can someone "cliff note" the "cost of attendance" debate at the ncaa? i see the suggestion that it will hurt non-BCS conferences...
i get the idea that it's giving players cash as opposed to "free" stuff (that maybe doesn't cost the university much).......... but what does it replace or not replace?
and i think that a big trend we've all played is lesser teams/conferences getting better. the internet/regional cable has made the world much smaller.
but will being paid cash to sit on the bench at a BCS school cause a player to turn down hawaii/nevada/colorado state etc?...
and i have seen the suggestion that there is a "lebron effect" in college football. players want to play with other top recruits and on winners (always was a big factor but now it's been intensified???)
thanks in advance!!
i get the idea that it's giving players cash as opposed to "free" stuff (that maybe doesn't cost the university much).......... but what does it replace or not replace?
and i think that a big trend we've all played is lesser teams/conferences getting better. the internet/regional cable has made the world much smaller.
but will being paid cash to sit on the bench at a BCS school cause a player to turn down hawaii/nevada/colorado state etc?...
and i have seen the suggestion that there is a "lebron effect" in college football. players want to play with other top recruits and on winners (always was a big factor but now it's been intensified???)
thanks in advance!!