COST OF ATTENDANCE DISPARITIES
What's going on: The "power" conferences voted overwhelmingly earlier this year to provide "cost of attendance" money to student-athletes that goes beyond the scholarship itself. That stipend, such as it is, goes into effect in August. So it's up to each school to determine the amount of money between a scholarship (tuition, fees, books) and what it actually costs to attend the school.
Auburn identified that figure at $5,586, which was the second-highest figure in the country. Only Tennessee ($5,666) was higher. Some SEC schools like Vanderbilt and Texas A&M submitted numbers at or below $3,000, which has some coaches and administrators fuming. Is this cost-of-attendance stipend going to become a recruiting perk? Will players choose Tennessee over, say, Georgia because the cost-of-attendance stipend is $2,000 more in Knoxville?
- HUGH FREEZE (Ole Miss) is against disparities, but not ardently so. "Do I wish it was the same for all in our league? Yes I do but I don't know that that matters what I really think on that. I think that's a discussion that's going to have to happen above our level. But I think if you polled all our coaches they would say they wish it was all the same."
- JIM McELWAIN (Florida) is ... not really taking a side. “Well, obviously, I’m all for (stipends). And yet you know somewhere down the line, if there’s a way we can come to with a uniform number, and I guess the disclosure exactly how that number is. …. how they come up with those numbers, is an interesting thing. In the meantime, I’m excited we’re going to be able to help those guys a little bit more. For all the things they do for our university and for this conference, I think it’s outstanding.”
- NICK SABAN (Alabama) is against disparities. "Even in the NFL they have a salary cap. So you can’t create a system that really almost can promote fraud 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. I’m all for the players getting more. I always have been, I’ve always promoted it, I’ve always been for it. I still think that’s important that we improve the quality of life. I just think there are some unforeseen consequences of this that may affect the competitive balance."
- MARK RICHT (Georgia) is against disparities. "I think it’s not a good thing at all. I think it’s something that over time will get ironed out. I don’t know how quickly it will get ironed out. I don’t think it’s right that anyone will have that type of advantage or disadvantage.”
- BRET BIELEMA (Arkansas) is against disparities. "I’ve been in recruiting for 20 years and I know it definitely will be used. I know, for us at Arkansas, we’ll hopefully be on the higher end than some of our competition. The part in recruiting is if it’s not equal, it’s really not fair. I don’t care if you’re talking about academics or cost of attendance, you’re always going to find an advantage and you’re going to use it as a coach. That’s something that is going to be a topic with us as coaches. Maybe we realize it more than others. It’s obvious to you probably. It’s definitely obvious to a kid that’s weighing all the things."
Last edited:
