What wins college football championships? A potent defense? An explosive offense? In the era of name, image and likeness, it is money.

Lots of it.

It can cost as much as $10.5 million for a title-contending starting offense and defense in the new Power Four conferences. The big-ticket item, of course, lines up behind the center.

A blue-chip quarterback in a Power Four conference — schools like Alabama, Michigan and Washington — can expect to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars annually through name, image and likeness, or N.I.L., deals. A quarterback in the Southeastern Conference can bring in more than $1 million, on average.

And that is merely an average. Ask the Texas Longhorns.

Between the cash pouring into athletic programs via collectives — a fancy name for boosters who funnel much of the N.I.L. money to players — and more lenient transfer rules, a sort of eBay to buy athletes has been created, transforming how powerhouse teams are built.

“It’s whoever wants to pay, the most money raised, the most money to buy the most players, is going to have the best opportunity to win,” Nick Saban, the recently retired football coach at the University of Alabama, told Congress in March.

But how do athletes, coaches and administrators determine the going rates? Many consult the Black Book, a kind of Zillow for college sports, which details an athlete’s expected annual earnings, and, in the case of sports like football and men’s and women’s basketball, even breaking them down by position and conference.

Still, the Black Book is a must have for university collectives and collegiate athletic officials, as well as the lawyers involved in House v. N.C.A.A., an antitrust case in which the Black Book and all Opendorse data from 2016 through 2022 were subpoenaed. The sides recently agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement.

If a federal judge approves it, schools will be allowed to set aside around $20 million per year, beginning in the fall of 2025, to pay athletes. (The proposal also calls for a program by which athletes’ N.I.L. deals could be reviewed.)

The Black Book, copies of which were obtained by The New York Times, shows that, even as football remains the dominant sport financially, sports like women’s basketball have become increasingly lucrative. In her final season at the University of Iowa, Caitlin Clark sold out arenas, increased television ratings and had sponsorship deals valued at $3 million.

Clark may have been the sport’s unicorn, but title-contending programs are expected to spend more than $730,000 on their starting five, with guards being the most valued at $225,000.

The N.I.L. era has also created a new generation of entrepreneurs and given them a more concrete sense of their earning potential. For instance, Alex Glover, a star volleyball player who recently concluded her career at Southern Methodist University, made more than $100,000 from sponsors who wanted to be associated with her Instagram video series, called “Day-In-The-Life of a D1 Volleyballer.”

The top N.I.L. earners in women’s gymnastics usually make around $20,000 annually, about 10 times as much as their male counterparts, according to data from Opendorse. Besides the major men’s sports — football, basketball and baseball — collegiate female athletes typically earn more than male athletes in the same sport.

“By nature, athletes are disciplined and purpose-driven,” said Blake Lawrence, the co-founder of Opendorse. “What has been really cool to see is how many athletes on our platform, especially the women, lean into the opportunities to be creative and build a brand. They don’t want to get paid just for going to practice and games.”

Lawrence, a former starting linebacker at the University of Nebraska, began Opendorse in 2012 to help his former teammate Prince Amukamara monetize his brand after he entered the N.F.L. as a first-round draft pick with the New York Giants. Lawrence understood the commitment required of college athletes and anticipated that the pay-to-play model was coming sooner rather than later. More than a decade on, some 150,000 athletes have used his platform to grow their name, image and likeness revenues.

The company compiles its numbers based on previous N.I.L. marketing deals signed by a large cross section of football and basketball players and competitors in the so-called nonrevenue Olympic sports. Clients that pay for the information include university athletic departments, their collectives and athlete agencies.

“I know what it takes to be an athlete and wanted to create something like Expedia or Zillow that took the mystery out of getting good value and putting that power in the hands of athletes,” said Lawrence, who offers tutorials on topics like marketing and pay benchmarks on his Instagram feed. “This is all new to them. I see six contracts a second and want them armed with information to make what could be life-changing decisions.”

Like the American economy, college sports have a hierarchy, and its “1 percenters” are the so-called Power conferences like the SEC and the Big Ten.

The expected annual N.I.L. compensation for a top-10-earning football player at any position is $216,000 for the Big Ten and $565,000 in the SEC, which is more than three times the annual earnings of $159,000 in the Big 12.

The SEC’s stature is even more pronounced this year. The former Big 12 powerhouses Texas and Oklahoma have joined the conference, which is made up of state universities that have long taken football seriously and invested heavily in athletics. The top-10-earning SEC players at every position — except for tight ends and specialists — earn more annually on average than players in any other Power Four conference. A running back in the SEC can now expect to make about half a million dollars, almost as much as a Big 12 quarterback. Offensive and defensive linemen in the SEC do even better, tallying upward of $700,000.

For the smaller, so-called Group of Five conferences, which include Conference USA and the Mountain West, the new N.I.L. environment puts football championships even further out of reach. The average value of top 25 players at any position at schools such as Liberty (part of Conference USA) or Boise State (in the Mountain West) is just under $50,000.

The money is lucrative in the top tier of men’s and women’s basketball, as well: A starting five of top-25-earning men’s basketball players costs about $3.3 million, with forwards on the top of the pay scale making around $750,000. And while women’s basketball earnings are comparatively much lower, top-level women’s players have had substantial growth since last year, with pay across all positions up by $30,000.

Even better for basketball stars? With their faces and personalities in full view during games, it is easier for them to enhance revenues beyond collective money through sponsorship partnerships with national brands.

This new market allowed Armando Bacot, who played at the University of North Carolina, to remain in college last season and begin work on a master’s degree in business. His partnerships with the Opendorse clients Dunkin and Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes, as well as others with regional and local companies, have made him a multimillionaire.

Many star players like Bacot are now forgoing the ritual of leaving school after just a year or two to enter the N.B.A. Instead of jumping (ready or not) into the draft in search of riches, more players are choosing the ample N.I.L. pay and more time to work on their games and degrees. (Bacot went undrafted and signed with the Utah Jazz this summer.)

“With more and more veteran guys staying in school longer, it’s going to be harder and harder for freshmen to get big minutes, because coaches would rather have veterans,” said Daniel Hennes, the chief executive of Engage, which represents college basketball stars like Bacot in N.I.L. deals. “So, underclassmen will stay in school longer, and the draft will get older and older. In a lot of ways, that’s good for everyone.”

Mike Boynton is among the many college coaches who are not so sure. He brought the future N.B.A. star Cade Cunningham to Oklahoma State with four years of shoe leather. He outworked more accomplished rivals with national titles on their résumés with the promise of doing right by the young star.

“I can’t work that hard anymore,” said Boynton, now an assistant at the University of Michigan. “Not when you can say, ‘Hey, here’s $500,000 to come spend nine months over here.’”

For many athletes — those who aren’t top stars in the marquee sports — the N.I.L. era is different, though no less exciting. Zoe Ledet, a 19-year-old sprinter at West Virginia State University, joined TikTok in 2020, at the height of Covid-era teenage boredom. She said she quickly amassed a following for “funny skits, hair care, you know, relatable stuff” and now has 1.7 million followers on the platform and nearly 300,000 on Instagram. Still, Ledet never thought brands would be interested in working with her as an athlete.

“I knew that big track athletes like Sha’Carri could get deals with Nike, but I didn’t know there were smaller deals to be had,” said Ledet, referring to the Olympic sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson.

For Ledet, those earnings aren’t life-changing money, but she has been able to use platforms like the BE Collective+ and Opendorse to gain a better sense of her value in the new marketplace. Her followers now ask her to post more about track and to share videos from meets, content that she hopes will in turn lead to more N.I.L. deals.

“There are a lot of athletes bigger than me, of course, but N.I.L. has allowed athletes like me to widen our platform and get more recognition, too,” she said.

The Shohei Ohtani bobblehead doll, with the Japanese star holding his dog, Dekopin, was free when the Dodgers handed it out to fans with tickets — and those persistent enough to line up for hours outside Dodger Stadium before Wednesday night’s game.

Now, if you want to get one, you better get ready to dig deep into your wallet.

The sought-after bobblehead dolls are currently selling for hundreds of dollars online, just two days after the Dodgers’ giveaway.

“I kind of cringe, as a dealer, at how much some of this stuff is going to cost,” said Matt Federgreen, owner of Beverly Hills Card Shop, who has dealt with sports collectibles since 1983.

A total of 40,000 bobbleheads were given away before the game against the Baltimore Orioles, but more than 53,000 tickets were sold. Unless fans arrived at the stadium early, they were out of luck.

Fans did get to see Ohtani’s dog, whose nickname is “Decoy,” throw out the first pitch.

To get the in-demand collector’s item now, people are paying anywhere between $150 to more than $1,500, according to listings and bids found on eBay and Facebook’s Marketplace.

The Dodgers also gave away a limited gold-colored Ohtani bobblehead, which is selling for hundreds of dollars more.

One listing for the gold-colored Ohtani on eBay asked for a tongue-in-cheek amount of $69,420, but it had no bids as of Friday afternoon.

Ohtani’s international popularity has sent prices soaring for some of his memorabilia. Some of the gold-colored bobbleheads have already sold online for $1,500 or more.

“Everything Ohtani that comes out right now, there’s profit to be made and people are going to jump on that,” Federgreen said.

One listing on eBay was selling the Ohtani and Decoy bobblehead for $169.50 on Friday afternoon, while another asked for $227.77. One seller has sold more than 30 dolls.

Another posting, on Facebook’s Marketplace, asked for $150 for the doll, but noted the box had been opened.

But listings for the gold doll, or for both of them, were found for more than $1,000.

One person in Anaheim, in a Facebook post, asked for $1,600 for the gold doll. Another, for both dolls, asked for $1,000, and included a picture of the dolls with Dodger Stadium in the background to add a bit more authenticity.

The Times reached out to several people who were selling the dolls online but did not immediately hear back from sellers.

Some postings asked for more than $2,000 but, as Federgreen noted, showed no signs that someone had bid or paid that price.

The Dodgers gave away another Ohtani bobblehead in May, five months after he signed a 10-year, $500-million deal. Fans also stood in line a good three hours before that game to make sure they got one.

For Federgreen, he said Ohtani is one of the reasons why his business has been doing so well recently.

Trading cards and memorabilia have seen increased popularity in recent years, he said, and stars such as Ohtani have helped.

On Thursday Topps, which is owned by Fanatics Collectibles, announced it was partnering with Ohtani in an exclusive trading card deal that will include cards, autographs and game memorabilia.

Details of how much the deal is worth weren’t released, Fanatics said it was a long-term agreement.

For Federgreen, he understands the demand for the Ohtani doll, but issues a mild warning for people willing to drop a few hundred bucks for it.

“There’s a lot of profiteering going on,” he said. “I don’t mess with stuff with things that are maybe short-term value.”

He notes that some collecting items that suddenly spike up in price will often dip down just as fast.

“It’s a cute bobblehead,” he said. “But you can buy something vintage for the same amount of money that retains value.”

For years, Yelp has complained about Google’s practices, alleging that the tech giant placed its own products above competitors in Google search results.

Yelp says when a customer searches, say, for “restaurants in Brooklyn,” Google prioritizes putting its own summary and ratings above non-sponsored results from rivals including Yelp, resulting in fewer customer visits and ad revenue for its business.

The San Francisco company that crowd-sources customer reviews is now taking its complaints to court in a closely watched federal lawsuit that is causing waves in Silicon Valley.

In a lawsuit filed this week, Yelp accuses Google of violating U.S. antitrust laws, stealing information from Yelp’s website and passing it off as coming from Google. The complaint also alleges Google tweaks its algorithm to steer customers away from Yelp.

“Google’s conduct has injured Yelp through lower traffic, reduced advertising revenues, raising Yelp’s own costs, and impaired network effects that come with fewer new and returning users,” Yelp said in its lawsuit.

Google has dismissed the claims as baseless and noted that in 2013 the Federal Trade Commission found that Google did not break antitrust law or harm consumers.

“Google will vigorously defend against Yelp’s meritless claims,” the company said in a statement.

Legal experts said the lawsuit could be the first of several legal claims against Google, the Mountain View, Calif., technology giant that is facing growing scrutiny over its business practices. It comes weeks after a federal judge ruled Google violated antitrust laws and is a monopolist on web searches, paving the way for Yelp and potentially other companies to sue Google for antitrust practices.

“That decision was really groundbreaking in the antitrust law,” Aaron Schur, Yelp’s general counsel, said in an interview. “We saw it as a very strong foundation, to be able to argue to a court that Google, this illegal monopolist in general search, is actually abusing that monopoly to also dominate a local search market and a local search advertising market through self-preferencing.”

The ruling earlier this month by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta marked a notable shift in the interpretation of U.S. antitrust law, which historically has been used to address big oil and railroad companies, with the concern that those companies would grow so large that it would affect prices for consumers.

“Since the turn of the century, people have been reluctant to bring these types of suits because of where antitrust law was at the time, because there’s no price associated with this,” said John Shaeffer, a partner at law firm Fox Rothschild.

Google said it would appeal the ruling.

Still, Mehta’s decision could help pave the way for other businesses to bring lawsuits against Google, especially if Yelp wins, some legal experts said.

“It certainly opens this up for others similarly situated or just making the argument that they’ve been harmed by Google and its monopolistic behavior,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond.

Google said “Yelp’s claims are not new,” pointing out the San Francisco business brought up similar claims years ago, and said that its search results help businesses, driving more than 3 billion website clicks every month.

Although the FTC in 2013 did not find Google violated antitrust law after a 19-month investigation, documents that have leaked since then revealed that some FTC staff members had urged the commission to sue Google over some of its practices, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Yelp has also been subjected to investigations from the FTC that resulted in no action taken on the company. Google has tried to acquire Yelp in the past.

The U.S. Justice Department filed antitrust lawsuits against Apple and Google this year and against Amazon in 2021, as concerns have grown over their footprint in the industry and limiting of consumer choice.

State legislators unsuccessfully pushed a bill that would have required companies like Google, which sell advertising alongside news content, to pay news publishers. A settlement was later negotiated under which Google would pay about $173 million over five years that would go to journalism outlets and an AI accelerator program.

“We’ve really seen a swing in the political climate and the understanding of antitrust as being truly important to everyone,” Schur said.

Yelp’s lawsuit could ultimately end up at the Supreme Court.

“I don’t think they filed this in order to get a payday,” said Bryan Sullivan, a founding partner at law firm Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae. “I think they filed this to make a point and to try to change the landscape.”

Times news researcher Scott Wilson contributed to this report.