HERE >>>

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/tu...4fa03.html

That amount ($2,500) could put TU at a recruiting disadvantage

Overall so far there has been a trend of lower figures coinciding with higher regarded academic institutions, with a couple of exceptions. It's not just private schools trending that way, but also some of the older Big 10 and ACC public schools.

(04-16-2015 09:19 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  That amount ($2,500) could put TU at a recruiting disadvantage

Not really. They are paying significantly more than schools like Boston College.

(04-16-2015 09:24 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  Overall so far there has been a trend of lower figures coinciding with higher regarded academic institutions, with a couple of exceptions. It's not just private schools trending that way, but also some of the older Big 10 and ACC public schools.

What difference would that make on things like the cost of school supplies and food?

(04-16-2015 09:24 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  Overall so far there has been a trend of lower figures coinciding with higher regarded academic institutions, with a couple of exceptions. It's not just private schools trending that way, but also some of the older Big 10 and ACC public schools.

Right - since their listed cost are already high there's a resistance to making them even higher. Also the value of a free education at say Tulsa, at least with some recruits, might more than make up the difference in money provided at a school 'less academically inclined' --

(04-16-2015 09:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:24 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  Overall so far there has been a trend of lower figures coinciding with higher regarded academic institutions, with a couple of exceptions. It's not just private schools trending that way, but also some of the older Big 10 and ACC public schools.

What difference would that make on things like the cost of school supplies and food?

It doesn't.

But no transparency in the accounting means that other schools can dramatically overstate the cost of their "school supplies and food".

I'll be very interested to see SMU and Tulane figures.

(04-16-2015 09:28 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:19 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  That amount ($2,500) could put TU at a recruiting disadvantage

Not really. They are paying significantly more than schools like Boston College.

Tulsa does not recruit against Boston College. They do recruit against schools in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas....mostly Texas. And some of those schools are paying top dollar. It will depend a lot on what other AAC schools in Texas give, along with other G5 schools in Texas.

(04-16-2015 09:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:24 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  Overall so far there has been a trend of lower figures coinciding with higher regarded academic institutions, with a couple of exceptions. It's not just private schools trending that way, but also some of the older Big 10 and ACC public schools.

What difference would that make on things like the cost of school supplies and food?

Not sure if it makes any difference. There's no logic in any of the numbers, which are copied from another thread below for reference.

In this average fan's opinion, it's an obvious recruiting tool and needs some review/leveling out/equalization based on true area cost of living by a governing body other than administrators of NCAA members. Knoxville TN/Auburn AL aren't over 3 times more expensive than LA, Atlanta, or Syracuse. I didn't include Boston because BCU has already voiced its disapproval of the entire process via its vote.

$5,666 - Tennessee
$5,586 - Auburn
$5,202 - Louisville
$5,126 - Mississippi State
$5,100 - Texas Tech
$4,788 - Penn State
$4,700 - TCU
$4,614 - Oklahoma
$4,560 - Oklahoma State
$4,500 - Ole Miss
$4,316 - Wisconsin
$4,310 - Texas
$4,151 - South Carolina
$4,112 - Kansas State
$4,025 - East Carolina
$4,002 - Arkansas
$3,884 - Florida State
$3,882 - Baylor
$3,726 - Nebraska
$3,664 - Missouri
$3,608 - Clemson
$3,574 - Utah
$3,552 - California
$3,542 - Washington State
$3,358 - Arizona State
$3,320 - Florida
$3,300 - Arizona
$3,300 - Pittsburgh
$3,162 - Maryland
$3,096 - LSU
$3,076 - Kansas
$3,036 - Indiana
$2,921 - Rutgers
$2,892 - Alabama
$2,780 - Miami
$2,780 - Vanderbilt
$2,770 - Virginia Tech
$2,706 - Texas A&M
$2,679 - Washington
$2,625 - Stanford
$2,602 - Ohio State
$2,598 - Georgia
$2,595 - UCLA
$2,564 - Virginia
$2,500 - Illinois
$2,484 - Oregon State
$2,430 - North Carolina State
$2,430 - Iowa State
$2,400 - Wake Forest
$2,340 - Oregon
$2,294 - Colorado
$2,284 - Kentucky
$2,236 - UNC-Chapel Hill
$2,206 - Duke
$2,204 - Michigan
$2,194 - Minnesota
$1,971 - West Virginia
$1,950 - Notre Dame
$1,938 - Iowa
$1,872 - Michigan State
$1,760 - Purdue
$1,720 - Georgia Tech
$1,632 - Syracuse
$1,580 - USC
$1,400 - Boston College

The list above originally was for P5 schools only. Someone stuck ECU's numbers in there. Memphis' COA number are $4,467 -

(04-16-2015 09:38 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  I'll be very interested to see SMU and Tulane figures.

Me too. Also other G5 schools in Texas like Houston, USTA, North Texas etc.

(04-16-2015 09:36 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:24 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  Overall so far there has been a trend of lower figures coinciding with higher regarded academic institutions, with a couple of exceptions. It's not just private schools trending that way, but also some of the older Big 10 and ACC public schools.

What difference would that make on things like the cost of school supplies and food?

It doesn't.

But no transparency in the accounting means that other schools can dramatically overstate the cost of their "school supplies and food".

I think that's right. This is just another form of cheating really. No way all of these COA numbers at all of these schools have jumped this much this year. But it has to be 'limited creative cheating' since too much creativity might get you a call from the Department of Education --- So there are constraints -

(04-16-2015 09:49 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:36 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:24 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  Overall so far there has been a trend of lower figures coinciding with higher regarded academic institutions, with a couple of exceptions. It's not just private schools trending that way, but also some of the older Big 10 and ACC public schools.

What difference would that make on things like the cost of school supplies and food?

It doesn't.

But no transparency in the accounting means that other schools can dramatically overstate the cost of their "school supplies and food".

I think that's right. This is just another form of cheating really. No way all of these COA numbers at all of these schools have jumped this much this year. But it has to be creative cheating since too much creativity might get you a call from the Department of Education --- So there are constraints -

And depending what schools are being compared...Tulsa cost of living that close to Stanford? Twice as much as Cuse and USC?

What a mess.

Boston College is the only school of which I'm aware that has made the statement that amonts to 'we're not going to play the COA game' -- hence they're last on the P5 list reposted by oldtiger. Boston College's COA increase lprobably reflects something that looks like a normal percentage increase. Now look at Louisville's. Almost a 30% increase year over year. Same for Tennessee's and some of the other SEC football types.

I hate this entire discussion. Our full scholarship players were already getting free: books, dorms/apartments, health care, food, money to host recruits, academic tutoring services, etc... Any money on top of that is just pay to play.

I think SMU should get an apology from the NCAA for the death penalty after they anounce the Pony Excess scandal was only due to "cost of attendance"

What is GT doing with all that TV money that they have to host concerts to pay for COA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/earl...ttendance/

(04-16-2015 09:49 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:36 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:24 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  Overall so far there has been a trend of lower figures coinciding with higher regarded academic institutions, with a couple of exceptions. It's not just private schools trending that way, but also some of the older Big 10 and ACC public schools.

What difference would that make on things like the cost of school supplies and food?

It doesn't.

But no transparency in the accounting means that other schools can dramatically overstate the cost of their "school supplies and food".

I think that's right. This is just another form of cheating really. No way all of these COA numbers at all of these schools have jumped this much this year. But it has to be 'limited creative cheating' since too much creativity might get you a call from the Department of Education --- So there are constraints -

It's legalized "cheating" (which is an illogical combo of words), if there is no review of "allowance" VS area cost of living. The review should be by some independent board, the NCAA has proven that its employees and the university administrators have no control over equitably enforcing regulations

Guys, this isn't a COL driven thing. Maybe that factors into a little bit. I think the FCOA numbers vary wildly based on what base tuition will cover. Every school is a little different there.

(04-16-2015 10:13 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:49 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:36 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:24 AM)TUBballJunkie Wrote:  Overall so far there has been a trend of lower figures coinciding with higher regarded academic institutions, with a couple of exceptions. It's not just private schools trending that way, but also some of the older Big 10 and ACC public schools.

What difference would that make on things like the cost of school supplies and food?

It doesn't.

But no transparency in the accounting means that other schools can dramatically overstate the cost of their "school supplies and food".

I think that's right. This is just another form of cheating really. No way all of these COA numbers at all of these schools have jumped this much this year. But it has to be 'limited creative cheating' since too much creativity might get you a call from the Department of Education --- So there are constraints -

It's legalized "cheating" (which is an illogical combo of words), if there is no review of "allowance" VS area cost of living. The review should be by some independent board, the NCAA has proven that its employees and the university administrators have no control over equitably enforcing regulations

The Department of Education is suppose to review any departure from the "norm." But since the justifications submitted for that departure are created by the institutions themselves -- \I guess, this years radical increases in COA simply reflect some kind of hyper-inflation existing only where D1 schools exist. I guess that's it