NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - As college basketball players return to the hardwood this month, shots are being taken and elbows being thrown in a court battle that eventually may lead to top collegiate athletes being paid.

But the court isn't in any college arena -- it's in U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ohio. The promoters of various pre-season college basketball tournaments are pursuing an antitrust lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association that could lead to the professionalization of college sports, with major college football and basketball programs openly using salaries and signing bonuses to attract top players, and many schools dropping from the ranks of big-time college sports.

The promoters charge that the NCAA rules that limit how often a school can compete in a tournament -- being felt for the first time this fall -- are an illegal restraint of trade.

Thursday night's preseason Coaches vs Cancer tournament has sparked a lawsuit that could radically reshape college sports.

Each school can play in only two so-called "exempt tournaments" every four years. "Exempt" means the games aren't included in the teams' regular season game total. Teams that can pack an arena and attract a TV audience are relatively few in number, and since this is the third year of the rule, many top schools that played the last two years can't appear in another event until 2004.

This year nine tournaments, or about a third of last year's total, were scrapped due to lack of premium teams. Another four have cut back the number of teams included in their tournaments.

Another major tournament, the AT&T Wireless Coaches vs. Cancer Classic, held in the past as an "exempt" tournament, is now being held as a non-exempt tournament in which each of eight teams plays only one game, and no champion of the tournament is crowned.

"We're not sure if it will be economically viable under this format," said Rick Giles, president of the Gazelle Group, the sports promoter that stages the Coaches vs. Cancer event. "The cost of bringing in eight teams is more than four (which appeared in previous years). The challenge of marketing to eight teams' fans is more difficult. Ticket sales are tracking below what they have in the past, even though we do have eight pretty good teams playing. The final evaluation will come based on TV ratings and attendance."

SportsBiz Click here for SportsBiz column archive Click here for CNNSI.com sports coverage Click here to email Chris Isidore

Giles is hopeful the significant decline in the number of tournaments will persuade a judge to strike down the rule on antitrust grounds. But the NCAA says it's confident it will continue to prevail in court, even if the promoters show injury.

"Not every restraint of trade is illegal. If we have a good purpose behind what we're doing, which we think we do, then we should win," NCAA General Counsel Elsa Cole said. She said that the purpose of the rule is to give the smaller athletic programs a better chance to participate in the tournaments.

But Giles argues that the decreasing number of tournaments means fewer opportunities for the smaller schools. He argues this is simply a way to make sure the major conferences that control the NCAA have less competition.

But there's a lot more at stake in this suit than if college athletes will get a chance to visit New York, Hawaii or Alaska for a pre-season tournament, or if the promoters will be able to stay in business. A win by the plaintiffs on antitrust grounds could end up effectively stripping the NCAA of its power to stop payments to athletes and setting other rules that affect the business side of college sports. It could be left deciding nothing more controversial than the distance to the three-point line or how to settle a tie football game.

"There are schools that would like to pay the players. If this suit was successful, I could see it opening up enormous number of lawsuits and radically changing college sports," said Indiana University professor Murray Sperber, a frequent critic of big-time college sports. "If the NCAA is found to be a cartel and guilty of antitrust, the closer we'll come to day they have to pay the athletes."

Related columns College athletes trying to flex their muscle Monopoly as a major college sport Football playoffs bowled over College teams fail Econ 101

Cole said that it's too soon to say a loss in court in this case would lead to that radical change. Giles said that while that kind of change is not the goal of the lawsuit, he wouldn't mind if that's the outcome.

"I would take great pride if our case has a positive impact on reforming NCAA top to bottom," he said. "I would be OK with players at the major schools, generating millions of dollars, getting some benefits."