How can you possibly be “short sided” when you are transferring in a player the has 3 years of eligibility and another with 2 who was the best player on the team? They still won’t be good enough to compete with UCLA or Stanford but that is just a stupid statement
D1 Women's Soccer Transfers
- Thread starter piggy
- Start date
MakeAPlay
DA
Let's see. Shortsighted in how do you think the players who committed as freshman/sophomores/juniors in high school feel when they make a verbal agreement to go to a school based partially upon where they see themselves fitting in to a team that is organically built only to have mercenaries come in every year that may push them down the depth chart? Not to mention how the players that are already there feel when the coach basically says what we have isn't good enough to compete. Do you not understand how that would affect future recruiting? $C is already a secondary destination in their primary recruiting area and a 4th or 5th option in their primary recruiting state. Acquiring a reputation for constantly bringing in transfers will have its repercussions. It worked in 2016 because they had a lot of talent left over from Ali K's recruiting classes and there were no dominant teams. That isn't the case anymore and long term a better investment would be in recruiting players to play a style of play that is going to attract the top players. Instead he chooses to commit too much money to too few players and has to transfer in "patches." Whether it is for 2 or 3 years it is shortsighted. Also Yu was the best player on Notre Dame's team.
Keep reaching for straws @surfrider so I can keep smacking you down.
How can you forget Andrews, Pruitt, and Anthony? They led USC to glory. Multiple NCAA championships look good in any trophy case, it shows you're not a fluke and are always a threat.
Transfers are a quick fix. They don't do anything for continuity of the program in any way other than winning if the stars align.
NoGoal
DA
Does it really matter, if it’s a quick fix or not? Your DD has a college cup ring and will be graduating next year, so why is it bothering you?
USC’s tuition at 70K a year puts USC at a disadvantage in the recruiting process vs Stanford, UCLA and Cal. The avergae 50% athletic ship money still requires a family to fork out a 35K tuition per year. If a family is debating verbally committing to USC or Stanford (both private universities)...Stanford will win 99% of the time, if cost of tuition after ship money are equal. 50% ship money at UCLA and CAL will also win out, because their tuition and board is less expensive being public universities. The net net is USC has to offer more $$$ to a potential recruit than the other competing programs and rely on the wealthy recruits who can afford the full tuition to round out their roster. Meaning they will not be as deep as the schools mentioned and why they need the player transfers.
Last edited:
USC's tuition is closer to 50K. Maybe you mean cost of attendance? But it is not much more than Stanford's tuition at $46k. I would say that is hardly a disadvantage.
NoGoal
DA
Lets educate you yes! It’s actually 62K plus change which is closer to 70K than 46K when adding boarding, books and misc. fees at Stanford. USC total cost is 65K.
https://www.myfuture.com/schools/cost/stanford-university_243744
https://www.myfuture.com/schools/cost/university-of-southern-california_123961
Now you being a ulittle 2005 parent. You haven’t experienced this yet and this goes for you to porkchops a 2003 parent.
If your player is being recuited by Stanford and USC. Both schools offering 50% athletic scholarship and everything else being equal e.g. both offering the players major. I highly doubt anyone here will pick USC (which BTW is a fantastic education) over Stanford, unless USC is offering more ship money or the parents are USC alums.
That is actually what has happened with a few players on the USC team that I know of having full to almost full athletic scholarships. Unfortunately, we all know Stanford plays a more attractive style of soccer and arguably the best university in the world. So yes, USC is at a disadvantage! USC isn’t outrecuiting UCLA in their own backyard and UCLA for the most part doesn’t offer their YNT players more than 60%, because of the lower in-state public tuition cost. I will even go out on a limb and guess that Swoosh’s DD has at least a 75% or more scholarship playing at USC.
If USC is allocating 14 equivalent scholarship money to 12-14 blue chippers and Stanford, UCLA and CAL can get 18-24 blue chippers. Which team has the overall advantage in recruiting? It’s not rocket science....and why USC is accepting player transfers (who can improve their team) whereas we don’t see Stanford and UCLA transferring in players.
Last edited:
Add in the fact (or rumor) that USC doesn’t allow combining athletic and merit money and they have a big disadvantage.
MAP states that $C benefited from Ali Ks classes to win the natty. How so? That program was a well known hot mess and KD brought in his transfers and change ofattitude to win a natty. Ali Ks squad would have been bottom 3 in pac12
NoGoal
DA
I think Ali K’s last recruiting class included Kayla Mills, Mandy Freeman, Savannah Levin, and Katie Johnson.
I also forgot Sammy Jo Prudhomme (GK) was also a transfer for USC.
Back to transfers, I will go out on another limb and say. USC got Jacobs from Coto de Caza and Hyatt from Santa Barbara on the cheap. If so, USC is smart to get quality transfers at bargain basement pricing. Remember Pac12 money is guaranteed ship money, since the class of 2016....meaning Pac12 coaches can’t cut players for the lack of field performance in order to free up money and give it to incoming transfer players.
Last edited:
MakeAPlay
DA
Ali's last recruiting class had 5 pro players in it. I think that helped a little. It was a hot mess because he was in over his head. KM is a much better coach and a serious pragmatist because he understands that $C is on par with Stanford and UCLA in terms of athletic department success. He also knows that his athletic director has extremely high expectations so he has become a consistent player in the high end transfer market.
It is what it is. As @NoGoal said few kids are going to choose $C over Stanford or UCLA with all things being equal. They have to offer a ton of money in order to compete. I know that 3 starters on $C's team that have 80% and 100% scholarships. Not to mention that they have several bench players that have 80% or more. Not one player on UCLA is on a full ride (since Pugh left) and only a couple getting 80%. There is no need to because out the door you are talking $29k so if a player gets at least 50% it's under $14k a year. I know that I personally pay less for college than I did for ECNL all but her last year when I didn't have to pay anything. Cal is identical. I also know that several $C players would have gone to UCLA if they had been offered more money or offered at all.
MakeAPlay
DA
If you look at future recruiting classes you will see that it is only going to get worse. In 2019 UCLA will be so much better than any other team it is going to be ridiculous. They have 2 incoming freshman playing in the U20 CONCACAAF qualifiers for other countries and they have a stacked 2019 class. KM is no dummy he knows what he has to do in order to compete with the other California PAC 12 schools.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Good morning, do you think political leaning of those 3 schools could have an affect on were the kids goes?
Maybe it’s a matter of semantics, but you keep using tuition and “costs” interchangeably. They are two separate items. The fact is that USC’s tuition for a full time student is $53,448. Do I need to post a link to their admissions and financial aid site or any other reputable site listing their ACTUAL tuition cost? The “cost of attendance” when you factor in all other expenses is just over 72k. My point being that the TUITION is not much different than Standord.
Secondly, why you need to try and be disparaging and “educate” me is beyond me. You have no idea of my level of education or experience working for multiple universities. The fact that my child was born in 2005 has no bearing on whether I need to be “educated” or how knowledgeable I might not be.
I don’t want to hijack the thread with your ridiculousness so I’ll stop here.
NoGoal
DA
I would say Pepperdine is more conservative than USC being a Christian University.
NoGoal
DA
I never posted the tuition at Stanford cost less than USC. I posted everything being equal, both schools being private and about 70K, and 2 YNT players being recruited at both schools and offered 50% athletic scholarships to play on the womens soccer team. USC will lose in the recruiting process to Stanford. Do you comprehend now?
BTW, you posted the tuition cost at USC was 45K and now you post it’s 54K. Correcting yourself? And thanks for confiming it cost 70K to attend USC and Stanford after factoring in, boarding and misc. fees. Oh in case you also didn’t know....women soccer athletes don’t commute, so considering only tuition cost is being shortsighted. A reason for my snarky post about you being a 2005 ulittle parent.
Your college education and your experience in academia has no bearing on how educated you are in college womens soccer recruiting or in the transfer process, unless you work in the athletic department. Thus, my post let me educate you!
Last edited:
I tried to PM you but for some reason you have me blocked. And you are correct, I have very limited , but some, experience in working with female, athletic, transfer students. Carry on!
Lambchop
GOLD
Unless you are the starting eleven or the next 3-4, you may be going to a top soccer school but may not play much. If that is what a player wants, to be able to say they went to the top Pac 12 school, then you have what you want.
NoGoal
DA
So do you work in the compliance department? Actually, I don’t have you blocked (ignored) or I wouldn’t be reading and replying to your post. I actually don’t have PM activated to receive incoming messages, unless I initiate it.
NoGoal
DA
PorkChops, shouldn’t you be in the DA thread worrying and whining about USSDA dual banding your DD’s 2003 age group with the 2002’s next season? Get use to it, because if your DD plays college soccer it’s quadruple banded!
Last edited:
MakeAPlay
DA
Make that 3 playing for other countries in CONCACAAF. I forgot the one that is a 2019.
MakeAPlay
DA
All 4 of those schools are top 25 academic schools so that argument goes out of the window. Most of the best women's soccer schools are good academic schools.