So ESPN posted an article regarding the variation in cost of attendance and how it will likely give a competitive edge in recruiting to those schools who offer more. 7 of the top 20 schools are in the SEC. Among Power 5 teams, the difference between the greatest amount of support and the least is over $4,000. Tennessee is giving $5,666 while BC is giving $1,400. Interestingly enough, USCw, another private school, is second from the bottom at $1,580. 3 of the bottom 4 though are ACC teams.
I don't know how these are calculated or justified for each school, but it really got me thinking about the level of disparity. Perhaps there should be a standard or even a maximum set to keep there from being too much of an advantage for some schools. I don't know the answer, but it's interesting to see that difference. Below is a list of ACC schools from greatest to least.
Louisville: $5,202
FSU: $3,884
Clemson: $3,608
Pitt: $3,300
Miami: $2,780
Virginia Tech: $2,770
Virginia: $2,564
NC State: $2,430
Wake Forest: $2,400
UNC: $2,236
Duke: $2,206
Georgia Tech: $1,720
Syracuse: $1,632
Does anyone have any insights or possibly another solution for this?
Comments
Considering what the money is for, there shouldn't be an advantage one way or another. Those funds should go straight into the costs of attending those schools, so the kids have a true legitimate free ride. There should be no net gain anywhere.
You'd like to think that, but the numbers don't seem to support that. How do they figure what the true cost of attendance is for each school? Does it really cost $4,000 more to be at Tennessee than it does be at USCw? Somehow I find that very unlikely. Also, the numbers stated here for us apparently aren't accurate.
What is interesting is that Tech is only one of a handful of DIV 1 programs that operates their athletic department at cost or with a slight profit. Where are these other schools going to get the money to pay the players. FSU is a big example.
They hope from increased donations but if not it will be made up by increasing student fees. No way around it.
I have nothing to back this up, but here's my theory:
We really haven't put much money into crazy facilities or stadium things. A lot of other schools get huge amounts of money, and have to spend it somewhere so like they aren't turning huge profits. We're just now getting a dedicated indoor football facility, and I think the basketball facility is nice, but not extravagant. We've operated in the black, but our donation revenue disparity has been well documented. The difference has been in expenses
The projected cost for every athlete at Tech is collectively just under 1 million. So you can scale it from there, lets face it even 2 million for a school that wants to do it is almost chump change, they could just shave a year off a coach's contract, or up ticket prices by 5 bucks each.
does it really take that much to live in Louisville? my impression of it when i was there does not support this at all
It is the papa johns stipend.
No, it's purely because they have a large athletics budget.
A lot of it should be based on geography and the associated cost of living, and probably shouldn't be set by the schools themselves to avoid it turning into a money arms race. For instance, BC, Miami, and Pitt should be the highest in the ACC, simply because living in a large city is inherently more expensive than a place like Blacksburg. But in the end, the player should net zero dollars, and in a perfect world, would never actually come in contact with the money.
I know its much more expensive to live in Atlanta (GT - $1700) than Auburn (stipend rumored to be between six to seven thousand) so how can this add up to anything but recruiting by giving players money?
Crazy
Agreed, most of the SEC schools are in small towns that are only college towns. Boston and LA are two of the most expensive places to live in the entire country. Things seem fishy here...
That's absurd. It cost so much more to live in the Northeast or the West Coast (particularly LA) than it does in the South. These numbers should all be reversed, were these schools actually trying to be fair and not use it as a means to funnel more cash to athletes for recruiting purposes.
I guess we need the cost of tuition for each school to truly compare. I'm pretty sure it's dirt cheap to go to VT compared to the tuition at a lot of schools
In state, yes
Out of state, absolutely not
I never really appreciated this because I had a Navy scholarship all four years, but I saw the total while working at Tech after graduation, and goddamn was that a lot of money you taxpayers spent on my political science degree.
You dont say...
You're welcome. Now go make us proud.
(Disclaimer because text lacks context: comment intended in good humor.)
But isn't that normal for most state schools, to charge a much higher rate for out of state? Just asking
Yes. Essentially, the out of state cost is the "real" cost, and in state students get essentially subsidized because their parents have been paying taxes to the state.
Tuition is covered under a standard scholarship currently. This is meant to offset the costs of food, rent, travel to and from campus, phone bills, electric, etc. basically it is meant to offset any out of pocket costs the student would incur as a result of attending the school and playing a sport.
The funny thing is, the don't pay the players crowd (I'm admittedly in this crowd to some degree) likes to say that the education is in fact payment. But, diplomas at all schools are not created equal and definitely aren't comparable in equivalent "cost". There is no difference in the cash in the pocket of the players (until after graduation). I guess since players aren't flooding to the wanabee ivy league schools, we know what really matters to most 17 year old athletes.
Hate to revive such an old thread, but there was a piece written about this by Andy Staples of SI regarding Mississippi State. Apparently, in order to receive their cost of attendance stipends, they'll need to attend a university class regarding financial management:
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/06/15/mississippi-state-players-...
Interesting take. I'd be a supporter of this for our guys, too. Staples makes some good points here.
Although he also ranked the top five songs of 1994 and marked "Undone" number 1, so maybe he's just a doucheb@g.
I think a class in financial management should be mandatory, but it really has nothing to do with cost of attendance stipends. I think it's part of the focus of helping students become adults, and should be a core goal of a student athlete education. I'd go as far as making it an NCAA requirement.
I think the stipends should be either 100% the same across the board. Creating a system that allows for any gaming by the university seems ridiculous. Sure, some are more expensive than others, but some also have nicer campuses or amenities.
Come up with an average, and pay it. This shouldn't be yet one more thing that athletic departments are trying to game.
I think we all agree that these classes should be required in grade/high school, but that's another issue all together. I like Miss St's plan.
I see this both ways, $2k in LA (USC) does not go nearly as far as $2k does in Blacksburg. However, it sucks that all recruits see is the number. Neither option is really "fair" IMO.
Somehow, the Knoxville Tennessee COA is over double the LA California COA?
Come on. Come up with an average already, and lets just call it an athletic department stipend.
Yes, this. I don't think the cost of attendance should be the same across the board because the cost of attendance is tied, for better or worse, to the cost of living in an area.
Of course, it's also tied to the spending habits of the players. Making good decisions in your financial life is a lesson that pays back.
Taking Financial Management and other "Intro to Real Life" classes should be at least strongly encouraged nowadays. This is a good move by Mississippi State.
On the other hand, Undone isn't even a top 5 song on the Blue Album. So yeah, this guy has completely discredited himself.