Syracuse administration needs to either get on board with the coaching staff

[bcubs9497]

ummm so based on what reported on the radio today, the kid had been referred to a hematologist that disagreed with some doctors from Alabama. one of the big sources of anger on this board was that some "family practitioner" was making a decision outside of his jurisdiction. guess what the family is leaking the information, maybe they are more worried about the NFL than the kid is.

Not leaking a GD thing. It's all out there, and I'm on the record for saying that I'd prefer he go to grad school, not the NFL.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

There's no comparison in the cost of living between New Brunswick, NJ and Syracuse, NY. With 100 being the national average cost of living - New Brunswick, NJ is ranked 118 and Syracuse, NY is 83. I imagine the universities base it on a of cost of living index. I don't know but I would hope that common sense wise the NCAA should be monitoring it and using some type of cost of living index so it's not abused or giving unfair advantages. At least that is what I'd hope and expect

This is the exact reason why I think that paying players and having these stipends is such a bad idea.

Just let the players profit from their name and likeness. That's it.

 

[rrlbees]

I understand that. But it's done by the Universities themselves.

Look at the University of Cincinnati's website:

Tuition & Fees

An excerpt:

The cost of attending UC consists of direct and indirect costs. Direct costs on your semester bill are tuition (instructional, general, technology, campus life, and program fees), room and board (for students residing on campus), and health insurance (if minimum insurance coverage is not documented). Attending college also includes indirect costs. Items such as books and supplies, transportation and parking, personal expenses, and off-campus rent are part of your budget though they will not be billed by the university.

In addition to the direct fees detailed above, we recommend you budget approximately $1,500 for books and supplies, $500 to $725 for transportation, and between $3,800 and $5,000 for personal expenses per academic year.

The link you provided lists Cincinnati as the top CoA school in their league at $6,082. Full scholarships cover tuition and fees, room, board and course-related books. Therefore, if you extrapolate the $500-725 for transportation and the $3,800-$5,000 in personal expenses, plus 'supplies' apart from books, you can get to $6,082.

In contrast, here is SU's site:
Financial Aid | Cost of Attendance: Undergraduate

They list:
Books & Supplies $1,469
Transportation $668
Personal Expenses $1,030

Judging from that, I'd say Syracuse's CoA is roughly $2,000-$2,300 per kid.

I'm not saying it doesn't cost more - I'm just saying it's structured by the school and not by the athletic administration necessarily. Is that a conversation that the AD can have with admissions or whoever designs this structure? I'm sure they can. But that number is not just pulled out of thin air and at the discretion of the AD.

This is all correct. And the COA as someone else said impacts every student, not just athletes, at SU including their financial aid. It shouldnt just be a number pulled out of the air, and it isn't.

 

[Alsacs]

This is all correct. And the COA as someone else said impacts every student, not just athletes, at SU including their financial aid. It shouldnt just be a number pulled out of the air, and it isn't.

The school charges more tuition than almost every FBS school. The school can afford for COA to be higher. I get it would impact students who aren't on athletic scholarships.

COA at Syracuse shouldn't be significantly lower than Rutgers or ACC schools.

I know the amount but won't post it the school gives out a real low COA compared to other schools. The school can afford the additional million dollars if it chose to.

My frustration is with the administration who seems content with the status quo after the Cantor spend spend spend Era.

 

[rrlbees]

The school charges more tuition than almost every FBS school. The school can afford for COA to be higher. I get it would impact students who aren't on athletic scholarships.

COA at Syracuse shouldn't be significantly lower than Rutgers or ACC schools.

I know the amount but won't post it the school gives out a real low COA compared to other schools. The school can afford the additional million dollars if it chose to.

My frustration is with the administration who seems content with the status quo after the Cantor spend spend spend Era.

I know all the numbers too. Let's say you want to boost the COA in the area of transportation and/or personal expenses by $1,000. SU's total COA is $65,880. Bumping to $66,880 might further "scare off" more non athletes and their families. Or for financial aid, 10,000 (or whatever the number is) students would need $1,000 more which would be more loans for the family or SU giving everyone more scholarship/grant money. Otherwise the family is responsible for $1,000 more.

It's just not as simple as saying give the athletes more money. And I think compared to a lot of locations, the syracuse area is cheaper.

 

[Bayside44]

The school charges more tuition than almost every FBS school. The school can afford for COA to be higher. I get it would impact students who aren't on athletic scholarships.

COA at Syracuse shouldn't be significantly lower than Rutgers or ACC schools.

I know the amount but won't post it the school gives out a real low COA compared to other schools. The school can afford the additional million dollars if it chose to.

My frustration is with the administration who seems content with the status quo after the Cantor spend spend spend Era.

I think you're jumping to your own conclusions. John Wildhack of all people didn't come here to be closer to his summer house.

 

[Alsacs]

I know all the numbers too. Let's say you want to boost the COA in the area of transportation and/or personal expenses by $1,000. SU's total COA is $65,880. Bumping to $66,880 might further "scare off" more non athletes and their families. Or for financial aid, 10,000 (or whatever the number is) students would need $1,000 more which would be more loans for the family or SU giving everyone more scholarship/grant money. Otherwise the family is responsible for $1,000 more.

It's just not as simple as saying give the athletes more money. And I think compared to a lot of locations, the syracuse area is cheaper.

How can SU's total COA be as high as you describe and then the payout for scholarships be so low?

 

[rrlbees]

How can SU's total COA be as high as you describe and then the payout for scholarships be so low?

i don't follow your question.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I know all the numbers too. Let's say you want to boost the COA in the area of transportation and/or personal expenses by $1,000. SU's total COA is $65,880. Bumping to $66,880 might further "scare off" more non athletes and their families. Or for financial aid, 10,000 (or whatever the number is) students would need $1,000 more which would be more loans for the family or SU giving everyone more scholarship/grant money. Otherwise the family is responsible for $1,000 more.

It's just not as simple as saying give the athletes more money. And I think compared to a lot of locations, the syracuse area is cheaper.

What's weird to me... why would the expense for books have much variation between schools?

 

[Alsacs]

i don't follow your question.

You used the figure 65k for total cost.
If that was just an estimate then it can be adjusted.

My point is if costs that much to attend SU then shouldn't the COA payouts be a lot larger than they actually are?

 

[omniorange]

Alsacs, keep in mind that a full athletic scholarship has traditionally included tuition, fees, room & board, and course related books. The new stipend has to do basically with transportation, personal expenses, and the supplies part of the books and supplies component.

I do disagree with the notion put forth by some that parents will be "scared off" by the indirect costs of transportation or personal expenses. Honestly, if the "real costs" at SU haven't scared them off - will anything?

For the most part, inflating transportation and personal expenses should not be a deciding factor for non-athletes in choosing an institution. The main concern with that type of COA inflation is that it presents more "financial need" for loan eligibility which may increase student loan debt. But Financial Aid Officers who are good at their jobs should be counseling parents and students who need loans to assist with paying for college what the "real costs" of education are as well as a more streamlined budgetary figure for transportation and personal expenses as part of the mandatory entrance interviews for student loans - which in my day were done one-on-one at the institution I worked at, but unfortunately now are usually done on-line. Still, even on line, there could be information out there to explain what the difference between "real costs of education" and "estimated traveling and personal expenses". If the parents and students decide to go with the larger debt after said counseling has taken place, it's on them, not the institution.

As for athletes, Inside Higher Ed did an article back in 2015 that exposed the manipulation of COA that was already occurring with the recent change:

Colleges inflate full cost of attendance numbers, increasing stipends for athletes

"This summer, some institutions adjusted their cost of attendance figures just as those estimates suddenly became useful as a recruiting tool."

"The federal government provides guidance and tracks these figures, but allows college financial aid officers to determine what an appropriate estimate is for their institution, though colleges must justify those amounts in some way. The large variance among institutions -- owing to factors such as cost of living being different from one city or state to the next, for example -- has been mostly uncontroversial. That's changed now that cost of attendance has become part of the intercollegiate athletics arms race."

"Last month, Georgia adjusted its cost-of-attendance figures, and the size of the gap that could be addressed by the stipend increased from $1,798 to $3,221 for in-state students and $3,743 for out-of-state students."

"Alabama’s full cost of attendance last year put the university in the middle of the Southeastern Conference, allowing athletes there to receive an annual stipend of $3,463. The University of Tennessee's and Auburn University’s stipends, meanwhile, both topped $5,000 per year."

"Alabama is now offering one of the largest stipends in college football: $5,386 each year to out-of-state athletes and $4,172 to in-state athletes"

Now, I doubt SU will ever get as high as those SEC schools in terms of inflating the pertinent COA figures, but considering that current transportation and personal expenses total $1700 (leaving only the "supplies" side of the book and supplies component unknown) means to me that SU chose not to do any increase for stipend reasons whatsoever (see Georgia's figures for the stipend above prior to their increasing their COA for stipend reasons). How one feels about that depends upon one's own point of view.

Hope this makes sense.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[rrlbees]

You used the figure 65k for total cost.
If that was just an estimate then it can be adjusted.

My point is if costs that much to attend SU then shouldn't the COA payouts be a lot larger than they actually are?

That includes everything. Tuition, room, board etc which are part of the calculation. I only provided it to show the total cost of attending SU is very high and adding dollars will make it even worse for the non athlete.

 

[rrlbees]

What's weird to me... why would the expense for books have much variation between schools?

I don't think it's that much difference. I'm not even sure books are part of the new calculations. Weren't they already included as part of a full athletic scholarship? The costs that are applicable is pretty much personal expenses and transportation.

 

[rrlbees]

Alsacs, keep in mind that a full athletic scholarship has traditionally included tuition, fees, room & board, and course related books. The new stipend has to do basically with transportation, personal expenses, and the supplies part of the books and supplies component.

I do disagree with the notion put forth by some that parents will be "scared off" by the indirect costs of transportation or personal expenses. Honestly, if the "real costs" at SU haven't scared them off - will anything?

For the most part, inflating transportation and personal expenses should not be a deciding factor for non-athletes in choosing an institution. The main concern with that type of COA inflation is that it presents more "financial need" for loan eligibility which may increase student loan debt. But Financial Aid Officers who are good at their jobs should be counseling parents and students who need loans to assist with paying for college what the "real costs" of education are as well as a more streamlined budgetary figure for transportation and personal expenses as part of the mandatory entrance interviews for student loans - which in my day were done one-on-one at the institution I worked at, but unfortunately now are usually done on-line. Still, even on line, there could be information out there to explain what the difference between "real costs of education" and "estimated traveling and personal expenses". If the parents and students decide to go with the larger debt after said counseling has taken place, it's on them, not the institution.

As for athletes, Inside Higher Ed did an article back in 2015 that exposed the manipulation of COA that was already occurring with the recent change:

Colleges inflate full cost of attendance numbers, increasing stipends for athletes

"This summer, some institutions adjusted their cost of attendance figures just as those estimates suddenly became useful as a recruiting tool."

"The federal government provides guidance and tracks these figures, but allows college financial aid officers to determine what an appropriate estimate is for their institution, though colleges must justify those amounts in some way. The large variance among institutions -- owing to factors such as cost of living being different from one city or state to the next, for example -- has been mostly uncontroversial. That's changed now that cost of attendance has become part of the intercollegiate athletics arms race."

"Last month, Georgia adjusted its cost-of-attendance figures, and the size of the gap that could be addressed by the stipend increased from $1,798 to $3,221 for in-state students and $3,743 for out-of-state students."

"Alabama’s full cost of attendance last year put the university in the middle of the Southeastern Conference, allowing athletes there to receive an annual stipend of $3,463. The University of Tennessee's and Auburn University’s stipends, meanwhile, both topped $5,000 per year."

"Alabama is now offering one of the largest stipends in college football: $5,386 each year to out-of-state athletes and $4,172 to in-state athletes"

Now, I doubt SU will ever get as high as those SEC schools in terms of inflating the pertinent COA figures, but considering that current transportation and personal expenses total $1700 (leaving only the "supplies" side of the book and supplies component unknown) means to me that SU chose not to do any increase for stipend reasons whatsoever (see Georgia's figures for the stipend above prior to their increasing their COA for stipend reasons). How one feels about that depends upon one's own point of view.

Hope this makes sense.

Cheers,
Neil

I know a few kids who did not go to SU because of the 65k price tag. Saying it is now 66 or 67k would only make it tougher.

 

[omniorange]

I know a few kids who did not go to SU because of the 65k price tag. Saying it is now 66 or 67k would only make it tougher.

If one eliminates the $1700 from the 65K price tag, do you honestly believe these "few kids" would say, "Now that I know the real costs are $63K I've changed my mind"?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Alsacs]

That includes everything. Tuition, room, board etc which are part of the calculation. I only provided it to show the total cost of attending SU is very high and adding dollars will make it even worse for the non athlete.

My point is so if it's already that high shouldn't the COA be higher? Our school costs a lot already. I guess not is the answer.

 

[SUFan44]

My point is so if it's already that high shouldn't the COA be higher? Our school costs a lot already. I guess not is the answer.

Cost of attendance has nothing to do with tuition and cost of a school. Not one shred of linkage between the two.

 

[rrlbees]

If one eliminates the $1700 from the 65K price tag, do you honestly believe these "few kids" would say, "Now that I know the real costs are $63K I've changed my mind"?

Cheers,
Neil

No. But that's not the point I was making. Making high costs higher can't be a positive.

 

[rrlbees]

Cost of attendance has nothing to do with tuition and cost of a school. Not one shred of linkage between the two.

I think you mean the difference in COA from the old to new method for an athlete.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Have to wonder the effect of free SUNY tuition has on overall costs down the line.

 

[omniorange]

No. But that's not the point I was making. Making high costs higher can't be a positive.

Some might argue that in this case there is potentially more positive (better recruitment, being fairer to athletes) than negative (inflating meaningless costs potentially discouraging a few) by doing so. If indeed a few are put off by the overall figures (because they didn't have the smarts to look at the "true costs") is their loss sufficiently offset/replaced by the large number of students turned away by SU admissions who don't care? Are there better athletes who simply choose not to come to SU because they can get a much larger stipend at another competing institution?

I don't claim to know the answer to either of those questions but I don't think it is as cut and dried as you seem to think.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[rrlbees]

Some might argue that in this case there is potentially more positive (better recruitment, being fairer to athletes) than negative (inflating meaningless costs potentially discouraging a few) by doing so. If indeed a few are put off by the overall figures (because they didn't have the smarts to look at the "true costs") is their loss sufficiently offset/replaced by the large number of students turned away by SU admissions who don't care? Are there better athletes who simply choose not to come to SU because they can get a much larger stipend at another competing institution?

I don't claim to know the answer to either of those questions but I don't think it is as cut and dried as you seem to think.

Cheers,
Neil

I agree, it's not cut and dry. Others think you can just "give" athletes more. But how much to give them impacts many other students.

 

[sufandu]

This is the exact reason why I think that paying players and having these stipends is such a bad idea.

Just let the players profit from their name and likeness. That's it.

You realize that would put schools with a smaller alumni/fanbase at a further disadvantage, right.

Part of what the NCAA is supposed to attempt to do is maintain some semblance of an even playing field.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You realize that would put schools with a smaller alumni/fanbase at a further disadvantage, right.

Part of what the NCAA is supposed to attempt to do is maintain some semblance of an even playing field.

I take it by your response that you're unfamiliar with my stance on this.

 

[Bambrewer]

While I am sure a few kids pick their schools by the higher monthly check... the $900 a month shy gets on top of his books,school , housing, meal plan, and everything else is plenty for him to eat and spend. Yes some months he spends on stupid things and is broke but overall it's enough. I'd rather see them add stuff to the facilities and maybe change the money for a meal plan to them being fed by the team 3 meals a day so the nutrition is designed for what each player needs.