I don't think you have read the case based on your statement, " given the sweep and the complete unequivocally of the SCOTUS' denunciation of the NCAA racket." The court opinion was limited.
In Alston Following a bench trial, the district court refused to disturb the NCAA’s rules limiting undergraduate athletic scholarships and other compensation related to athletic performance. At the same time, however, the district court found unlawful and thus enjoined certain NCAA rules limiting the education-related benefits schools may make available to student-athletes. Both sides appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in full. Unsatisfied with that result, the NCAA asked the U.S. Supreme Court to find that all of its existing restraints on athlete compensation survive antitrust scrutiny. The student-athletes did not renew their across-the-board challenge and, therefore, the Court did not consider the rules that remain in place. The Court considered only the subset of NCAA rules restricting education-related benefits that the district court enjoined. The Court upheld the district court’s injunction as consistent with established antitrust principles.
As the court noted The court enjoined only certain restraints—and only after finding both that relaxing these restrictions would not blur the distinction between college and professional sports and thus impair demand, and further that this course represented a significantly (not marginally) less restrictive means of achieving the same procompetitive benefits as the NCAA’s current rules. Finally, the court’s injunction preserves considerable leeway for the NCAA, while individual conferences remain free to impose whatever rules they choose. T
