D1 Women's Soccer Transfers

Swoosh said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
NoGoal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BJ18 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
NoGoal said:
Lets educate you yes! It’s actually 62K plus change which is closer to 70K than 46K when adding boarding, books and misc. fees.

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 experinced this yet and thus goes for you to porkchops.

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 same majors). I highly doubt anyone here will pick USC (which offers a fantastic education) over Stanford, unless USC is offering more ship money. That is actually what has happened with a few players on the USC team that I know of who have full to almost full athletic scholarships.

If USC is allocating 14 of equivalent scholarship money to 12-14 blue chippers and Stanford, UCLA and CAL can get 18-20 blue chippers. Which team has the overall advantage in recruiting? It’s not rocket science.
Click to expand...
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
 
surfrider said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
surfrider said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
MakeAPlay said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good morning, do you think political leaning of those 3 schools could have an affect on were the kids goes?
 
NoGoal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BJ18 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
BJ18 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
NoGoal said:
Doogie Howser, do I need to spell it out for you. Your college education has no bearing on how educated you are in college womens soccer recruiting or in the transfer process. Thus, my post let me educate you!

This discussion was on player transfers and specically womens soccer transfer. Athletic students are NOT commuting to college, so to only factor in “tuition” at 45K is shortsighted. Again, continue reading as 2 other posters have already confirmed....USC is at a recruiting disadvantage vs Stanford, UCLA and CAL.
Click to expand...

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!
 
MakeAPlay said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BJ18 said:
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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lambchop said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Make that 3 playing for other countries in CONCACAAF. I forgot the one that is a 2019.
 
Lambchop said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
Good morning, do you think political leaning of those 3 schools could have an affect on were the kids goes?
Click to expand...

You mean of those 4 schools? There are conservative and liberal kids at every school. Smart kids know how to focus on winning instead of people's personal choices. Maybe you should learn to look at a persons actions not their words when you are judging character. My grandmother used to say that the devil invented words so that people wouldn't focus on a persons actions when judging them.

The one thing that all the kids at those top schools have in common is that they are driven. Driven to learn, driven to work hard and driven to win.
 
MakeAPlay said:
You mean of those 4 schools? There are conservative and liberal kids at every school. Smart kids know how to focus on winning instead of people's personal choices. Maybe you should learn to look at a persons actions not their words when you are judging character. My grandmother used to say that the devil invented words so that people wouldn't focus on a persons actions when judging them.

The one thing that all the kids at those top schools have in common is that they are driven. Driven to learn, driven to work hard and driven to win.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point, just asking if kids and or parents take that into consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top