According to this report out of the teams in the Top 25 no other school's athletes will see a larger increase in their allowance based on the new cost of attendance figures.
War Eagle? Maybe?
I'm not sure what that says about what the players were getting beforehand or some really nifty math Auburn did to figure out how to get the athletes the most money possible within the rules. As the article points out that "The fact that cost-of-living expenses in Auburn, Ala., are estimated to be more than three times greater than those in Los Angeles illustrates the wide latitude that institutions have in calculating full cost of attendance."
They do, however, point out that private schools (like USC, which they are using in that example) sometimes fudge numbers to make cost of attendance lower to entice people to attend there.
Either way, it's good that athletes are getting full costs of attendance provided, now. I'm a little bit less sympathetic in other areas, but I do agree this is a long-needed step that the schools should long since have provided. To be fair to the schools, the NCAA was the hold-up, as many of the schools have been pushing for this for a while.
Note: I originally had "largest increase in Division 1" because I somehow missed that they only examined the Top 25. Regardless, I'm sure Auburn's increase measures up to be one of the largest in the nation if it tops this particular list given the disparity of locations.