcement staff could have cases against multiple schools based on courtroom testimony it would never have been able to acquire through their own investigative process.

This testimony came as part of the second trial of financial advisor Christian Dawkins and ex-Adidas consultant Merl Code.

It’s all part of the federal investigations into bribery and fraud allegations involving coaches, players, shoe companies and the financial advisors competing for the services of athletes before rules allow such activity.

Blazer is only testifying as part of a plea agreement in connection to multiple felonies. His testimony will continue in the coming days and it’s fair to say it will have the attention of the college football world now too.

Michael Casagrande is an Alabama beat writer for the Alabama Media Group. Follow him on Twitter @ByCasagrande or on Facebook.