The joke that is "Cost of Attendance" became even more ludicrous today

[JHB4UK]

Just a reminder to good UK fans, the ignor function works on this new site:

1 click on UL fan/UL bootlicker pretending to be UK fan's name
2 click on "ignor" button on the popup

makes the site much better to eliminate the clutter, trust me.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

UL fans implicitly admit there is no calculation that could justify them, or many of the others, being at the top of the COA list. That is significant as they continue to defend this rule.

 

[The Public Enemy]

UL fans implicitly admit there is no calculation that could justify them, or many of the others, being at the top of the COA list. That is significant as they continue to defend this rule.

Again...a Rule pushed by Mike Slive and the SEC...Again an Article on how Auburn did it COA Calculations....the irony is if you try to increase the Federal Government could look into it...it appears schools like Tennessee, Auburn, Louisville and Mississippi State are ahead of the curve while schools like Boston College and Kentucky are at a disadvantage.


Transparency within the SEC

Tennessee, Auburn and Mississippi State, which rank first, second and fourth, respectively, in cost of attendance, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, will have a perceived competitive advantage compared to schools like Boston College, the lone dissenter in January's 79-1 vote on the issue and whose cost of attendance ($1,400) ranks last among Power 5 schools, Kentucky and Georgia, whose figures rank 14th and 13th in the SEC.

It is of little wonder why Kentucky and Georgia co-sponsored the legislative proposal enacted by the SEC during the conference's Spring Meetings last month calling for transparency within the conference whereby each school must submit a report to the conference office illustrating "the value of the institution's 'other expenses related to cost of attendance' for the upcoming academic year and describing the methodology for determining such value."

New SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said the focus is mostly on any "variance" that may occur from the school's listed cost of attendance, i.e. a player who goes to a school from across the country might be reimbursed a greater amount of transportation than the school's listed average.

If schools suddenly have jumps in their cost of attendance figures going forward, that will likely set off red flags from not only their competitors in athletics, but also the federal government.

"I don't have any concern at all about our coaches going to financial aid." Jacobs said. "The integrity of our institution stands on itself. Most definitely I have no concerns at Auburn, and I don't have any concerns about other institutions.

"There's a history so if you see numbers start changing dramatically over the next year or two and it's not consistent" then there will need to be an explanation.

The disparities in the figures of each school are naturally under scrutiny by coaches, who have long operated under the premise of the NCAA trying to maintain a level playing field but will now have a true dollars and cents factor to discuss, particularly in recruiting.

Coaches who have been outspoken against the disparities from school to school – Alabama's Nick Saban suggested something along the lines of a "salary cap" and Georgia's Mark Richt claimed he had lawyers who said it would be "legal" to enact such a cap on the conference level – are grossly misinformed, at best, if not woefully ignorant to the legal actions that have already taken place in the Ed O'Bannon case, which is under appeal but is largely responsible for the covering of full cost of attendance being enacted.

"You can't create a system that really almost can promote fraud," Saban said, "because every institution should do a good job of saying this is what our cost of attendance is, but when we don't have a cap that makes it equal for everyone, it really is going to go against all the things that we've tried to do in the NCAA in terms of having parity for players in terms of what their scholarship (is), what you're allowed to give them and all those types of things."

Richt called the disparities in cost of attendance from school to school "not a good thing at all" and said he was "curious to know how (schools) get to those numbers; I'm sure a lot of people are curious about that," calling into question the integrity of calculations made under federal guidelines long before the O'Bannon case or the Power 5 athletic conferences ever even had autonomy to vote to cover cost of attendance.

The irony of Saban, the highest paid coach in college football at over $7 million last year, and Richt, whose $3.314 million ranked 17th nationally, according to USA TODAY, asking for caps on the amount of compensation available to players is also not lost amid their criticisms.

Former SEC commissioner Mike Slive advocated for full cost of attendance long before the O'Bannon decision was reached. Slive and Sankey met with the SEC's coaches during Spring Meetings to address their concerns but emphasis the legal limitations involved.

"We are constrained by the law, whether the law is statutory or the law is created by the judicial branch," Slive said before retiring on June 1. "We understand their really compelling concern about how it affects recruiting, but we just try to explain to them that this is something we've always wanted, going way back, we've always wanted full cost of attendance.

"How it's measured, the judge in O'Bannon indicted that we're going to follow the federal rules and it's a financial aid issue – it's not an athletic issue – it's run by the financial aid office and there are differentials. That's a product of what I would call the 'vision for the 21st century;' we're putting student-athletes first."

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...ance-much-higher-tuition-room-board/28899143/

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Again...a Rule pushed by Mike Slive and the SEC...Again an Article on how Auburn did it COA Calculations....the irony is if you try to increase the Federal Government could look into it...it appears schools like Tennessee, Auburn, Louisville and Mississippi State are ahead of the curve while schools like Boston College and Kentucky are at a disadvantage.


Transparency within the SEC

Tennessee, Auburn and Mississippi State, which rank first, second and fourth, respectively, in cost of attendance, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, will have a perceived competitive advantage compared to schools like Boston College, the lone dissenter in January's 79-1 vote on the issue and whose cost of attendance ($1,400) ranks last among Power 5 schools, Kentucky and Georgia, whose figures rank 14th and 13th in the SEC.

It is of little wonder why Kentucky and Georgia co-sponsored the legislative proposal enacted by the SEC during the conference's Spring Meetings last month calling for transparency within the conference whereby each school must submit a report to the conference office illustrating "the value of the institution's 'other expenses related to cost of attendance' for the upcoming academic year and describing the methodology for determining such value."

New SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said the focus is mostly on any "variance" that may occur from the school's listed cost of attendance, i.e. a player who goes to a school from across the country might be reimbursed a greater amount of transportation than the school's listed average.

If schools suddenly have jumps in their cost of attendance figures going forward, that will likely set off red flags from not only their competitors in athletics, but also the federal government.

"I don't have any concern at all about our coaches going to financial aid." Jacobs said. "The integrity of our institution stands on itself. Most definitely I have no concerns at Auburn, and I don't have any concerns about other institutions.

"There's a history so if you see numbers start changing dramatically over the next year or two and it's not consistent" then there will need to be an explanation.

The disparities in the figures of each school are naturally under scrutiny by coaches, who have long operated under the premise of the NCAA trying to maintain a level playing field but will now have a true dollars and cents factor to discuss, particularly in recruiting.

Coaches who have been outspoken against the disparities from school to school – Alabama's Nick Saban suggested something along the lines of a "salary cap" and Georgia's Mark Richt claimed he had lawyers who said it would be "legal" to enact such a cap on the conference level – are grossly misinformed, at best, if not woefully ignorant to the legal actions that have already taken place in the Ed O'Bannon case, which is under appeal but is largely responsible for the covering of full cost of attendance being enacted.

"You can't create a system that really almost can promote fraud," Saban said, "because every institution should do a good job of saying this is what our cost of attendance is, but when we don't have a cap that makes it equal for everyone, it really is going to go against all the things that we've tried to do in the NCAA in terms of having parity for players in terms of what their scholarship (is), what you're allowed to give them and all those types of things."

Richt called the disparities in cost of attendance from school to school "not a good thing at all" and said he was "curious to know how (schools) get to those numbers; I'm sure a lot of people are curious about that," calling into question the integrity of calculations made under federal guidelines long before the O'Bannon case or the Power 5 athletic conferences ever even had autonomy to vote to cover cost of attendance.

The irony of Saban, the highest paid coach in college football at over $7 million last year, and Richt, whose $3.314 million ranked 17th nationally, according to USA TODAY, asking for caps on the amount of compensation available to players is also not lost amid their criticisms.

Former SEC commissioner Mike Slive advocated for full cost of attendance long before the O'Bannon decision was reached. Slive and Sankey met with the SEC's coaches during Spring Meetings to address their concerns but emphasis the legal limitations involved.

"We are constrained by the law, whether the law is statutory or the law is created by the judicial branch," Slive said before retiring on June 1. "We understand their really compelling concern about how it affects recruiting, but we just try to explain to them that this is something we've always wanted, going way back, we've always wanted full cost of attendance.

"How it's measured, the judge in O'Bannon indicted that we're going to follow the federal rules and it's a financial aid issue – it's not an athletic issue – it's run by the financial aid office and there are differentials. That's a product of what I would call the 'vision for the 21st century;' we're putting student-athletes first."

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...ance-much-higher-tuition-room-board/28899143/

Note, nothing here even attempting to justify how in creation UL could be top 3 in COA.

A Stanford education is probably ten fold better than a UL degree. UL is located in a part of the country were the cost of living is SLIGHTLY less than it is in California.

Yet, UL would have the world think te COA at UL is greater than 2X that of Stanford? I am no Stanford grad, but "Houston, we have a problem."

 

[The Public Enemy]

Note, nothing here even attempting to justify how in creation UL could be top 3 in COA.

A Stanford education is probably ten fold better than a UL degree. UL is located in a part of the country were the cost of living is SLIGHTLY less than it is in California.

Yet, UL would have the world think te COA at UL is greater than 2X that of Stanford? I am no Stanford grad, but "Houston, we have a problem."

Nope...this is from Alabama and pretty much lays out how it works...as Mike Slive said it was up to that particular school Financial Aid office and is not a Athletic Issue....this is from the mouth of the Long Time SEC Commissioner...and your "Stanford" argument you can say the same for Tennessee, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss etc...etc....everyone submitted the required paperwork and the COA was approved by the Powers that be.

And again....any Large Increase going forward will set off alarm bells not only from the other schools but the Federal Government. It is pretty much set and the article explained the guidelines...sorry it doesn't really flow with your view....it is what it is.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

But really, the blame for this fiasco goes directly to the incompetent joke of an NCAA, a child could have seen this coming, and they are the ones that have to step in and correct this stupidity.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a Federal judge force this door to be opened with her ruling, even setting the limits within her ruling?

 

[The Public Enemy]

Yes...US Federal Judge Claudia Wilkens set this pretty much in here ruling in the Ed O'Bannon Case against the NCAA...But this is also something the P5 Commissioners wanted.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Nope...this is from Alabama and pretty much lays out how it works...as Mike Slive said it was up to that particular school Financial Aid office and is not a Athletic Issue....this is from the mouth of the Long Time SEC Commissioner...and your "Stanford" argument you can say the same for Tennessee, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss etc...etc....everyone submitted the required paperwork and the COA was approved by the Powers that be.

And again....any Large Increase going forward will set off alarm bells not only from the other schools but the Federal Government. It is pretty much set and the article explained the guidelines...sorry it doesn't really flow with your view....it is what it is.

Either you are intentionally obtuse or ...

And, anyone who thinks the fed gov is going to investigate a school that makes a dramatic jump is, at best, ignorant.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

For those who have been paying attention & following this boondoggle, news this afternoon will come as absolute zero surprise. COA is a moronic decision allowing colleges all by themselves with zero oversight or approval determine what extra cash they can pay athletes. Unsurprisingly when amounts to be paid out were released it was renegade win-at-all-cost programs who were going to be paying out the most....Auburn, Tennessee, Louisville. Over $5000 a year, when others were typically $2000. The cost of living in Auburn is 3X greater than in Southern California, who knew?

Did you think other programs were going to sit back & be outbid for future 5* football recruits? That they would allow themselves to be priced out of the market. think again!

Today, Alabama announced they have gone back and done some recalculating on their COA. Must have forgotten to carry a 1, or multiply by 2 somewhere in their original calculation! Because now, somehow, their total has DOUBLED. Oh, and another coincidence, it now is higher than Auburn's. Amazing, what are the odds?

Who's gonna be next to pass Alabama, to "recalculate", to discover new costs they missed the 1st time? How soon until the entire SEC's average COA is $10,000/year?

What a freaking circus, well done NCAA, these results are entirely predictable and yet you did not figure it would happen.

Too bad Public Enemy was the first to respond in a defensive irrelevant way to your post. Excellent points made in the OP.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Cost of attendance does not = cost of living.

Cost of living is a huge factor of COA.

 

[Steelers2012]

Either you are intentionally obtuse or ...

And, anyone who thinks the fed gov is going to investigate a school that makes a dramatic jump is, at best, ignorant.

Keep working that "I'm the smartest guy in the room" mantra when presented with facts that don't support your narrative. It's been a smashing success so far.

 

[BPGhost]

Thanks for proving my point. Something can be true and not be relevant. Relevance is not determined by the truth of a matter. the idea that everything that is true is relevant is inane. You obviously do not know the meaning of the word.

The fact that Louisville has calculated their COA within the rules as set forth is not an irrelevant point. Irrelevant points are ones such as "no one in the country believes that it costs twice as much to live in Louisville than Lexington". Why is it suddenly incumbent upon Louisville fans to explain or justify UofL's COA to you or anyone for that matter?

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Keep working that "I'm the smartest guy in the room" mantra when presented with facts that don't support your narrative. It's been a smashing success so far.

Keep working the "I do not want to honestly discuss the elephant in the room" mantra while you avoid the subject of discussion.

 

[DACats86]

Because I have a child that is looking into attending either Auburn or UK (she has been told there are two schools that I will not pay for her to attend, UofL and UT), I just looked at UK's published TCOA versus AU's. AU's is $2262/annually more than UK's. In particular, AU has higher estimates for Books/Supplies (+$200), Personal (+$354) and Transportation (+$1708). Perhaps, based on these numbers, UK is shorting its athletes as I feel its numbers of Personal and Transportation are low.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

The fact that Louisville has calculated their COA within the rules as set forth is not an irrelevant point. Irrelevant points are ones such as "no one in the country believes that it costs twice as much to live in Louisville than Lexington". Why is it suddenly incumbent upon Louisville fans to explain or justify UofL's COA to you or anyone for that matter?

When no one said UL did not calculate its COA outside the rules, the point is irrelevant (at least we are now past the contention that true comments are relevant comments).

And, if UL fans cannot see the issue in the disparity then they are probably just blindly accepting the amount because it seems to serve their athletic program. I get it. You and the other UL fans cannot remove their red hued shades.

 

[The Public Enemy]

Either you are intentionally obtuse or ...

And, anyone who thinks the fed gov is going to investigate a school that makes a dramatic jump is, at best, ignorant.

Again...I'm not saying this....Mike Slive is the long time SEC Commissioner....but I guess he is obtuse...lol...the rules were also pretty much setup by a Federal Judge...

From the above post from the article:


New SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said the focus is mostly on any "variance" that may occur from the school's listed cost of attendance, i.e. a player who goes to a school from across the country might be reimbursed a greater amount of transportation than the school's listed average.

If schools suddenly have jumps in their cost of attendance figures going forward, that will likely set off red flags from not only their competitors in athletics, but also the federal government.

"I don't have any concern at all about our coaches going to financial aid." Jacobs said. "The integrity of our institution stands on itself. Most definitely I have no concerns at Auburn, and I don't have any concerns about other institutions.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...ance-much-higher-tuition-room-board/28899143/

 

[JHB4UK]

Don't think UofL Students will be paying for anything...remember they are getting a full share of the ACC Revenue which will be over $24 Million...the most they got from the BIG EAST/AAC was $8 Million....they are getting an additional $14 to $16 Million this year that they never received before...life in a P5 League.

LOL at this, still.

Sure, keep thinking Jurich is going to remove the mandatory activity fee that is slapped on every UL student and generates MILLIONS every year to fund his lavishly rich athletic department. I'm sure that will be announced any day now, Little Brother! Right after UL agrees to renegotiate the crookedly one sided agreement with the city over the Yum Center, those 2 urgent items are 1 & 1A in ole Turtleneck's to-do list.

 

[The Public Enemy]

The fact that Louisville has calculated their COA within the rules as set forth is not an irrelevant point. Irrelevant points are ones such as "no one in the country believes that it costs twice as much to live in Louisville than Lexington". Why is it suddenly incumbent upon Louisville fans to explain or justify UofL's COA to you or anyone for that matter?

The only one UofL has to justify it to is the United States Department of Education....seriously

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Again...I'm not saying this....Mike Slive is the long time SEC Commissioner....but I guess he is obtuse...lol

From the above post from the article:


New SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said the focus is mostly on any "variance" that may occur from the school's listed cost of attendance, i.e. a player who goes to a school from across the country might be reimbursed a greater amount of transportation than the school's listed average.

If schools suddenly have jumps in their cost of attendance figures going forward, that will likely set off red flags from not only their competitors in athletics, but also the federal government.

"I don't have any concern at all about our coaches going to financial aid." Jacobs said. "The integrity of our institution stands on itself. Most definitely I have no concerns at Auburn, and I don't have any concerns about other institutions.

Maybe the federal government will ask why UL has high transportation costs when its student body largely consists of a local student body as a state school, especially when viewed in comparison to schools that have a much higher out of state population.

And, because a journalist writes something does not make it fact. How schools calculated financial aid declarations was not intended to be used in this way. But, I bet when UL students had to pay back student loans, they regretted UL's calculation.

 

[The Public Enemy]

LOL at this, still.

Sure, keep thinking Jurich is going to remove the mandatory activity fee that is slapped on every UL student and generates MILLIONS every year to fund his lavishly rich athletic department. I'm sure that will be announced any day now, Little Brother! Right after UL agrees to renegotiate the crookedly one sided agreement with the city over the Yum Center, those 2 urgent items are 1 & 1A in ole Turtleneck's to-do list.

UofL will just be inline with Auburn, Rutgers, Florida, Wisconsin and Alabama in regards to that issue....

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

 

[The Public Enemy]

Maybe the federal government will ask why UL has high transportation costs when its student body largely consists of a local student body as a state school, especially when viewed in comparison to schools that have a much higher out of state population.

And, because a journalist writes something does not make it fact. How schools calculated financial aid declarations was not intended to be used in this way. But, I bet when UL students had to pay back student loans, they regretted UL's calculation.

More then likely before a Journalist would put that out there he or she would do the research on that particular issue they are reporting on...that is their profession.

 

[Steelers2012]

Keep working the "I do not want to honestly discuss the elephant in the room" mantra while you avoid the subject of discussion.

By all means, continue your dogged focus on how unfair UofL's advantage is. Use every breath, word, and forum at your disposal to trumpet the inequities in the system. Don't stop until you have educated every person within your considerable reach in regards to how those SOB's at UofL are gaining at advantage. I would MUCH prefer your focus, and that of the UK administration, if you can get their attention as well, on the real "elephant in the room" (UofL), rather than how can WE be competitive in what is being described as an arms race. Sounds like a winning gameplan to me; they DO say defense wins championships.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Remember when @Steelers2012 used to play the "I'm basically neutral" role?

 

[Caveman Catfan]

More then likely before a Journalist would put that out there he or she would do the research on that particular issue they are reporting on...that is their profession.

Seriously? Wow.

"The federal financial aid formula is sufficiently ambiguous that adjustments for recruiting advantage will take place." BC's Bates.

If UK invoked the same justifications as does UL, its numbers would be about the same as UL's. If UL's calculations are legal, as you suggest, the fed gov could not impede UK from following suit, regardless of the methodology it previously utilized without also penalizing UL for doing the exact same thing.

But we digress.

 

[Steelers2012]

Remember when @Steelers2012 used to play the "I'm basically neutral" role?

I still am. But I would sure rather UofL have a competitive advantage than someone on our schedule, especially our biggest rival. I don't root against UK, until it comes between UofL vs UK, then I am admittedly a rival fan.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

I still am. But I would sure rather UofL have a competitive advantage than someone on our schedule, especially our biggest rival. I don't root against UK, until it comes between UofL vs UK, then I am admittedly a rival fan.

Steelers, one could travel to the UL rivals board and see that isn't true. It's fine, I don't trust anyone who says they are neutral unless the teams are playing one another.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

By all means, continue your dogged focus on how unfair UofL's advantage is. Use every breath, word, and forum at your disposal to trumpet the inequities in the system. Don't stop until you have educated every person within your considerable reach in regards to how those SOB's at UofL are gaining at advantage. I would MUCH prefer your focus, and that of the UK administration, if you can get their attention as well, on the real "elephant in the room" (UofL), rather than how can WE be competitive in what is being described as an arms race. Sounds like a winning gameplan to me; they DO say defense wins championships.

When did I say how unfair is UL's advantage? When did I call UL people SOBs?

Because you are unwilling to engage in the discussion does not mean that you get to misstate my positions so that you can feel better about your positions, or lack thereof.

The point about UL is to demonstrate the validity of the OP's position and the fact that no objective person would believe that such a disparity exists, which demonstrates the mechanism is both flawed and subject to abuse.

 

[The Public Enemy]

Seriously? Wow.

"The federal financial aid formula is sufficiently ambiguous that adjustments for recruiting advantage will take place." BC's Bates.

If UK invoked the same justifications as does UL, its numbers would be about the same as UL's. If UL's calculations are legal, as you suggest, the fed gov could not impede UK from following suit, regardless of the methodology it previously utilized without also penalizing UL for doing the exact same thing.

But we digress.

My last take and opinion on this issue...

1. Your concern is the fact that Kentucky submitted it paperwork that ended up with them being 14th in the SEC on this issue...dead last in giving it Athletes it COA in the SEC.

2. It doesn't help your concern that the school down the road is also giving it Athletes more then Kentucky.

3. The schools submitted the paper work....it was approved by the Powers that Be...now going forward apparently through media reports if any red flags come up on "Jumps" in a Particular COA it could come under scrutiny from their Particular Conference, NCAA or even the Federal Government

Bottom line...your issue should be with the University of Kentucky Financial Aid Office for your situation...it is what it is.

 

[Steelers2012]

The point about UL is to demonstrate the validity of the OP's position and the fact that no objective person would believe that such a disparity exists, which demonstrates the mechanism is both flawed and subject to abuse.

Well done. Let's KEEP the point right there, on UofL. I wouldn't want the point to "digress" towards how can WE do better for OUR program.

 

[BPGhost]

When no one said UL did not calculate its COA outside the rules, the point is irrelevant (at least we are now past the contention that true comments are relevant comments).

And, if UL fans cannot see the issue in the disparity then they are probably just blindly accepting the amount because it seems to serve their athletic program. I get it. You and the other UL fans cannot remove their red hued shades.

When your main assertion is that somehow Louisville is being dishonest in their calculations of their COA, then the point that they did things within the rules is incredibly relevant. Clearly your interest level in this topic is solely based on the disparity that you see between UofL's and UK's COA number - "no one in the country" believes otherwise. The good news is that Louisville fans can continue to be unconcerned about the topic - at least as long as you're on the case - lol.

With all that said - I'm finished with your circular semantics review but, feel free to continue to argue with yourself...

 

[fuzz77]

Because I have a child that is looking into attending either Auburn or UK (she has been told there are two schools that I will not pay for her to attend, UofL and UT), I just looked at UK's published TCOA versus AU's. AU's is $2262/annually more than UK's. In particular, AU has higher estimates for Books/Supplies (+$200), Personal (+$354) and Transportation (+$1708). Perhaps, based on these numbers, UK is shorting its athletes as I feel its numbers of Personal and Transportation are low.

People need to understand that the published COA has been around for a long time, it is determined by the Financial Aid Office at each school and is a tool used by FAFSA to determine the amount of financial aide available to each student. It's intent was never to be a recruiting tool.
As DA's numbers show above over 75% of the difference between Auburn's and UK's COA figure is transportation. I read an explanation of Auburn's reasoning for their high figure and they claim that they have students who commute to and from Auburn from as far away as Birmingham (200+ mile round trip) and based their transportation cost on those students. UK likely took a different approach making their transportation cost on what the average student would do. Hell, when I was at UK I went home maybe twice a semester. Not to get political here and I mean this in a totally non-political way but some schools take a liberal approach to figuring COA...base figures on the high side of what a student might need...vs schools that a conservative approach meaning just what the students will need to get by. Auburn said it figures a kid needs $80/month for a cell phone. I never knew a cell phone was an essential tool required to go to school. Wouldn't that be an expense for the kid regardless if he was in school or not???

The COA has become a victim of unintended consequences. Financial Aide offices never pictured themselves being in the middle of a competition or being pressured by athletics to change their calculations so that they can be more competitive and give away more money than the next school.

A process does exist whereas a student-athlete can petition for a wavier to get more than the published COA if they can show they actually incur more costs that what are being covered.

There are likely to be many changes in around the area of COA in the next couple of years. I'm sure some Financial Aide offices will be reluctant to change figures meant to apply to all students...and with good reasons. There is a real problem today with students leaving school with tons of student debt. Adding $2000 to the COA means that over 4 years many students will leave school with $8000 more debt than they would have done otherwise. If they are in school 5 years...$10,000 more debt. I realize this is a football board and many won't be able to look beyond any recruiting advantages or disadvantages...but most all should agree that this was a poorly thought out, poorly implemented plan when applied to college athletics.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

My last take and opinion on this issue...

1. Your concern is the fact that Kentucky submitted it paperwork that ended up with them being 14th in the SEC on this issue...dead last in giving it Athletes it COA in the SEC.

2. It doesn't help your concern that the school down the road is also giving it Athletes more then Kentucky.

3. The schools submitted the paper work....it was approved by the Powers that Be...now going forward apparently through media reports if any red flags come up on "Jumps" in a Particular COA it could come under scrutiny from their Particular Conference, NCAA or even the Federal Government

Bottom line...your issue should be with the University of Kentucky Financial Aid Office for your situation...it is what it is.

(1) you think UL is cheating.
(2) it does not help your confidence that it COA is out of whack from other similarly situated schools
(3) in an attempt to make it appear your school does not cheat, you fight like hell to divert conversations on this board.

Bottom line, stick to stating your own opinions, rather than misstating others.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Well done. Let's KEEP the point right there, on UofL. I wouldn't want the point to "digress" towards how can WE do better for OUR program.

Actually, the focus on UL started with te second post to this thread by your good friend Public Enemy. Your and his paranoia is cute, but keeps us from having a serious conversation.

 

[Steelers2012]

Actually, the focus on UL started with te second post to this thread by your good friend Public Enemy. Your and his paranoia is cute, but keeps us from having a serious conversation.

 

[footballfanatic77]

Cost of living is a huge factor of COA.

But like you said, simply one factor.

 

[C1180]

I lived in Louisville for over 30 years and I can tell you for a fact that the cost of living there is near the same as other parts of the state.

I don't know how the COA is figured but if it is based in any way on cost of living in your area. There is no way that the cost of living in Louisville is twice the cost of living in Lexington and other areas out in the state.

IMO from my recollection the cost of living in the town where I grew up Bardstown is higher than it is in Louisville.

 

[Devils58]

Listen guys, this is an arms race. What Louisville did is no different than what everyone else in the SEC is doing. Is it bogus? Absolutely! But when it comes to giving these kids $$, UofL is making sure they are going to be able to give them the most $$ possible. UK needs to get with the times, refigure their numbers and get that amount up to at least what UofL is giving out. Why do you think Alabama just recalculated? They understand the importance of this in recruiting. Hopefully Stoops and Marrow can get UK to recalculate the figures and get this fixed. I hate UofL, but I can't knock them for what they did.

 

[_Edgehollow_]

I hate to lie down with dogs...but the UL fans are right. UK has no one to blame but UK.

The administration HAS to start realizing there's no "righteous path" when it comes to building a FB program. If there's an instance to bend the rules to gain a competitive advantage in recruiting, then it needs to be done. Fans need to start realizing that thumbing your nose at UT/UL/AU/MSU and saying "Shame, Shame" isn't going to help. Those programs are bending the rules to create an advantage, simple as that. The only thing that prevents UK from doing the same is UK.

Do I agree that Louisville has a higher COL than Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, or New York? No. But, they are playing the game as it should be played...to win.

 

[hmt5000]

Listen guys, this is an arms race. What Louisville did is no different than what everyone else in the SEC is doing. Is it bogus? Absolutely! But when it comes to giving these kids $$, UofL is making sure they are going to be able to give them the most $$ possible. UK needs to get with the times, refigure their numbers and get that amount up to at least what UofL is giving out. Why do you think Alabama just recalculated? They understand the importance of this in recruiting. Hopefully Stoops and Marrow can get UK to recalculate the figures and get this fixed. I hate UofL, but I can't knock them for what they did.

that is what we all agree with until the ul fans got but hurt over the fact that it is bogus. obviously everyone will start raising their #'s to get in the same ball park because it would be better to pay $1million more to the student athletes and be competitive then to risk losing athletes to other schools and not be on tv, fill your stadium/arena, sell merchandise, or have boosters donate to "winners". its obvious because of the differences in amounts that some schools went high on purpose and i've only heard of one school that went low on purpose (bc).

bama has a built in recruiting advantage and they are raising theirs so they must feel it makes a difference. now that the cat is out of the bag about the differences, other schools are gonna be pressured to raise theirs as well. the problem with the ncaa is that everyone knew this would happen its just funny to see the list on the first go round though.

 

[jauk11]

Really....Les Miles is in the same Division as the #1 and #4 Schools in the Nation...and you're telling me "Auburn" has a clean rep...ok

Auburn is a state away, not in the same state. And I doubt very much that Auburn fans are all over the LSU boards and dominating them.

And Auburn is at best third on my list of cheaters, probably lower, but definitely behind TU (historically) and UL (recently, but coming up fast).