Like I always said, when it comes to football most SEC schools don't F around. No half measures here. UK has always been slow to understand this. Of course in basketball, UK most certainly doesn't F around like every other SEC school does.
COA IN SEC, certainly a lot of factors entered into it but the final result is totally as expected
- Thread starter jauk11
- Start date
LOL
The SEVEN players UK sent to the pros in basketball this year are really going to miss that basket weaving degree they could have had if they had stuck around TU or Transfer U for four years, poor guys got taken advantage of. And I don't think any of them were asked to leave.
I'm really having a problem understanding what point you are trying to make. Cal doesn't make the rules about when they can leave, and he doesn't hold them back to improve his record.
And not to get political but part of the problem is the political differences between states that have taken education seriously and provided more funding for higher education and those that spend less on higher education requiring students to carry more of the burden.
I am not against the players getting the stipends, but the method used to determine it is about as flawed as possible. There should be some formula that determines the amount, maybe average income in a state compared to tuition. Really hard to understand how some of the states with the lowest income have the highest COA. I don't think there was ever any doubt who would be the top 3 paying schools in the conference when this was approved. UGA adjusted our COA about the time the state added a 27 cents to the gallon of gas, no idea if it played into it, but one of the few things athletes have to provide for themselves and Georgia's gas tax is one of the highest in the country.
But its pretty amazing it cost more to live in Auburn, Knoxville and Tuscaloosa than it does Los Angeles, the conference should have set the amount, and may at some point, but the officials didn't want to address it this year.
Actually Grumpy that is not possible to have a set amount according to the Judgement in the Ed O'Bannon Case...on a Set Amount that is out of basically the NCAA Hands
Then going with a formula based on cost of living in that area should be the criteria used, not a random amount based on imigation. There was never a doubt to me Auburn would be at the to. Disregarding the fact it is one of the cheapest places to live, that 90%of their team is less than a easy 2 hour drive. They just followed the same method they have used for decades to get kids there, pay more. Letting them set their on COA was like letting them do an internal investigation. The place is so corrupt they were on the verge of losing their acceditation a few years ago. It the school of choice for kids in Georgia, Alabama and Florida who can't get into schools in their home state, in other words a fallback plan.
Yeah I don't agree with that interpretation at all. Due to the court ruling the NCAA and conference's hands are completely tied and it is the wild freaking west out there with every individual college allowed to determine their own special formula with zero oversight or zero accountability if they cheat? No, somehow someway reasonableness and limits and independent calculations for this has to be put in place to reign in the win-at-all-cost sleezebags that operate in places like Auburn & Knoxville & Louisville.
Well no really up for debate...College can't cap it according to the Case...from CBS and others have reported the same and it is dealing with the EA Sports $$$
Alabama coach Nick Saban even called for a cap on cost of attendance, similar to the NFL’s salary cap. He apparently did not realize that legally it’s impossible to do that now. A federal judge’s ruling in the Ed O’Bannon case allows in part the NCAA to cap the amount of new money that FBS football players and Division I men’s basketball players receive in school, but the cap cannot be an amount less than the athletes’ cost of attending school.
Alabama coach Nick Saban even called for a cap on cost of attendance, similar to the NFL’s salary cap. He apparently did not realize that legally it’s impossible to do that now. A federal judge’s ruling in the Ed O’Bannon case allows in part the NCAA to cap the amount of new money that FBS football players and Division I men’s basketball players receive in school, but the cap cannot be an amount less than the athletes’ cost of attending school.
Do you not agree that saying the cost of attending college in Los Angles would be greater than atteng college in Auburn Alabama? For them to say it cost more in Auburn with no accountaility is an insult to the entire process.
There is a formula. It has nothing to do with the average income of a state and even how much it costs to live somewhere doesn't play a larger role than any of the other many factors. The factors are things like tuition, books, housing, personal expenses, housing, computer costs, etc. An example of the discrepancy would be that tuition at UT costs about $1,000 more than UK. Part of the reason for that is the state of Kentucky has done a better job of funding it's public institutions whereas Tennessee with no income tax doesn't do a very good job of funding education. Which brings up another reason, the years I lived in the state of Tennessee I noticed food prices were substantially higher than in Kentucky; this was partly because I paid a sales tax on food in Tennessee but not in Kentucky. That could factor in to make the cost of attendance higher at one vs. the other.
Last edited:
Just because the cost of living in California may be more,the cost of attendance may not be. For one, California has done a better job of funding education than many other states over the years, the transportation costs may be lower in the Bay Area than in Athens because of the existence of public transportation, etc. At schools where students aren't allowed to have cars, some schools don't calculate in transportation costs at all. Some do. Most schools set the housing portion of their COA based on how much they charge students to live in dorms on campus. Some charge a lot more than others. Some schools calculate food based on how much it would cost to eat on campus every day, some calculate it based on how much it would cost to eat off campus or at home. There are a number of variables which are problematic if the goal is uniformity. I don't see this as a major recruiting advantage for anyone, but I don't know that COA is the best way to give players stipends either.
Actually that is not completely true. Pell grants are capped at $5500 and the grant is not dependent on other scholarships...so if tuition plus room and board plus COA > $5500 then you will get the full amount for which you qualify.
Higher COA does allow you to borrow more money...which is why some university financial aid offices (the ones who set the COA) are more conservative in the "figuring". So many kids leave school with student loan debt because they will borrow more than they need. Remember, COA has been around for a long time and wasn't designed with the idea of being a recruiting tool.
BTW, from the looks of it COA has had little effect on recruiting. UK is recruiting as well/better than ever...other schools that recruited well before COA are still recruiting well, those who did not...aren't.
Yet UK basketball players get the same COA as football...
One minor thing, COA also includes tuition. Of course tuition was already covered under athletic scholarships so the amount students receive is just the remainder. So it's not tuition + room and board + COA; its COA which includes the other things you mentioned.
While things you say are true, you still think the cost of an apartment in Auburn is more than an apartment in Los Angeles? How can you include a cost already covered by your scholarship, the cost of a dorm room. Of course you don't see paying double or triple what other schools are paying as an advantage, but you can bet everyone who sit in on the meeting to determine the amount did. Auburn Alabama having the highest COA of anywhere in the country is laughable and that is exactly what they are doing at the other colleges.
You are talking about cost of living. That's not the same thing as cost of attendance. So, for example, imagine that USC charges $9000 for student housing per year. Imagine that USC requires all students to have a meal plan that costs $5,000 per year. Assume parking costs $1000 per year. So at UCLA our costs for the year are $15,000. Now, imagine that Auburn charges students $5,400 per semester for housing. For a standard year, not including summer that would be $10,800. Now, imagine Auburn also requires a meal plan, but only requires students pay $995/semester but they assume students will spend approximately $5,000 for food additionally per year. Assume that Auburn only charges $200 per year for parking. So essentially Auburn's costs for the year are $16,995. So as you can see the differences might not be as dramatic as you would imagine. If we assume for a moment that a school requires a meal plan, that alone would substantially reduce the amount of money given to the student. But, if we assume that the school assumes the student will eat out/eat at home and doesn't require a meal plan, that's nearly $4000-5000 to the student for the year. If we a school that charges $1000 per year for parking, that's money that comes out of the amount given to the student and if the cars don't move much during the semester then the other costs of transportation would not be calculated very high. If the school is a commuter school then we can assume longer driving distances which would increase the costs of transportations given to the student. The numbers I used are just close approximations to what the schools charge to make my math a little easier (I suffer from a Kentucky public education).
Broke this up in two because I already wrote a book above^ but to answer the following question:
The amount students are given is the difference between what's covered under scholarship and the actual cost of attendance. Remember the calculation is made without athletic scholarships in mind. It's made to cover the entire student body. So, most athletic scholarships cover tuition, books, room & board and some/most cover meals. The discrepancies that we see are how schools cover transportation costs, whether they cover all meals or some meals, whether the school includes computer expenses or not, whether the school factors in entertainment, gym memberships, does the school allow more funding for housing than what athletic dorms cost? If so that's additional money they can give the athlete. It's a fairly complicated way to handle a simple problem, which is getting athletes a little spending money since they can't have part-time jobs like other students can.
The amount students are given is the difference between what's covered under scholarship and the actual cost of attendance. Remember the calculation is made without athletic scholarships in mind. It's made to cover the entire student body. So, most athletic scholarships cover tuition, books, room & board and some/most cover meals. The discrepancies that we see are how schools cover transportation costs, whether they cover all meals or some meals, whether the school includes computer expenses or not, whether the school factors in entertainment, gym memberships, does the school allow more funding for housing than what athletic dorms cost? If so that's additional money they can give the athlete. It's a fairly complicated way to handle a simple problem, which is getting athletes a little spending money since they can't have part-time jobs like other students can.
Should be cheaper in Tennessee and Kentucky since they produce the most of it outside of California.
I have read that it is very dangerous to wander around in the forests in Oregon, and isn't there quite a bit of it imported still?
I'm just baffled about the difference in the COA in nearby schools and desperate for an answer, other than that they just cheat, but then I guess a lot of other fans are also.
I suppose a lot of other fans have just accepted the obvious answer, they cheat, they should thank me for trying.
I'm just baffled about the difference in the COA in nearby schools and desperate for an answer, other than that they just cheat, but then I guess a lot of other fans are also.
I suppose a lot of other fans have just accepted the obvious answer, they cheat, they should thank me for trying.
Cheat implies breaking the rules. No rules are broken.
The COA was calculated before the idea of paying a stipend was even batted around. As somebody else posted to increase Pell grant monies for all students.
I agree it needs to be set with a cap and if anything higher. These kids deliver a lot f money (multi millions) to the ncaa and the schools. They deserve to be able to pay for a trip home or a run to Taco Bell
California, Tennessee, Kentucky, Hawaii and Washington round out the top 5 domestic producers of marijuana. It's not that schools are cheating, it's primarily that COA is just not a good way of determining these things. For example, Tennessee's COA hasn't increased substantially over the last couple of years. Alabama's COA has increased dramatically recently, but they said that was due to a reworking the way they calculate transportation costs. Things like that are why many people are viewing this skeptically. I can't state enough that it really is a bad way to determine a stipend student athletes should receive.
The only thing I can they can do is have tighter verification on cost....as stated earlier in the thread College are prohibited from using a cap due to the O'Bannon Case
This was one of the fear's of many who opposed stipends I'd guess. Now we have schools, not the NCAA, setting their COA which essentially allows them to "pay" their athlete's more. At schools like say St Johns, Boston U, Cal, Stanford, UCLA etc. I could easily believe the cost of living is greater and their stipend should reflect it. It's hard to believe though that it cost that much more to live in Tuscaloosa than it does in Lexington.
Cost of living does not equal cost of attendance. I'll keep saying it until it sinks in. And schools have always set their COA following federal guidelines.
Last edited:
A can of worms has been opened and let sit out in the sun and begin to stink. There is no way this can not go forward without some type of regulation. Schools have basically been allowed to set their own COA with no guidelines.
IMO the COA for regular students and SS athletes must be figured differently. Most of a SS athletes COA is already paid. and except for a few miscellaneous expenses this is going to be discretionary spending money for the athletes. IMO there is no way we can have a one COA fits all meaning both non SS and SS students. If the idea is to give money to the athletes let not call it COA let's call it what it is a payment for playing sports.
IMO the COA for regular students and SS athletes must be figured differently. Most of a SS athletes COA is already paid. and except for a few miscellaneous expenses this is going to be discretionary spending money for the athletes. IMO there is no way we can have a one COA fits all meaning both non SS and SS students. If the idea is to give money to the athletes let not call it COA let's call it what it is a payment for playing sports.
There are guidelines. Schools can't just make it up. The problem is that many schools set their COA less than what it actually was for years because it made their school look better in US News & World Report. Now though there are other compelling reasons (athletics) to raise those COAs to the highest level they can under the guidelines. Tennessee's COA hasn't changed, I think I remember Grumpy saying Auburn changed theirs recently and I know Alabama changed theirs because of a "misunderstanding" in how they calculate transportation costs. In reality that "misunderstanding" was them no longer seeing a benefit in low-balling their COA.
Your last statement got me thinking about Boston College...they have the lowest CoA in the P5...they did it on purpose because they actually voted against it...makes me wonder how long will they keep their CoA at $1500 a year
It doesn't seem to be positively or negatively affecting recruiting so they may decide to keep a lower COA so they will appear to be a better value in US News.
The entire concept is insane. I can't believe they're actually doing this. I'm all for giving the players money... a lot of money, actually, since they are the product... but this system didn't make any sense from the get go and it's already gotten worse.
How can you say whether it does or does not have an effect on recruiting? It only went into effect in January and this is the first semester the students will actually feel that effect. You're right that it might not have much of an effect because the schools that have always recruited well are also the schools that just so happen to have the highest COA numbers, but every little advantage is going to help and they know this, otherwise UGA and Alabama wouldn't have raised theirs. If it didn't matter these schools would be trying to keep these numbers pretty low so they don't lose money trying to pay tons of money to every athlete on campus. Instead, they are raising the numbers so opponents cannot get an edge on them in recruiting, specifically football recruiting.
Only basing that on observation, hence "it doesn't seem" which doesn't mean "it's not." UK is currently recruiting as well as I've ever seen for 2016
Don't know about this, but I do know that it's a recruiting advantage (even if just a small one) and if this is the latest ploy to get recruits we better be right there in the middle of it with everyone else in the SEC if we plan on being competitive..if this is a decision that's being left in Mitch's lap I'm not sure I'll hold my breath..he's shown time after time that he's well behind the curve when it comes to innovative football thinking..if this is a decision that Stoops has a say in, I have hope, but if it's left up to Mitch I have nothing but worries
Unless Mitch has recently been named director of student financial aid, he has nothing to do with it. Direction to up the figure would have to come from Pres. Capiluto. It could also come from the Admissions Office, department of financial aid. Mitch could make the suggestion, he could ask that they consider it but he has no power to make decisions for other departments.
Geeze, I wish people would do a little research on their own to understand what COA is, who is responsible for setting it and how it applies to athletics. Fan based message boards are not the appropriate resource for this knowledge.
keep pretending that athletics departments specifically football coaches all across the country havent tampered and influenced heavily the COA amounts, the facts and numbers are proving that your opinion is idiotic, idealistic, and downright foolish. Keep squinting your eyes shut & jamming your fingers in your ears and scream "THIS IS A PURELY ACADEMIC CALCULATION, SPORTS HAVE NO SAY, THEY DON'T THEY JUST DON'T!!!!" as you have wrongly done on this issue all year long.......the rest of us chose to exist and operate in the real world.
If they have done so then their respective college presidents have allowed them to do so. Again educate yourself on the process. Coaches and athletic departments can't play with the numbers because the numbers are published per federal financial aid guidelines. They are set and reported by the school's financial aid office. What influence athletics can impose on other departments of a school will be dictated by those who oversee those departments...ie college presidents.
It still should be much higher at TU and Transfer U since the volume also enters into the computation.
Now my bill at UK would have been zero, since I have never tried the stuff, like my cigarette bill. I am baffled at how some of these poor athletes afford the stuff, unless, of course there is an allowance for that also.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that there is, in a lot of cases, or they just know where they can get it for free.
Not sure what year you graduated but it seemed like everybody at U.K. Did but me while I was there.
