Will cost-of-attendance money change college recruiting?

The cost of living in Palo Alto, Calif., is 70 percent higher than the cost of living in Starkville, Miss.

So why is Mississippi State’s cost of attendance increase nearly double what Stanford will pay beginning in August? South Carolina athletics director Ray Tanner is not quite sure, and he’s been following the issue as long and as closely as anyone.

“I thought (Stanford’s figure) was low,” Tanner said. “Having gone there a few times, I thought that was really low.”

Welcome to the looming debate about cost of attendance. After more than a year of developing and passing rule changes that allow them to give more compensation to scholarship athletes, the 65 schools in the Power 5 conferences now have another issue – the disparity in those numbers.

Starting with fall semester, Mississippi State will provide all its full scholarship athletes with an additional $5,126 per year, taking the total value of their scholarships to $22,420 annually. Stanford’s increase will be $2,625, taking the total value of the scholarship at the prestigious private school to $65,165 per year.

“My statement when it first started was, ‘If the number’s not the same, it’s going to present some issues,’” Tanner said. “I do think it will be looked at. I’d like to think that our student-athletes won’t make a decision based on that, but I’m sure that schools that are giving more money will recruit that way. I think that’s really the only concern moving forward is how much does it affect the recruiting process.”

South Carolina mostly can use that as a selling point because the Gamecocks’ increase of $4,151 annually is the 13^th-highest in the country and fifth-highest in the SEC. However, if South Carolina is recruiting the same athlete as Tennessee, the Volunteers, who will have the highest increase in the country, can point out that player will get $5,666 per year in Knoxville.

“That’s been a point of emphasis for coaches for a year or two,” said Texas A&M’s Kevin Sumlin, whose increase ($2,706) is the third-lowest in the SEC. “For coaches, you are always looking for an even playing field. Now that the numbers are public, I think there is going to be a little bit more scrutiny about how those numbers are derived and why there are such big differences at different places around the country.”

The cost of attendance increase figures are determined by each school’s financial aid office. The figure has long been generated by those offices and had been used chiefly as a way to increase the federal borrowing power of all students.

“These numbers have existed for a long time,” Tanner said.

Tanner is surprised not only that Stanford’s number is as low as it is, but also that Mississippi State and Ole Miss are in the country’s top 10. Tennessee and Auburn, which are not located in historically expensive places to live, will have the two highest payouts in the country.

“I think each school is going to take a look at how the number is derived,” Tanner said. “Are there adjustments that need to be made? I think there are some places athletic departments will ask questions. I don’t think that they will manipulate it.”

He is hopeful the financial disparity won’t have a major impact on recruiting, but he’s also a realist.

“If you just said, ‘Hey, you are going to get $5,000 to go to School X and $3,500 to go to School Y,’ would that influence you? I guess it could figure into it,” Tanner said. “We discussed that from the very beginning, but at this point, this is where we are. Will it ever be the same for all the schools? I don’t know. Based on the formula, I don’t see how it can be, but we’ll see if it causes any major issues or affects recruiting in a strong way going forward.”

Recruits aren’t yet asking many questions about cost of attendance, Tennessee head coach Butch Jones said.

“Really, at the end of the day, a potential student-athlete chooses that school based on the relationships that are built,” Jones said.

However, Clemson coach Dabo Swinney expects the issue to become “a nightmare,” he said.

“There’s no question it’s not a level playing field, and it is going to be the No.1 topic at all the coaches’ meetings because it’s not good,” Swinney said. “The intent is good, but for one school to be able to pay $3,000 or $4,000 more than another school, then at the end of the day, guys are going to make decisions for the wrong reasons, and it shouldn’t be that way. I don’t like where we are right now. We are where we are, but I think that there has to be a better solution somewhere down the road, and I think eventually we’re going to get there.”

The cost of attendance increase will cost South Carolina’s athletics department $1.3 million annually, although the money that is now being generated by the SEC Network is expected to more than make up for that additional expenditure.

“The timing of the SEC Network is great,” Tanner said.

South Carolina will provide the full dollar amount to all its athletes, although the new legislation does not require that. Gamecock athletes who are on full scholarship will receive the full amount each year, and athletes who are on a partial scholarship will receive the corresponding percentage of the annual payout. The money will be loaded onto athletes Carolina Card, Tanner said. (Athletes who qualify for the Pell Grant also will receive up to $5,730 per year, meaning some athletes at South Carolina will receive $9,881 annually.)

“It’s significant, but the landscape has changed in student-athlete assistance and I am a proponent of taking care of our student-athletes in the best way possible while maintaining their amateur status,” Tanner said.

There is no NCAA or SEC legislation on the horizon that would affect the cost of attendance figures for this year, Tanner said.

“It’s a done deal right now,” he said.

It might not stay that way, though, Sumlin said.

“I look for some things to probably change a little bit and be a little centralized across the board if it can be,” Sumlin said. “With any rule change, there is going to be growing pains, particularly in the first year. Whether or not that puts us at an advantage or disadvantage I don’t know, but we’re going to find out here real quick.”

This story was originally published May 23, 2015 at 10:35 PM with the headline "Will cost-of-attendance money change college recruiting?."