# College Entrance Scam includes former Yale Women's Soccer Coach



## Dos Equis

Anyone watch the FBI press conference or read this?  Claim is former Yale Women's Head Coach was one of the participants, and took a $400k bribe to get a non-soccer player in as a soccer recruit.  Unreal.  Recruiting tip #1 -- no bribes or cheating.


----------



## espola

Dos Equis said:


> Anyone watch the FBI press conference or read this?  Claim is former Yale Women's Head Coach was one of the participants, and took a $400k bribe to get a non-soccer player in as a soccer recruit.  Unreal.  Recruiting tip #1 -- no bribes or cheating.


“There will not be a separate admissions system for the wealthy" -- right.  Note that that statement came from the US Attorney, not the Yale President.


----------



## Dargle

UCLA's current men's soccer coach and USC former soccer coach and former asst coach, plus an asst AD, all indicted (along with some non-soccer coaches).  This is the tip of the iceberg.  In some cases it was athletic coaches using priority athlete admit tags to get kids into college who aren't athletes and in some cases it was actual athletes getting doctored test scores to help them get in so they could play on the teams.


----------



## Dos Equis

espola said:


> “There will not be a separate admissions system for the wealthy" -- right.  Note that that statement came from the US Attorney, not the Yale President.


The US Attorney also said "this is not about paying for buildings with your name on it."  In other words, the extremely wealthy have always had legal, tax-deductible ways to achieve this result.  This is about the very rich (but not very smart) trying to level the playing field with the extremely wealthy.


----------



## espola

Dos Equis said:


> The US Attorney also said "this is not about paying for buildings with your name on it."  In other words, the extremely wealthy have always had legal, tax-deductible ways to achieve this result.  This is about the very rich (but not very smart) trying to level the playing field with the extremely wealthy.


Interesting touch with the word "legal".


----------



## Dos Equis

espola said:


> Interesting touch with the word "legal".


Words matter to donors, and to college admissions.  There are building at USC with the names "Spielberg" and "Lucas" on them, but none with the name "Huffman" or "Loughlin."


----------



## soccerobserver

In the complaint I read that many of the kids did not know their parents were cheating for them...really sad...

From the complaint:

"Court-authorized wiretap:
6
CAPLAN And it works? CW-1 Every time. (laughing) CAPLAN (laughing) CW-1
I mean, I’m sure I did 30 of them at different, you know, dates because there’s
different dates,
and they’re all families like yours, and they’re all kids that wouldn’t have perform[ed] a
s well, and then they did really well, and it was like,
the kids thought, and it was so funny ’cause the kids will call me and say, “Maybe
I
should do that again. I did pretty well and if I took it again, I’ll do better even.”
Right? And they just have no
idea that they didn’t even get the score that they
thought they got."

Indeed, in many cases, CW-
1’s clients referred other parents to him, or inquired directly about other parents’
involvement in the scheme. For example, as set forth in greater detail below, defendant ...HUNEEUS, Jr., told CW-1, in substance, that he was aware that McGLASHAN had participated in the college entrance exam scheme, but that McGLASHAN had not advised his own son of that fact, and that
McGLASHAN’s
son thus
“had no idea …
that
you helped him on the ACT.”
6
Excerpts of wiretap interceptions and consensual recordings set forth herein are based on draft transcripts of those recordings.


----------



## espola

Dos Equis said:


> Words matter to donors, and to college admissions.  There are building at USC with the names "Spielberg" and "Lucas" on them, but none with the name "Huffman" or "Loughlin."


I can think of many private colleges that would accept a student with iffy academics whose parents made an unrestricted million-dollar donation and agreed to pay the full rate on tuition and fees.  Maybe not Yale, though - the bar there may be a little higher.


----------



## espola

Link to the indictment text --

https://www.justice.gov/file/1142881/download


----------



## Dos Equis

https://www.justice.gov/file/1142881/download[/QUOTE]

Sealed?? 

Must be others, since no mention of Yale nor Stanford in this one.


----------



## espola

Dos Equis said:


> https://www.justice.gov/file/1142881/download


Sealed??

Must be others, since no mention of Yale nor Stanford in this one.[/QUOTE]

Yale is mentioned, especially in pages 9 and 10.


----------



## jpeter

Bribing you way in has been going on forever, guess somebody in the FBI got wise:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-accuses-wealthy-parents-including-celebrities-in-college-entrance-bribery-scheme/2019/03/12/d91c9942-44d1-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html

"The Justice Department on Tuesday charged 50 people — including two television stars — with being part of a long-running bribery scheme to get privileged children with lackluster grades into big-name colleges and universities.

The alleged crimes included cheating on entrance exams, as well as bribing college officials to say certain students were coming to compete on athletic teams when those students were not in fact athletes, officials said. Numerous schools were targeted, including Georgetown University, Yale University, Stanford University, the University of Texas, the University of Southern California and UCLA, among others.

Boston’s U.S. attorney, Andrew Lelling, call it the largest-ever college admissions scam prosecuted by the Justice Department. Of the 50 people charged as part of the FBI’s Operation Varsity Blues, 33 were parents, officials said, warning that the investigation is ongoing and that others could be charged.

The massive scheme was discovered accidentally by the FBI — while working an unrelated undercover operation, officials said. That tip led to a sprawling, nationwide corruption probe.

These parents are a catalogue of wealth and privilege,” said Lelling. “This case is about the widening corruption of elite college admissions through the steady application of wealth combined with fraud. There can be no separate college admission system for the wealthy, and I’ll add there will not be a separate criminal justice system, either.”

None of the students were charged because prosecutors said their parents were the scheme’s principal actors.

Court filings released Tuesday paint an ugly picture of privileged parents committing crimes to get their children into selective schools. Among those charged are actresses Felicity Huffman, best known for her role on the television show “Desperate Housewives,” and Lori Loughlin, who appeared on “Full House,” according to court documents. A representative for Loughlin declined to comment. A representative for Huffman did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Two participants in the scheme are scheduled to enter guilty pleas Tuesday afternoon, prosecutors said. One is William Singer, a well-connected college admissions adviser and the central figure in the scheme, officials said. He is accused of disguising the bribery scheme as a charity, enabling parents to deduct the bribes from their taxes.

Singer is charged with taking about $25 million from 2011 to 2018 — paying some of it to college coaches or standardized-testing officials for their help rigging the admissions process and pocketing the rest, according to the criminal complaint. He allegedly disguised the money using a nonprofit, the Key Worldwide Foundation, prosecutors said, characterizing it as a slush fund for bribes.

One of the cooperating witnesses, according to court documents, is a former head coach of Yale’s women’s soccer team, who pleaded guilty in the case nearly a year ago and has since been helping FBI agents gather evidence. That coach, Rudolph Meredith, allegedly took a $400,000 bribe to pretend to place a student on the team and help get her into the school, even though the student did not play competitive soccer, officials said. The student’s parents paid $1.2 million in bribes, officials said.

Some of the defendants are accused of bribing college entrance exam administrators to facilitate cheating — by having a smarter student take the test, providing students with answers to exams or correcting their answers after they had completed the exams, according to the criminal complaint filed in federal court.

Loughlin and her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, were accused of paying $500,000 in bribes so their two daughters would be designated as recruits for the University of Southern California crew team — even though they were not part of the team. That helped the pair get into USC, according to the complaint.

Some of the money was directed to Donna Heinel, a USC athletics official, the complaint alleges. In a statement, USC officials said the school is cooperating with the federal investigation and has launched its own review.

“We understand that the government believes that illegal activity was carried out by individuals who went to great lengths to conceal their actions from the university,” the statement says. “USC is conducting an internal investigation and will take employment actions as appropriate. USC is in the process of identifying any funds received by the university in connection with this alleged scheme. Additionally, the university is reviewing its admissions processes broadly to ensure that such actions do not occur going forward.”

Joint statement from UCLA and UCLA Athletics regarding Department of Justice investigation
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/joint-statement-from-ucla-and-ucla-athletics


----------



## Glen

Dos Equis said:


> https://www.justice.gov/file/1142881/download


Sealed??

Must be others, since no mention of Yale nor Stanford in this one.[/QUOTE]

All of the indictments are linked at the bottom of the page.  https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/arrests-made-nationwide-college-admissions-scam-alleged-exam-cheating-athletic  .


----------



## soccerobserver

Dos Equis said:


> https://www.justice.gov/file/1142881/download


Sealed??

Must be others, since no mention of Yale nor Stanford in this one.[/QUOTE]



@DE, The Yale coach appears to be CW-3 ...Cooperating Witness #3


----------



## Grace T.

Yeah, I know I gotta be careful about confirmation bias, but this incident (while not proof) does support a few mechanism I've speculated are at work now days:

1. The pendulum was really swung from the everyone-gets-a-trophy 90s to the current hypercompetitive/parents-buying-kids fornite coaches era.
2. College competition, particularly among the upper middle class and wealthy, has gotten really crazy.
3. This competition has downstream effects on kids soccer because a lot of the soccer craziness (whether the pay-to-play industry, drop out rate, club shifting, obsession with winning and moving up in flights) is fueled by college admissions.

I suspect this is a story with legs because the upper middle class has largely been the ones fueling the college admissions craziness (at times to the detriment of the working class, who can't keep up with the private schools and kids activities, and may lack affirmative action and other preferences available to the working poor).  To hear that the wealthy have been actively cheating to get their kids preferred treatment is really going to tick them off.  And since many of the television commentators/journalists/opinion writers are in the upper middle class, it's gonna become a thing.


----------



## Messi>CR7

Dos Equis said:


> The US Attorney also said "this is not about paying for buildings with your name on it."  In other words, the extremely wealthy have always had legal, tax-deductible ways to achieve this result.  This is about the very rich (but not very smart) trying to level the playing field with the extremely wealthy.


_From New York Post: "After she was admitted in January 2018, Singer mailed Meredith a check for $400,000, according to the papers"_
Definitely not the smartest criminal mastermind.  What kind of idiot takes a $400K bride in a CHECK?


----------



## Lion Eyes

espola said:


> I can think of many private colleges that would accept a student with iffy academics whose parents made an unrestricted million-dollar donation and agreed to pay the full rate on tuition and fees.  Maybe not Yale, though - the bar there may be a little higher.


What private colleges are you thinking of?


----------



## Messi>CR7

Lion Eyes said:


> What private colleges are you thinking of?


I know my kids' HS GPA will be higher than that of George W .  According to Wiki, his Yale GPA was 2.35.  Can't imagine his high school GPA was all that impressive.


----------



## Grace T.

Dersch has a very good take on FoxNews....if I were a gambler, I'd say he's right about where this takes us.....nutshell: the very rich looking to gain an advantage against the super buy-a-building rich.


----------



## Calisoccer11

soccerobserver said:


> In the complaint I read that many of the kids did not know their parents were cheating for them...really sad...
> 
> From the complaint:
> 
> "Court-authorized wiretap:
> 6
> CAPLAN And it works? CW-1 Every time. (laughing) CAPLAN (laughing) CW-1
> I mean, I’m sure I did 30 of them at different, you know, dates because there’s
> different dates,
> and they’re all families like yours, and they’re all kids that wouldn’t have perform[ed] a
> s well, and then they did really well, and it was like,
> the kids thought, and it was so funny ’cause the kids will call me and say, “Maybe
> I
> should do that again. I did pretty well and if I took it again, I’ll do better even.”
> Right? And they just have no
> idea that they didn’t even get the score that they
> thought they got."
> 
> Indeed, in many cases, CW-
> 1’s clients referred other parents to him, or inquired directly about other parents’
> involvement in the scheme. For example, as set forth in greater detail below, defendant ...HUNEEUS, Jr., told CW-1, in substance, that he was aware that McGLASHAN had participated in the college entrance exam scheme, but that McGLASHAN had not advised his own son of that fact, and that
> McGLASHAN’s
> son thus
> “had no idea …
> that
> you helped him on the ACT.”
> 6
> Excerpts of wiretap interceptions and consensual recordings set forth herein are based on draft transcripts of those recordings.


Oh, the kids knew...they had to know.  I don't buy that they were that clueless to think that they can achieve a 400 point difference betw
een their PSAT and SATs on their first try.  Also, I'm sure they knew where they stood academically.  I don't feel sorry for any of the parents or kids involve.  This story is so sad and depressing to me.  I'm even further disappointed in the soccer coaches that were part of this bribery.  Knowing how hard most kids work on their academics and playing....the sacrifices involved for the kid and parent...I'm just speechless.  I wish I could articulate my feelings better but I'm just disgusted right now.  Aaaargh.


----------



## gefelchnik

As I read the indictment, I think the as interesting piece is what is implied but not stated.  More indictments surely to come.


----------



## Messi>CR7

Calisoccer11 said:


> Oh, the kids knew...they had to know.  I don't buy that they were that clueless to think that they can achieve a 400 point difference betw
> een their PSAT and SATs on their first try.  Also, I'm sure they knew where they stood academically.  I don't feel sorry for any of the parents or kids involve.  This story is so sad and depressing to me.  I'm even further disappointed in the soccer coaches that were part of this bribery.  Knowing how hard most kids work on their academics and playing....the sacrifices involved for the kid and parent...I'm just speechless.  I wish I could articulate my feelings better but I'm just disgusted right now.  Aaaargh.


Of course the kids knew.  Imagine if you did't play soccer and all the sudden you got a soccer scholarship?  Expel the kids and charge them criminally.  If you think that's too harsh, think about that kid out there who studied hard and practiced hard for 10 years and otherwise would've been given the last scholarship spot on the Yale's soccer team...............


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Messi>CR7 said:


> I know my kids' HS GPA will be higher than that of George W .  According to Wiki, his Yale GPA was 2.35.  Can't imagine his high school GPA was all that impressive.


George W's is much higher than Obama's though.


----------



## surfrider

Messi>CR7 said:


> Of course the kids knew.  Imagine if you did't play soccer and all the sudden you got a soccer scholarship?  Expel the kids and charge them criminally.  If you think that's too harsh, think about that kid out there who studied hard and practiced hard for 10 years and otherwise would've been given the last scholarship spot on the Yale's soccer team...............


Nowhere did they say scholarships were given (at least what I’ve seen). This was purely an admissions pop. And Ivy’s don’t give athletic scholarships


----------



## Lion Eyes

Messi>CR7 said:


> I know my kids' HS GPA will be higher than that of George W .  According to Wiki, his Yale GPA was 2.35.  Can't imagine his high school GPA was all that impressive.


Yeah? So?
John Kerry had a lower GPA than Bush...and they both got into Yale.
So?


----------



## Nefutous

I am not sure why so many people are surprised about this. Cheating happens all the time at every level. In high school kids cheat on tests, parents write papers for them, call kids out sick when they are not prepared for a test etc. Unfortunately there are little to no penalties for cheating other than getting a zero on the test. At our school there no record of the cheating on the kid’s file.

If you cheat on the SAT or ACT all that happens is that you lose your money for that particular test. You can retake the test and there is no record of cheating. So there is no disincentive to cheating. I know a kid that was pressured into letting the school bully cheat off of him on the ACT (somehow they had the same test despite sitting next to each other).  The cheater is now at UCLA because none of the kids that saw the cheating reported it.

My DS is involved in robotics.  His team always built good robots but was edged out by another team. Now that those kids are in college they freely admit that they did not build their robot but a parent hired someone to do it.

My DS team finally won the World Championship and I know that it played a big part in his Berkeley Regents nomination. So when he had his interview last week I was glad to see his interviewer drill him on how he developed and built the robot. Thankfully since my DS put in the work he answered all questions with flying colors. Hopefully the kids that claimed expertise’s in a field will be weeded out by this process. This is a good check and balance but unfortunately most colleges don’t have any checks and balances in place.

At Cal Poly you can pad your extracurricular activities and hours to increase your raw score since admissions is all based on numbers.  Several kids have admitted to me that “everyone does this.”

Until there are checks and balances, real penalties and criminal penalties cheating will continue to be the norm. Sad but true.

BTW I bet the reason this group got caught is that they were so greedy that they actually deducted the cost of the bribes on their tax returns!


----------



## soccerobserver

Calisoccer11 said:


> Oh, the kids knew...they had to know.  I don't buy that they were that clueless to think that they can achieve a 400 point difference betw
> een their PSAT and SATs on their first try.  Also, I'm sure they knew where they stood academically.  I don't feel sorry for any of the parents or kids involve.  This story is so sad and depressing to me.  I'm even further disappointed in the soccer coaches that were part of this bribery.  Knowing how hard most kids work on their academics and playing....the sacrifices involved for the kid and parent...I'm just speechless.  I wish I could articulate my feelings better but I'm just disgusted right now.  Aaaargh.


@CaliSoccer...I was thinking like you until I read the wiretaps in the complaint...have you read the complaint? It's pretty sad that some of the kids had no clue. In that way their parents robbed their kids even more...in the wiretaps there was one kid who was baffled as to why his college counselor thought he was a track athlete...also in the wiretaps the ringleader always implored the parents not to let the kids know bc kids talk... it's clear that some kids knew, some did not know and some were fed a version of the truth such as  "Daddy made donations to the athletic program" etc...


----------



## Calisoccer11

soccerobserver said:


> @CaliSoccer...I was thinking like you until I read the wiretaps in the complaint...have you read the complaint? It's pretty sad that some of the kids had no clue. In that way their parents robbed their kids even more...in the wiretaps there was one kid who was baffled as to why his college counselor thought he was a track athlete...also in the wiretaps the ringleader always implored the parents not to let the kids know bc kids talk... it's clear that some kids knew, some did not know and some were fed a version of the truth such as  "Daddy made donations to the athletic program" etc...


I will have to go back and read them more carefully.  I was thinking that maybe they were just pretending to be confused, all the while knowing that their parents must have influenced in some way.  This is probably not the first time their parents money has gotten them something they did not earn.  
I'm just seeing red because both my kids spent hours on SAT tutoring and took the tests multiple times to get a decent score.  They have also worked their butts off academically.  I'm so proud of their hard work and we are now awaiting to hear from UCLA and USC for my DD.  It's just left such a bad taste in my mouth.  Does anyone have any integrity anymore??!!


----------



## Calisoccer11

Nefutous said:


> I am not sure why so many people are surprised about this. Cheating happens all the time at every level. In high school kids cheat on tests, parents write papers for them, call kids out sick when they are not prepared for a test etc. Unfortunately there are little to no penalties for cheating other than getting a zero on the test. At our school there no record of the cheating on the kid’s file.
> 
> If you cheat on the SAT or ACT all that happens is that you lose your money for that particular test. You can retake the test and there is no record of cheating. So there is no disincentive to cheating. I know a kid that was pressured into letting the school bully cheat off of him on the ACT (somehow they had the same test despite sitting next to each other).  The cheater is now at UCLA because none of the kids that saw the cheating reported it.
> 
> My DS is involved in robotics.  His team always built good robots but was edged out by another team. Now that those kids are in college they freely admit that they did not build their robot but a parent hired someone to do it.
> 
> My DS team finally won the World Championship and I know that it played a big part in his Berkeley Regents nomination. So when he had his interview last week I was glad to see his interviewer drill him on how he developed and built the robot. Thankfully since my DS put in the work he answered all questions with flying colors. Hopefully the kids that claimed expertise’s in a field will be weeded out by this process. This is a good check and balance but unfortunately most colleges don’t have any checks and balances in place.
> 
> At Cal Poly you can pad your extracurricular activities and hours to increase your raw score since admissions is all based on numbers.  Several kids have admitted to me that “everyone does this.”
> 
> Until there are checks and balances, real penalties and criminal penalties cheating will continue to be the norm. Sad but true.
> 
> BTW I bet the reason this group got caught is that they were so geeedy that they actually deducted the cost of the bribes on their tax returns!


Oh yeah....the deducting the bribes from taxes is really just the cherry on top.  SMH


----------



## soccerobserver

Calisoccer11 said:


> I will have to go back and read them more carefully.  I was thinking that maybe they were just pretending to be confused, all the while knowing that their parents must have influenced in some way.  This is probably not the first time their parents money has gotten them something they did not earn.
> I'm just seeing red because both my kids spent hours on SAT tutoring and took the tests multiple times to get a decent score.  They have also worked their butts off academically.  I'm so proud of their hard work and we are now awaiting to hear from UCLA and USC for my DD.  It's just left such a bad taste in my mouth.  Does anyone have any integrity anymore??!!


Best wishes to you and your hard working DD...


----------



## soccerobserver

Calisoccer11 said:


> Oh yeah....the deducting the bribes from taxes is really just the cherry on top.  SMH


I think they get style points for adding that detail...lol


----------



## Nefutous

You cannot tell me that a kid took a picture in a uniform of a team they did not belong on and did not question it.

@Calisoccer11 I agree with you. It sucks to see your kid work their butt off and then someone buys their way in.  My DS was up til 1 am regularly juggling school, soccer and robotics.  Because he did not achieve the score he was shooting for on the ACT most of our summer plans were quashed so he could study.  But unfortunately life is not fair and until there are real penalties the risk is worth the reward to many people.

Good luck to your DD!


----------



## Dos Equis

Would not suggest jail for the kids who did not have knowledge of the activity/transactions.  Their admission should fall under the category of ill-gotten gains.  If someone gives you a gift, but they stole it prior to you receiving it (even without your knowledge), you still have to give it back.  Like insider trading when you did not know the information you received was not public, you give back the gains and avoid jail (unless you are Martha Stewart).

Best case for kids -- they are allowed to finish their current semester and transfer to another college (if one accepts them).  
More likely -- vacate their grades from prior semesters, they can go to their local community college, start over, get some good grades, and try to transfer somewhere better.   

Any college that allows these kids to stay and register for another semester, regardless of their knowledge,  is sending the wrong message.


----------



## Calisoccer11

Nefutous said:


> But unfortunately life is not fair and until there are real penalties the risk is worth the reward to many people.


Nailed it--this just sums it up.


----------



## Grace T.

Nefutous said:


> BTW I bet the reason this group got caught is that they were so greedy that they actually deducted the cost of the bribes on their tax returns!


Apparently the ringleader set up his business as a not-for-profit so you may be on to something there.  Some not-for-profits can apparently still be quite lucrative for people, especially if kids are involved....who knew?


----------



## full90

Amanda is in it too at UCLA. She knowingly put a kid on her roster who salcedo got admitted. The kid has never played soccer. Even if she never got paid for it and thought she was doing Jorge a favor that stinks. It’s her job to know who is on her roster. How many girls who live and die soccer would die to make that roster and just be on the team but were never given the time of day by the staff? 

This just stinks all over the place. We constantly tell our kids to weather the storm of daddy ball of club soccer because eventually merit wins out. Just such a bummer to hear that the coaches and admins at schools WHOSE CAREERS ARE BASED ON MERIT are the ones doing this.


----------



## soccerobserver

Nefutous said:


> You cannot tell me that a kid took a picture in a uniform of a team they did not belong on and did not question it.
> 
> @Calisoccer11 I agree with you. It sucks to see your kid work their butt off and then someone buys their way in.  My DS was up til 1 am regularly juggling school, soccer and robotics.  Because he did not achieve the score he was shooting for on the ACT most of our summer plans were quashed so he could study.  But unfortunately life is not fair and until there are real penalties the risk is worth the reward to many people.
> 
> Good luck to your DD!


@Nefutous THEY  PHOTOSHOPPED THE KIDS ATHLETIC PHOTOS !!!! Can't make this stuff up !

That's not a typo they would ask for a headshot and then photoshop the kids face on a water polo player...in one case they photoshopped the kids sibling who resembled the applicant !


----------



## gefelchnik

soccerobserver said:


> @Nefutous THEY  PHOTOSHOPPED THE KIDS ATHLETIC PHOTOS !!!! Can't make this stuff up !
> 
> That's not a typo they would ask for a headshot and then photoshop the kids face on a water polo player...in one case they photoshopped the kids sibling who resembled the applicant !


You can find the roster with this player on it online with a picture....that is a photo shop?


----------



## soccerobserver

gefelchnik said:


> You can find the roster with this player on it online with a picture....that is a photo shop?


Gfchnik I am not sure I understand your post. To make the player profiles the Ringleader hired a person to craft fake player profiles. This person would create  a fictitious player profile and would add a fictitious action photo of the applicant. The parent would send a headshot of their kid and this person would photoshop the applicant's face onto the action photo of a real athlete.


----------



## goldentoe

Uh oh. Is this gonna be problem?


----------



## oh canada

And Wall St is the "bad guy"...touche

Here's the list of parents...anyone here make the list?

Gregory Abbott 
Marcia Abbott 
Gamal Abdelaziz 
Diane Blake 
Todd Blake 
Jane Buckingham 
Gordon Caplan 
Michael Center 
I-Hsin Chen 
Amy Colburn 
Gregory Colburn 
Robert Flaxman 
Mossimo Giannulli 
Elizabeth Henríquez 
Manuel Henríquez 
Douglas, Hodge 
Felicity Huffman 
Augustin Huneeus Jr 
Bruce Isackson 
Davina Isackson
 Michelle Janavs 
Elisabeth Kimmel 
Marjorie Klapper 
Lori Loughlin 
Toby MacFarlane 
William McGlashan 
Marci Palatella Peter 
Jan Santorio
 Stephen Semprevivo 
Devin Sloane 
John Wilson 
Homayoun Zadeh 
Robert Zangrillo

The public shaming of these kids--on campus and on social media--will be relentless.  Parents better be prepared to pony up just as much cash for psychological counseling.


----------



## Dos Equis

full90 said:


> Amanda is in it too at UCLA. She knowingly put a kid on her roster who salcedo got admitted. The kid has never played soccer. Even if she never got paid for it and thought she was doing Jorge a favor that stinks. It’s her job to know who is on her roster. How many girls who live and die soccer would die to make that roster and just be on the team but were never given the time of day by the staff?
> 
> This just stinks all over the place. We constantly tell our kids to weather the storm of daddy ball of club soccer because eventually merit wins out. Just such a bummer to hear that the coaches and admins at schools WHOSE CAREERS ARE BASED ON MERIT are the ones doing this.


That is a pretty serious allegation.  Perhaps MAP can chime in on it.


----------



## oh canada

3 parents from San Diego...

http://www.cbs8.com/story/40113599/2-san-diegans-indicted-in-nationwide-college-admissions-scandal


----------



## gefelchnik

goldentoe said:


> Uh oh. Is this gonna be problem?
> View attachment 4198


This is what I meant with a prior post


----------



## Nefutous

soccerobserver said:


> Gfchnik I am not sure I understand your post. To make the player profiles the Ringleader hired a person to craft fake player profiles. This person would create  a fictitious player profile and would add a fictitious action photo of the applicant. The parent would send a headshot of their kid and this person would photoshop the applicant's face onto the action photo of a real athlete.


Isackson’s picture is on the 2017 UCLA roster.  That would be a bit much if the girl did not know about it.


----------



## gefelchnik

Nefutous said:


> Isackson’s picture is on the 2017 UCLA roster.  That would be a bit much if the girl did not know about it.


Yes that’s what I was asking, was that also photoshopped.


----------



## Glen

goldentoe said:


> Uh oh. Is this gonna be problem?
> View attachment 4198


Wow.


----------



## soccerobserver

gefelchnik said:


> Yes that’s what I was asking, was that also photoshopped.



I understand the point you are making now thanks. In the complaint not all the kids seemed to know. As I posted before I think some knew, some did not, and some got a version of the truth that was not totally accurate.


----------



## gefelchnik

soccerobserver said:


> I understand the point you are making now thanks. In the complaint not all the kids seemed to know. As I posted before I think some knew, some did not, and some got a version of the truth that was not totally accurate.


Also, it is strange they went through the trouble of adding her to the team page, but then left a ton of clues she wasn't a proper team member:

1. All players run through #28, and then she is added at the end as #41.
2. Only player not in the team picture
3. In profile picture, wearing a different Under Armor jersey then all the other players
4. Her about the player description has one sentence, while the rest of the players have paragraphs.


----------



## Glen

gefelchnik said:


> Also, it is strange they went through the trouble of adding her to the team page, but then left a ton of clues she wasn't a proper team member:
> 
> 1. All players run through #28, and then she is added at the end as #41.
> 2. Only player not in the team picture
> 3. In profile picture, wearing a different Under Armor jersey then all the other players
> 4. Her about the player description has one sentence, while the rest of the players have paragraphs.


I always thought that UCLA and other schools (UNC) kept large rosters for Title IX reasons.  I didn't suspect this.


----------



## Dos Equis

gefelchnik said:


> Also, it is strange they went through the trouble of adding her to the team page, but then left a ton of clues she wasn't a proper team member:
> 
> 1. All players run through #28, and then she is added at the end as #41.
> 2. Only player not in the team picture
> 3. In profile picture, wearing a different Under Armor jersey then all the other players
> 4. Her about the player description has one sentence, while the rest of the players have paragraphs.


This just stinks.  Sorry to say this, as it impacts current players and verbal commits/recruits who do not deserve to be penalized, but if it is found they fraudulently included her on the roster and assisted in her admission, the UCLA Women's coaching staff should be fired.

Every school proven to be involved, including UCLA and USC, is at risk to lose a large number of future scholarships in these sports.  Institutions have been held similarly accountable by the NCAA when they failed to provide oversight, and unknowingly boosters and agents were compensating players or their families.  This is no better, and perhaps even worse, since it directly involves coaches and admissions staff.

Make of that what you may, it is a risk.


----------



## goldentoe

gefelchnik said:


> Also, it is strange they went through the trouble of adding her to the team page, but then left a ton of clues she wasn't a proper team member:
> 
> 1. All players run through #28, and then she is added at the end as #41.
> 2. Only player not in the team picture
> 3. In profile picture, wearing a different Under Armor jersey then all the other players
> 4. Her about the player description has one sentence, while the rest of the players have paragraphs.


Her folks are on another level - her high school boarding school,
Woodside Priory:  annual tuition + room = $70k


----------



## Glen

Dos Equis said:


> This just stinks.  Sorry to say this, as it impacts current players and verbal commits/recruits who do not deserve to be penalized, but if it is found they fraudulently included her on the roster and assisted in her admission, the UCLA Women's coaching staff should be fired.
> 
> Every school proven to be involved, including UCLA and USC, is at risk to lose a large number of future scholarships in these sports.  Institutions have been held similarly accountable by the NCAA when they failed to provide oversight, and unknowingly boosters and agents were compensating players or their families.  This is no better, and perhaps even worse, since it directly involves coaches and admissions staff.
> 
> Make of that what you may, it is a risk.


Based on the vast discrepancy in ability of a few UCLA recruits, I'm guessing this is not the only player.  Seriously, how can a program recruit 6 five star studs every year and then some kid that isn't coordinated to put their own pants on?


----------



## push_up

goldentoe said:


> Her folks are on another level - her high school boarding school,
> Woodside Priory:  annual tuition + room = $70k


Creepy stalker alert.


----------



## Glen

Have all the UCLA folks gone radio silent?  What's the word from Amanda?


----------



## Dos Equis

I wanted to see it with my own eyes, because I really do not want to believe it.  Could the women's coaches have been forced to include her by anyone in admin?  

https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=5425


----------



## NoGoalItAll

push_up said:


> Creepy stalker alert.


Is Anthem Preparatory Academy cheaper than Woodside?


----------



## full90

Didn’t UCLA get into trouble for this a long time ago? Using special admit slots to get certain kids in? I vaguely remember something like this. Maybe softball? Or soccer? Anyone remember? 

Does anyone know the internal process for a university to admit a kid for sports and then get added to the roster? Could an AD do that without a coach’s knowledge? I can imagine an AD could get someone admitted but not put on a roster? The coaches would have to know right?


----------



## Zerodenero

oh canada said:


> And Wall St is the "bad guy"...touche
> 
> Here's the list of parents...anyone here make the list?
> 
> Gregory Abbott
> Marcia Abbott
> Gamal Abdelaziz
> Diane Blake
> Todd Blake
> Jane Buckingham
> Gordon Caplan
> Michael Center
> I-Hsin Chen
> Amy Colburn
> Gregory Colburn
> Robert Flaxman
> Mossimo Giannulli
> Elizabeth Henríquez
> Manuel Henríquez
> Douglas, Hodge
> Felicity Huffman
> Augustin Huneeus Jr
> Bruce Isackson
> Davina Isackson
> Michelle Janavs
> Elisabeth Kimmel
> Marjorie Klapper
> Lori Loughlin
> Toby MacFarlane
> William McGlashan
> Marci Palatella Peter
> Jan Santorio
> Stephen Semprevivo
> Devin Sloane
> John Wilson
> Homayoun Zadeh
> Robert Zangrillo
> 
> The public shaming of these kids--on campus and on social media--will be relentless.  Parents better be prepared to pony up just as much cash for psychological counseling.


Nah brah,  we too po to make the list


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

Her bio says "honorable mention".  If that's not a red flag at UCLA, I'm not sure what is.  That said, I've seen many high profile football programs take a 3-star QB because he graduated Magna Cum Laude and it's not a secret he's there to boost team GPA.  Did they do anything wrong... assuming that's the case?


----------



## Dos Equis

full90 said:


> Didn’t UCLA get into trouble for this a long time ago? Using special admit slots to get certain kids in? I vaguely remember something like this. Maybe softball? Or soccer? Anyone remember?
> 
> Does anyone know the internal process for a university to admit a kid for sports and then get added to the roster? Could an AD do that without a coach’s knowledge? I can imagine an AD could get someone admitted but not put on a roster? The coaches would have to know right?


In this case (when the fraud's picture is on your website and roster), ignorance is not an excuse.  That leaves participant, accessory or coercion.

As or that quarterback example, there is working the system to boost college rankings by favoring recruits with higher GPA's at the bottom of your roster (that is the reason for the example you give, and almost every rankings-focused school does that), then there is committing illegal acts (or helping others do so).  That QB is likely an actual athlete who could probably have played somewhere.


----------



## soccerobserver

Here is the website for The Key Worldwide. You can see testimonials from some of the people mentioned in today's news:

http://thekeyworldwide.com/blog/?page_id=2


----------



## ChalkOnYourBoots

UCLA crew circling the wagons. I at least appreciate they aren't on here throwing up a bunch of smoke to deflect. This doesn't look like using a roster spot to boost the team gpa. This looks like outright fraud.

If the school and NCAA do the right thing there could be, unfortunately, a lot of collateral damage.  Those who were knowingly involved should walk the plank... hopefully the programs can survive, and the kids that deserve to be there can carry on.


----------



## goldentoe

The Outlaw said:


> Her bio says "honorable mention".  If that's not a red flag at UCLA, I'm not sure what is.  That said, I've seen many high profile football programs take a 3-star QB because he graduated Magna Cum Laude and it's not a secret he's there to boost team GPA.  Did they do anything wrong... assuming that's the case?


Other than the $250k bribe paid in Facebook stock??

Oh my...this is bad news for the Bruins.


----------



## Dos Equis

ChalkOnYourBoots said:


> UCLA crew circling the wagons. I at least appreciate they aren't on here throwing up a bunch of smoke to deflect. This doesn't look like using a roster spot to boost the team gpa. This looks like outright fraud.
> 
> If the school and NCAA do the right thing there could be, unfortunately, a lot of collateral damage.  Those who were knowingly involved should walk the plank... hopefully the programs can survive, and the kids that deserve to be there can carry on.


USC Crew circling Marina Del Rey, as they put Olivia Jade in the boat and are trying to make it work.


----------



## goldentoe

Imagine being the Stanford Pres or AD and getting the call that your sailing coach is selling admission to your Univ.
The sailing program received a total of $770k for two enrollees that backed out. The money was held as a deposit for one of Singer’s future clients. Amazing.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

I'm no UCLA honk... nor am I here to defend them.  Just pointing out the fact that many teams bring on players with little to no intent of really ever needing their services.  Call it GPA... call it 'friend of a friend' or call it 'famous parents'.  Let's not pretend UCLA and USC are foreign to the concept.


----------



## oh canada

Saw in the article I read that she was the UCLA "Team Manager".  Could it be that she was or was known to be the team manager all along and that would be permissible?  Might be a way around a fraud charge anyway.


----------



## full90

I think coaches should have some leeway to bring in kids who they think will benefit their program. Maybe it’s as a manager who will help. Or a great kid whose work ethic will help the team and the GPA doesn’t hurt either. Does it stink that the head coaches best friend gets a special admit to be the team manager and not my kid who would’ve loved that role? Yes. But the coach has some leeway to do that. Ok. 

But a kid who the coach doesn’t know, who has never played the game at any level, and whose parents paid (illegally) another coach to make it happen? No. I sure hope there’s a good explanation.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Do you think  Cromwell will be dismissed?  The LA times reports she took one of those players on to her roster.  She must have known.  Sadly she probably thought it was harmless.


----------



## Soccer43

full90 said:


> I think coaches should have some leeway to bring in kids who they think will benefit their program. Maybe it’s as a manager who will help. Or a great kid whose work ethic will help the team and the GPA doesn’t hurt either. Does it stink that the head coaches best friend gets a special admit to be the team manager and not my kid who would’ve loved that role? Yes. But the coach has some leeway to do that. Ok.
> 
> But a kid who the coach doesn’t know, who has never played the game at any level, and whose parents paid (illegally) another coach to make it happen? No. I sure hope there’s a good explanation.


That's all fine and dandy unless money was exchanged (big payoffs) to make this happen.


----------



## Calisoccer11

So, my DD informed me that based on last year, acceptance letters for UCLA were sent out by this coming Friday.  I told her don't hold your breath....If I were on the board, I would triple check all those who have been accepted this year.  What a mess....I've been checking all those that are on the indicted list and I'm just baffled.  These are well educated parents---for example, Elisabeth Kimmel.  If you are to believe her resume, she went to Stanford and got her law degree at Harvard.  Ok, with those credentials, that I'm sure she worked her ass for, you would think she would be pissed off if her kids did not achieve grades or test scores to get into a decent school.  I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this whole thing.


----------



## Calisoccer11

push_up said:


> Creepy stalker alert.


It's just public information--not creepy stalker at all.


----------



## myself

Calisoccer11 said:


> It's just public information--not creepy stalker at all.


It's the one of the first bits of information that appear when you look up the school LOL


----------



## goldentoe

Calisoccer11 said:


> It's just public information--not creepy stalker at all.


Thank you .... I was interested in checking it out since I am from right in that same area, but never heard of it. 

Never mind @push_up , we’ve always ignored him/her.


----------



## Supermodel56

Well, they don’t call USC “University of Spoiled Children” for nothing... 

I think the reason this story is so fascinating is because it covers so many topics and has so many implications:

1) The lengths some parents will go through to prevent their kids from experiencing failure - how are these kids going to deal with failure as adults? (Maybe they won’t have to because they have that financial safety net?)

2) This is going to draw significant attention to college athletics and admissions criteria - such as why are athletes prioritized to begin with? should coaches even have the authority to offer admission to recruits? Recruiting is going to get more difficult and stringent.

3) Will involved programs be penalized for a few years and lose NCAA eligibility?

4) Philosophically, does it really matter that people can buy their way in if they didn’t actually take up a roster spot? If the argument is that these kids didn’t earn it or weren’t as competitive as others, isn’t that the same as affirmative action? We’re talking about 50kids in the US out of 2.2 million incoming freshman each year - that’s .002%. I mean given the choice, would you rather pay $500k to get your kid into USC or just teach your kid to work hard and get their grades up so they earn it? 

5) Assuming these kids graduated and are doing well, it says a lot about how you do on theses tests really don’t mean anything in terms of your potential.


----------



## surfrider

Pretty damning for USC UCLA and Stanford. Individuals doing shady outside of the parameters of the programs but I gotta think they are all ion hot water with the ncaa.  I don’t think any of these programs are very comfortable after today


----------



## sdb

gefelchnik said:


> Also, it is strange they went through the trouble of adding her to the team page, but then left a ton of clues she wasn't a proper team member:
> 
> 1. All players run through #28, and then she is added at the end as #41.
> 2. Only player not in the team picture
> 3. In profile picture, wearing a different Under Armor jersey then all the other players
> 4. Her about the player description has one sentence, while the rest of the players have paragraphs.


Here's that page:

https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?roster=182&path=wsoc


----------



## Supermodel56

sdb said:


> Here's that page:
> 
> https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?roster=182&path=wsoc


LOL... In her bio:

"Lists becoming the champion of her hoseback riding division two years in a row as her greatest athletic thrill"


----------



## sdb

This is pretty awesome... an instagram post from Jane Buckingham, a woman from LA also named in the case. .


----------



## pooka

Supermodel56 said:


> Well, they don’t call USC “University of Spoiled Children” for nothing...
> 
> I think the reason this story is so fascinating is because it covers so many topics and has so many implications:
> 
> 1) The lengths some parents will go through to prevent their kids from experiencing failure - how are these kids going to deal with failure as adults? (Maybe they won’t have to because they have that financial safety net?)
> 
> 2) This is going to draw significant attention to college athletics and admissions criteria - such as why are athletes prioritized to begin with? should coaches even have the authority to offer admission to recruits? Recruiting is going to get more difficult and stringent.
> 
> 3) Will involved programs be penalized for a few years and lose NCAA eligibility?
> 
> 4) Philosophically, does it really matter that people can buy their way in if they didn’t actually take up a roster spot? If the argument is that these kids didn’t earn it or weren’t as competitive as others, isn’t that the same as affirmative action? We’re talking about 50kids in the US out of 2.2 million incoming freshman each year - that’s .002%. I mean given the choice, would you rather pay $500k to get your kid into USC or just teach your kid to work hard and get their grades up so they earn it?
> 
> 5) Assuming these kids graduated and are doing well, it says a lot about how you do on theses tests really don’t mean anything in terms of your potential.


This is not the same at all as affirmative action.


----------



## sdb

Dos Equis said:


> USC Crew circling Marina Del Rey, as they put Olivia Jade in the boat and are trying to make it work.


Watch Olivia talk about how fired up she is to be on the squad... fast forward to 5.12 or so.


----------



## Grace T.

Supermodel56 said:


> I think the reason this story is so fascinating is because it covers so many topics and has so many implications


True.  In the old days for colleges, people used to flunk out all the time, including a segment of kids that went to Ivies.  But now with grade inflation, getting in is pretty much the entire ticket.  To fail, something really big has to happen like a breakdown, addiction, abuse accusation, learning disability or cheating.  Getting in is pretty much getting past the velvet rope.

College is now viewed as a marker.  It's a way the fellow members of the "in" crowd judge you, for positions of power, for jobs, and for marriage.  Employers were prohibited from doing aptitude tests (for a variety of reasons, including discrimination), so college became the stand in for the seal of approval  In the old days too, college educated dad might marry his secretary or the stewardess he met on the plane.  Now days high powered dad marries high powered mom, and college educated mom would never marry someone who is a drag on her income.  Successful people marry each other, pool their resources, and tend to have kids that will also be successful (whether by genetics or environmental advantages).

Meanwhile, the superrich have been pouring money into universities (which now have high tech dorms, wifi, tons of administrators, and facilities galore).  To compete, the very rich (but not superrich) throw their money, influence and connections too (sometimes, like those in the story, not entirely on the up and up).  The upper middle class looks at it, and feels their children are now at a disadvantage, with all this money being thrown at the kids, and are worried about the shrinking opportunities in the economy caused by globalization, and realize that now a lot of college slots are going to for example kids from overseas (that's another iceberg that's coming...it's been a percolating secret that some foreign admissions from some countries might be doing similar cheating)....they get upset.  The working class looks at this, and it's just another reason for them to get ticked off at the arrogant coastal elites, that's not only throwing 2 incomes they can't compete with at the problem, but that seems to look down on them too, and they don't get some of the safety valves afforded to the poor such as affirmative action.

People having fewer children means that you also have your eggs in fewer basket.  Back when people had 3-6 kids, the odds are one would be successful (by hard work, athleticism, charisma, intellect or just plain old luck).  Every family had a black sheep, and even if you wanted to you couldn't stay on top of all your children.  Remember the film "Parenthood"?  Plus we became more scared about our children, even though the world hadn't really become more dangerous, so we got helicopter parenting to protect these fewer eggs.

The story resonates because it goes directly to who were are as a society, and really plays into why the events of the last 12 or so years have unfolded the way they have.  It touches everything as mundane as youth soccer, to why presidential politics operates the way it does, to our own children's futures.  Dersh in the interview I posted above called it a watershed event....I think it really is and we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg right now.


----------



## sdb

Olivia is generating some ROI though...


----------



## FernandoFromNationalCity

oh canada said:


> 3 parents from San Diego...
> 
> http://www.cbs8.com/story/40113599/2-san-diegans-indicted-in-nationwide-college-admissions-scandal


I wonder what soccer clubs from sd help with this skeme


----------



## Zerodenero

Dos Equis said:


> Anyone watch the FBI press conference or read this?  Claim is former Yale Women's Head Coach was one of the participants, and took a $400k bribe to get a non-soccer player in as a soccer recruit.  Unreal.  Recruiting tip #1 -- no bribes or cheating.


So I'm on the phone w/my player this morning who stayed back in New Haven over the break. As she's leaving morning training, we're talking and she suddenly gets ambushed by a reporter, pelting her with questions..."are you with the Yale women's soccer team"...."how do you feel"....."did you see anything"....etc etc. I watched the interview tonight..... Frustrated/disappointed. Her body language said it all.

No matter your take, the situation ain't easy. Especially for those that truly had to grind to get there....Grind to stay there ....and grind to get to where they want to go in life. Without daddy-warbucks paving the way.

The irony in all this is, amidst the mess....my kiddo took a class last semester that made a impression on her. One that may have changed the direction of post playing/college career...Class name, "Criminal Minds". Career interest...FBI. 

What a coinkydink


----------



## timbuck

With all of the talk about paying athletes beyond a scholarship, I think this will have (eventually) widespread implications on college athletics. 
Why should someone who can run, jump, throw, kick, row, swing a racket, etc be allowed entry with lower grades than the majority of students?


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Dos Equis said:


> That is a pretty serious allegation.  Perhaps MAP can chime in on it.


Mail fraud-

Up to 20 years incarceration and up to a 250k fine.  Very serious crime.

I can’t imagine any of these parents spending a day in jail. Their money will allow them to assemble a dream team of lawyers.

The sad news is the poor coaches could see some time as they won’t have the funds to assemble a team of tremendous litigators.


----------



## soccerobserver

timbuck said:


> With all of the talk about paying athletes beyond a scholarship, I think this will have (eventually) widespread implications on college athletics.
> Why should someone who can run, jump, throw, kick, row, swing a racket, etc be allowed entry with lower grades than the majority of students?


@Tbuck the answer to your question is simple. They generate a of money, prestige and interest for the school. I was once told that Stanford football pays for the entire athletic department of Stanford. It's a serious business.


----------



## espola

Paragraph 61, page 10, of the indictment states that USC women's soccer coach Ali Khosrashin and his assistant Laura Janke controlled a "private soccer club", and used control of that club as a vehicle to fabricate a false soccer resume for one prospective student-athlete. Which club was that?


----------



## soccerobserver

espola said:


> Paragraph 61, page 10, of the indictment states that USC women's soccer coach Ali Khosrashin and his assistant Laura Janke controlled a "private soccer club", and used control of that club as a vehicle to fabricate a false soccer resume for one prospective student-athlete. Which club was that?


He owns Newport Futbol Club in Newport Beach...before that he was B07 coach for Total Futbol Academy in east LA for 6 months...he also ran Advantage Sports Academy (no pun intended) and Road to College Soccer up until December 2018.


----------



## Eagle33

soccerobserver said:


> He owns Newport Futbol Club in Newport Beach...before that he was B07 coach for Total Futbol Academy in east LA for 6 months...he also ran Advantage Sports Academy (no pun intended) and Road to College Soccer up until December 2018.


He just a hired coach for Newport FC. Someone else is an owner.


----------



## soccerobserver

Eagle33 said:


> He just a hired coach for Newport FC. Someone else is an owner.


@Eagle32 I was basing this on his LinkedIn profile which says his title is "Owner" of Newport Futbol Club.


----------



## Eagle33

soccerobserver said:


> @Eagle32 I was basing this on his LinkedIn profile which says his title is "Owner" of Newport Futbol Club.


No problem. I was basing this on my personal knowledge of both individuals.


----------



## Surfref

It will be interesting to see what sanctions the NCAA throws at these sports programs.  I would expect a couple years of no playoffs and scholarship restrictions.  IMHO this is just the tip of the iceberg and today there are probably a good number of college coaches praying the NCAA does not start taking a closer look at their programs and recruiting process.


----------



## espola

Surfref said:


> It will be interesting to see what sanctions the NCAA throws at these sports programs.  I would expect a couple years of no playoffs and scholarship restrictions.  IMHO this is just the tip of the iceberg and today there are probably a good number of college coaches praying the NCAA does not start taking a closer look at their programs and recruiting process.


I was wondering if there is even any NCAA violation here at all.  The usual situation that the NCAA gets involved in concerns money flowing from a college or supporter of the college to an athlete or his family.  The money is to be going the other way here.


----------



## Surfref

espola said:


> I was wondering if there is even any NCAA violation here at all.  The usual situation that the NCAA gets involved in concerns money flowing from a college or supporter of the college to an athlete or his family.  The money is to be going the other way here.


You have been around long enough to know that anything that shines negative light on NCAA sports will end in some type of sanctions.  This is high visibility so the NCAA will need to make an example out of these schools to uphold the integrity of NCAA athletic programs.


----------



## jpeter

Some of individuals named in the articles have club soccer involvement and could bring the "foundations" workaround in more focus by law enforcement organizations especially dealing with taxes.   

We personally know some players on the other end of the spectrum that were being recruited or made verbal or other commitments to some of these schools but that maybe in Jeopardy due to head coach or programs possibly being suspended or sanctioned.

"United States District Court of Massachusetts announced charges against former Yale women’s soccer head coach Rudy Meredith on Tuesday in one of the most prominent and comprehensive cases as part of the FBI investigation in college admission and bribery scheme. The charges allege that Meredith accepted financial gifts in exchange for helping with the admission of potential students as he designated them as recruits for his team, even though the applicants did not play competitive soccer.

Meredith resigned from his position as head coach of the Yale women’s soccer team in November of 2018. The charges allege that Meredith accept brides in November of 2017 and April of 2018.

The charge alleges that Meredith and William Rick Singer engaged in the practice of designating applicants to Yale as recruits to the women’s soccer team in exchange for personal financial gain beginning in 2015.

The first case that the charges lay out alleges that Singer was approached by a father in November of 2017 who was looking to get his daughter into a top college in exchange for a “donation.”

Singer sent the resume to Meredith with the note that he would change the applicants’ personal statement, which contained references to her art portfolio, to soccer.

Meredith designated the applicant as a recruit for the women’s soccer team, even though he was aware she did not play soccer at that level. Singer paid Meredith $400,000 after the applicant was admitted into Yale. Theapplicant’s family contributed to $1.2 million to Meredith during and after the admissions process.

The second case against Meredith alleges that Meredith met directly with the father of an applicant in April of 2018 in Boston. Meredith stated in the conversation, which the FBI recorded, that he would designate the applicant as a recruit for the Yale women’s soccer team in exchange for $450,000.

The charges against Meredith are conspiracy to commit wire fraud and honest services wire fraud; and honest services wire fraud.

He is not the only college soccer coach listed in the investigation. Former USC women’s head coach Ali Khosroshahin, former USC assistant coach Laura Janke, and current UCLA men’s soccer head coach Jorge Salcedo are also listed as defendants.

The case against Khosroshahin, Janke, and Salcedo alleges that Bruce Isackson and Davina Isackson paid an intermediary, who is referred to as a cooperating witness in the charges, to secure their daughter’s admission to USC - her first choice school - as arecruited athlete.

The case states that the cooperating witness emailed the falsified information to Janke in September of 2015.

The USC assistant athletic director emailed the women’s soccer coach in February of 2016 stating the application had been sent to the regular admissions process due to a “clerical error.”

Khosroshahin, who was fired by USC in 2013, sent the falsified application to Salcedo in May of 2016. UCLA’s student-athlete admissions approved the daughter as a provisional applicant for the fall of 2018.

The case alleges that the cooperating witness directed a payment from a company called Key WorldwideFoundation (KWF) to a sports marketing company controlled by Salcedo in the amount of $100,000 on July 7, 2016. The cooperating witness also states that KWF issued a check to Khosroshahin in the amount of $25,000.

There was a player on the UCLA women’s soccer roster briefly in 2017 with the name Lauren Isackson, who listed her parents as Bruce and Davina on her player profile. She is no longer on the UCLA roster

Longtime UCLA men's soccer coach Jorge Salcedo has been placed on leave in the wake of his indictment in the college admissions scandal that's breaking today.

Janke, Khosroshahin, and Salcedo are all charged with conspiracy to commit racketeering.

Khosroshahin and Janke are also involved in another case in the investigation, which took place in 2012, which helped facilitate the admission of a student to USC as a recruit for the soccer team. There were two donations made to Khosroshahin and Janke’s private soccer club for $100,000 after the admission of the student to USC. She never played for the USC soccer team.

The case also alleges that Janke falsified the athletic records for another student to help him earn enrollment to USC on the football team"

https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/college-soccer-articles/college-sports-scandal-hits-soccer_aid45953


----------



## shales1002

Surfref said:


> It will be interesting to see what sanctions the NCAA throws at these sports programs.  I would expect a couple years of no playoffs and scholarship restrictions.  IMHO this is just the tip of the iceberg and today there are probably a good number of college coaches praying the NCAA does not start taking a closer look at their programs and recruiting process.


 I am not sure how these are NCAA violations as these kids were never athletes to begin with.


----------



## broshark

shales1002 said:


> I am not sure how these are NCAA violations as these kids were never athletes to begin with.


Depends what the coaches did with the money.  SC water polo coach seems to have started a fund for the program with it - definitely an NCAA issue then.  But a coach just taking a bribe to help a non-athlete alone probably isn't a violation at all.


----------



## tenacious

Supermodel56 said:


> 2) This is going to draw significant attention to college athletics and admissions criteria - such as why are athletes prioritized to begin with? should coaches even have the authority to offer admission to recruits? Recruiting is going to get more difficult and stringent.


I went to a college up in the Northwest that is famous for it's blue football field.  When I got there the school had just gone from D2 to D1 in athletics, and cost around $3k per year to attend full time.  When I started attending my friends had never heard of the university and would tease me for my lack of achievement.  The local papers would run articles questioning why the highest paid state employee was the football coach...

Fast forward 20 years and all that changed- mainly because the football team started winning.  Now when I say where I went folks have heard of the school, they now charge closer to $20k per year to attend and people will often stop me in the street to talk about he school if I wear a baseball cap with the universities logo on it. 

For better or worse, athletics is powerful marketing tool that many people see not only as a reflection of the quality of the school, but adds value to the diploma.   This is why athletes are prioritized, and why for better or worse they will continue to be prioritized at universities...


----------



## jpeter

shales1002 said:


> I am not sure how these are NCAA violations as these kids were never athletes to begin with.


Mutiple NCAA coaches and the athletic departments are involved, they will be investigated future and some time maybe years from now likely to be sanctioned, fined, suspended or action brought against them.  Already happening at UCLA for example and didn't the USC crew team get disbanded yesterday?


----------



## espola

espola said:


> Paragraph 61, page 10, of the indictment states that USC women's soccer coach Ali Khosrashin and his assistant Laura Janke controlled a "private soccer club", and used control of that club as a vehicle to fabricate a false soccer resume for one prospective student-athlete. Which club was that?


Their bios from 2013 USC roster --

https://usctrojans.com/coaches.aspx?rc=276&path=wsoc
https://usctrojans.com/coaches.aspx?rc=280&path=wsoc


----------



## espola

Surfref said:


> You have been around long enough to know that anything that shines negative light on NCAA sports will end in some type of sanctions.  This is high visibility so the NCAA will need to make an example out of these schools to uphold the integrity of NCAA athletic programs.


So far several firings and suspensions have been announced, and some of the coaches are no longer associated with the school anyway just due to the normal career turnover.  I am sure the NCAA will be interested, but I am not sure what actual violations they will find there.  Some of the cases are just SAT/ACT cheating that did not even involve athletes at all, and some were just phony claims to athletic experience in high school that did not result in a player becoming a participating NCAA student-athlete.


----------



## goldentoe

espola said:


> I was wondering if there is even any NCAA violation here at all.  The usual situation that the NCAA gets involved in concerns money flowing from a college or supporter of the college to an athlete or his family.  The money is to be going the other way here.


I agree. There appears to have been isolated rogue actors at theses colleges pursuing personal financial gain who were recruited to be part of this syndicate assembled by Singer. It was designed to prey on rich parents, who in a quid pro quo deal, paid thousands to clear away any obstacles in their kids’ path.

The universities as a whole did not participate in the scam. The athletic departments didn’t benefit. Singer found, as he calls it, “the side door in” for these desperate and willing parents. Reading the indictment and reviewing the transcripts of Singer’s wire-taps, it’s astonishing that Singer didn’t even talk in code about what was happening. Parents wanted guarantees and he delivered. Much of it is on tape, or documented in email.

The indictment is an open and shut case. Now it’s just a matter of what kind of deals the feds will make, and what kind of pressure, if any the NCAA will exert on the schools involved. The named universities could self police by imposing strong sanctions on the programs included. I would think this is likely, since none of the implicated were associated with revenue generating sports.

The system is not broken. Roster spots were not lost to undeserving athletes. There were a few spoiled pukes that got pushed to the front of the admissions line, that’s it.


----------



## Dos Equis

The NCAA stated they are already reviewing it.

Think about it this way -- a minority student athlete/family receives financial help from a booster/program, and the result is the program gets penalized for a lack of institutional oversight allowing a violation of the rules.  Now a bunch of rich white kid's parents (the majority of that list) cheat on tests and pay their kids' way into schools using preferential athletic admissions policies and conspiring coaches as a conduit, and no penalties to the programs?  Good luck with that.


----------



## Glen

Dos Equis said:


> The NCAA stated they are already reviewing it.
> 
> Think about it this way -- a minority student athlete/family receives financial help from a booster/program, and the result is the program gets penalized for a lack of institutional oversight allowing a violation of the rules.  Now a bunch of rich white kid's parents (the majority of that list) cheat on tests and pay their kids' way into schools using preferential athletic admissions policies and conspiring coaches as a conduit, and no penalties to the programs?  Good luck with that.


Yeah, but in the case of the booster, the kid is a real athlete that impacts the program.  They are cheating to make the athletic program better.  The NCAA has an interest in keeping the playing field level.  In this case, the kids don't even play - they hurt the program.  There is no cross-institutional unfairness.  This is all about admissions fraud, with athletics being one of the vehicles.  All of that said, you are probably right.  The NCAA will find some justification to be involved.


----------



## Surfref

shales1002 said:


> I am not sure how these are NCAA violations as these kids were never athletes to begin with.


Are you serious?  An NCAA D1 coach took money (bribes) to inappropriately claim that kids that did not even play the sport were being recruited so they could circumvent the admissions process.  I am positive that will violate some NCAA recruiting or ethics rule.  The NCAA has sanctioned many programs for recruiting violations that were minor compared to this case.  USC and UCLA will definitely see some type of sanctions.


----------



## Messi>CR7

The appropriate penalty is UCLA has to play Lauren Isackson at midfielder for 90 minutes in every game next year, and the two USC girls have to row in all competitions.


----------



## espola

I fear that there are many more shoes yet to drop.  I know a few college coaches on a first name basis (although one of them mysteriously always calls me "Robert").  I hope that none of them are involved in this, or even fantasize that one of them was approached, refused, and informed the authorities.


----------



## Dos Equis

Glen said:


> The NCAA has an interest in keeping the playing field level.


I disagree, the NCAA has no goal of keeping the playing field level, nor keeping money out of college sports.  Their goal is to keep corruption out of the sports programs, and to keep the players amateurs, not professionals.  This violates the former.

If they wanted a level playing field, they would not let the conferences sell their TV rights, and split the money amongst their athletic programs (benefiting the strongest).  They would exert greater control over athletic budgets, and not let some schools build facilities rivaling professionals and have highly paid coaching staffs, while others suffer with smaller budgets and old facilities.   They would not let schools negotiate individual deals with uniforms companies, some worth tens of millions of dollars.  They would not pay bowl winners large sums of money to help fund their programs, helping ensure the dominance of certain conferences.

So perhaps USC does not have to vacate its Women's Soccer National Championship, based on your rationale.   But I would not count on that.  These illegal payments went not just to enhance coach salaries, but some funded the athletic teams/programs as well -- there goes that level playing field argument.


----------



## shales1002

Surfref said:


> Are you serious?  An NCAA D1 coach took money (bribes) to inappropriately claim that kids that did not even play the sport were being recruited so they could circumvent the admissions process.  I am positive that will violate some NCAA recruiting or ethics rule.  The NCAA has sanctioned many programs for recruiting violations that were minor compared to this case.  USC and UCLA will definitely see some type of sanctions.


Yes, I am serious.  I am sure NCAA will look to find a violation, but my question again was how these are NCAA violations as these kids were never athletes to begin with? It was to circumvent the admissions process and NOT to play the sport. Isn't NCAA looking for situations that offer unfair enhancements? USC crew team did benefit, which would be a violation.  However, the previous USC coach and the current UCLA Men's coach used those monies for personal projects it seems. How is this a recruiting violation when these players were never recruited to begin with?   bruce isackson davina isackson wanted their daughter  at $C and the A.D. realized her application went to the regular admissions pile. She never went to $C.  UCLA men's coach became involved at this point.


----------



## jpeter

Operation Varsity Blues..
https://fox5sandiego.com/2019/03/12/usd-san-diego-parents-named-in-nationwide-college-admission-scam

USD, San Diego parents named in nationwide college admission scam

SAN DIEGO -- San Diego parents were indicted for their alleged involvement in a nationwide scam dubbed "Operation Varsity Blues."

Dozens were arrested and charged for a nationwide scheme that helped students gain admission to some of the nation's top universities Tuesday. Among those charged and arrested include actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman.

Former CBS 8 owner Elisabeth Kimmel, in addition to Toby MacFarlane, were also listed as suspects in the indictment, court documents reveal.

The investigation involved alumni and aspiring student athletes at University of San Diego, UCLA, USC, Georgetown University, Stanford University, University of Texas, Wake Forest and Yale.

USD issued the following statement to FOX 5:

"The University of San Diego has been cooperating with the United States Department of Justice’s investigation involving an alleged criminal conspiracy to facilitate cheating on college entrance exams and admission into colleges and universities.

We have no reason to believe that any members of our admissions team, our administration or staff, or our current coaching staff were aware of or involved in the alleged wrongdoing. We believe the federal government agrees with this assessment."

The scandal revolves around William Rick Singer, who is accused of running a for-profit college preparation business called "The Key."

The indictment reveals Singer paid college coaches to claim that a prospective student should be accepted to college because the student was a recruit for their sports team. However, Singer and the coaches knew that the student was not a competitive player and that his or her athletic profile was fake, the indictment said.


----------



## Dubs

Dos Equis said:


> I wanted to see it with my own eyes, because I really do not want to believe it.  Could the women's coaches have been forced to include her by anyone in admin?
> 
> https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=5425


Jesus Lord!  I'm sick to my stomach man.


----------



## Sons of Pitches

gefelchnik said:


> Also, it is strange they went through the trouble of adding her to the team page, but then left a ton of clues she wasn't a proper team member:
> 
> 1. All players run through #28, and then she is added at the end as #41.
> 2. Only player not in the team picture
> 3. In profile picture, wearing a different Under Armor jersey then all the other players
> 4. Her about the player description has one sentence, while the rest of the players have paragraphs.


I just went and looked this is hysterical!!  What a joke.  Can't beleive UCLA has not taken her photograph...etc... down. Someone on the coaching staff has to take the fall.


----------



## jpeter

Sons of Pitches said:


> I just went and looked this is hysterical!!  What a joke.  Can't beleive UCLA has not taken her photograph...etc... down. Someone on the coaching staff has to take the fall.


Joint statement from UCLA and UCLA Athletics regarding Department of Justice investigation
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/joint-statement-from-ucla-and-ucla-athletics

Men's coach is out, the Women's in Jeopardy.  More investigations on the way so I'm sure you'll hear more about this...


----------



## SocalPapa

Sons of Pitches said:


> I just went and looked this is hysterical!!  What a joke.  Can't beleive UCLA has not taken her photograph...etc... down. Someone on the coaching staff has to take the fall.


Her listed club (Woodside Soccer Club) is a real club.  They have teams in the NorCal Premier League.  You would think they would notice if someone suddenly showed up on the UCLA Women's roster.  Are they complicit in this?  Although it does appear she might have actually played with them (unlike the situation at Yale).

Interestingly, she doesn't make any pretense of being a player on her LinkedIn page.  She says she's been a team manager for 2 years: "handled team administrative duties, including coordinating travel and served as on-site support for home games and practices"


----------



## Surfref

shales1002 said:


> Yes, I am serious.  I am sure NCAA will look to find a violation, but my question again was how these are NCAA violations as these kids were never athletes to begin with? It was to circumvent the admissions process and NOT to play the sport. Isn't NCAA looking for situations that offer unfair enhancements? USC crew team did benefit, which would be a violation.  However, the previous USC coach and the current UCLA Men's coach used those monies for personal projects it seems. How is this a recruiting violation when these players were never recruited to begin with?   bruce isackson davina isackson wanted their daughter  at $C and the A.D. realized her application went to the regular admissions pile. She never went to $C.  UCLA men's coach became involved at this point.


It is definitely an ethics violation and UCLA even acknowledges it is an ethics issue and they are investigating further.  The last thing that any of these athletic programs want is for the NCAA to start investigating their programs, because the NCAA always finds some violation even if it was not what they initially looked into.  

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/joint-statement-from-ucla-and-ucla-athletics


----------



## shales1002

Surfref said:


> It is definitely an ethics violation and UCLA even acknowledges it is an ethics issue and they are investigating further.  The last thing that any of these athletic programs want is for the NCAA to start investigating their programs, because the NCAA always finds some violation even if it was not what they initially looked into.
> 
> http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/joint-statement-from-ucla-and-ucla-athletics


Per the press release, sounds like the colleges will  are taking the victim role. TBH aren’t they victims. Will athletes ontinue to receive preferential admissions as a result of people gaming the system?


----------



## Sons of Pitches

SocalPapa said:


> Her listed club (Woodside Soccer Club) is a real club.  They have teams in the NorCal Premier League.  You would think they would notice if someone suddenly showed up on the UCLA Women's roster.  Are they complicit in this?  Although it does appear she might have actually played with them (unlike the situation at Yale).
> 
> Interestingly, she doesn't make any pretense of being a player on her LinkedIn page.  She says she's been a team manager for 2 years: "handled team administrative duties, including coordinating travel and served as on-site support for home games and practices"


She had to!! Anyone who knew her back home would have laughed if she said she was playing soccer at UCLA.  The game would have been uncovered immediately.  So she stated one thing, UCLA Soccer stated another, and unless someone compared the two different versions of the truth, nobody was the wiser.
It is interesting that the usual cast of UCLA Athletic Supporters (pun intended) are very quiet today.


----------



## push_up

Karma is a bitch, isn't it. 

I am enjoying you snobby Socal parents fret about this situation.  Elite this, elite that, we are the best, etc.  Socal spawned Singer.  Singer reflects the culture of SoCal.  Elitism, discrimination, bias, cheating, racketeering, and money laundering.  It is ironic that the UCLA women's soccer team has players that are kneeling for discrimination while the coaches, parents, and players discriminate, cheat, and bribe to gain and advantage over these same minorities.


----------



## Fact

Zerodenero said:


> Nah brah,  we too po to make the list


@Zerodenero your DD is a winner and will only be stronger for having to deal with this. On the bright side the scum that put her college in this position resigned before this broke so the program can stay on track (other than maybe post season???).

The kids that are playing sports at these colleges are the real victims as their post season hopes may be dashed and scholarships potentially lost. Moreover some losers will always question how they got into the college.

I would love to see a creative ambulance chaser come up with some legal theory for a class action lawsuit at each school whose sports teams are impacted by this issue.  I can just see it now, USC’s crew team owning Mossimo.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

push_up said:


> Karma is a bitch, isn't it.
> 
> I am enjoying you snobby Socal parents fret about this situation.  Elite this, elite that, we are the best, etc.  Socal spawned Singer.  Singer reflects the culture of SoCal.  Elitism, discrimination, bias, cheating, racketeering, and money laundering.  It is ironic that the UCLA women's soccer team has players that are kneeling for discrimination while the coaches, parents, and players discriminate, cheat, and bribe to gain and advantage over these same minorities.


Even as crazy and emotional as MAP is, I wouldn't wish any of this on any honest parent or student in these programs.


----------



## SocalPapa

Sons of Pitches said:


> She had to!! Anyone who knew her back home would have laughed if she said she was playing soccer at UCLA.  The game would have been uncovered immediately.  So she stated one thing, UCLA Soccer stated another, and unless someone compared the two different versions of the truth, nobody was the wiser.
> It is interesting that the usual cast of UCLA Athletic Supporters (pun intended) are very quiet today.


I see there was a third characterization in the 2017 UCLA Women's Soccer Information Guide (for media).  She's listed there as one of two "practice" players.


----------



## Fact

Sons of Pitches said:


> It is interesting that the usual cast of UCLA Athletic Supporters (pun intended) are very quiet today.


The real question is whether MAP’s DD will transfer right before her senior year or redshirt for 5 years til the post season sanctions are over(assuming sanctions are imposed) so he can say that his DD won. National Championship . Sarcasm of course!


----------



## goldentoe

The more I think about it, there will be penalties for the Bruin women. There’s no avoiding it.  Someone within that program knew how she got there. The cooperating witnesses in the case are bus driving everyone involved. Singer paid Salcedo 100,00 for getting her in. The parents paid 250,000 to Singer for making it happened, and Singer paid Khoroshahin 25,000 for being the go-between. After all that was done, she was put on the roster per the conditions of her athletic acceptance. It will just be a matter of who Salcedo worked with. Whether or not anyone on the women’s team took money is not imporant.


----------



## GKDad65

soccerobserver said:


> In the complaint I read that many of the kids did not know their parents were cheating for them...really sad...
> 
> From the complaint:
> 
> "Court-authorized wiretap:
> 6
> CAPLAN And it works? CW-1 Every time. (laughing) CAPLAN (laughing) CW-1
> I mean, I’m sure I did 30 of them at different, you know, dates because there’s
> different dates,
> and they’re all families like yours, and they’re all kids that wouldn’t have perform[ed] a
> s well, and then they did really well, and it was like,
> the kids thought, and it was so funny ’cause the kids will call me and say, “Maybe
> I
> should do that again. I did pretty well and if I took it again, I’ll do better even.”
> Right? And they just have no
> idea that they didn’t even get the score that they
> thought they got."
> 
> Indeed, in many cases, CW-
> 1’s clients referred other parents to him, or inquired directly about other parents’
> involvement in the scheme. For example, as set forth in greater detail below, defendant ...HUNEEUS, Jr., told CW-1, in substance, that he was aware that McGLASHAN had participated in the college entrance exam scheme, but that McGLASHAN had not advised his own son of that fact, and that
> McGLASHAN’s
> son thus
> “had no idea …
> that
> you helped him on the ACT.”
> 6
> Excerpts of wiretap interceptions and consensual recordings set forth herein are based on draft transcripts of those recordings.



Nonsense!  The "Kids" knew damn well what was going on, they participated in the rouge.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

goldentoe said:


> The more I think about it, there will be penalties for the Bruin women. There’s no avoiding it.  Someone within that program knew how she got there. The cooperating witnesses in the case are bus driving everyone involved. Singer paid Salcedo 100,00 for getting her in. The parents paid 250,000 to Singer for making it happened, and Singer paid Khoroshahin 25,000 for being the go-between. After all that was done, she was put on the roster per the conditions of her athletic acceptance. It will just be a matter of who Salcedo worked with. Whether or not anyone on the women’s team took money is not imporant.


The head coach had to know and if she didn't she should be fired for that very reason.


----------



## timbuck

soccerobserver said:


> @Tbuck the answer to your question is simple. They generate a of money, prestige and interest for the school. I was once told that Stanford football pays for the entire athletic department of Stanford. It's a serious business.


You are correct. 
I went to a school in the Midwest with a decent football team and a better basketball team. 
Sports means a lot to schools like this one. 
I try to watch as much as possible on tv.  If they ever play on the West Coast, I try to attend games. 
 I’d still watch if each member of the football or basketball team had a 3.7+ and a 34 on the ACT (thankfully admissions standards were a bit lower in 1992). And if all schools upheld admissions standards for ALL students, it would be likely that games would still be competitive.  The super athletes with bad grades would be going to schools with lower standards.  Or jump to a semi-pro/2nd tier pro-league. (NBA G-League or playing in Europe. Or the new AAF or Canadian football league). 
I love NCAA March madness. I’d love it just as much if the players all stayed in school for 3+ years and the Zion/LeBron/Kobe of the world never touched a semester and a half of college basketball.  (Lebron and Kobe went straight to the NBA. Zion will be done with college in about 45 days).


----------



## gefelchnik

goldentoe said:


> The more I think about it, there will be penalties for the Bruin women. There’s no avoiding it.  Someone within that program knew how she got there. The cooperating witnesses in the case are bus driving everyone involved. Singer paid Salcedo 100,00 for getting her in. The parents paid 250,000 to Singer for making it happened, and Singer paid Khoroshahin 25,000 for being the go-between. After all that was done, she was put on the roster per the conditions of her athletic acceptance. It will just be a matter of who Salcedo worked with. Whether or not anyone on the women’s team took money is not imporant.


They don't usually refer to persons not charged in an indictment unless they have a reason to do so.


----------



## full90

CNN had interviewed a D1 coach and quoted them as saying that a head coach has to sign off on their roster each semester. It’s a school and ncaa mandatory step for starting the season. There is no way for a player to be added without the coaches knowledge AND a head coach HAS to sign off on any special admits. Not an assistant. 

So if Amanda knew nothing about the money, would she just admit a kid as a favor to Jorge? And put them on the roster? That’s a big favor. Maybe he was like “hey this is my buddy’s daughter. And her parents are rich and will make a generous contribution for your Teams Europe trip or locker room at Wallis-Annenberg.”  Is there a way to check public donations to w soccer from this family? 

How will they justify this? I can’t imagine UCLA allows a special admit for a manager role and even if they did, I’d imagine the kid would have a soccer or service background. And a special admit for a practice player? You could probably kick a ball down Bruin walk and find 10 ladies who could serve as practice players with pretty robust soccer backgrounds.  

I think Jorge is gone from UCLA and they will somehow wiggle Amanda free. It looks bad but in the end is it bad enough to fire her? I don’t think so. She used a special admit slot on an undeserving kid and rostered her for a season. Fireable? Idk. She’s won a natty and is a good coach who is well liked and runs an elite program. It will be interesting to hear their version and to see what happens.


----------



## tenacious

full90 said:


> CNN had interviewed a D1 coach and quoted them as saying that a head coach has to sign off on their roster each semester. It’s a school and ncaa mandatory step for starting the season. There is no way for a player to be added without the coaches knowledge AND a head coach HAS to sign off on any special admits. Not an assistant.
> 
> So if Amanda knew nothing about the money, would she just admit a kid as a favor to Jorge? And put them on the roster? That’s a big favor. Maybe he was like “hey this is my buddy’s daughter. And her parents are rich and will make a generous contribution for your Teams Europe trip or locker room at Wallis-Annenberg.”  Is there a way to check public donations to w soccer from this family?
> 
> How will they justify this? I can’t imagine UCLA allows a special admit for a manager role and even if they did, I’d imagine the kid would have a soccer or service background. And a special admit for a practice player? You could probably kick a ball down Bruin walk and find 10 ladies who could serve as practice players with pretty robust soccer backgrounds.
> 
> I think Jorge is gone from UCLA and they will somehow wiggle Amanda free. It looks bad but in the end is it bad enough to fire her? I don’t think so. She used a special admit slot on an undeserving kid and rostered her for a season. Fireable? Idk. She’s won a natty and is a good coach who is well liked and runs an elite program. It will be interesting to hear their version and to see what happens.


I don't see a plausible scenario where AC doesn't get fired by the end of this.  The University may not want to,  but this strikes me as the perfect storm.  The public is clearly out for blood, the media is worked into a frenzy, and frankly we're not talking about a money making college sport.  No way the NCAA doesn't drop the hammer...  and a likable, successful west Coast PAC12 coach like AC will serve as a good example for the zero tolerance message.  

We're not talking much less money then Reggie Bush's parents got paid to send him to USC if you remember.


----------



## oh canada

push_up said:


> Karma is a bitch, isn't it.
> 
> I am enjoying you snobby Socal parents fret about this situation.  Elite this, elite that, we are the best, etc.  Socal spawned Singer.  Singer reflects the culture of SoCal.  Elitism, discrimination, bias, cheating, racketeering, and money laundering.  It is ironic that the UCLA women's soccer team has players that are kneeling for discrimination while the coaches, parents, and players discriminate, cheat, and bribe to gain and advantage over these same minorities.


Rick Pitino from SoCal?  Joe Paterno?  Baylor University? Tar Heels and their grades?   This one crook happens to be in Newport Beach and Feds stumbled upon him.  Glad they did.  Guaranteed there are 100 other crooks doing similar deals that are sh**ting their pants across the country.  Hope they catch more.  This isn't just a SoCal problem.


----------



## Dos Equis

SocalPapa said:


> I see there was a third characterization in the 2017 UCLA Women's Soccer Information Guide (for media).  She's listed there as one of two "practice" players.


This is not difficult -- too many breadcrumbs left behind. 

If UCLA does not take some action regarding the women's program, given the publicly available evidence of complicity, the NCAA will likely be even more harsh.


----------



## davin

soccerobserver said:


> @Tbuck the answer to your question is simple. They generate a of money, prestige and interest for the school. I was once told that Stanford football pays for the entire athletic department of Stanford. It's a serious business.


Not true. The single biggest source of funding for the Stanford Athletic Department is funded by private funding(donors). Each of the head coaches' salaries, and many of the assistants, are funded by endowments.
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/12/03/miller-breaking-down-financial-situation-of-stanfords-athletic-department/


----------



## Dos Equis

davin said:


> Not true. The single biggest source of funding for the Stanford Athletic Department is funded by private funding(donors). Each of the head coaches' salaries, and many of the assistants, are funded by endowments.
> https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/12/03/miller-breaking-down-financial-situation-of-stanfords-athletic-department/


Most significantly, this article points out that varsity athletics cost Stanford University and students $0, and even reimburses the school for every athletic scholarship.  That point was made because someone, using AOC logic in an earlier opinion piece, suggested cutting athletics and spending the savings on financial aid.  The University responded that there would not be any savings.


----------



## CaliKlines

[QUOTE="oh canada, post: 253896, member: 3694 This isn't just a SoCal problem.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. This is a manifestation of a pervasive attitude in Southern CA that parents have to have the best of everything to better than everybody else. I am sure that 100% of the parents involved will be from the southern CA area. That is why the plastic surgery industry is southern CA is so big and why I see people driving BMW’s living in mobile homes.  It’s all about life choices and you can choose to live intelligently and ethically, or you can bend the rules to suit yourself.


----------



## davin

CaliKlines said:


> I disagree. This is a manifestation of a pervasive attitude in Southern CA that parents have to have the best of everything to better than everybody else. I am sure that 100% of the parents involved will be from the southern CA area. That is why the plastic surgery industry is southern CA is so big and why I see people driving BMW’s living in mobile homes.  It’s all about life choices and you can choose to live intelligently and ethically, or you can bend the rules to suit yourself.


I wish you were right, but it's not only a SoCal problem. Lots of the families were from NorCal where I'm located. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/12/how-silicon-valley-became-epicenter-of-college-entry-cheating-scandal/


----------



## eastbaysoccer

UCLA doesn’t want trouble with the NCAA and May want to set an example here. 

Soccer is an insignificant sport in the grand scheme of things at UCLA and it  would not surprise me if the athletic director cleaned the entire house.

Remember,  the soccer coaches are supervised by the athletic director.  I’m sure his superiors are asking him some serious questions also.


----------



## soccerobserver

davin said:


> Not true. The single biggest source of funding for the Stanford Athletic Department is funded by private funding(donors). Each of the head coaches' salaries, and many of the assistants, are funded by endowments.
> https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/12/03/miller-breaking-down-financial-situation-of-stanfords-athletic-department/


@Davin, my source was someone who worked for the football program. His point to me was the W-L record for the football team has major financial implications for the school above and beyond just winning or losing on paper. It generates enough to pay for the entire athletic program of the university. And Stanford's endowment is so titanic that I am sure you could show that it pays for whatever you want to show it pays for...I am a fan of Stanford and I am in awe of the University's total and undisputed academic, financial and athletic domination of all other universities.


----------



## davin

soccerobserver said:


> @Davin, my source was someone who worked for the football program. His point to me was the W-L record for the football team has major financial implications for the school above and beyond just winning or losing on paper. It generates enough to pay for the entire athletic program of the university. And Stanford's endowment is so titanic that I am sure you could show that it pays for whatever you want to show it pays for...I am a fan of Stanford and I am in awe of the University's total and undisputed academic, financial and athletic domination of all other universities


I have my sources too. I'm not sure your's is correct. The coaching endowments at Stanford are specific to that coaching position and not some generic endowment. The donors know exactly which position they are endowing.
Here's one for a defensive back coach on the football staff: https://gostanford.com/news/2017/8/16/football-defensive-backs-position-endowed.aspx
Here's one for the women's swimming coach: https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/stanford-womens-head-coaching-position-receives-endowment/


----------



## push_up

soccerobserver said:


> @Davin, my source was someone who worked for the football program. His point to me was the W-L record for the football team has major financial implications for the school above and beyond just winning or losing on paper. It generates enough to pay for the entire athletic program of the university. And Stanford's endowment is so titanic that I am sure you could show that it pays for whatever you want to show it pays for...I am a fan of Stanford and I am in awe of the University's total and undisputed academic, financial and athletic domination of all other universities.


...with obvious contempt of any ethical restraint and "all-in" with elitism and discrimination.


----------



## outside!

eastbaysoccer said:


> UCLA doesn’t want trouble with the NCAA and May want to set an example here.
> 
> Soccer is an insignificant sport in the grand scheme of things at UCLA and it  would not surprise me if the athletic director cleaned the entire house.
> 
> Remember,  the soccer coaches are supervised by the athletic director.  I’m sure his superiors are asking him some serious questions also.


It would not surprise me if the AD goes as well.


----------



## Surfref

outside! said:


> It would not surprise me if the AD goes as well.


It wouldn’t surprise me if UCLA fired all of the men and women’s soccer coaches and self imposed a reduction in the number of scholarships.  I could also see NCAA sanctioning them and banning them from playoffs for a couple years.  

Rich people f’ing it up for the rest of us.


----------



## Lambchop

oh canada said:


> Rick Pitino from SoCal?  Joe Paterno?  Baylor University? Tar Heels and their grades?   This one crook happens to be in Newport Beach and Feds stumbled upon him.  Glad they did.  Guaranteed there are 100 other crooks doing similar deals that are sh**ting their pants across the country.  Hope they catch more.  This isn't just a SoCal problem.


And you better believe it isn't just happening in athletic departments!  Engineering, music, art whatever.  Oh, your dad is friends with so and so on the board, etc. etc. etc. etc.   So sad for all the hard working students who will one way or another suffer some of the consequences and for all the additional pressure put on the younger student athletes coming up.


----------



## Lambchop

Supermodel56 said:


> Well, they don’t call USC “University of Spoiled Children” for nothing...
> 
> I think the reason this story is so fascinating is because it covers so many topics and has so many implications:
> 
> 1) The lengths some parents will go through to prevent their kids from experiencing failure - how are these kids going to deal with failure as adults? (Maybe they won’t have to because they have that financial safety net?)
> 
> 2) This is going to draw significant attention to college athletics and admissions criteria - such as why are athletes prioritized to begin with? should coaches even have the authority to offer admission to recruits? Recruiting is going to get more difficult and stringent.
> 
> 3) Will involved programs be penalized for a few years and lose NCAA eligibility?
> 
> 4) Philosophically, does it really matter that people can buy their way in if they didn’t actually take up a roster spot? If the argument is that these kids didn’t earn it or weren’t as competitive as others, isn’t that the same as affirmative action? We’re talking about 50kids in the US out of 2.2 million incoming freshman each year - that’s .002%. I mean given the choice, would you rather pay $500k to get your kid into USC or just teach your kid to work hard and get their grades up so they earn it?
> 
> 5) Assuming these kids graduated and are doing well, it says a lot about how you do on theses tests really don’t mean anything in terms of your potential.


Supermodel56, I am sure as an intelligent individual you have done your research and have seen the stats to know that well over 80% of the students at USC are on financial aid.  Every school has their super rich students. Please quit calling USC spoiled rich kids.  It really is getting old and is offensive to those of us who worked hard, took out loans, had partial scholarships and worked every da_ day for four years.  You seem to have some hidden vendetta against USC.  My comments are not about all the cheating that has gone on at the many universities that are now under scrutiny, those involved should be punished.


----------



## soccerobserver

davin said:


> I have my sources too. I'm not sure your's is correct. The coaching endowments at Stanford are specific to that coaching position and not some generic endowment. The donors know exactly which position they are endowing.
> Here's one for a defensive back coach on the football staff: https://gostanford.com/news/2017/8/16/football-defensive-backs-position-endowed.aspx
> Here's one for the women's swimming coach: https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/stanford-womens-head-coaching-position-receives-endowment/


Hi Devin I get your point no worries. My general point is that the football program generates a substantial amount of revenue accoring to my source. It is entirely consistent with both of our points that the football program can generate X and there are also endowments assigned to support X for the program although I might argue it does not technically need said support.


----------



## LadiesMan217

Surfref said:


> It wouldn’t surprise me if UCLA fired all of the men and women’s soccer coaches and self imposed a reduction in the number of scholarships.  I could also see NCAA sanctioning them and banning them from playoffs for a couple years.
> 
> Rich people f’ing it up for the rest of us.


This has nothing to do with scholarships and there is no reason to reduce them due to this scandal.


----------



## soccerobserver

LadiesMan217 said:


> This has nothing to do with scholarships and there is no reason to reduce them due to this scandal.


Agreed. The issue is that the coaches are allocated  6-9 recruits that they are allowed to move from the "qualified" bucket into the "admitted" bucket and with little oversight apparently. Sadly some coaches decided to monetize one or more of their slots.


----------



## tenacious

LadiesMan217 said:


> This has nothing to do with scholarships and there is no reason to reduce them due to this scandal.


If the NCAA doesn't stamp out maleficence by the athletic departments by reducing scholarships (i.e. their ability to compete)... how exactly do you all suggest they get punished?

Sure you can bring in a new crop of coaches, but that won't teach/keep the boosters or new coaches from falling pray to the same pressures the old coaches did.  Take away some scholarship for a couple years on the other hand, and everyone gets taught the lesson and the entire structure works against the influence of outside money.


----------



## push_up

As punishment, I would suggest that Lauren Isackson start at left back for the UCLA kneelers but that might actually improve the defense.  

Thanks Messi!


----------



## tenacious

push_up said:


> As punishment, I would suggest that Lauren Isackson start at left back for the UCLA kneelers but that might actually improve the defense.
> 
> Thanks Messi!


So aside from complaining you've got nothing? 
Can't help but ask... care to share the name of your kid?  I'd be interested in looking her up and have a public discussion about how squeeky clean the push-up family is.


----------



## NoGoalItAll

tenacious said:


> If the NCAA doesn't stamp out maleficence by the athletic departments by reducing scholarships (i.e. their ability to compete)... how exactly do you all suggest they get punished?


I believe the DOJ has it under control.


----------



## tenacious

NoGoalItAll said:


> I believe the DOJ has it under control.


Fair enough.  Although if I were UCLA or the NCAA... I'd be looking for ways to make sure to head these sorts of things off before the DOJ get's involved.


----------



## HouseofCards

tenacious said:


> If the NCAA doesn't stamp out maleficence by the athletic departments by reducing scholarships (i.e. their ability to compete)... how exactly do you all suggest they get punished?
> 
> Sure you can bring in a new crop of coaches, but that won't teach the boosters or new coaches from falling pray to the same pressures the old coaches did.  Take away some scholarship for a couple years on the other hand, and everyone gets taught the lesson and the entire structure works against the influence of outside money.


I'm all for punishments that fit crimes. These coaches abused their preferred acceptance slots, so take those away for a couple years.


----------



## Dos Equis

Good to see USC Trustees stepping up to get their star crew recruits some valuable time on the water.
*
Lori Loughlins' daughter Olivia Jade was aboard USC official's yacht in Bahamas when mom was charged
*


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Dos Equis said:


> Good to see USC Trustees stepping up to get their star crew recruits some valuable time on the water.
> *
> Lori Loughlins' daughter Olivia Jade was aboard USC official's yacht in Bahamas when mom was charged*


Everything is timing, good to see God still has his sense of humor.


----------



## Zerodenero

Sheriff Joe said:


> Everything is timing, good to see God still has his sense of humor.


Amen to that.


----------



## tenacious

Dos Equis said:


> Good to see USC Trustees stepping up to get their star crew recruits some valuable time on the water.
> *
> Lori Loughlins' daughter Olivia Jade was aboard USC official's yacht in Bahamas when mom was charged*


Yes there were a couple celebs involved, but I'm not sure the larger message here is only about privilege and wealth.  Here's a write up from the NYTimes about another Ivy League cheating scandal not to long back:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/tm-landry-college-prep-black-students.html

I couldn't tell you if the root of all this shameful behavior around sending kids to college is because social media rubs everyone else's accomplishments in our face day-after-day, and we inflict so much greed and jealously on ourselves; or if the American Dream is truly dead and we are now forced into a death-match over the few left-over crumbs of opportunity?  But what I can say for sure is somewhere along the line we've gone off the rails.

Anyway my dd graduates college in a couple months so I'm just going to excuse myself from this thread now that I'm remembering how happy I am the college acceptance stage has passed for me and mine.  My only reflection is for all the huff and puff, how many of us wouldn't game the system college system if given the chance (with the way things are), and also how I'll never get back all those sleepless nights spent agonizing my kids future.


----------



## soccerobserver

"Son defends parents caught in college admissions scandal while smoking blunt" ...this guy also gets style points...even took the opportunity to promote his Rap CD...


https://nypost.com/2019/03/13/son-defends-parents-caught-in-college-admissions-scandal-while-smoking-blunt/


----------



## Sons of Pitches

and so it begins, Class action Lawsuit against the Universities:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/14/lawsuit-filed-against-eight-colleges-for-admission-bribery.html


----------



## Sheriff Joe

soccerobserver said:


> "Son defends parents caught in college admissions scandal while smoking blunt" ...this guy also gets style points...even took the opportunity to promote his Rap CD...
> 
> 
> https://nypost.com/2019/03/13/son-defends-parents-caught-in-college-admissions-scandal-while-smoking-blunt/


Maybe being rich isn't all it's cracked up to be?


----------



## Fact

Sons of Pitches said:


> and so it begins, Class action Lawsuit against the Universities:
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/14/lawsuit-filed-against-eight-colleges-for-admission-bribery.html


What a joke to sue the Universities and thereby causing those students rightfully there more money. 

I called it about a class action lawsuit but I think they should figure out a way to go after the wealthy parents that did the bribing and have money.


----------



## timbuck

I know a handful of people that are fairly wealthy.  They all have pretty f’ed up family lives.  They tend to just “throw money” at problems.


----------



## Calisoccer11

soccerobserver said:


> "Son defends parents caught in college admissions scandal while smoking blunt" ...this guy also gets style points...even took the opportunity to promote his Rap CD...
> 
> 
> https://nypost.com/2019/03/13/son-defends-parents-caught-in-college-admissions-scandal-while-smoking-blunt/


Omg.....smh.  
What is striking to me is that many of these parents have Ivy league educations themselves so they should have some idea of the work it takes to get there and once there, then graduate.  You would think they would value the hard work - meaning, they should have known if their kid was on track to get into one these top schools on their own.  If Olivia Jade or whoever, is not pulling the grades in high school, maybe get a tutor?  Maybe tell her to get off social media?  You know, maybe be a parent?!!  
One of our main jobs as parents is to make sure our kids grow up to be happy, well adjusted and hopefully be contributing members of our society.  All of those parents failed big time and in the process, cheated not only their own kids, but those who truly should have been accepted into those schools.  I hope all of them receive the maximum sentence.


----------



## Calisoccer11

timbuck said:


> I know a handful of people that are fairly wealthy.  They all have pretty f’ed up family lives.  They tend to just “throw money” at problems.


Yep, I know several too.  When I was younger, after I had just graduated from a Cal State school, I became friends with a girl who had just graduated USC.  Her family was extremely wealthy and she had everything that I basically didn't - a sports car, designer clothes and jewelry, a townhouse, and a paycheck every two weeks that came from her father's company, even though she never worked there.  Girlfriend was SO unhappy--she had no direction or purpose.  I could never understand it--she had it all and she was actually very smart.  She was also so spoiled and she behaved like a brat at times.  I remember one birthday party in which her Mom took about 20 of her friends to brunch.  She opened one of her gifts which happened to be a designer watch (at least 2k) but she threw a fit there because it was the wrong color or style...I can't remember.  
I swear, I'm happy I knew her because she did influence me as what NOT to do with my own kids!  But I never want to say that this makes me better than these people --although, I'd be lying if I didn't feel a tiny bit better about my own parenting right now.  I would say that, we as parents, always want what is best for our kids and sometimes, in this crazy world, our judgment and thinking gets warped and we don't always make the best decisions.


----------



## Sons of Pitches

timbuck said:


> I know a handful of people that are fairly wealthy.  They all have pretty f’ed up family lives.  They tend to just “throw money” at problems.


SMH - I know a handful of middle class families.  They all have pretty f'ed up lives.  They spend more money that they can afford on club soccer, soccer trainers, $200 cleats, futsal, gas, travel, etc.... maybe they are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## gkrent

This whole thing makes me sad for the kids that worked their ass off and got into these institutions by their own hard work.   Now they have to deal with people giving them sh*t over their coach's ethics or people questioning how they actually made it in (although many girls I know at Ivys are by no means "rich")


----------



## Supermodel56

Sons of Pitches said:


> and so it begins, Class action Lawsuit against the Universities:
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/14/lawsuit-filed-against-eight-colleges-for-admission-bribery.html


I absolutely think this is the right direction and if allowed, will send a strong enough message to end the corruption and perhaps even establish more transparency and oversight into the admissions process. Most of these schools have large enough endowments that a class action suit won't impact student fees, etc...  Too many kids worked so hard to earn their degrees and things like this definitely undermine and unfairly raise questions to their achievements.


----------



## SocalPapa

One of my biggest pet peeves about this is the implication getting an undergraduate degree from a fancy college is all that it takes to be successful in life.  I happen to have one of those degrees and I can confirm it takes a helluva lot more than that.  Nor is it a prerequisite.  None of the senior executives in the US multinational I work for have such degrees.  A fake Yale soccer player isn't going to be given a spot on the US National Team and a software company isn't going to hire someone to be a software engineer who doesn't know how to code.


----------



## End of the Line

Supermodel56 said:


> I absolutely think this is the right direction and if allowed, will send a strong enough message to end the corruption and perhaps even establish more transparency and oversight into the admissions process. Most of these schools have large enough endowments that a class action suit won't impact student fees, etc...  Too many kids worked so hard to earn their degrees and things like this definitely undermine and unfairly raise questions to their achievements.


Relax.  This class action lawsuit will be rightfully dismissed in short order. Universities do not break the law when one of their employees takes a bribe, and when they say they're the victim, they are.  You do know this lawsuit was filed by two Stanford students who claim that they were harmed because "I would have gone to Yale instead" and "my Stanford degree is now worth less."  This is utter b.s., and they are forcing universities to take money that could be used to provide services and spend it on attorneys, just so they and their bottom-feeding attorneys can line their own pockets.  And with respect to UCLA, that's your taxpayer dollars at work.

You are also completely over-reacting.  There are 700,000 students in the UC and CSU systems.  Of them, a grand total of one that we know about got into a CA public school based on this fraudulent scheme, yet you want to punish UCLA for the actions of a rogue employee?  Even the private schools did not receive a penny as a result of the scheme, and none are ok with what happened.  This scheme has nothing to do with "corruption" by institutions of higher learning.  Rather, it seems like you're just pissed and jealous that rich people get their children into schools like Yale by donating $10 million to the endowment.  But they deserve to get into Yale, because that money is very useful for those who aren't rich but who get in based on grades, test scores and real athletic merit.


----------



## broshark

SocalPapa said:


> One of my biggest pet peeves about this is the implication getting an undergraduate degree from a fancy college is all that it takes to be successful in life.  I happen to have one of those degrees and I can confirm it takes a helluva lot more than that.  Nor is it a prerequisite.  None of the senior executives in the US multinational I work for have such degrees.  A fake Yale soccer player isn't going to be given a spot on the US National Team and a software company isn't going to hire someone to be a software engineer who doesn't know how to code.



Yeah, there have never been graduating students from top schools hired without being fully qualified, lol.


----------



## Simisoccerfan

Sons of Pitches said:


> and so it begins, Class action Lawsuit against the Universities:
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/14/lawsuit-filed-against-eight-colleges-for-admission-bribery.html


Great, two kids and some lawyers trying to find a way to make some money or gain attention from this *serious* issue.   They are worried that when they graduate from STANFORD that some one might not given them the job they want or pay them less because of this scandal or they wasted $85 on their USC application?  Talk about first world problems.  This entire story is stunning but this latest twist is just plain ridiculous.


----------



## End of the Line

Simisoccerfan said:


> Great, two kids and some lawyers trying to find a way to make some money or gain attention from this *serious* issue.   They are worried that when they graduate from STANFORD that some one might not given them the job they want or pay them less because of this scandal or they wasted $85 on their USC application?  Talk about first world problems.  This entire story is stunning but this latest twist is just plain ridiculous.


Holy s**t.  Good advice from simisoccerfan.  Apparently hell is freezing over just like what will happen in CO in late April.


----------



## gefelchnik

End of the Line said:


> Relax.  This class action lawsuit will be rightfully dismissed in short order. Universities do not break the law when one of their employees takes a bribe, and when they say they're the victim, they are.  You do know this lawsuit was filed by two Stanford students who claim that they were harmed because "I would have gone to Yale instead" and "my Stanford degree is now worth less."  This is utter b.s., and they are forcing universities to take money that could be used to provide services and spend it on attorneys, just so they and their bottom-feeding attorneys can line their own pockets.  And with respect to UCLA, that's your taxpayer dollars at work.
> 
> You are also completely over-reacting.  There are 700,000 students in the UC and CSU systems.  Of them, a grand total of one that we know about got into a CA public school based on this fraudulent scheme, yet you want to punish UCLA for the actions of a rogue employee?  Even the private schools did not receive a penny as a result of the scheme, and none are ok with what happened.  This scheme has nothing to do with "corruption" by institutions of higher learning.  Rather, it seems like you're just pissed and jealous that rich people get their children into schools like Yale by donating $10 million to the endowment.  But they deserve to get into Yale, because that money is very useful for those who aren't rich but who get in based on grades, test scores and real athletic merit.


A agree with you, the lawsuit is weak mainly because it will be hard to prove any actual real damages.

I also agree the corruption wasn't with the schools, but with a few individuals.  

But I don't buy the schools saying they are the victims.  Admission to these schools, particularly the public ones, have been highly fought over for years.  Within this, these schools have set up a preferred admission track for kids who have other areas where they will contribute to the school (like athletics).  I think most of us agree this is great.

In setting that up though, the schools are responsible to make sure that their process provides the proper oversight so that scandals like this don't happen.  And in these cases, it doesn't seem that they have done this.  That is their responsibility to run an honest process.  And it's not like it would be too strenuous of a process to administer properly.


----------



## Lambchop

Fact said:


> What a joke to sue the Universities and thereby causing those students rightfully there more money.
> 
> I called it about a class action lawsuit but I think they should figure out a way to go after the wealthy parents that did the bribing and have money.


So interesting about the class action law suit.  So with 65,000 applicants to USC this last year, one students family cheated to get their daughter in, so which of the approximately 60,000 students who did not get in can prove they were the "one" who didn't make it because of that student. If you are that good of a student/athlete etc. you probably applied to 8 or 9 schools and got in one of your school choices.  A bigger problem that needs to be addressed is the number of international students, in the THOUSANDS, who inter US universities thus taking spots of US students.  Universities love international students because in most cases they pay all cash at a higher tuition rate than in state students.  How verified are their classes, transcripts, and schools??  The current charges are bad but the problem with international students is potentially far worse .  Certainly there are many qualified international students but with the large numbers I would imagine there are many, many who are not as qualified as US applicants.


----------



## End of the Line

gefelchnik said:


> A agree with you, the lawsuit is weak mainly because it will be hard to prove any actual real damages.
> 
> I also agree the corruption wasn't with the schools, but with a few individuals.
> 
> But I don't buy the schools saying they are the victims.  Admission to these schools, particularly the public ones, have been highly fought over for years.  Within this, these schools have set up a preferred admission track for kids who have other areas where they will contribute to the school (like athletics).  I think most of us agree this is great.
> 
> In setting that up though, the schools are responsible to make sure that their process provides the proper oversight so that scandals like this don't happen.  And in these cases, it doesn't seem that they have done this.  That is their responsibility to run an honest process.  And it's not like it would be too strenuous of a process to administer properly.


OK, how much more should UCLA have paid in salary and taxpayer dollars to hire additional auditors to have ensured in advance that this never  happened?  How much should UCLA pay in salary to additional staff to audit every other esoteric type of potential fraud to ensure it doesn't happen in advance?  Should they have been paying someone $50,000 a year to make sure that one person in history didn't slip through based on this particular kind of fraud?  Should it hire someone else to make sure this doesn't happen with the music or film departments?  And then multiply that number by every UC plus and at least Cal Poly.  That's just a waste of money.  Seriously, if you'd known that UCLA had been paying someone $50K a year to prevent this kind of fraud a year ago, when it could have been using that money on student services or a scholarship instead, you'd probably also be saying it was wasting money. 

The fact is that UCLA and other schools put a lot of money and effort into compliance and they can't catch everything, and that should not be the standard.  What you expect is perfect oversight, not appropriate oversight.


----------



## gefelchnik

It


End of the Line said:


> OK, how much more should UCLA have paid in salary and taxpayer dollars to hire additional auditors to have ensured in advance that this never  happened?  How much should UCLA pay in salary to additional staff to audit every other esoteric type of potential fraud to ensure it doesn't happen in advance?  Should they have been paying someone $50,000 a year to make sure that one person in history didn't slip through based on this particular kind of fraud?  Should it hire someone else to make sure this doesn't happen with the music or film departments?  And then multiply that number by every UC plus and at least Cal Poly.  That's just a waste of money.  Seriously, if you'd known that UCLA had been paying someone $50K a year to prevent this kind of fraud a year ago, when it could have been using that money on student services or a scholarship instead, you'd probably also be saying it was wasting money.
> 
> The fact is that UCLA and other schools put a lot of money and effort into compliance and they can't catch everything, and that should not be the standard.  What you expect is perfect oversight, not appropriate oversight.


It's a fair argument - and one that is often made when these things happen.  I don't know the answer.

But, I do know that this is the big reason that side doors get shut down - it happens in business all the time.  Too hard to regulate and control.

And I don't think any of us think that is a good idea.  So the bottom line is these schools need to do better and be less focused on claiming they are victims.


----------



## Supermodel56

End of the Line said:


> Relax.  This class action lawsuit will be rightfully dismissed in short order. Universities do not break the law when one of their employees takes a bribe, and when they say they're the victim, they are.  You do know this lawsuit was filed by two Stanford students who claim that they were harmed because "I would have gone to Yale instead" and "my Stanford degree is now worth less."  This is utter b.s., and they are forcing universities to take money that could be used to provide services and spend it on attorneys, just so they and their bottom-feeding attorneys can line their own pockets.  And with respect to UCLA, that's your taxpayer dollars at work.
> 
> You are also completely over-reacting.  There are 700,000 students in the UC and CSU systems.  Of them, a grand total of one that we know about got into a CA public school based on this fraudulent scheme, yet you want to punish UCLA for the actions of a rogue employee?  Even the private schools did not receive a penny as a result of the scheme, and none are ok with what happened.  This scheme has nothing to do with "corruption" by institutions of higher learning.  Rather, it seems like you're just pissed and jealous that rich people get their children into schools like Yale by donating $10 million to the endowment.  But they deserve to get into Yale, because that money is very useful for those who aren't rich but who get in based on grades, test scores and real athletic merit.


First off, we’re an Ivy household, we’re not among the super rich but we’ve got enough and have nothing to be jealous of, so get over yourself. 

Second, you’re assuming this is the only case. this case is just one of likely many... the fact that it’s gotten so much attention has implications - and you don’t need millions to bribe someone - so unless they actually start putting some oversight into this, it’s going to get worse. 

On the one hand, what’s the big deal right? The wealthy kids will always have an advantage - it’s the same reason we work hard, so we can provide better opportunities for our kids. 

However, if this doesn’t get nipped in the bud, it will explode. There needs to be integrity in the system and the rules of the game should be open to all. Otherwise, it will become THE WAY to get into college - bribe someone. As an example you will soon see clubs getting involved - using club funds to give kickbacks to college coaches so they can claim - look! Our entire graduating class through C teams is fully committed! Come play for Slammers, Surf, Beach, whatever...  

at some point, a DOC’s employment will depend on their ability to get players recruited and how far they’re willing to go. 

Am I against the wealthy donating a building to get their kid in? No. In fact, as a strong believer in free markets, one could even argue that spots at schools should go to not only the academically qualified, but the highest bidders among them - you’re paying for the  education and supporting the school why should you subsidize some other kids education? Start with those willing to pay the most and then go down from there.

But how is this case different? It brings into question who got in how. The benefit of a school name currently is twofold - one the network, but two it checks a figurative box that you’re somewhat intelligent, have a certain work ethic to get to where you were, etc... You had to do something that stands above the rest to get in. This undermines the credibility of the institution as well as the degree - there are damages that can be quantified.

The question is were the universities negligent by not setting up oversight? Was this type of behavior encouraged, did they look the other way? How prevalent was this?


----------



## Dos Equis

End of the Line said:


> OK, how much more should UCLA have paid in salary and taxpayer dollars to hire additional auditors to have ensured in advance that this never  happened?  How much should UCLA pay in salary to additional staff to audit every other esoteric type of potential fraud to ensure it doesn't happen in advance?
> 
> ...What you expect is perfect oversight, not appropriate oversight.


Can I answer, please?  I would pay ZERO, nothing, zilch additional $ for additional oversight.  The people that were already there (coaches, admissions staff, athletic department) failed to provide appropriate oversight, in many cases.  Yes, mistakes are made, no one is perfect, but they did not do their job.   For example ...

At USC, a non-kicker made the admit/walk-on list/roster for football.  I know several people who have played football at USC, including ones that were "walk-ons."  This list is a very closely controlled and monitored list by the coaching staff.  You do not accidentally end up there, or go unnoticed once on.

At UCLA, a non-recruited "soccer" player (I am being generous) received an athletic admit and was included in the women's soccer roster and media guide.  Those guides and rosters are edited and reviewed by multiple people including, in most cases, the coaching staff.  

Choose the explanation -- complicity or incompetence.  They failed to provide the appropriate oversight of their programs, or exhibited extremely poor judgment.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Lambchop said:


> So interesting about the class action law suit.  So with 65,000 applicants to USC this last year, one students family cheated to get their daughter in, so which of the approximately 60,000 students who did not get in can prove they were the "one" who didn't make it because of that student. If you are that good of a student/athlete etc. you probably applied to 8 or 9 schools and got in one of your school choices.  A bigger problem that needs to be addressed is the number of international students, in the THOUSANDS, who inter US universities thus taking spots of US students.  Universities love international students because in most cases they pay all cash at a higher tuition rate than in state students.  How verified are their classes, transcripts, and schools??  The current charges are bad but the problem with international students is potentially far worse .  Certainly there are many qualified international students but with the large numbers I would imagine there are many, many who are not as qualified as US applicants.


Maybe looking for a quick settlement?


----------



## oh canada

Doesn't matter if you're Mossimo or Donthavemo, if you're not around to raise your kids, something or someone else will.  

And I'm no pious person, but imo the secularization of this country is a contributing factor to its growing immorality.  This ordeal could be Exhibit A.


----------



## Supermodel56

End of the Line said:


> OK, how much more should UCLA have paid in salary and taxpayer dollars to hire additional auditors to have ensured in advance that this never  happened?  How much should UCLA pay in salary to additional staff to audit every other esoteric type of potential fraud to ensure it doesn't happen in advance?  Should they have been paying someone $50,000 a year to make sure that one person in history didn't slip through based on this particular kind of fraud?  Should it hire someone else to make sure this doesn't happen with the music or film departments?  And then multiply that number by every UC plus and at least Cal Poly.  That's just a waste of money.  Seriously, if you'd known that UCLA had been paying someone $50K a year to prevent this kind of fraud a year ago, when it could have been using that money on student services or a scholarship instead, you'd probably also be saying it was wasting money.
> 
> The fact is that UCLA and other schools put a lot of money and effort into compliance and they can't catch everything, and that should not be the standard.  What you expect is perfect oversight, not appropriate oversight.



As with any organization, this kind of oversight is not so much a position (unless they hire an auditor - which is overkill) but establishing policies and an approval chain so there’s accountability. I mean it’s good that coaches have the authority to make these decisions but if you add a layer or two of approvals, it at least makes it more complicated to implement any type of scheme.

Re: lawsuit - most colleges have insurance that will cover suits like these and more than likely if they can make a decent enough case they’ll settle out of court. Insurance companies on the flipside will start requiring the processes and oversight in place or charge higher premiums.


----------



## Glen

Supermodel56 said:


> As with any organization, this kind of oversight is not so much a position (unless they hire an auditor - which is overkill) but establishing policies and an approval chain so there’s accountability. I mean it’s good that coaches have the authority to make these decisions but if you add a layer or two of approvals, it at least makes it more complicated to implement any type of scheme.
> 
> Re: lawsuit - most colleges have insurance that will cover suits like these and more than likely if they can make a decent enough case they’ll settle out of court. Insurance companies on the flipside will start requiring the processes and oversight in place or charge higher premiums.


Wasn't the admissions department another layer?  At UCLA, they required the girl to be rostered for at least a year to be enrolled.  Naturally, the admissions department assumed that the coach would have incentive to recruit legit players to make the team better.  They didn't anticipate that, as schools began to allow rosters to balloon, coaches would sell off the last few spots on the team.  It's a pretty easy fix.


----------



## soccerobserver

Here is the domino that fell first...he wore a wire for a meeting in which he was allegedly solicited for a bribe by Yale women's soccer head coach.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/14/meet-the-finance-fraudster-who-blew-the-lid-off-the-college-admissions-scandal/


----------



## Supermodel56

Glen said:


> Wasn't the admissions department another layer?  At UCLA, they required the girl to be rostered for at least a year to be enrolled.  Naturally, the admissions department assumed that the coach would have incentive to recruit legit players to make the team better.  They didn't anticipate that, as schools began to allow rosters to balloon, coaches would sell off the last few spots on the team.  It's a pretty easy fix.


Yeah, there’s a chance coaches may not have as many verbal commits to give? They have to have more than their roster - take for example, coach offers athlete when she/he’s in 8th-9th grade, but then athlete gets injured or declines in talent. That kid will still get to attend the school (no scholarship money)... but he will still have to fill that roster spot.


----------



## SocalPapa

I would think seeing these prominent parents get arrested and having their careers destroyed is a pretty good deterrent.  But in any event, shutting down this particular athlete scam doesn't seem all that difficult.  You can task the admissions office with directly and independently verifying the applicant's participation in any sport (similar to the way they might verify a high school transcript) before finalizing any offer of admission in which an athletic recommendation is taken into account.  The key to good due diligence is never to rely on just one person/type of source.  Further, all athletics coaches (or anyone else entitled to make an internal recommendation upon which admissions might relay) should be required to file a disclosure form with the admissions office identifying all financial and/or personal connections with any athletics organization outside of the college.   The form should be required to be submitted before they are hired and updated quarterly thereafter.


----------



## soccerobserver

From the Wall Street Journal the account of the  person who wore a wire to start the investigation:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-yale-dad-who-set-off-the-college-admissions-scandal-11552588402?shareToken=stba4ad429429542f3bd7f15ad769daddb


----------



## eastbaysoccer

guessing  most of these parents do not spend time behind bars.  Charge them with a felony, leaving a spot on their record, give them community service at the the university, expel their kids and fine each the max 250k.   Most of them will be let go by their companies anyway.


----------



## Supermodel56

SocalPapa said:


> I would think seeing these prominent parents get arrested and having their careers destroyed is a pretty good deterrent.  But in any event, shutting down this particular athlete scam doesn't seem all that difficult.  You can task the admissions office with directly and independently verifying the applicant's participation in any sport (similar to the way they might verify a high school transcript) before finalizing any offer of admission in which an athletic recommendation is taken into account.  The key to good due diligence is never to rely on just one person/type of source.  Further, all athletics coaches (or anyone else entitled to make an internal recommendation upon which admissions might relay) should be required to file a disclosure form with the admissions office identifying all financial and/or personal connections with any athletics organization outside of the college.   The form should be required to be submitted before they are hired and updated quarterly thereafter.


The parents likely won’t get jail time... most likely a hefty fine and community service. What they should do is rescind their diplomas.


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> Yeah, there’s a chance coaches may not have as many verbal commits to give? They have to have more than their roster - take for example, coach offers athlete when she/he’s in 8th-9th grade, but then athlete gets injured or declines in talent. That kid will still get to attend the school (no scholarship money)... but he will still have to fill that roster spot.


Verbal commits aren't worth the paper they aren't written on, and thus cost the coach nothing.


----------



## Lambchop

Dos Equis said:


> Can I answer, please?  I would pay ZERO, nothing, zilch additional $ for additional oversight.  The people that were already there (coaches, admissions staff, athletic department) failed to provide appropriate oversight, in many cases.  Yes, mistakes are made, no one is perfect, but they did not do their job.   For example ...
> 
> At USC, a non-kicker made the admit/walk-on list/roster for football.  I know several people who have played football at USC, including ones that were "walk-ons."  This list is a very closely controlled and monitored list by the coaching staff.  You do not accidentally end up there, or go unnoticed once on.
> 
> At UCLA, a non-recruited "soccer" player (I am being generous) received an athletic admit and was included in the women's soccer roster and media guide.  Those guides and rosters are edited and reviewed by multiple people including, in most cases, the coaching staff.
> 
> Choose the explanation -- complicity or incompetence.  They failed to provide the appropriate oversight of their programs, or exhibited extremely poor judgment.


Again, more oversight should also go into the THOUSANDS of accepted international students across the US.  How closely are their schools, classes, grades, tests  and transcripts checked.  They are big money for the universities and take up thousands of spots that could have been filled by US students!


----------



## End of the Line

SocalPapa said:


> I would think seeing these prominent parents get arrested and having their careers destroyed is a pretty good deterrent.  But in any event, shutting down this particular athlete scam doesn't seem all that difficult.  You can task the admissions office with directly and independently verifying the applicant's participation in any sport (similar to the way they might verify a high school transcript) before finalizing any offer of admission in which an athletic recommendation is taken into account.  The key to good due diligence is never to rely on just one person/type of source.  Further, all athletics coaches (or anyone else entitled to make an internal recommendation upon which admissions might relay) should be required to file a disclosure form with the admissions office identifying all financial and/or personal connections with any athletics organization outside of the college.   The form should be required to be submitted before they are hired and updated quarterly thereafter.


Filling out forms isn't going to stop someone who is taking bribes.  Also, the admission's office verifying participation in a sport doesn't help with women's soccer.  USSF doesn't let the girls play HS and, as was shown by the former USC coach, he ran a comp club that did verify participation.

OMG, I just realized this is much bigger than the conspiracy that supermodel56 claims it to be.  This isn't just about a cabal of rich people, elite universities (plus Wake Forest), and soccer DOCs working together to sabotage college sports programs and subjugate the middle and lower class.  US Soccer must also be involved.  Now we finally have an explanation for the GDA's HS ban that makes sense.


----------



## Supermodel56

espola said:


> Verbal commits aren't worth the paper they aren't written on, and thus cost the coach nothing.


I can’t say I know from first hand re:this... however, from most sources I’ve read, while not legally binding in any way, it seems like most coaches honor their verbal commits - at worst case they will let the kid attend the school even if they lose the scholarship dollars or don’t make team roster. True?


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> I can’t say I know from first hand re:this... however, from most sources I’ve read, while not legally binding in any way, it seems like most coaches honor their verbal commits - at worst case they will let the kid attend the school even if they lose the scholarship dollars or don’t make team roster. True?


Would you consider a coach honorable if he is selling spots on his roster?

Question #2 - now that we know that the count of dishonorable coaches is higher than zero, how high is it?


----------



## Dos Equis

Supermodel56 said:


> I can’t say I know from first hand re:this... however, from most sources I’ve read, while not legally binding in any way, it seems like most coaches honor their verbal commits - at worst case they will let the kid attend the school even if they lose the scholarship dollars or don’t make team roster. True?


Met the founder and former President of one the the most prestigious clubs in East Coast last year at a non-soccer event. Had two kids verbally committed to Ivy League schools.  Coaches both left/replaced before their senior year in HS.  Commits not honored by new coaches.

Verbal commits . . .  keep demonstrating interest to other schools, keep studying for SAT/ACT, keep up the grades and AP courses. Keep working hard and improving on the field.  You are one bad season, one better offer, or one ethically challenged coach away from having nothing. 

On the later, we all know a few coaches with issues. Is it worth the risk?


----------



## espola

San Diego connection to the business, via Las Vegas --

An affidavit in support of a criminal complaint, unsealed Tuesday, alleges that Elisabeth Kimmel “participated in the college recruitment scheme by conspiring to use bribery to facilitate her daughter’s admission to Georgetown as a purported tennis recruit, and her son’s admission to USC as a purported track recruit.”

Her daughter graduated from Georgetown in 2017 but was never a member of the tennis team, according to the document.

Her son — who is not on the USC track team — received an email from an adviser ahead of the fall semester, asking about USC track practice. The son assumed it was a mistake and was generally “unaware of the circumstances surrounding his admission to USC,” according to the affidavit.​https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/las-vegas-woman-among-parents-charged-in-college-bribery-scheme-1616558/


----------



## Supermodel56

Dos Equis said:


> Met the founder and former President of one the the most prestigious clubs in East Coast last year at a non-soccer event. Had two kids verbally committed to Ivy League schools.  Coaches both left/replaced before their senior year in HS.  Commits not honored by new coaches.
> 
> Verbal commits . . .  keep demonstrating interest to other schools, keep studying for SAT/ACT, keep up the grades and AP courses. Keep working hard and improving on the field.  You are one bad season, one better offer, or one ethically challenged coach away from having nothing.
> 
> On the later, we all know a few coaches with issues. Is it worth the risk?


Absolutely, makes sense - agree with gotta keep everything up.  I recognize that when coaches leave, all bets are definitely off. Just curious if it's the same coach, how many keep their verbal commits - even if they decide to change direction... so lets say coach lands a better player or you game declines after he verbally committed to you? Do they usually still let you attend the school but w/o scholarship money (if any was discussed?)

The other thing, if you verbally commit, how do you demonstrate interest to other schools without offending the school you "committed" to? I thought that was a big no-no and reflects poorly?


----------



## Dos Equis

Supermodel56 said:


> Absolutely, makes sense - agree with gotta keep everything up.  I recognize that when coaches leave, all bets are definitely off. Just curious if it's the same coach, how many keep their verbal commits - even if they decide to change direction... so lets say coach lands a better player or you game declines after he verbally committed to you? Do they usually still let you attend the school but w/o scholarship money (if any was discussed?)
> 
> The other thing, if you verbally commit, how do you demonstrate interest to other schools without offending the school you "committed" to? I thought that was a big no-no and reflects poorly?


The interest is with the college -- keep up the admissions visits, the tours, fill out required forms and go to their local receptions like a normal applicant.  If your status changes late, you will likely be a normal applicant like everyone else, and with luck a soccer coach may be able to put in a good word with admissions.

If a player commits early, then their dedication to soccer/fitness/school declines, that player has failed to live up to their side of the deal, and should have no expectations.  My child's future college coach warned her that they would monitor her over the months (years) between her commit and final signing,  She had to maintain her grades and her fitness if she expected to sign.


----------



## Supermodel56

Dos Equis said:


> The interest is with the college -- keep up the admissions visits, the tours, fill out required forms and go to their local receptions like a normal applicant.  If your status changes late, you will likely be a normal applicant like everyone else, and with luck a soccer coach may be able to put in a good word with admissions.
> 
> If a player commits early, then their dedication to soccer/fitness/school declines, that player has failed to live up to their side of the deal, and should have no expectations.  My child's future college coach warned her that they would monitor her over the months (years) between her commit and final signing,  She had to maintain her grades and her fitness if she expected to sign.


Totally get that, not talking about a kid slacking. Obviously needs to keep everything up - just referring to things beyond their control. 

To me it would seem like the benefit of early verbal commits is that you can now just focus on what you do without the stress of not knowing where you’ll end up. It’s much different already knowing you’ve landed somewhere and just focusing on your work through HS vs. the added stress of  the unknown and having to market yourself keep reaching out to coaches, etc...  If my DD can spend her weekends and breaks focusing on her school projects and training instead of going on school visits or to more ID camps, that would be wonderful.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

*Celebrities Phil Mickelson, Joe Montana say they used Singer's help to get kids into school*


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Supermodel56 said:


> Absolutely, makes sense - agree with gotta keep everything up.  I recognize that when coaches leave, all bets are definitely off. Just curious if it's the same coach, how many keep their verbal commits - even if they decide to change direction... so lets say coach lands a better player or you game declines after he verbally committed to you? Do they usually still let you attend the school but w/o scholarship money (if any was discussed?)
> 
> The other thing, if you verbally commit, how do you demonstrate interest to other schools without offending the school you "committed" to? I thought that was a big no-no and reflects poorly?


This is why I hated the verbal commit.  No verbals commits until spring of junior year IMO.  This would be better for the player and the coaches.


----------



## Real Deal

eastbaysoccer said:


> This is why I hated the verbal commit.  No verbals commits until spring of junior year IMO.  This would be better for the player and the coaches.


That's ridiculously late.  The vast majority of verbal commits are honored by both parties, but especially by the coaches.  Who would commit to a coach/program if they had a track record of going back on their word for reasons other than academics?

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  Looks like more schools and programs will be entangled in this mess.  Sad.


----------



## Supermodel56

eastbaysoccer said:


> *Celebrities Phil Mickelson, Joe Montana say they used Singer's help to get kids into school*


Yeah, but just for tutoring - not bribes.  Smart to get ahead of it... at least let’s hope that’s all it was.


----------



## SocalPapa

Supermodel56 said:


> The parents likely won’t get jail time... most likely a hefty fine and community service. What they should do is rescind their diplomas.


Didn't say they'd get jail time.  But careers are destroyed and that will cost these parents millions.  Law firm's chairman on leave (likely out), actors fired, etc.  



End of the Line said:


> Filling out forms isn't going to stop someone who is taking bribes.  Also, the admission's office verifying participation in a sport doesn't help with women's soccer.  USSF doesn't let the girls play HS and, as was shown by the former USC coach, he ran a comp club that did verify participation.


Never said verification would be limited to high school teams (how many high schools offer sailing?).  Plus, as I said, each coach would be required to disclose financial/other interests in athletics organizations up front (before they are hired).  Admissions would therefore know up front that the coach runs the club.  Failing to disclose/update a disclosure would be a fireable offense in and of itself.  Makes it more difficult for any one person to control the flow of info.  

Nothing is 100% perfect and this could all be refined, but "filling out forms," as you would call it, is used all the time in my line of work (finance) to help limit fraud.  It works.


----------



## espola

SocalPapa said:


> Didn't say they'd get jail time.  But careers are destroyed and that will cost these parents millions.  Law firm's chairman on leave (likely out), actors fired, etc.
> 
> 
> Never said verification would be limited to high school teams (how many high schools offer sailing?).  Plus, as I said, each coach would be required to disclose financial/other interests in athletics organizations up front (before they are hired).  Admissions would therefore know up front that the coach runs the club.  Failing to disclose/update a disclosure would be a fireable offense in and of itself.  Makes it more difficult for any one person to control the flow of info.
> 
> Nothing is 100% perfect and this could all be refined, but "filling out forms," as you would call it, is used all the time in my line of work (finance) to help limit fraud.  It works.


Filling out forms and attesting to the truth of the information entered makes the signor liable to perjury charges and the like.


----------



## messy

Real Deal said:


> That's ridiculously late.  The vast majority of verbal commits are honored by both parties, but especially by the coaches.  Who would commit to a coach/program if they had a track record of going back on their word for reasons other than academics?
> 
> Anyway, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  Looks like more schools and programs will be entangled in this mess.  Sad.


Hundreds of families used this guy. How many more used his “cheating” advice???


----------



## espola

messy said:


> Hundreds of families used this guy. How many more used his “cheating” advice???


One bit of cheating that might be untraceable was his advice to fake a learning disability and thus get more time to take the standardized tests.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

messy said:


> Hundreds of families used this guy. How many more used his “cheating” advice???


“Follow the money” and where their kids took the SAT/ACT. If they took it in Hollywood or Texas then I’d say chances are high that something is up.


----------



## push_up

espola said:


> One bit of cheating that might be untraceable was his advice to fake a learning disability and thus get more time to take the standardized tests.


I would put money on MAP's wife being involved in some way.  I think someone mentioned that she was a school psychologist.


----------



## soccerobserver

Here is a Parent who turned down the offer in 2011...saved himself a lot of headaches and other problems !

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/15/college-admissions-fraudster-rick-singer-pitched-dad-on-scam.html


----------



## soccerobserver

USC Athletic Director, in his first public comments about the admissions scandal, gives the details of the morning he found out...very interesting blow by blow details ...in particular he explained how the admin hid the new recruits from the coaches...

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-lynn-swann-usc-20190315-story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+latimes/sports/college/usc+(L.A.+Times+-+USC+Trojans)


----------



## ChalkOnYourBoots

soccerobserver said:


> Here is a Parent who turned down the offer in 2011...saved himself a lot of headaches and other problems !
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/15/college-admissions-fraudster-rick-singer-pitched-dad-on-scam.html


I read the article twice to make sure I didn't miss anything...
*This dad got pitched by college admissions fraudster Rick Singer — but said no to the scam*

So does "This dad" want an achievement award? It is pretty symptomatic of the CNBC crowd and our society in general. It seems, 'snitches get stitches' in the 1%'s world as much as they do in the poorest communities. 

What exactly did this privileged a-hole do in 2011 to help make the world a little bit safer a little more fair for the rest of us. Maybe there will be a part 2 to this article where a reporter thinks to ask the guy "what did you do?" and he'll go on to explain how he went to the authorities but no one listened. I doubt it happened that way.

Think of how many hundreds of other people got the same pitch, didn't bite, but didn't do anything more. It took a guy already in Federal prison to 'rat-out' Rudy Meridith to get this whole ball rolling.

America has lost its damn mind. There is no such thing as shame anymore. I gotta get mine.


----------



## messy

ChalkOnYourBoots said:


> I read the article twice to make sure I didn't miss anything...
> *This dad got pitched by college admissions fraudster Rick Singer — but said no to the scam*
> 
> So does "This dad" want an achievement award? It is pretty symptomatic of the CNBC crowd and our society in general. It seems, 'snitches get stitches' in the 1%'s world as much as they do in the poorest communities.
> 
> What exactly did this privileged a-hole do in 2011 to help make the world a little bit safer a little more fair for the rest of us. Maybe there will be a part 2 to this article where a reporter thinks to ask the guy "what did you do?" and he'll go on to explain how he went to the authorities but no one listened. I doubt it happened that way.
> 
> Think of how many hundreds of other people got the same pitch, didn't bite, but didn't do anything more. It took a guy already in Federal prison to 'rat-out' Rudy Meridith to get this whole ball rolling.
> 
> America has lost its damn mind. There is no such thing as shame anymore. I gotta get mine.


Not quite sure of your beef. He’s doing it anonymously so he’s not taking credit for this...just sharing a story for the 24-hour news cycle. What am I missing?


----------



## ChalkOnYourBoots

So he has a greater obligation/desire to help his buddies at CNBC feed their machine than helping the masses chasing the higher education carrot who are already disadvantaged in that race?

My post is less of a beef with "this dad", on one level he did do the right thing. It is more an observation on all of us. Yes, we all want to look out for our kids and see that they have the best lives possible... but at what cost. This guy was able to do this for almost ten years without anyone turning him in. "This dad" and hundreds of others made the right decision to not participate in his schemes, and many of them will now recount how they turned him down and are very proud that they held to their morals and didn't bite.

However, it seems this guy and the hundreds of others thought that was their only responsibility. Our sense of what is right and what is wrong, and what to do when we see others cheating seems to be at an all time low.

The fact that you (and I'm sure many others) might not get that from my first post is kind of my point, and why we should all try harder to look out for each other.

*this is a bit off the general topic of soccer, so I'll let it go after this post. Thanks for considering my rant.


----------



## espola

ChalkOnYourBoots said:


> I read the article twice to make sure I didn't miss anything...
> *This dad got pitched by college admissions fraudster Rick Singer — but said no to the scam*
> 
> So does "This dad" want an achievement award? It is pretty symptomatic of the CNBC crowd and our society in general. It seems, 'snitches get stitches' in the 1%'s world as much as they do in the poorest communities.
> 
> What exactly did this privileged a-hole do in 2011 to help make the world a little bit safer a little more fair for the rest of us. Maybe there will be a part 2 to this article where a reporter thinks to ask the guy "what did you do?" and he'll go on to explain how he went to the authorities but no one listened. I doubt it happened that way.
> 
> Think of how many hundreds of other people got the same pitch, didn't bite, but didn't do anything more. It took a guy already in Federal prison to 'rat-out' Rudy Meridith to get this whole ball rolling.
> 
> America has lost its damn mind. There is no such thing as shame anymore. I gotta get mine.


What is the "CNBC crowd"?


----------



## Supermodel56

soccerobserver said:


> USC Athletic Director, in his first public comments about the admissions scandal, gives the details of the morning he found out...very interesting blow by blow details ...in particular he explained how the admin hid the new recruits from the coaches...
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-lynn-swann-usc-20190315-story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+latimes/sports/college/usc+(L.A.+Times+-+USC+Trojans)


Thanks for posting this... the crazy thing is that while it happened at multiple levels, it does seem like it ultimately came down to individuals that were simply given too much power - with no accountability... 

To me, what comes to mind is, I'm betting that outside of this, these were otherwise fairly good people who rarely got into trouble otherwise - their biggest downfall was their inability to say "No." Rick likely pitched it off to them as a favor, not a big deal and they were doing good by helping some kid out. They didn't want to feel uncool or like a jerk. I doubt they got themselves into this mess looking for ways to make an extra buck, rather I bet it was Rick who approached them. If anything at all, this is a good lesson on teaching our kids the power of "No." "No, I'm not gonna do that.",  "No thanks. ", etc... and the confidence to ignore how uncool it may seem at the time.


----------



## soccerobserver

ChalkOnYourBoots said:


> So he has a greater obligation/desire to help his buddies at CNBC feed their machine than helping the masses chasing the higher education carrot who are already disadvantaged in that race?
> 
> My post is less of a beef with "this dad", on one level he did do the right thing. It is more an observation on all of us. Yes, we all want to look out for our kids and see that they have the best lives possible... but at what cost. This guy was able to do this for almost ten years without anyone turning him in. "This dad" and hundreds of others made the right decision to not participate in his schemes, and many of them will now recount how they turned him down and are very proud that they held to their morals and didn't bite.
> 
> However, it seems this guy and the hundreds of others thought that was their only responsibility. Our sense of what is right and what is wrong, and what to do when we see others cheating seems to be at an all time low.
> 
> The fact that you (and I'm sure many others) might not get that from my first post is kind of my point, and why we should all try harder to look out for each other.
> 
> *this is a bit off the general topic of soccer, so I'll let it go after this post. Thanks for considering my rant.



I was impressed by the HS college counselor at the high school who flagged the false information and met with the family to confront the fake rowing profile. He then documented that the family assured him personally that the student was a coxswain who worked with a European rowing team. 

I think that was brave of the counselor to confront a massively wealthy family. They could have threatened his job if he went any further. Not everyone can afford to be a whistleblower.


----------



## messy

ChalkOnYourBoots said:


> So he has a greater obligation/desire to help his buddies at CNBC feed their machine than helping the masses chasing the higher education carrot who are already disadvantaged in that race?
> 
> My post is less of a beef with "this dad", on one level he did do the right thing. It is more an observation on all of us. Yes, we all want to look out for our kids and see that they have the best lives possible... but at what cost. This guy was able to do this for almost ten years without anyone turning him in. "This dad" and hundreds of others made the right decision to not participate in his schemes, and many of them will now recount how they turned him down and are very proud that they held to their morals and didn't bite.
> 
> However, it seems this guy and the hundreds of others thought that was their only responsibility. Our sense of what is right and what is wrong, and what to do when we see others cheating seems to be at an all time low.
> 
> The fact that you (and I'm sure many others) might not get that from my first post is kind of my point, and why we should all try harder to look out for each other.
> 
> *this is a bit off the general topic of soccer, so I'll let it go after this post. Thanks for considering my rant.


Now I get it. Thanks. I would have ratted that fucker out nine ways from Sunday if he had tried that with me.


----------



## Surfref

espola said:


> What is the "CNBC crowd"?


The liberals from east Poway


----------



## Lion Eyes

SocalPapa said:


> Didn't say they'd get jail time.  But careers are destroyed and that will cost these parents millions.  Law firm's chairman on leave (likely out), actors fired, etc.
> 
> 
> Never said verification would be limited to high school teams (how many high schools offer sailing?).  Plus, as I said, each coach would be required to disclose financial/other interests in athletics organizations up front (before they are hired).  Admissions would therefore know up front that the coach runs the club.  Failing to disclose/update a disclosure would be a fireable offense in and of itself.  Makes it more difficult for any one person to control the flow of info.
> 
> Nothing is 100% perfect and this could all be refined, but "filling out forms," as you would call it, is used all the time in my line of work (finance) to help limit fraud.  It works.


Who knew?
Apparently there is a Interscholastic Sailing Association....
"The Interscholastic Sailing Association (ISSA) governs secondary school sailing in the United States, in both independent and public high schools. Sailor eligibility starts at the ninth grade; there are no age limits. As in college sailing, there are seven district associations which schedule events, as well as a system of national championships. While ISSA had its origins in the preparatory schools of the Northeast in 1930, it is now a nationwide organization with active districts in Northeast (NESSA), Mid-Atlantic (MASSA), South Atlantic (SAISA), Southeast (SEISA), Midwest (MISSA), Pacific Coast (PCISA), and Northwest (NWISA)."
https://hssailing.org/about/overview


----------



## espola

Surfref said:


> The liberals from east Poway


I think you mean south Poway.  The easterners are all old cowboys, or fake cowboys like the Mayor.


----------



## espola

Lion Eyes said:


> Who knew?
> Apparently there is a Interscholastic Sailing Association....
> "The Interscholastic Sailing Association (ISSA) governs secondary school sailing in the United States, in both independent and public high schools. Sailor eligibility starts at the ninth grade; there are no age limits. As in college sailing, there are seven district associations which schedule events, as well as a system of national championships. While ISSA had its origins in the preparatory schools of the Northeast in 1930, it is now a nationwide organization with active districts in Northeast (NESSA), Mid-Atlantic (MASSA), South Atlantic (SAISA), Southeast (SEISA), Midwest (MISSA), Pacific Coast (PCISA), and Northwest (NWISA)."
> https://hssailing.org/about/overview


And Point Loma HS rules!

https://scores.hssailing.org/s19/pcisa-gaucho-gold/

But it's not a CIF sport, so no one has heard of it except the participants and their families.


----------



## Surfref

espola said:


> I think you mean south Poway.  The easterners are all old cowboys, or fake cowboys like the Mayor.


Buddy, my post was meant as sarcasm.


----------



## espola

Surfref said:


> Buddy, my post was meant as sarcasm.


So was mine, but it was sad during my time living in Poway to watch the politics of fear and greed take over the City Council.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Sad.

Operation Varsity Blues scam artist faked students’ race, ethnicities


One little tidbit from the FBI and DOJ’s investigation known as Operation Varsity Blues that hasn’t received much attention is the fact that William “Rick” Singer gamed affirmative action consideration to get the students into college. The con artist faked the racial and ethnic identification of students in the pay for play college admissions scandal. In other words, Singer was following the example of Elizabeth “Fauxchahontas” Warren when submitting college applications for the children of the wealthy and connected.
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/17/operation-varsity-blues-scam-artist-faked-students-race-ethnicities/


----------



## Zerodenero

Sheriff Joe said:


> Sad.
> 
> Operation Varsity Blues scam artist faked students’ race, ethnicities
> 
> 
> One little tidbit from the FBI and DOJ’s investigation known as Operation Varsity Blues that hasn’t received much attention is the fact that William “Rick” Singer gamed affirmative action consideration to get the students into college. The con artist faked the racial and ethnic identification of students in the pay for play college admissions scandal. In other words, Singer was following the example of Elizabeth “Fauxchahontas” Warren when submitting college applications for the children of the wealthy and connected.
> https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/17/operation-varsity-blues-scam-artist-faked-students-race-ethnicities/


“You can fool some people sometimes,
But you couldn't fool all the people all the time”

Bob Marley,


----------



## sirfootyalot

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ucla-admissions-soccer-recruit-20190319-story.html


----------



## Sons of Pitches

sirfootyalot said:


> https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ucla-admission


Why is Amanda Cromwell still coaching?  If this was a men's footballl coach he would have been fired the day the story broke!    She "hid" a player on her roster.  She had to know the player was there, the player was issued a uniform number.  The player was in the media guide.  Amanda Cromwell is the CEO of the Women's Soccer Program and needs to be held accountable.


----------



## Supermodel56

sirfootyalot said:


> https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ucla-admissions-soccer-recruit-20190319-story.html


“Singer, who began cooperating with the government in a bid for leniency, called Isackson’s parents in September.”

Talk about a piece of work! For leniency, this guy sold out all the parents he solicited!


----------



## Glen

Sheriff Joe said:


> Sad.
> 
> Operation Varsity Blues scam artist faked students’ race, ethnicities
> 
> 
> One little tidbit from the FBI and DOJ’s investigation known as Operation Varsity Blues that hasn’t received much attention is the fact that William “Rick” Singer gamed affirmative action consideration to get the students into college. The con artist faked the racial and ethnic identification of students in the pay for play college admissions scandal. In other words, Singer was following the example of Elizabeth “Fauxchahontas” Warren when submitting college applications for the children of the wealthy and connected.
> https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/17/operation-varsity-blues-scam-artist-faked-students-race-ethnicities/


I read this too.  Apparently some of the kids were of Asian decent, but Singer claimed they were Caucasian so it would be much easier for them to get in.  Singer also was clever in capitalizing on the white man's affirmative action programs (sailing, tennis, and crew).


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Sons of Pitches said:


> Why is Amanda Cromwell still coaching?  If this was a men's footballl coach he would have been fired the day the story broke!    She "hid" a player on her roster.  She had to know the player was there, the player was issued a uniform number.  The player was in the media guide.  Amanda Cromwell is the CEO of the Women's Soccer Program and needs to be held accountable.


I wonder if they might try to pin this on Josh Walters? I’m not in any way shape or form saying he did it, but if you’re already acting unethically and want to avoid the heat, blame it on somebody who isn’t there anymore. Timing would be perfect. Just a thought.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Glen said:


> I read this too.  Apparently some of the kids were of Asian decent, but Singer claimed they were Caucasian so it would be much easier for them to get in.  Singer also was clever in capitalizing on the white man's affirmative action programs (sailing, tennis, and crew).


Huh? If you wanted to “grease the skids” of admissions from an affirmative action standpoint, wouldn’t you list your race as *anything* but White?


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Supermodel56 said:


> “Singer, who began cooperating with the government in a bid for leniency, called Isackson’s parents in September.”
> 
> Talk about a piece of work! For leniency, this guy sold out all the parents he solicited!


That’s precisely what dirt bags do. Once your dirtbaggery is discovered, sell everybody else out.


----------



## Glen

SpeedK1llz said:


> Huh? If you wanted to “grease the skids” of admissions from an affirmative action standpoint, wouldn’t you list your race as *anything* but White?


Are you kidding?


----------



## gefelchnik

SpeedK1llz said:


> I wonder if they might try to pin this on Josh Walters? I’m not in any way shape or form saying he did it, but if you’re already acting unethically and want to avoid the heat, blame it on somebody who isn’t there anymore. Timing would be perfect. Just a thought.


Given the fbi has the men’s coach who they will highly motivate to be honest (and will know all the details of how this was done), I think that whatever the truth is will come out shortly.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Glen said:


> Are you kidding?


I think you read the article wrong (or didn't read it at all):

_"So, not only did the college applications contain phony photoshopped photographs of the students participating in sports and activities but the applications also used racial and ethnic quota considerations to move the students forward in the process."_

Singer changed the applicants race *from *white to that of another race that would be considered advantageous under racial and ethic consideration.


----------



## Glen

SpeedK1llz said:


> I think you read the article wrong (or didn't read it at all):
> 
> _"So, not only did the college applications contain phony photoshopped photographs of the students participating in sports and activities but the applications also used racial and ethnic quota considerations to move the students forward in the process."_
> 
> Singer changed the applicants race *from *white to that of another race that would be considered advantageous under racial and ethic consideration.


Singer moving a kid from Asian to White would be considered advantageous under racial and ethnic consideration.  That's pretty well-known, so I thought you were joking.  Where does it say in the article that he moved a kid from White to another race?  The DOJ didn't provide any of those details.


----------



## soccerobserver

gefelchnik said:


> Given the fbi has the men’s coach who they will highly motivate to be honest (and will know all the details of how this was done), I think that whatever the truth is will come out shortly.


Just a guess but I imagine involved folks have engaged counsel and  are negotiating and trying to reduce their risk and liability for whatever happened. Once the negotiations are completed then I would think  an announcement will be made.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Glen said:


> Singer moving a kid from Asian to White would be considered advantageous under racial and ethnic consideration.  That's pretty well-known, so I thought you were joking.  Where does it say in the article that he moved a kid from White to another race?  The DOJ didn't provide any of those details.


Nor does it state anywhere that a kid was "moved from Asian to White". As for my statement otherwise, I made an educated guess...

_"Affirmative action policies are those in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society."_

Since when have white people been _"historically excluded"_? Plus, haven't the majority of families caught up in this scandal been white?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

SpeedK1llz said:


> Nor does it state anywhere that a kid was "moved from Asian to White". As for my statement otherwise, I made an educated guess...
> 
> _"Affirmative action policies are those in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society."_
> 
> Since when have white people been _"historically excluded"_? Plus, haven't the majority of families caught up in this scandal been white?


Too many Asians in the Ivy's.
Anti-Asian Bias, Not Affirmative Action, Is on Trial in the Harvard Case
The New Yorker
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/anti-asian-bias-not-affirmative-action-is-on-trial-in-the-harvard-case/amp&ved=2ahUKEwjqqrazzY_hAhVHT6wKHYw2Av8QFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3eTekupUi-hrFMdw1KQhRt&ampcf=1


----------



## eastbaysoccer

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ucla-admissions-soccer-recruit-20190319-story.html?outputType=amp

Just read this story.  Looks bad for Cromwell.  I don’t think she survives this as the CEO of the team.  So the athletic director can fire himself or Cromwell.   You pick.


----------



## tenacious

Wow... just saw they put the pic of #41 on the cover of the LA Times. I’m really a bit blown away by that.  MAP, you’re smarter and more successful then me, but the well has been poisoned. Get your kid out of there.   (That’s as much as I don’t know).

Also from they way they did Cromwell in that article... leaving her flapping out in the wind- she’s a goner. No way squeaky clean UCLA goes to war with the LATimes over this, and plainly the Times is itching for a fight even if they aren’t yet ready to print the whole story. At least for her sake she can head to Europe and coach pro soccer for a few years til thing blow over.


----------



## gefelchnik

eastbaysoccer said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ucla-admissions-soccer-recruit-20190319-story.html?outputType=amp
> 
> Just read this story.  Looks bad for Cromwell.  I don’t think she survives this as the CEO of the team.  So the athletic director can fire himself or Cromwell.   You pick.


It seems clear from the direction the school spokesman is going that they intend to see if the men's coach can absorb all of the blame.

Reading between the lines from what he said in this article, the story the school would be pitching would be something like this:

1. Men's coach submitted a falsified athletic profile to the womens coaches...suggests that the player will be able to help the team and doesn't require any scholarship money.  Women's coaches agree based on strong recommendation from men's coach without seeing her play.
2. Student gets admitted as a recruited non-scholarship athlete.
3. At some point (could have been back in step 1, or after the women's coaches realize the the girl is not an athlete nor a soccer player), the women's coaches classify the girl as a practice player.  This is well after the admission, and she may have already started at the school.
4. Given the options at this point, the women's coaches decide to just let it be and not raise the issue back to the school (and report on the men's coach).  It is just for a year and they didn't knowingly do anything wrong.


----------



## full90

gefelchnik said:


> It seems clear from the direction the school spokesman is going that they intend to see if the men's coach can absorb all of the blame.
> 
> Reading between the lines from what he said in this article, the story the school would be pitching would be something like this:
> 
> 1. Men's coach submitted a falsified athletic profile to the womens coaches...suggests that the player will be able to help the team and doesn't require any scholarship money.  Women's coaches agree based on strong recommendation from men's coach without seeing her play.
> 2. Student gets admitted as a recruited non-scholarship athlete.
> 3. At some point (could have been back in step 1, or after the women's coaches realize the the girl is not an athlete nor a soccer player), the women's coaches classify the girl as a practice player.  This is well after the admission, and she may have already started at the school.
> 4. Given the options at this point, the women's coaches decide to just let it be and not raise the issue back to the school (and report on the men's coach).  It is just for a year and they didn't knowingly do anything wrong.


Agree. It read to me like they are scrambling to save Cromwell and I think the explanation you give here is what they will say went down.

It’s hard to fathom tho that the w soccer staff would take the word of the men’s coaches. I can’t imagine an instance where a men’s coach would say “hey this kid is good enough to make your national championship contending team. Don’t worry about seeing her play or even knowing who she is, I’ve seen her and she’s good enough.” Cromwell doesn’t call the club coach or double check on the girl? At all? Even talk to her on the phone? What if she’s bat %£~* crazy? UCLA is in the hunt for a national title. I don’t think many (any) coaches bring in some random to jack with chemistry and or the culture of the program without a cursory check. That’s crazy if that’s the case.

We all know how insanely competitive the w soccer world is in so cal. That a kid could make the UCLA roster with the mere recommendation of the men’s coach and no one checking on that sounds ridiculous.


----------



## gefelchnik

full90 said:


> Agree. It read to me like they are scrambling to save Cromwell and I think the explanation you give here is what they will say went down.
> 
> It’s hard to fathom tho that the w soccer staff would take the word of the men’s coaches. I can’t imagine an instance where a men’s coach would say “hey this kid is good enough to make your national championship contending team. Don’t worry about seeing her play or even knowing who she is, I’ve seen her and she’s good enough.” Cromwell doesn’t call the club coach or double check on the girl? At all? Even talk to her on the phone? What if she’s bat %£~* crazy? UCLA is in the hunt for a national title. I don’t think many (any) coaches bring in some random to jack with chemistry and or the culture of the program without a cursory check. That’s crazy if that’s the case.
> 
> We all know how insanely competitive the w soccer world is in so cal. That a kid could make the UCLA roster with the mere recommendation of the men’s coach and no one checking on that sounds ridiculous.


Yea agreed. 

My post was just saying where the  narrative from the school seems to be headed, not that I think it is what happened.


----------



## espola

full90 said:


> Agree. It read to me like they are scrambling to save Cromwell and I think the explanation you give here is what they will say went down.
> 
> It’s hard to fathom tho that the w soccer staff would take the word of the men’s coaches. I can’t imagine an instance where a men’s coach would say “hey this kid is good enough to make your national championship contending team. Don’t worry about seeing her play or even knowing who she is, I’ve seen her and she’s good enough.” Cromwell doesn’t call the club coach or double check on the girl? At all? Even talk to her on the phone? What if she’s bat %£~* crazy? UCLA is in the hunt for a national title. I don’t think many (any) coaches bring in some random to jack with chemistry and or the culture of the program without a cursory check. That’s crazy if that’s the case.
> 
> We all know how insanely competitive the w soccer world is in so cal. That a kid could make the UCLA roster with the mere recommendation of the men’s coach and no one checking on that sounds ridiculous.


While there is an NCAA limit on the number of scholarships a college may award, there is no limit on the number of recruits they may admit.  Letting #41 in cost the women's team nothing, and it may have helped in the internal politics.  And - we don't know how many other times this may have happened among the various UCLA athletic programs.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

You people are crazy if you believe any of this nonsense and UCLA is crazier if they think any reasonable person is buying any of this.  While I agree that UCLA athletics would love for all of us to believe anything that suggests the women’s program blindly accepted this girl on their roster or had no idea what was going on or found out too late that she actually couldn’t play is just straight BS.

No coach at this level, not a single one, would take any player blind without having done some homework on her. Additionally, it would have been obvious on day one in the summer (before school started) that this girl could not play. They either knew it before they rostered her or shortly thereafter. If they were truly hoodwinked, they should have said something immediately knowing this could come back and bite them in the arse.

I hope UCLA is objectively investigating this to find out the truth. Ultimately, if nobody is held accountable on the women’s side then I guess colleges turning a blind eye on unethical behavior when you are running a successful program doesn’t just stop at football and basketball.


----------



## Dos Equis

SpeedK1llz said:


> I hope UCLA is objectively investigating this to find out the truth. Ultimately, if nobody is held accountable on the women’s side then I guess colleges turning a blind eye on unethical behavior when you are running a successful program doesn’t just stop at football and basketball.


I could not agree more.


----------



## gefelchnik

SpeedK1llz said:


> You people are crazy if you believe any of this nonsense and UCLA is crazier if they think any reasonable person is buying any of this.  While I agree that UCLA athletics would love for all of us to believe anything that suggests the women’s program blindly accepted this girl on their roster or had no idea what was going on or found out too late that she actually couldn’t play is just straight BS.
> 
> No coach at this level, not a single one, would take any player blind without having done some homework on her. Additionally, it would have been obvious on day one in the summer (before school started) that this girl could not play. They either knew it before they rostered her or shortly thereafter. If they were truly hoodwinked, they should have said something immediately knowing this could come back and bite them in the arse.
> 
> I hope UCLA is objectively investigating this to find out the truth. Ultimately, if nobody is held accountable on the women’s side then I guess colleges turning a blind eye on unethical behavior when you are running a successful program doesn’t just stop at football and basketball.


I was just pointing out that after a week of no comment, this is the story that the school spokesman seems to be going with.

They will have talked to all of the coaches involved at this point on the women’s side....and given this is what the school is saying, it is likely this is what the school has been told by those coaches.


----------



## full90

I don’t believe that narrative at all. I just think that’s what UCLA will sell to keep Cromwell and hope the public buys it while they vilify the other major players. 

What i think happened is Jorge told Amanda hey I’ve got a friends kid who really wants to get in. Her parents are loaded and can help with your program financially. Could you use her as a manager for a year? Amanda said ok and admitted her as a w soccer player and then rostered her. Never at any time did anyone think the girl would actually suit up at practice or any other time. 

To what degree admitting a kid as an athlete when they are not deserving of the special admit is illegal (law wise, ncaa wise or school policy wise) we will see. And who the axe ultimately falls on.


----------



## Supermodel56

full90 said:


> I don’t believe that narrative at all. I just think that’s what UCLA will sell to keep Cromwell and hope the public buys it while they vilify the other major players.
> 
> What i think happened is Jorge told Amanda hey I’ve got a friends kid who really wants to get in. Her parents are loaded and can help with your program financially. Could you use her as a manager for a year? Amanda said ok and admitted her as a w soccer player and then rostered her. Never at any time did anyone think the girl would actually suit up at practice or any other time.
> 
> To what degree admitting a kid as an athlete when they are not deserving of the special admit is illegal (law wise, ncaa wise or school policy wise) we will see. And who the axe ultimately falls on.


You make a great point - Cromwell has the discretion to admit anyone she wants for whatever reason - as a favor or anything else. Hopefully she didn’t accept any payments or compensation - in that case, I think while it may be a bit embarrassing for the program, she hopefully should survive this.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Well if Jorge talks to the Media to reduce his sentence if any,  this proposed narrative could let to student protests and more attention form the LA times.


----------



## outside!

Since this is a soccer forum the portion of this that would seem to most concern us is what happened at UCLA. I agree that it does not look good for Cromwell. She either knew about this or should have known. While the players must have known something was strange, it would be almost impossible for a D1 soccer player to question the coach. It is very sad for the players to go through this turmoil.


----------



## tenacious

Supermodel56 said:


> You make a great point - Cromwell has the discretion to admit anyone she wants for whatever reason - as a favor or anything else. Hopefully she didn’t accept any payments or compensation - in that case, I think while it may be a bit embarrassing for the program, she hopefully should survive this.


Let me see if I follow.  The men's team coach, who it seems pretty well established was taking cash to help kids get into the school... calls over to the women's team coach as says "do me a solid" and gets a girl put on the roster of one of the most prestigious and elite teams in the US?  That her rich dad is going to help the program unlike the hundreds of other rich dad's trying to get their kid on your roster?   

Yeah maybe, but I've got to be honest- my bs detector is ringing something fierce.  And if anyone else read the comments page on that LAT story, sounds like I'm not alone in that assessment.  What are there 30,000 students at that university and million+ alum?  Have to imagine they are all going to have input on how to deal with a coach or anyone else who seemingly just devalued a UCLA degree they put a lot of sweat and tears into earning.


----------



## Dos Equis

outside! said:


> Since this is a soccer forum the portion of this that would seem to most concern us is what happened at UCLA. I agree that it does not look good for Cromwell. She either knew about this or should have known. While the players must have known something was strange, it would be almost impossible for a D1 soccer player to question the coach. It is very sad for the players to go through this turmoil.


Make no mistake, the actual, recruited UCLA players here are additional victims.  What these coaches did put their scholarships, their college experiences, and possibly even future soccer careers at risk.  That is the primary source of my disappointment.  The coaching staff of the women's team displayed extremely poor judgement, and possibly unethical behavior.


----------



## espola

Dos Equis said:


> Make no mistake, the actual, recruited UCLA players here are additional victims.  What these coaches did put their scholarships, their college experiences, and possibly even future soccer careers at risk.  That is the primary source of my disappointment.  The coaching staff of the women's team displayed extremely poor judgement, and possibly unethical behavior.


Have any UCLA coaches in any sport ever been implicated in unethical recruiting behavior in the past?  If so, what happened to that sport (or those sports)?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Dos Equis said:


> Make no mistake, the actual, recruited UCLA players here are additional victims.  What these coaches did put their scholarships, their college experiences, and possibly even future soccer careers at risk.  That is the primary source of my disappointment.  The coaching staff of the women's team displayed extremely poor judgement, and possibly unethical behavior.


We have a friend that's playing soccer there in 2020, scary times for them.


----------



## Supermodel56

tenacious said:


> Let me see if I follow.  The men's team coach, who it seems pretty well established was taking cash to help kids get into the school... calls over to the women's team coach as says "do me a solid" and gets a girl put on the roster of one of the most prestigious and elite teams in the US?  That her rich dad is going to help the program unlike the hundreds of other rich dad's trying to get their kid on your roster?
> 
> Yeah maybe, but I've got to be honest- my bs detector is ringing something fierce.  And if anyone else read the comments page on that LAT story, sounds like I'm not alone in that assessment.  What are there 30,000 students at that university and million+ alum?  Have to imagine they are all going to have input on how to deal with a coach or anyone else who seemingly just devalued a UCLA degree they put a lot of sweat and tears into earning.



Well, the question is, what devalues the school/program/degree more? Getting rid of Cromwell or keeping her and finding a way to make this go away? If I were an alum, I’d want to move on from this as quickly as possible and stay out of the headlines as much as possible. Firing Cromwell would be huge and. They’d likely start seeing a lot of transfers...

If I were UCLA, I find out if anyone else took payments and if so, they’re gone, no question. As for the rest, all admissions and recruits would have to go through the admissions committee with more oversight and rules around practice squad players, etc...

On the flipside, given there is demand, I can see Universities set up supporter programs where parents can donate to the school and get priority for their kids, students still have requirements to meet and are not guaranteed - perhaps allot a certain number of spots. This way school programs are funded and it ensures in one way or another each student/parent is contributing to the university whether academically or financially. As an applicant, you now have multiple ways to get into the school of your choice.


----------



## gkrent

SpeedK1llz said:


> I wonder if they might try to pin this on Josh Walters? I’m not in any way shape or form saying he did it, but if you’re already acting unethically and want to avoid the heat, blame it on somebody who isn’t there anymore. Timing would be perfect. Just a thought.


or Louise Lieberman


----------



## Sons of Pitches

espola said:


> Have any UCLA coaches in any sport ever been implicated in unethical recruiting behavior in the past?  If so, what happened to that sport (or those sports)?


Sam Gilbert in the early 80's cast a shadow over the Wooden era and then coach Larry Brown.  UCLA was give a 2 year probation, no post season play in 1982 and vacated the 1980 runner-up finish in the national title game.  While no coaches were ever directly implicated it was assumed that they knew about Gilbert, they knew he was paying recruits, and they did nothing to stop it.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

full90 said:


> I don’t believe that narrative at all. I just think that’s what UCLA will sell to keep Cromwell and hope the public buys it while they vilify the other major players.
> 
> What i think happened is Jorge told Amanda hey I’ve got a friends kid who really wants to get in. Her parents are loaded and can help with your program financially. Could you use her as a manager for a year? Amanda said ok and admitted her as a w soccer player and then rostered her. Never at any time did anyone think the girl would actually suit up at practice or any other time.
> 
> To what degree admitting a kid as an athlete when they are not deserving of the special admit is illegal (law wise, ncaa wise or school policy wise) we will see. And who the axe ultimately falls on.


Yes but... In the criminal indictment, it clearly stated that Singer forwarded the transcript and test scores to a *"UCLA women's soccer coach"*. Then on June 28, 2016, the UCLA Student-Athlete Admissions Committee granted _"provisional student athlete admission"_ to Isackson, provided she met certain requirements. One of those was *"participating on the UCLA team as a student-athlete for a minimum of one full academic year"*.



So, the key questions are

1) Does a "team Manager" meet the definition of "student-athlete"?
2) Are team managers issued uniforms?
3) Is it normal/acceptable for someone who is considered a "team manager" to be listed on the team's web site and in their media guide as a player at the position of "Midfielder"?


----------



## SpeedK1llz

gkrent said:


> or Louise Lieberman


Ahh, forgot about her. This is interesting because wasn't USD implicated in this mess as well? Not sure we got a lot of details on the who and what in that case...


----------



## tenacious

Supermodel56 said:


> Well, the question is, what devalues the school/program/degree more? Getting rid of Cromwell or keeping her and finding a way to make this go away? If I were an alum, I’d want to move on from this as quickly as possible and stay out of the headlines as much as possible. Firing Cromwell would be huge and. They’d likely start seeing a lot of transfers...
> 
> If I were UCLA, I find out if anyone else took payments and if so, they’re gone, no question. As for the rest, all admissions and recruits would have to go through the admissions committee with more oversight and rules around practice squad players, etc...
> 
> On the flipside, given there is demand, I can see Universities set up supporter programs where parents can donate to the school and get priority for their kids, students still have requirements to meet and are not guaranteed - perhaps allot a certain number of spots. This way school programs are funded and it ensures in one way or another each student/parent is contributing to the university whether academically or financially. As an applicant, you now have multiple ways to get into the school of your choice.


Nice well thought out response. Although I have to ask... did you see they put #41 on the cover of the N.Y. Post today too?  A couple days ago I could see possibly saying wait to see which way this goes, but not any more.  UCLA is becoming the face of this whole thing.

Sweeping the scandal under the rug and hoping the courts clear the University’s name at this point just means every hungry young reporter and member of the NCAA who is looking to make a name for themselves is going to come calling. The University needs to get ahead of the outrage by being proactive about protecting their name or it’s going to get worse.


----------



## Sons of Pitches

espola said:


> Have any UCLA coaches in any sport ever been implicated in unethical recruiting behavior in the past?  If so, what happened to that sport (or those sports)?


ooops, forgot Jim Harrick was fired as basketball coach in 1997 for taking two players to dinner, paying the bill and falsifying the expense report.  Claimed it was his wife and someone else at the table, not the two players.  This amounted to an improper benefit.  

Seems to me that paying for dinner and falsifying an expense report is trivial compared to what the women's soccer program condoned in this instance.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

College Admissions Scandal
*Published* 28 mins ago
*UCLA student had no business playing for top soccer program: report*









Lauren Isackson supposedly played midfielder for UCLA. (UCLA)

A UCLA student whose parents are wrapped up in a nationwide college admissions scandal involving dozens of parents and prominent universities was listed on the university's 2017 women’s soccer team that finished as runner-up to the national champions -- even though she reportedly lacked playing experience.



Lauren Isackson’s 2017 roster profile showed she made the honorable mention team in the West Bay Athletic League in 2014, but prosecutors alleged she never played competitive soccer prior to joining the Bruins, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.


*WERE LORI LOUGHLIN AND OTHER COLLEGE ADMISSIONS SCANDAL PARENTS DRIVEN BY THIS BEHAVIORAL DISORDER?*

Isackson was part of a recruiting class that was touted by experts as the second-best in the nation, the newspaper reported. Her teammates included Hailie Mace, who went on to make the U.S. national team, and Anika Rodriguez, who was second on the team in points and goals, and Ashley Sanchez, who had participated in U.S. National team camps before joining the Bruins in 2017.


There were no statistics listed for Isackson for the 2017 season despite being listed as a midfielder. Prosecutors said Isackson had no competitive soccer experience before going to UCLA, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“Some team members are on the roster for the purposes of preparing the team for competition, and may not play in games,” UCLA Tod Tamberg told the newspaper Monday, adding that Isackson was no longer on the soccer team, but was still a student at UCLA.

Bruce Isackson and his wife Davina allegedly began conspiring with William “Rick” Singer, who pleaded guilty to several charges of racketeering and money laundering last week, in 2015. Isackson’s fake athletic profile was sent to UCLA men’s soccer coach Jorge Salcedo, according to the newspaper. Salcedo then reportedly passed the teen’s test scores and transcripts to an unnamed coach on the women’s team.

The Isacksons allegedly gave Singer more than 2,100 Facebook stock shares in the form of donations to the Key Worldwide Foundation, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing an affidavit. Singer reportedly used the charity to pay Salcedo and Ali Khosroshahin, a former USC coach who allegedly passed Isackson’s profile to Salcedo.

*CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP*

Salcedo was the only person from UCLA indicted in the scheme and was placed on leave. The scandal has swept up other high-profile individuals, including Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman


----------



## gefelchnik

outside! said:


> Since this is a soccer forum the portion of this that would seem to most concern us is what happened at UCLA. I agree that it does not look good for Cromwell. She either knew about this or should have known. While the players must have known something was strange, it would be almost impossible for a D1 soccer player to question the coach. It is very sad for the players to go through this turmoil.


The kids on the teams are  victims.  Greed by adults who they trusted.

On another thread a parent said that the speculation is off-base....so we will see.  If this is the case the school needs to aggressively push back ASAP, as the national media now has this story and is running with it.


----------



## soccerobserver

gefelchnik said:


> It seems clear from the direction the school spokesman is going that they intend to see if the men's coach can absorb all of the blame.
> 
> Reading between the lines from what he said in this article, the story the school would be pitching would be something like this:
> 
> 1. Men's coach submitted a falsified athletic profile to the womens coaches...suggests that the player will be able to help the team and doesn't require any scholarship money.  Women's coaches agree based on strong recommendation from men's coach without seeing her play.
> 2. Student gets admitted as a recruited non-scholarship athlete.
> 3. At some point (could have been back in step 1, or after the women's coaches realize the the girl is not an athlete nor a soccer player), the women's coaches classify the girl as a practice player.  This is well after the admission, and she may have already started at the school.
> 4. Given the options at this point, the women's coaches decide to just let it be and not raise the issue back to the school (and report on the men's coach).  It is just for a year and they didn't knowingly do anything wrong.


I agree Gflnk, and the Bruin spokesman laid out the defense:

"UCLA spokesman Tod Tamberg said he was barred from discussing individual students, citing student privacy laws.

But he said teams at UCLA were composed of “student-athletes with varying levels of athletic achievements.”"

Translation: Exactly...varying levels of talent...please move along, nothing to see here folks...

If no money was exchanged by the women's coaches then I think they are all clear. Also, Salecedo could have concocted a lie to the women's side to grease the deal. We don't know. If there is a reprimand for the women's coach it can be handled internally and privately. Cromwell has a great reputation, seems beloved by her players, and has taken the team to the highest levels, which is important at UCLA.


----------



## espola

soccerobserver said:


> I agree Gflnk, and the Bruin spokesman laid out the defense:
> 
> "UCLA spokesman Tod Tamberg said he was barred from discussing individual students, citing student privacy laws.
> 
> But he said teams at UCLA were composed of “student-athletes with varying levels of athletic achievements.”"
> 
> Translation: Exactly...varying levels of talent...please move along, nothing to see here folks...
> 
> If no money was exchanged by the women's coaches then I think they are all clear. Also, Salecedo could have concocted a lie to the women's side to grease the deal. We don't know. If there is a reprimand for the women's coach it can be handled internally and privately. Cromwell has a great reputation, seems beloved by her players, and has taken the team to the highest levels, which is important at UCLA.


No college has a better PR staff than UCLA, except maybe USC.


----------



## Messi>CR7

soccerobserver said:


> .............which is important at UCLA.


That's the part I'm not 100% sure.  How important is one women' sport compared to UCLA's overall reputation in the grand scheme of things?  We, the people on this forum, value the accomplishment of the women' soccer team.  But I can honestly tell you I can't name another UCLA head coach other than the men's football and basketball coaches.

In any case, I agree UCLA needs to move quickly to get out of the spotlight so they can hire Rick Pitino soon .


----------



## Sons of Pitches

espola said:


> No college has a better PR staff than UCLA, except maybe USC.


Tod Tamberg said, " Some team  memebers are on the roster for the purpose of preparing the team for competitiion, and may not play in games."  How in the heck can you say this is a GREAT PR statement.  Please explain to me what purpose Lauren Isachson could have possibly served in helping the team prepare for competition.  She had no soccer talent or experience.  Did she ride a pony around the field to try and distract players?  Did she regale them with stories of her most memorbale athletic acheivement, jusmping horses over rails?  What function did she serve to help prepare the team. please Mr. Tamberg enlighten me.


----------



## tenacious

Sons of Pitches said:


> Tod Tamberg said, " Some team  memebers are on the roster for the purpose of preparing the team for competitiion, and may not play in games."  How in the heck can you say this is a GREAT PR statement.  Please explain to me what purpose Lauren Isachson could have possibly served in helping the team prepare for competition.  She had no soccer talent or experience.  Did she ride a pony around the field to try and distract players?  Did she regale them with stories of her most memorbale athletic acheivement, jusmping horses over rails?  What function did she serve to help prepare the team. please Mr. Tamberg enlighten me.


I agree... these sorts of non-answers are just going to make people even madder.  Did anyone read the comments left on the UCLA article in the LATimes?  I just don't get the feeling this isn't just going blow over with a two sentence response about how they can't talk about the issues because of rights of the people who gamed the system.


----------



## pitchplease

I understand UCLA is one component to this. But, what about the other Cali school in question? I realize the coach isn't there anymore, but will they face sanctions? Or any of the other schools for that matter? Yale? Same thing. Coach left, but what are the ramifications in this train wreck?


----------



## eastbaysoccer

The narrative can change very quickly on UCLA.  Better clean the house now.  As investigators and the news said.  “We are at the tip of the iceberg”.

Fact -  a student involved in the scandal finds herself on the UCLA women’s soccer team.

Fact -  Cromwell is in charge of the women’s soccer team/roster.

Conclusion-  Cromwell added a non soccer player to the team which aided in her admittance to UCLA.  IMO she was doing someone a favor and thought it was harmless.

Hey just offer Tiffany Roberts  250k and a national powerhouse team and she will take the job.  She took over for Cromwell at UCF and has similar credentials and success.


----------



## Bdobyns

Just amazing how money can quickly strip one of their morality.  Reminds me of similar occurrences when it came to club soccer (and probably every other pay-to-play sport).  Leaving a few spots on the roster just in case a cash cow came along and could help the team, the coach or the club even though little Susie would have a rough time making the roster on the C or D team.  Winning Surf Cup (or whatever is the big to do nowadays) and just being in the team picture with a trophy or getting accepted into a prestigious school, it is all about the picture and not about having what it takes, (wouldn't be surprised to see classes being passed due to favors).  Which is worse, the fact that there are those that are willing to spend the money or those that see the demand and thus are willing to provide the service?

Kind of miss the good ole days on the forum.


----------



## LASTMAN14

pitchplease said:


> I understand UCLA is one component to this. But, what about the other Cali school in question? I realize the coach isn't there anymore, but will they face sanctions? Or any of the other schools for that matter? Yale? Same thing. Coach left, but what are the ramifications in this train wreck?


Have to think as this situation dives deeper in to the investigation they will uncover more which will lead to further investigations across the country to prominent universities. This is not a California problem but one that is more than likely larger. So to throw disparaging comments that the culture in California, as so many have, to direct blame is so easy and without merit. What is done here is done else where. It's just magnified, but none the less happens.


----------



## push_up

LASTMAN14 said:


> Have to think as this situation dives deeper in to the investigation they will uncover more which will lead to further investigations across the country to prominent universities. This is not a California problem but one that is more than likely larger. So to throw disparaging comments that the culture in California, as so many have, to direct blame is so easy and without merit. What is done here is done else where. It's just magnified, but none the less happens.


Wow, you are a moron.


----------



## LASTMAN14

push_up said:


> Wow, you are a moron.


No, you are. Here is what your people in Arizona think of your state. So, keep on being you with use less posts.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2018/05/29/david-garcia-arizona-most-corrupt-state-doug-ducey-fact-check/620391002/

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/09/18/report-says-arizona-has-severe-prison-problem/1337474002/


----------



## LASTMAN14

push_up said:


> Wow, you are a moron.


If their was a stupid button, you earned it.


----------



## LASTMAN14

LASTMAN14 said:


> If their was a stupid button, you earned it.


Wait, I found it. P_UP. Watch!


----------



## LASTMAN14

No, you are. Here is what your people in Arizona think of your state. So, keep on being you with useless posts. Your limited posts with angered biased opinions that are not supported by anything are old and have no weight with anyone. I only entertain you because you respond. But, most don't because they see no value in what you do. My mistake clicking the ignore button.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2018/05/29/david-garcia-arizona-most-corrupt-state-doug-ducey-fact-check/620391002/

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/09/18/report-says-arizona-has-severe-prison-problem/1337474002/[/QUOTE]


----------



## Supermodel56

Geez... back to topic at hand...

Wasn’t there more than one CA school? UCLA, USC, and Stanford?


----------



## gefelchnik

This was the only one involving a current soccer program in California.


----------



## tenacious

Supermodel56 said:


> Geez... back to topic at hand...
> 
> Wasn’t there more than one CA school? UCLA, USC, and Stanford?


I'd say because the UCLA Women's Soccer team seemingly has a real shot at winning a National Title, and given that they haven't yet given a clear reason to think otherwise- it looks like they are willing to risk the integrity of their program and the university, in order avoid risking that shot.  Maybe if they were the the New England Patriots that might fly... but we're talking amateur athletics at a public university.  

That said, I have no real idea what the truth is (as I'm really just a parent sitting in bed typing away on my computer), and people like MAP who are in a better position to know then me seem quite adamite that there is nothing nefarious happening.  So I think I that should be taken into account too.


----------



## ChalkOnYourBoots

Supermodel56 said:


> On the flipside, given there is demand, I can see Universities set up supporter programs where parents can donate to the school and get priority for their kids, students still have requirements to meet and are not guaranteed - perhaps allot a certain number of spots. This way school programs are funded and it ensures in one way or another each student/parent is contributing to the university whether academically or financially. As an applicant, you now have multiple ways to get into the school of your choice.


Wow,  I'd hate to hear your hot take on the problems, or merit, as the case may be, of pay-to-play in youth soccer.


----------



## espola

LASTMAN14 said:


> No, you are. Here is what your people in Arizona think of your state. So, keep on being you with use less posts.
> https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2018/05/29/david-garcia-arizona-most-corrupt-state-doug-ducey-fact-check/620391002/
> 
> https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/09/18/report-says-arizona-has-severe-prison-problem/1337474002/


There is so much computer science in that website that it is almost unreadable.


----------



## LASTMAN14

espola said:


> There is so much computer science in that website that it is almost unreadable.


It’s literalky reading between the lines. It’s common now. Let’s stay on task here.


----------



## espola

LASTMAN14 said:


> It’s literalky reading between the lines. It’s common now. Let’s stay on task here.


Allow me a guess - it looks great on an Iphone.


----------



## LASTMAN14

espola said:


> Allow me a guess - it looks great on an Iphone.


No it does not.


----------



## Soccer43

Supermodel56 said:


> You make a great point - Cromwell has the discretion to admit anyone she wants for whatever reason - as a favor or anything else. Hopefully she didn’t accept any payments or compensation - in that case, I think while it may be a bit embarrassing for the program, she hopefully should survive this.


regardless of accepting payments or compensation, she still participated in helping a student gain admission to the university under fraud.  I don't think she can escape consequences for that.   She was the head coach and at the end of the day had the final word on who is added to the roster.  She used the separate student-athlete admissions process for a student that didn't meet that criteria.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

......and the isackson story is growing.  Top news in the U.K. daily mail and recently on channel 7 video that just hit the net.


----------



## Supermodel56

Soccer43 said:


> regardless of accepting payments or compensation, she still participated in helping a student gain admission to the university under fraud.  I don't think she can escape consequences for that.   She was the head coach and at the end of the day had the final word on who is added to the roster.  She used the separate student-athlete admissions process for a student that didn't meet that criteria.


I hear ya, that said, I can see how she may not have had any idea regarding the terms and just allowed the player to train, be added to the team as a favor - or it could've have been a subordinate who did everything (did Isackson even actually show up to practice?) People do favors all the time. She may not have known the mens coach was getting paid, who knows - maybe they told her some crazy story that it was a misprint and it'd get removed eventually (assuming Isackson never actually step foot on the field). But I agree, in most organizations, if you're the lead, it's your job to know and this is stuff that people in normal corporate environments get fired for all the time. Really a shame.


----------



## Swoosh

So favors are allowed is what I'm reading, and compromising integrity is just a byproduct of the favor provided, therefore not really an issue.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Supermodel56 said:


> I hear ya, that said, I can see how she may not have had any idea regarding the terms and just allowed the player to train, be added to the team as a favor - or it could've have been a subordinate who did everything (did Isackson even actually show up to practice?) People do favors all the time. She may not have known the mens coach was getting paid, who knows - maybe they told her some crazy story that it was a misprint and it'd get removed eventually (assuming Isackson never actually step foot on the field). But I agree, in most organizations, if you're the lead, it's your job to know and this is stuff that people in normal corporate environments get fired for all the time. Really a shame.


It is easier to see if you open your eyes.


----------



## Soccer43

My understanding is that the head coach has to submit the information to the student- athlete admissions process?  This is a separate admission process than the regular admission process.  The women’s soccer staff had to actively create this opportunity for a student to get admitted to the school in a fraudulent way.  If I am speeding and just don’t know they speed limit on that road I still get a ticket - as a licensed driver it is my responsibility to know the laws and follow them and I am not given a pass because of ignorance.


----------



## Supermodel56

Soccer43 said:


> My understanding is that the head coach has to submit the information to the student- athlete admissions process?  This is a separate admission process than the regular admission process.  The women’s soccer staff had to actively create this opportunity for a student to get admitted to the school in a fraudulent way.  If I am speeding and just don’t know they speed limit on that road I still get a ticket - as a licensed driver it is my responsibility to know the laws and follow them and I am not given a pass because of ignorance.


Bad analogy - When you speed, you May have broken the basic speed law but even then, the officer has the discretion as to whether or not to write you a ticket. If he doesn’t give you a ticket, has he broken the law? No. He takes into account the entire situation. 

You’re assuming the women’s soccer staff actually broke any rules by allowing her to join the team. If Cromwell has the authority to roster a player for whatever reason, she may not have broken any rules. Haven’t you ever seen the movie Rudy?!?  In fact, let’s say it was Cromwell who approved - I’m assuming that since she was not indicted, she never took any money or got anything out of the favor. In fact, she requested transcripts to make sure the student made the minimum requirements before allowing it. She helped a kid who was qualified to get into the school to give her a chance.

Nobody knows the situation, her relationship with the person asking for the favor, how the situation was framed to her, etc... they could’ve totally lied to her and made it seem like something else - like, this kids got cancer and is gonna die, this is her make a wish...


----------



## Lion Eyes

Soccer43 said:


> regardless of accepting payments or compensation, she still participated in helping a student gain admission to the university under fraud.  I don't think she can escape consequences for that.   She was the head coach and at the end of the day had the final word on who is added to the roster.  She used the separate student-athlete admissions process for a student that didn't meet that criteria.


Been happening for decades......


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Supermodel56 said:


> Bad analogy - When you speed, you May have broken the basic speed law but even then, the officer has the discretion as to whether or not to write you a ticket. If he doesn’t give you a ticket, has he broken the law? No. He takes into account the entire situation.
> 
> You’re assuming the women’s soccer staff actually broke any rules by allowing her to join the team. If Cromwell has the authority to roster a player for whatever reason, she may not have broken any rules. Haven’t you ever seen the movie Rudy?!?  In fact, let’s say it was Cromwell who approved - I’m assuming that since she was not indicted, she never took any money or got anything out of the favor. In fact, she requested transcripts to make sure the student made the minimum requirements before allowing it. She helped a kid who was qualified to get into the school to give her a chance.
> 
> Nobody knows the situation, her relationship with the person asking for the favor, how the situation was framed to her, etc... they could’ve totally lied to her and made it seem like something else - like, this kids got cancer and is gonna die, this is her make a wish...


Cancer... make-a-wish... I think somebody just found a new “side door”.


----------



## LBSoccer

SpeedK1llz said:


> Cancer... make-a-wish... I think somebody just found a new “side door”.


UCLA statement shows there has been a side door. The spokesman for ucla stated some team members are on the roster for purposes of preparing the team for competition and may not play in games. Now I know of several girls who have not seen the field in the two years they've been there but I also know they have great soccer backgrounds. This #41 has no soccer background and the fbi agrees something shady was going on. The coach took her application to the athletic committee for approval which was granted and rostered her on her team.   That's a big favor to pull and I don't believe its the mens soccer coach was the only one behind it. Is it normal for a coach of one team to present these types of requests to the committee for another coaches team? I think not. UCLA is trying to save face but the favors in exchange for $$$ scheme is coming out to light and it isn't looking good.


----------



## gefelchnik

Supermodel56 said:


> Bad analogy - When you speed, you May have broken the basic speed law but even then, the officer has the discretion as to whether or not to write you a ticket. If he doesn’t give you a ticket, has he broken the law? No. He takes into account the entire situation.
> 
> You’re assuming the women’s soccer staff actually broke any rules by allowing her to join the team. If Cromwell has the authority to roster a player for whatever reason, she may not have broken any rules. Haven’t you ever seen the movie Rudy?!?  In fact, let’s say it was Cromwell who approved - I’m assuming that since she was not indicted, she never took any money or got anything out of the favor. In fact, she requested transcripts to make sure the student made the minimum requirements before allowing it. She helped a kid who was qualified to get into the school to give her a chance.
> 
> Nobody knows the situation, her relationship with the person asking for the favor, how the situation was framed to her, etc... they could’ve totally lied to her and made it seem like something else - like, this kids got cancer and is gonna die, this is her make a wish...


I agree with this, except for one assumption you made.

The fact that no one from the program was indicted yet - doesn't mean much.  

The indictment names some women's coach as an unindicted conspirator (they helped the men's coach further his crime).  This happens for a few reasons, but usually because the prosecutors have suspicion and they know that person was involved, but they don't have the evidence to charge that person.  It is a clear sign that they intend to see if they can find that evidence.

The most likely person they would get it from would be the men's coach...who may take time to get to a suitable agreement.

For the current women's coaches, I think a better sign for them is the the school hasn't suspended any of them yet, and the school has gathered stories....so the school likely believes they haven't done anything that warrants dismissal.


----------



## Supermodel56

Soccer43 said:


> My understanding is that the head coach has to submit the information to the student- athlete admissions process?


When you reach a certain level in your career, more often than not, you rely heavily on your staff and you have to trust them. Yes, you have to sign off on things and ultimately it’s your responsibility, but it’s unlikely Cromwell processed the paperwork, uploaded the file, etc... she just gave the ok.

My theory... Ali shows up in her office, says, “ I noticed you have an open roster spot, were you going to fill it this year?” She says no. He goes, “I need a favor, long story but can I use that spot for a year to help a kid get in?” She asks some questions like does she have the transcripts, grades, etc? He goes yes, I can send them to you and I can take care of all the paperwork and everything for you...

Next thing you know, she ends up on the front page of the LA Times...


----------



## full90

Supermodel56 said:


> When you reach a certain level in your career, more often than not, you rely heavily on your staff and you have to trust them. Yes, you have to sign off on things and ultimately it’s your responsibility, but it’s unlikely Cromwell processed the paperwork, uploaded the file, etc... she just gave the ok.
> 
> My theory... Ali shows up in her office, says, “ I noticed you have an open roster spot, were you going to fill it this year?” She says no. He goes, “I need a favor, long story but can I use that spot for a year to help a kid get in?” She asks some questions like does she have the transcripts, grades, etc? He goes yes, I can send them to you and I can take care of all the paperwork and everything for you...
> 
> Next thing you know, she ends up on the front page of the LA Times...



Well Ali wasn’t her assistant so that would just be weird. And head coaches personally have to sign off on any special admits. And the schools specifically tell coaches each year not to do this. They can’t admit managers. They can’t admit kids of friends. Even if it’s a walk on kid who will never sniff the field and will be practice fodder they still have to show worthiness to be a special admit. 

Have any of you ever been on a collegiate team? There aren’t just randoms floating around. Even the end of a bench walk on at UCLA would have a legit soccer predigree. That kinda sucks too that there are prob 30 so cal girls who have busted their ass for years playing for blues or surf or slammers who would’ve died to be admitted to UCLA and rostered on the team as a end of the bench walk on. But UCLA won’t give them the time of day but will admit this kid? Why? As a favor to Jorge?


----------



## Supermodel56

LBSoccer said:


> UCLA statement shows there has been a side door.


Of course there is a side door... there’s always a side door, everywhere...  why? Because rules aren’t perfect and there are always exceptions. You frankly cannot make a rule for everything - you have to give people discretion and a degree of flexibility otherwise you risk severely handicapping your organization. 

Cromwell can use her roster spots for whatever she wants, the catch is she only gets so many spots and her job is dependent on fielding a winning team. She could field a team of hamsters if she wants so long as she wins and doesn’t exceed her budget. No scholarship dollars were given in this case, she didn’t personally benefit, she probably gave up a roster spot that she wasn’t planning on using that year as a favor to someone else... and aside from this fiasco, im sure the team will do great - she’ll have done her job.

UCLA’s statement basically is saying she broke no internal rules if I’m interpreting correctly.


----------



## Abdul

Supermodel56 said:


> Of course there is a side door... there’s always a side door, everywhere...  why? Because rules aren’t perfect and there are always exceptions. You frankly cannot make a rule for everything - you have to give people discretion and a degree of flexibility otherwise you risk severely handicapping your organization.
> 
> Cromwell can use her roster spots for whatever she wants, the catch is she only gets so many spots and her job is dependent on fielding a winning team. She could field a team of hamsters if she wants so long as she wins and doesn’t exceed her budget. No scholarship dollars were given in this case, she didn’t personally benefit, she probably gave up a roster spot that she wasn’t planning on using that year as a favor to someone else... and aside from this fiasco, im sure the team will do great - she’ll have done her job.
> 
> UCLA’s statement basically is saying she broke no internal rules if I’m interpreting correctly.


Wow...you are clueless!


----------



## Win_some

Maybe in the end coach Cromwell was working on the right side of the law as part of the solution rather than an extension of the problem. 


Abdul said:


> Wow...you are clueless!


----------



## Supermodel56

Abdul said:


> Wow...you are clueless!


So I take it you’re saying you have firsthand knowledge of the situation? If so, please share! Otherwise you’re as clueless as the rest of us...


----------



## oh canada

My daughter wears #41 jersey for her club...guess I should make her change it?


----------



## tenacious

Supermodel56 said:


> So I take it you’re saying you have firsthand knowledge of the situation? If so, please share! Otherwise you’re as clueless as the rest of us...


I see what your saying.  But where it gets weird for me is 1. it was uncovered as part of an FBI investigation into a multi-million dollar scandal of athletic coaches accepting bribes to help non-athletes get into elite colleges, and 2. her dad is on tape saying things like he's paranoid to talk over the phone and if word of this gets out it's going to be front page news. 

Not sure how to explain that away.  I guess maybe he pinky promised AC not to let everyone know what a softie she was or something and he was afraid of making the coach look good...?


----------



## goldentoe

I have to applaud the 'ol USC soccer coach.  This was some 5-d, underwater chess the dude was playing against his cross town rival.

He bascically said, "here take this, and hang on to it for a couple years.  No, it's not a grenade, it's not a torpedo, just a little something that I'd like you to take care of for me. Please be sure to deliver to someone in the Women's Soccer program. I'll make sure the sender compensates you for your service.  Don't worry it should be safe, I also left 4 of those packages floating around on my campus before I left. So far no problems."


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> When you reach a certain level in your career, more often than not, you rely heavily on your staff and you have to trust them. Yes, you have to sign off on things and ultimately it’s your responsibility, but it’s unlikely Cromwell processed the paperwork, uploaded the file, etc... she just gave the ok.
> 
> My theory... Ali shows up in her office, says, “ I noticed you have an open roster spot, were you going to fill it this year?” She says no. He goes, “I need a favor, long story but can I use that spot for a year to help a kid get in?” She asks some questions like does she have the transcripts, grades, etc? He goes yes, I can send them to you and I can take care of all the paperwork and everything for you...
> 
> Next thing you know, she ends up on the front page of the LA Times...


If a coach says that his staff is too big and he doesn't know what all of them are doing, all the AD has to do is copy that and put it in his dismissal letter.


----------



## Abdul

Supermodel56 said:


> So I take it you’re saying you have firsthand knowledge of the situation? If so, please share! Otherwise you’re as clueless as the rest of us...


It’s just scratching the surface...UCLA will be following up with there own investigation...More to follow.


----------



## Fact

goldentoe said:


> I have to applaud the 'ol USC soccer coach.  This was some 5-d, underwater chess the dude was playing against his cross town rival.
> 
> He bascically said, "here take this, and hang on to it for a couple years.  No, it's not a grenade, it's not a torpedo, just a little something that I'd like you to take care of for me. Please be sure to deliver to someone in the Women's Soccer program. I'll make sure the sender compensates you for your service.  Don't worry it should be safe, I also left 4 of those packages floating around on my campus before I left. So far no problems."


At least I feel that USC is trying to set things right.  They have admitted mistakes and are being proactive to investigate, punish those involved and put new procedures and people in place.

On the other hand UCLA has only punished Jorge who was charged. No acceptance of any errors and no real statement to the press. For all we know Isackson is still on campus. At least admit that they put trust in someone that they should not have.  I think this attitude is what pisses most people off.


----------



## Calisoccer11

Fact said:


> At least I feel that USC is trying to set things right.  They have admitted mistakes and are being proactive to investigate, punish those involved and put new procedures and people in place.
> 
> On the other hand UCLA has only punished Jorge who was charged. No acceptance of any errors and no real statement to the press. For all we know Isackson is still on campus. At least admit that they put trust in someone that they should not have.  I think this attitude is what pisses most people off.


USC has more experience in handling scandals.  Sorry, I couldn't resit!!


----------



## Supermodel56

Let’s be clear, I’m not saying what AC or the women’s program did was okay. It just puzzles me that someone who spent their entire lives building their career to become one of the best coaches in the country would jeopardize that career to help some kid get into school where as far as we know otherwise had nothing to gain. She got nothing out of this.

If she got paid, she would’ve been arrested. If the program got a donation (no evidence of that) they would’ve published it already - so doesn’t look like it happened and their endowment is big enough, she already has every resource she needs. If the school got a donation, then everyone was in on it and she’d just be the scapegoat. None of those scenarios are likely.

Trying to put myself in that situation and figure out how it went down - people don’t do things with the intent of getting themselves into trouble. Again, not saying what she did was okay... but my guess is she did this favor for Ali and felt like she was actually doing a good thing for helping a kid out - but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. I doubt she had any idea who the kid was, that her parents were paying for this nor that Ali was getting paid, in fact given he only got $25k, he might not have even known about the money until after it happened and then they gave it to him as a thank you. 

I mean seriously, if someone came up to you and said I’ll give you $25k to pull some strings, red flags would be raised immediately and you’d be like whats the catch? You’d also be like it’s gotta be something wrong with what I’m doing here. $25k is nothing, any sane person would’ve been like hell no. Instead, if someone asked as a favor, you might be more likely to do it just to help them out assuming you didn’t think you we’re doing anything illegal.

My point is this, Sure, there are some people who will blatantly make clearly bad propositions and bad choices, but more often than not, the lines are blurred and bad characters will pitch you/manipulate you in a way that doesn’t make it sound wrong, even make you feel like you’re doing a good thing. Is that an excuse? No. But if you can identify when/how these things happen, where compromises were made, the more capable you are keeping yourself out of trouble.


----------



## Supermodel56

Fact said:


> At least I feel that USC is trying to set things right.  They have admitted mistakes and are being proactive to investigate, punish those involved and put new procedures and people in place.
> 
> On the other hand UCLA has only punished Jorge who was charged. No acceptance of any errors and no real statement to the press. For all we know Isackson is still on campus. At least admit that they put trust in someone that they should not have.  I think this attitude is what pisses most people off.


Further bolsters my theory even Ali didn’t know he was getting paid and thought he was just helping someone out. They probably paid him after the fact to “thank him” and keep quiet.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Cromwell knowingly got this kid into UCLA. 
Maybe I’d do the same.  Maybe we all would if we had the power.   Feel bad for her because she was just trying to do someone a favor.   

One thing for certain,  coaches have been put on notice and will not be doing any favors this year.


----------



## HouseofCards

Supermodel56 said:


> Let’s be clear, I’m not saying what AC or the women’s program did was okay. It just puzzles me that someone who spent their entire lives building their career to become one of the best coaches in the country would jeopardize that career to help some kid get into school where as far as we know otherwise had nothing to gain. She got nothing out of this.
> 
> If she got paid, she would’ve been arrested. If the program got a donation (no evidence of that) they would’ve published it already - so doesn’t look like it happened and their endowment is big enough, she already has every resource she needs. If the school got a donation, then everyone was in on it and she’d just be the scapegoat. None of those scenarios are likely.
> 
> Trying to put myself in that situation and figure out how it went down - people don’t do things with the intent of getting themselves into trouble. Again, not saying what she did was okay... but my guess is she did this favor for Ali and felt like she was actually doing a good thing for helping a kid out - but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. I doubt she had any idea who the kid was, that her parents were paying for this nor that Ali was getting paid, in fact given he only got $25k, he might not have even known about the money until after it happened and then they gave it to him as a thank you.
> 
> I mean seriously, if someone came up to you and said I’ll give you $25k to pull some strings, red flags would be raised immediately and you’d be like whats the catch? You’d also be like it’s gotta be something wrong with what I’m doing here. $25k is nothing, any sane person would’ve been like hell no. Instead, if someone asked as a favor, you might be more likely to do it just to help them out assuming you didn’t think you we’re doing anything illegal.
> 
> My point is this, Sure, there are some people who will blatantly make clearly bad propositions and bad choices, but more often than not, the lines are blurred and bad characters will pitch you/manipulate you in a way that doesn’t make it sound wrong, even make you feel like you’re doing a good thing. Is that an excuse? No. But if you can identify when/how these things happen, where compromises were made, the more capable you are keeping yourself out of trouble.


You keep saying Ali, but the indictment says Ali forwarded to Jorge who forwarded to a coach on the women's team. Ali knew he was getting paid, and would have been paid more than the $25k had Isackson's file not gone into the wrong pile. As it did get in the wrong pile, he moved it on to UCLA. Ali knew what was up. Jorge knew what was up. The only question is did Amanda know what was up. Most people have a hard time believing she had no inkling that something wasn't on the up and up.


----------



## LBSoccer

Supermodel56 said:


> Let’s be clear, I’m not saying what AC or the women’s program did was okay. It just puzzles me that someone who spent their entire lives building their career to become one of the best coaches in the country would jeopardize that career to help some kid get into school where as far as we know otherwise had nothing to gain. She got nothing out of this.
> 
> If she got paid, she would’ve been arrested. If the program got a donation (no evidence of that) they would’ve published it already - so doesn’t look like it happened and their endowment is big enough, she already has every resource she needs. If the school got a donation, then everyone was in on it and she’d just be the scapegoat. None of those scenarios are likely.
> 
> Trying to put myself in that situation and figure out how it went down - people don’t do things with the intent of getting themselves into trouble. Again, not saying what she did was okay... but my guess is she did this favor for Ali and felt like she was actually doing a good thing for helping a kid out - but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. I doubt she had any idea who the kid was, that her parents were paying for this nor that Ali was getting paid, in fact given he only got $25k, he might not have even known about the money until after it happened and then they gave it to him as a thank you.
> 
> I mean seriously, if someone came up to you and said I’ll give you $25k to pull some strings, red flags would be raised immediately and you’d be like whats the catch? You’d also be like it’s gotta be something wrong with what I’m doing here. $25k is nothing, any sane person would’ve been like hell no. Instead, if someone asked as a favor, you might be more likely to do it just to help them out assuming you didn’t think you we’re doing anything illegal.
> 
> My point is this, Sure, there are some people who will blatantly make clearly bad propositions and bad choices, but more often than not, the lines are blurred and bad characters will pitch you/manipulate you in a way that doesn’t make it sound wrong, even make you feel like you’re doing a good thing. Is that an excuse? No. But if you can identify when/how these things happen, where compromises were made, the more capable you are keeping yourself out of trouble.


Ali knew about the money. the court documents state the ringer paid $350000 to ali’s affiliated club in exchange for rostering 4 girls to make the athlete background story credible. I don’t pretend to know the story with UCLA but Ali was not hoodwinked.


----------



## tenacious

Supermodel56 said:


> Let’s be clear, I’m not saying what AC or the women’s program did was okay. It just puzzles me that someone who spent their entire lives building their career to become one of the best coaches in the country would jeopardize that career to help some kid get into school where as far as we know otherwise had nothing to gain. She got nothing out of this.
> 
> If she got paid, she would’ve been arrested. If the program got a donation (no evidence of that) they would’ve published it already - so doesn’t look like it happened and their endowment is big enough, she already has every resource she needs. If the school got a donation, then everyone was in on it and she’d just be the scapegoat. None of those scenarios are likely.
> 
> Trying to put myself in that situation and figure out how it went down - people don’t do things with the intent of getting themselves into trouble. Again, not saying what she did was okay... but my guess is she did this favor for Ali and felt like she was actually doing a good thing for helping a kid out - but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. I doubt she had any idea who the kid was, that her parents were paying for this nor that Ali was getting paid, in fact given he only got $25k, he might not have even known about the money until after it happened and then they gave it to him as a thank you.
> 
> I mean seriously, if someone came up to you and said I’ll give you $25k to pull some strings, red flags would be raised immediately and you’d be like whats the catch? You’d also be like it’s gotta be something wrong with what I’m doing here. $25k is nothing, any sane person would’ve been like hell no. Instead, if someone asked as a favor, you might be more likely to do it just to help them out assuming you didn’t think you we’re doing anything illegal.
> 
> My point is this, Sure, there are some people who will blatantly make clearly bad propositions and bad choices, but more often than not, the lines are blurred and bad characters will pitch you/manipulate you in a way that doesn’t make it sound wrong, even make you feel like you’re doing a good thing. Is that an excuse? No. But if you can identify when/how these things happen, where compromises were made, the more capable you are keeping yourself out of trouble.


Yes... I think that's the whole ever-loving point.  She put the University, her team, her assistant coaches and even her own career at risk... to do a favor to another coach from a different university?  Even if she’s totally innocent as you've laid it out, AC plainly isn't up to being a coach at that level if she's making those sorts of decisions.

And yet the University still has her back, at massive damage to the University's own reputation.  It's all very strange.


----------



## Supermodel56

LBSoccer said:


> Ali knew about the money. the court documents state the ringer paid $350000 to ali’s affiliated club in exchange for rostering 4 girls to make the athlete background story credible. I don’t pretend to know the story with UCLA but Ali was not hoodwinked.


Sorry got them confused... meant the guy who only got the $25k...


----------



## LBSoccer

tenacious said:


> Yes... I think that's the whole ever-loving point.  She put the University, her team, her assistant coaches and even her own career at risk... to do a favor to another coach from different university?  Even if she totally innocent as you've laid it out, she plainly isn't up to being a coach at that level if she's making those sorts of decision.
> 
> And yet the University still has her back, at massive damage to the University's own reputation.  It's all very strange.


 I agree that that’s what has people in an uproar. The UCLA women’s coach did a favor and helped some one get admitted to UCLA by giving them the special admission  process reserved for athletes to a non athlete.  It went to the athletic commission and passed so either the committee was fooled or they turned a blind eye. These types of favors taint someone’s credibility.


----------



## Dos Equis

Every head coach at a major/top university understands the value and importance of the "golden ticket", what most call a preferential athletic admission with _or without_ a scholarship.  The Universities' entrust their athletic programs, specifically the coaches, to safeguard these assets and spend them as agreed upon on deserving athletes, not anyway they see fit.

The best defense she has is claiming she delegated recruiting responsibilities to a coach (who has since left), and she was ignorant of the situation (a bit difficult given the roster and media guide, but it happens). That would imply she exercised poor oversight of her program, and poor judgement in people. Perhaps they can then justify a reprimand or some sort of probation, since they likely want to keep her.  

Claiming she did not know better, or was taken advantage of by a friend asking for a favor, should both end in her termination.


----------



## Supermodel56

tenacious said:


> Yes... I think that's the whole ever-loving point.  She put the University, her team, her assistant coaches and even her own career at risk... to do a favor to another coach from different university?  Even if she totally innocent as you've laid it out, she plainly isn't up to being a coach at that level if she's making those sorts of decision.
> 
> And yet the University still has her back, at massive damage to the University's own reputation.  It's all very strange.


Not really, we live in a society where we so easily disqualfy someone (others of course, never ourselves) because they make one mistake when otherwise they’re actually the best person for the job. She’s a phenomenal soccer coach. She did someone a favor, that doesn’t reduce her ability to coach and build nationally winning teams. Will she go unpunished, no. But based on your logic, because of this, does that mean she no longer should be allowed to coach anywhere? And if not at UCLA, where? 

It’s ridiculous. The standard and scrutiny we hold leaders to are frankly unachievable because no one is perfect and at some point they’ll make a mistake. But that mentality is how we end up with leaders who are pathological liars only good at creating and maintaining a fake persona. Those are the real ones we have to worry about - the ones that are too squeaky clean and always say all the right things only what we want to hear.

If she didn’t get any personal benefit out of this and truly did it as a favor to help a kid out because she was lied to, I don’t think this should be career ending. It’d be foolish for UCLA and would really be a shame. Chalk it up to a lesson learned, close some of the loopholes on athletic admissions, increase oversight, etc...  I can guarantee you she’s learned her lesson and it won’t happen again...


----------



## goldentoe

Fact said:


> At least I feel that USC is trying to set things right.  They have admitted mistakes and are being proactive to investigate, punish those involved and put new procedures and people in place.
> 
> On the other hand UCLA has only punished Jorge who was charged. No acceptance of any errors and no real statement to the press. For all we know Isackson is still on campus. At least admit that they put trust in someone that they should not have.  I think this attitude is what pisses most people off.


What attitude are you referring to? Don't mistake my joke as some sort of exhoneration for UCLA.  Early in this thread I made my stance very clear.  The Feds have confirmed a UCLA Women's soccer coach rostered Isackson as part of her admission to the university.  They've also confirmed 250,000 were paid by her parents to Singer for making this happened.  That's it.  It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds. I think the whole thing is ridiculous, and the program should be held responsible.


----------



## tenacious

Supermodel56 said:


> Not really, we live in a society where we so easily disqualfy someone (others of course, never ourselves) because they make one mistake when otherwise they’re actually the best person for the job. She’s a phenomenal soccer coach. She did someone a favor, that doesn’t reduce her ability to coach and build nationally winning teams. Will she go unpunished, no. But based on your logic, because of this, does that mean she no longer should be allowed to coach anywhere? And if not at UCLA, where?
> 
> It’s ridiculous. The standard and scrutiny we hold leaders to are frankly unachievable because no one is perfect and at some point they’ll make a mistake. But that mentality is how we end up with leaders who are pathological liars only good at creating and maintaining a fake persona. Those are the real ones we have to worry about - the ones that are too squeaky clean and always say all the right things only what we want to hear.
> 
> If she didn’t get any personal benefit out of this and truly did it as a favor to help a kid out because she was lied to, I don’t think this should be career ending. It’d be foolish for UCLA and would really be a shame. Chalk it up to a lesson learned, close some of the loopholes on athletic admissions, increase oversight, etc...  I can guarantee you she’s learned her lesson and it won’t happen again...


Well... that this story has been front page news across the country indicates to me that most people disagree with your assessment.  So with that said it seems pointless to argue with you anymore, so I guess I'll just leave it up to individual readers in here to decide for themselves.

Oh, one last thing.  Rudy!  Rudy!  Rudy!!  (I'm going to watch that movie tonight)


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Dos Equis said:


> Every head coach at a major/top university understands the value and importance of the "golden ticket", what most call a preferential athletic admission with _or without_ a scholarship.  The Universities' entrust their athletic programs, specifically the coaches, to safeguard these assets and spend them as agreed upon on deserving athletes, not anyway they see fit.
> 
> The best defense she has is claiming she delegated recruiting responsibilities to a coach (who has since left), and she was ignorant of the situation (a bit difficult given the roster and media guide, but it happens). That would imply she exercised poor oversight of her program, and poor judgement in people. Perhaps they can then justify a reprimand or some sort of probation, since they likely want to keep her.
> 
> Claiming she did not know better, or was taken advantage of by a friend asking for a favor, should both end in her termination.


Follow the money.


----------



## Calisoccer11

tenacious said:


> Yes... I think that's the whole ever-loving point.  She put the University, her team, her assistant coaches and even her own career at risk... to do a favor to another coach from a different university?  Even if she’s totally innocent as you've laid it out, AC plainly isn't up to being a coach at that level if she's making those sorts of decisions.
> 
> And yet the University still has her back, at massive damage to the University's own reputation.  It's all very strange.


I completely agree with you.  I believe more information will be coming out.  These coaches know how hard true soccer players work to make a coveted spot on their roster--I don't believe for a second that it was done as a "favor".


----------



## Calisoccer11

Dos Equis said:


> Every head coach at a major/top university understands the value and importance of the "golden ticket", what most call a preferential athletic admission with _or without_ a scholarship.  The Universities' entrust their athletic programs, specifically the coaches, to safeguard these assets and spend them as agreed upon on deserving athletes, not anyway they see fit.
> 
> The best defense she has is claiming she delegated recruiting responsibilities to a coach (who has since left), and she was ignorant of the situation (a bit difficult given the roster and media guide, but it happens). That would imply she exercised poor oversight of her program, and poor judgement in people. Perhaps they can then justify a reprimand or some sort of probation, since they likely want to keep her.
> 
> Claiming she did not know better, or was taken advantage of by a friend asking for a favor, should both end in her termination.


Speaking of media guide, I wonder if any parents noticed this girl?  I don't have a player in college, but I would think I would be interested in seeing the media guide and I would ask my kid about players.  I would like to think I would become familiar with the players after watching a few games and speaking to my daughter.  Someone must have noticed!


----------



## Calisoccer11

Supermodel56 said:


> Not really, we live in a society where we so easily disqualfy someone (others of course, never ourselves) because they make one mistake when otherwise they’re actually the best person for the job. She’s a phenomenal soccer coach. She did someone a favor, that doesn’t reduce her ability to coach and build nationally winning teams. Will she go unpunished, no. But based on your logic, because of this, does that mean she no longer should be allowed to coach anywhere? And if not at UCLA, where?
> 
> It’s ridiculous. The standard and scrutiny we hold leaders to are frankly unachievable because no one is perfect and at some point they’ll make a mistake. But that mentality is how we end up with leaders who are pathological liars only good at creating and maintaining a fake persona. Those are the real ones we have to worry about - the ones that are too squeaky clean and always say all the right things only what we want to hear.
> 
> If she didn’t get any personal benefit out of this and truly did it as a favor to help a kid out because she was lied to, I don’t think this should be career ending. It’d be foolish for UCLA and would really be a shame. Chalk it up to a lesson learned, close some of the loopholes on athletic admissions, increase oversight, etc...  I can guarantee you she’s learned her lesson and it won’t happen again...


We expect people in these coaching positions to have a level of integrity - and as I have mentioned before, because the coaches know all to well how hard the real athletes work to try to get a spot on one of their coveted rosters....To then treat an open roster spot so frivolously as to let a kid on as a "favor" and the coach then receives no gain?  We are suppose to buy that?  We should hold these coaches to a higher standard because we are talking about our kids.  This was no careless mistake on their end.  They knew it was wrong yet they did it anyway.  And if they didn't know it was wrong....well, then I don't know what to say.


----------



## Messi>CR7

Supermodel56 said:


> Not really, we live in a society where we so easily disqualfy someone (others of course, never ourselves) because they make one mistake when otherwise they’re actually the best person for the job. She’s a phenomenal soccer coach. She did someone a favor, that doesn’t reduce her ability to coach and build nationally winning teams. Will she go unpunished, no. But based on your logic, because of this, does that mean she no longer should be allowed to coach anywhere? And if not at UCLA, where?
> 
> It’s ridiculous. The standard and scrutiny we hold leaders to are frankly unachievable because no one is perfect and at some point they’ll make a mistake. But that mentality is how we end up with leaders who are pathological liars only good at creating and maintaining a fake persona. Those are the real ones we have to worry about - the ones that are too squeaky clean and always say all the right things only what we want to hear.
> 
> If she didn’t get any personal benefit out of this and truly did it as a favor to help a kid out because she was lied to, I don’t think this should be career ending. It’d be foolish for UCLA and would really be a shame. Chalk it up to a lesson learned, close some of the loopholes on athletic admissions, increase oversight, etc...  I can guarantee you she’s learned her lesson and it won’t happen again...


Most would agree it's a fire-able offense.  My employee's handbook has a huge section on ethics.  Even if you just categorize it as a stupid mistake, I can tell you stupidity is a fire-able offense at every place I ever worked.

In any case, you're somewhat arguing the wrong point.  The real question is after weighing the pros and cons, does UCLA "want" to fire her.

I'm pretty sure if the same scenario (coach personally received zero $, the team did not get any competitive advantages) occurred but with Chip Kelly, he would absolutely not be fired.


----------



## soccerobserver

Here is a kid who claimed Singer solicited her Mom to participate in the scheme to get admitted into the side door of USC. The USC student called Singer a "slimy salesman"...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/college-admissions-scandal-usc-student-says-rick-singer-solicited-her-mom/


----------



## oh canada

Most college teams have team managers--some with a lot of soccer experience and others with very little.  UCLA makes it easy for anyone to see the rosters going back sometime:  https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?roster=83&path=wsoc    Prior managers include Amy Rodriguez's younger sister.  AC has the right to give her manager spots to anyone she wants...as long as there is not a quid pro quo--money exchanged, express promise to donate to soccer team, etc.  #41 got one of those spots.  AC not charged in the indictment because Prosecutor doesn't have proof that the spot was given away in return for something else.  It's that simple.  Now, is there an oversight/management problem?  Very possible, but that's not criminal.

What I CAN'T  figure out is why anyone would spend $100K+ to bribe their non-athlete into UCLA or USC?   Neither really known for their academic prowess.  At least the Yale/Stanford/Georgetown parents swung for the fences.  Kudos for the chutzpah.


----------



## Abdul

Messi>CR7 said:


> Most would agree it's a fire-able offense.  My employee's handbook has a huge section on ethics.  Even if you just categorize it as a stupid mistake, I can tell you stupidity is a fire-able offense at every place I ever worked.
> 
> In any case, you're somewhat arguing the wrong point.  The real question is after weighing the pros and cons, does UCLA "want" to fire her.
> 
> I'm pretty sure if the same scenario (coach personally received zero $, the team did not get any competitive advantages) occurred but with Chip Kelly, he would absolutely not be fired.


Have you ever seen the NCAA Compliance Handbook for DI...it’s over 400 pages. I’m sure somewhere in that book it states a Coach shouldn’t commit fraud. I’m sure someone on the women’s side got paid.


----------



## Supermodel56

Calisoccer11 said:


> I completely agree with you.  I believe more information will be coming out.  These coaches know how hard true soccer players work to make a coveted spot on their roster--I don't believe for a second that it was done as a "favor".


I agree that true soccer players work their ass off to make the roster - but at the end of the day, if she wasn't going to fill that spot, it doesn't matter how hard your kid worked, they wouldn't have made the team. She already had her team.


----------



## Dos Equis

oh canada said:


> Most college teams have team managers--some with a lot of soccer experience and others with very little.  UCLA makes it easy for anyone to see the rosters going back sometime:  https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?roster=83&path=wsoc    Prior managers include Amy Rodriguez's younger sister.  AC has the right to give her manager spots to anyone she wants...as long as there is not a quid pro quo--money exchanged, express promise to donate to soccer team, etc.  #41 got one of those spots.  AC not charged in the indictment because Prosecutor doesn't have proof that the spot was given away in return for something else.  It's that simple.  Now, is there an oversight/management problem?  Very possible, but that's not criminal.


1) She was listed as a player in the roster and media guide and represented as such to admissions, according to the indictment.  Amy Rodriguez's sister is listed as a team manager, and has no assigned position nor uniform number.
2) Where do you get the information that UCLA coaches have the right to get chosen team managers preferential admissions? That would be quite an indictment of the entire UCLA admissions process, given this is a public university.  Might even be an NCAA violation if it is used for siblings to to entice players to commit
3) Very few are claiming illegal activity on the part of AC. The front page spotlight of the story is because of the unethical nature of a student being admitted under false pretenses, and the written proof for all the world, including the coaching staff, to see.


----------



## Supermodel56

Messi>CR7 said:


> Most would agree it's a fire-able offense.  My employee's handbook has a huge section on ethics.  Even if you just categorize it as a stupid mistake, I can tell you stupidity is a fire-able offense at every place I ever worked.
> 
> In any case, you're somewhat arguing the wrong point.  The real question is after weighing the pros and cons, does UCLA "want" to fire her.
> 
> I'm pretty sure if the same scenario (coach personally received zero $, the team did not get any competitive advantages) occurred but with Chip Kelly, he would absolutely not be fired.


I agree with you. in most organizations, they have to fire the person - anything otherwise, it would send the wrong message that this is okay and you can get away with it. For that reason alone, her getting fired is definitely not out of the question. I'm just saying given her pedigree, if she truly didn't break any rules and had good intentions doing a favor for a colleague, it would behoove UCLA to figure out a way to keep her.


----------



## oh canada

Dos Equis said:


> 1) She was listed as a player in the roster and media guide and represented as such to admissions, according to the indictment.  Amy Rodriguez's sister is listed as a team manager, and has no assigned position nor uniform number.
> 2) Where do you get the information that UCLA coaches have the right to get chosen team managers preferential admissions? That would be quite an indictment of the entire UCLA admissions process, given this is a public university.  Might even be an NCAA violation if it is used for siblings to to entice players to commit
> 3) Very few are claiming illegal activity on the part of AC. The front page spotlight of the story is because of the unethical nature of a student being admitted under false pretenses, and the written proof for all the world, including the coaching staff, to see.


I stand corrected on this point..."A student-athlete admissions committee at the school required Isackson to play for at least one year, according to an indictment."

So, in order to get into UCanLeverageAdmissions, she had to "play".  Would be interesting to know what "play" means from the admissions committee.  Practice juggling in your dorm room and jog a few field-lengths at a practice?  There are 27 other players who all know what she did to "play" that year.  With this requirement, AC cannot claim ignorance re the player's lack of soccer ability.


----------



## Supermodel56

oh canada said:


> I stand corrected on this point..."A student-athlete admissions committee at the school required Isackson to play for at least one year, according to an indictment."
> 
> So, in order to get into UCanLeverageAdmissions, she had to "play".  Would be interesting to know what "play" means from the admissions committee.  Practice juggling in your dorm room and jog a few field-lengths at a practice?  There are 27 other players who all know what she did to "play" that year.  With this requirement, AC cannot claim ignorance re the player's lack of soccer ability.


At the end of the day, while it is absolutely insulting to the players who busted their ass to make it on the team - and for those who worked their ass off to get in academically... most people wouldnt have $250k-500k to pay anyways and if they did, it may actually not be worth the ROI depending on their future career plans and alternative college options they had.

College as it is these days is not worth it (depending on your major and if you stick with it) nor necessary to be successful and earn a decent living. Olivia Jade would’ve done fine without college with her YouTube business leading into an acting career, etc...


----------



## mirage

Sorry to be late on this thread but am I the only one that see this as its unfair and unfortunate but it happens....

First let me acknowledge that the whole value system we hold dear and close to our hearts of fairness is the basic fabric and the core of being Americans.  That said, its totally understandable that many are upset but step back for moment and think about this.  The wealthy and affluent families throughout the world have had advantage of placing their offsprings into better education and social establishments.

The fact that the there was a middleman/conduit benefiting by enabling the wealthy to get their kids into better schools says he saw an opportunity to make a buck (illegal but much needed service, depending on your perspective), so service provided.

Lets separate the private and public schools first.  Clearly, public school needs to be more accountable and equitable to all tax paying people who actually fund the schools.  Private schools, however, can do whatever they want to in accordance to their governance and their business model.  While they are all not for profit schools, it does not mean that they don't make money.  Just the opposite.  Just look at the endowments at these universities.

In most countries, the affluent expect their children to attend the best school.  For an example, British royalty all attend Cambridge.  All Chinese Communist Party leaders and the 6 families attend Tsinghua. Many middle eastern royalties also attend Cambridge and Oxford.  Do you think they all got in on their own merit and hard work?

The fact that they used athletic recruiting simply says these universities are willing accept less than their normal student population qualification for athletes.  Athletes are exceptions to the schools because its a way for them to make more money via boosters, TV revenues  and attract support without lowering their educational standings.  Yes I know soccer and most are not revenue generating but football and basketballs are and NCAA doesn't make separate rules for revenue generating vs non.

All the corrupt coaches, proctors and alike on the take, really speaks to peoples character and effect of easy money on them.  They need to do a better job of doing background checks and character references than already do before they are hired.

So my point is, I get that it sucks and is not right but its also not surprising and I'm sure that similar back door entrance exist in other ways.  What is surprising to me is that the parents named spent 2x, 3x, 4x or more than the total tuition costs for some of these schools to get their kid accepted into them.  I mean, both UCLA and USC are fine schools but neither is worth that.

As for all those student athletes that did not get into the school because of this, well okay, I bet everyone of those who would have been at these schools fond another school to attend and play sports with.  If one is good enough to be recruited by these schools, then they clearly were recruited to multiple schools.


----------



## Abdul

Supermodel56 said:


> I agree with you. in most organizations, they have to fire the person - anything otherwise, it would send the wrong message that this is okay and you can get away with it. For that reason alone, her getting fired is definitely not out of the question. I'm just saying given her pedigree, if she truly didn't break any rules and had good intentions doing a favor for a colleague, it would behoove UCLA to figure out a way to keep her.


Have you ever heard of Jim Harrick? He won the last NCAA Championship for the Bruins in Basketball. The following year he was gone for NCAA rules violations. It doesn’t matter what kind of “Pedigree” AC has...if she is found to be compromised, UCLA will send her and her staff packing. The school has a reputation that is bigger then the women’s soccer program. And believe me UCLA is still a Basketball School.


----------



## Fact

mirage said:


> Sorry to be late on this thread but am I the only one that see this as its unfair and unfortunate but it happens....
> 
> First let me acknowledge that the whole value system we hold dear and close to our hearts of fairness is the basic fabric and the core of being Americans.  That said, its totally understandable that many are upset but step back for moment and think about this.  The wealthy and affluent families throughout the world have had advantage of placing their offsprings into better education and social establishments.
> 
> The fact that the there was a middleman/conduit benefiting by enabling the wealthy to get their kids into better schools says he saw an opportunity to make a buck (illegal but much needed service, depending on your perspective), so service provided.
> 
> Lets separate the private and public schools first.  Clearly, public school needs to be more accountable and equitable to all tax paying people who actually fund the schools.  Private schools, however, can do whatever they want to in accordance to their governance and their business model.  While they are all not for profit schools, it does not mean that they don't make money.  Just the opposite.  Just look at the endowments at these universities.
> 
> In most countries, the affluent expect their children to attend the best school.  For an example, British royalty all attend Cambridge.  All Chinese Communist Party leaders and the 6 families attend Tsinghua. Many middle eastern royalties also attend Cambridge and Oxford.  Do you think they all got in on their own merit and hard work?
> 
> The fact that they used athletic recruiting simply says these universities are willing accept less than their normal student population qualification for athletes.  Athletes are exceptions to the schools because its a way for them to make more money via boosters, TV revenues  and attract support without lowering their educational standings.  Yes I know soccer and most are not revenue generating but football and basketballs are and NCAA doesn't make separate rules for revenue generating vs non.
> 
> All the corrupt coaches, proctors and alike on the take, really speaks to peoples character and effect of easy money on them.  They need to do a better job of doing background checks and character references than already do before they are hired.
> 
> So my point is, I get that it sucks and is not right but its also not surprising and I'm sure that similar back door entrance exist in other ways.  What is surprising to me is that the parents named spent 2x, 3x, 4x or more than the total tuition costs for some of these schools to get their kid accepted into them.  I mean, both UCLA and USC are fine schools but neither is worth that.
> 
> As for all those student athletes that did not get into the school because of this, well okay, I bet everyone of those who would have been at these schools fond another school to attend and play sports with.  If one is good enough to be recruited by these schools, then they clearly were recruited to multiple schools.


What you’re missing is that some of the bribe money found its way into the team’s account and that is a NCAA violation that has cost schools national championships, post season play and scholarships.


----------



## surfrider

The media train is rolling with this.   For gods sake it’s made it on headlines in Europe. The Administration has got to do something.  It just looks bad with the silence


----------



## bullsputboll

Sheriff Joe said:


> College Admissions Scandal
> *Published* 28 mins ago
> *UCLA student had no business playing for top soccer program: report*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lauren Isackson supposedly played midfielder for UCLA. (UCLA)
> 
> A UCLA student whose parents are wrapped up in a nationwide college admissions scandal involving dozens of parents and prominent universities was listed on the university's 2017 women’s soccer team that finished as runner-up to the national champions -- even though she reportedly lacked playing experience.
> 
> 
> 
> Lauren Isackson’s 2017 roster profile showed she made the honorable mention team in the West Bay Athletic League in 2014, but prosecutors alleged she never played competitive soccer prior to joining the Bruins, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.
> 
> 
> *WERE LORI LOUGHLIN AND OTHER COLLEGE ADMISSIONS SCANDAL PARENTS DRIVEN BY THIS BEHAVIORAL DISORDER?*
> 
> Isackson was part of a recruiting class that was touted by experts as the second-best in the nation, the newspaper reported. Her teammates included Hailie Mace, who went on to make the U.S. national team, and Anika Rodriguez, who was second on the team in points and goals, and Ashley Sanchez, who had participated in U.S. National team camps before joining the Bruins in 2017.
> 
> 
> There were no statistics listed for Isackson for the 2017 season despite being listed as a midfielder. Prosecutors said Isackson had no competitive soccer experience before going to UCLA, according to the Los Angeles Times.
> 
> “Some team members are on the roster for the purposes of preparing the team for competition, and may not play in games,” UCLA Tod Tamberg told the newspaper Monday, adding that Isackson was no longer on the soccer team, but was still a student at UCLA.
> 
> Bruce Isackson and his wife Davina allegedly began conspiring with William “Rick” Singer, who pleaded guilty to several charges of racketeering and money laundering last week, in 2015. Isackson’s fake athletic profile was sent to UCLA men’s soccer coach Jorge Salcedo, according to the newspaper. Salcedo then reportedly passed the teen’s test scores and transcripts to an unnamed coach on the women’s team.
> 
> The Isacksons allegedly gave Singer more than 2,100 Facebook stock shares in the form of donations to the Key Worldwide Foundation, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing an affidavit. Singer reportedly used the charity to pay Salcedo and Ali Khosroshahin, a former USC coach who allegedly passed Isackson’s profile to Salcedo.
> 
> *CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP*
> 
> Salcedo was the only person from UCLA indicted in the scheme and was placed on leave. The scandal has swept up other high-profile individuals, including Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman


She does look like a regular sucker player. LOL


----------



## HouseofCards

Jorge is officially gone.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/26326583/ucla-soccer-coach-admissions-scandal-resigns


----------



## gefelchnik

HouseofCards said:


> Jorge is officially gone.
> 
> http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/26326583/ucla-soccer-coach-admissions-scandal-resigns


Tomorrow will be interesting.

Resignation in lieu of being terminated for cause.  This means the school was ready to do this.  They want to make a real statement, and this or termination had to be part of it.

I would expect something before the weekend.


----------



## Surfref

SpeedK1llz said:


> Yes but... In the criminal indictment, it clearly stated that Singer forwarded the transcript and test scores to a *"UCLA women's soccer coach"*. Then on June 28, 2016, the UCLA Student-Athlete Admissions Committee granted _"provisional student athlete admission"_ to Isackson, provided she met certain requirements. One of those was *"participating on the UCLA team as a student-athlete for a minimum of one full academic year"*.
> 
> View attachment 4270
> 
> So, the key questions are
> 
> 1) Does a "team Manager" meet the definition of "student-athlete"?
> 2) Are team managers issued uniforms?
> 3) Is it normal/acceptable for someone who is considered a "team manager" to be listed on the team's web site and in their media guide as a player at the position of "Midfielder"?


Answers No, No, No.....It is only a matter of time before NCAA drops sanctions (no playoffs, scholarship restrictions) on UCLA’s soccer programs.


----------



## Surfref

HouseofCards said:


> Jorge is officially gone.
> 
> http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/26326583/ucla-soccer-coach-admissions-scandal-resigns


Hopefully Cal South bans him as a club coach so he does not corrupt club soccer.


----------



## gefelchnik

Surfref said:


> Hopefully Cal South bans him as a club coach so he does not corrupt club soccer.


If he is convicted of racketeering, he will go to jail for several years.  Even a lesser plea would still likely include a couple felonies.

Probably hard to pass a background check for a club job.


----------



## Soccer43

Supermodel56 said:


> I agree with you. in most organizations, they have to fire the person - anything otherwise, it would send the wrong message that this is okay and you can get away with it. For that reason alone, her getting fired is definitely not out of the question. I'm just saying given her pedigree, if she truly didn't break any rules and had good intentions doing a favor for a colleague, it would behoove UCLA to figure out a way to keep her.


So just curious how much were you paid to come on to the forum to create some positive PR for AC??   Hope it was a chunk of change cause you are certainly working hard for the $$.  

It isn't believable that the men's soccer coach was paid $200,000 and golly gee, the women's coaching staff was just doing him a solid out of the kindness of their hearts.   Don't forget, this is a public university, funded by tax payer dollars.  A treasured spot at a premier public university was gifted to someone that shouldn't have gotten an admission in that way.  It may not bother some of you but I am disgusted at the lackadaisical attitude about this.  Everyone seems so accepting of the lack of ethics and integrity and that "it happens, oh well" isn't a good explanation.  People in this country used to stand for something and honesty and integrity used to mean something.  Now, it is just get what you want, however you can and no one really cares to hold anyone to a higher standard.


----------



## espola

Surfref said:


> Hopefully Cal South bans him as a club coach so he does not corrupt club soccer.


He has already involved at least one club by pretending that one of his proteges was a player there.  

I think that many clubs should do some soul-searching about their emphasis on "exposure" to college coaches, given the fact of the small proportion of players who actually end up with recruiting offers.


----------



## Soccer43

Surfref said:


> Hopefully Cal South bans him as a club coach so he does not corrupt club soccer.


Isn't club soccer already corrupt?


----------



## espola

I shouldn't gloat in UCLA's hour of sadness.


----------



## oh canada

See bold type...yeah, bet she was "instrumental"...a couple #41s each year:

_LA Breakers FC are delighted to announce the hiring of UCLA Head Coach Amanda Cromwell as Special Advisor to the Board, ECNL Staff Coach and College Consultant.

“Amanda Cromwell is one of the most accomplished women’s soccer coaches in the world,” said Mike Page, Club Director for LA Breakers FC. “She brings a wealth of knowledge and unrivaled connections with the NCAA and US Soccer. Her hiring demonstrates the commitment that LA Breakers has to elite player and coaching development in the Los Angeles region.”

Cromwell’s accomplishments in the game include leading the UCLA Bruins to the program’s first-ever NCAA Championship only eight months after being hired in April, 2013. Cromwell was subsequently named Soccer America’s Coach of the Year, the first-such honor for a UCLA Women’s Soccer coach. *In addition to coaching at UCLA, Cromwell was instrumental in securing a $5-million dollar donation for the transformation of UCLA’s Wallis Annenberg Stadium as the new home for Bruins Soccer.*

 “I am very passionate about being an integral part of developing the L.A. youth soccer scene,” said Coach Cromwell. “I have been looking for the ideal partnership in the area, and LA Breakers and their vision for youth soccer are the perfect fit for me. I am really excited to begin my work with them.”_




Cromwell earned 55 caps while representing the U.S. Women’s National Team. She was a member of the United States’ 1995 FIFA Women’s World Cup team and an alternate for the U.S. Olympic team in 1996.




Cromwell has already begun working with LA Breakers FC teams and will be working with and evaluating players at our ECNL tryouts this month.


----------



## espola

oh canada said:


> See bold type...yeah, bet she was "instrumental"...a couple #41s each year:
> 
> _LA Breakers FC are delighted to announce the hiring of UCLA Head Coach Amanda Cromwell as Special Advisor to the Board, ECNL Staff Coach and College Consultant.
> 
> “Amanda Cromwell is one of the most accomplished women’s soccer coaches in the world,” said Mike Page, Club Director for LA Breakers FC. “She brings a wealth of knowledge and unrivaled connections with the NCAA and US Soccer. Her hiring demonstrates the commitment that LA Breakers has to elite player and coaching development in the Los Angeles region.”
> 
> Cromwell’s accomplishments in the game include leading the UCLA Bruins to the program’s first-ever NCAA Championship only eight months after being hired in April, 2013. Cromwell was subsequently named Soccer America’s Coach of the Year, the first-such honor for a UCLA Women’s Soccer coach. *In addition to coaching at UCLA, Cromwell was instrumental in securing a $5-million dollar donation for the transformation of UCLA’s Wallis Annenberg Stadium as the new home for Bruins Soccer.*
> 
> “I am very passionate about being an integral part of developing the L.A. youth soccer scene,” said Coach Cromwell. “I have been looking for the ideal partnership in the area, and LA Breakers and their vision for youth soccer are the perfect fit for me. I am really excited to begin my work with them.”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cromwell earned 55 caps while representing the U.S. Women’s National Team. She was a member of the United States’ 1995 FIFA Women’s World Cup team and an alternate for the U.S. Olympic team in 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cromwell has already begun working with LA Breakers FC teams and will be working with and evaluating players at our ECNL tryouts this month.


Granting a so-so student guaranteed admission is a time-honored way for colleges to improve their facilities.  It's not like the girl took someone else's scholarship or playing time.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

espola said:


> I shouldn't gloat in UCLA's hour of sadness.


You're a dick, so it's ok.


----------



## AstroWorld

oh canada said:


> See bold type...yeah, bet she was "instrumental"...a couple #41s each year:
> 
> _LA Breakers FC are delighted to announce the hiring of UCLA Head Coach Amanda Cromwell as Special Advisor to the Board, ECNL Staff Coach and College Consultant.
> 
> “Amanda Cromwell is one of the most accomplished women’s soccer coaches in the world,” said Mike Page, Club Director for LA Breakers FC. “She brings a wealth of knowledge and unrivaled connections with the NCAA and US Soccer. Her hiring demonstrates the commitment that LA Breakers has to elite player and coaching development in the Los Angeles region.”
> 
> Cromwell’s accomplishments in the game include leading the UCLA Bruins to the program’s first-ever NCAA Championship only eight months after being hired in April, 2013. Cromwell was subsequently named Soccer America’s Coach of the Year, the first-such honor for a UCLA Women’s Soccer coach. *In addition to coaching at UCLA, Cromwell was instrumental in securing a $5-million dollar donation for the transformation of UCLA’s Wallis Annenberg Stadium as the new home for Bruins Soccer.*
> 
> “I am very passionate about being an integral part of developing the L.A. youth soccer scene,” said Coach Cromwell. “I have been looking for the ideal partnership in the area, and LA Breakers and their vision for youth soccer are the perfect fit for me. I am really excited to begin my work with them.”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cromwell earned 55 caps while representing the U.S. Women’s National Team. She was a member of the United States’ 1995 FIFA Women’s World Cup team and an alternate for the U.S. Olympic team in 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cromwell has already begun working with LA Breakers FC teams and will be working with and evaluating players at our ECNL tryouts this month.



Interesting twist as it appears that AC and a few other UCLA coaches are involved with LA Breakers.  What is also interesting is Salcedo also has involvement with LA Breakers....

http://labreakersfc.com/fc-los-angeles-and-westside-breakers-have-merged


----------



## Soccer43

How is it possible for a college coach to have contact with high school players like that without it being a recruiting violation?  In a different article on this topic it says that AC will not just be a consultant on the board but will be involved in evaluating players at ECNL tryouts


----------



## Soccerfan2

Brandi Chastain coaches at Thorns and coaches at Santa Clara. I guess it might make an easier path for players at that club to that college, but there are so few good coaches (especially females) that it’s hard to overlook the value of having top coaches at the club level.


----------



## MarkM

Soccer43 said:


> How is it possible for a college coach to have contact with high school players like that without it being a recruiting violation?  In a different article on this topic it says that AC will not just be a consultant on the board but will be involved in evaluating players at ECNL tryouts


A lot of college coaches are either youth coaches or are affiliated with youth clubs.


----------



## Soccer43

How many HEAD coaches from top 25 schools coach at youth clubs?


----------



## Supermodel56

oh canada said:


> See bold type...yeah, bet she was "instrumental"...a couple #41s each year:
> 
> _LA Breakers FC are delighted to announce the hiring of UCLA Head Coach Amanda Cromwell as Special Advisor to the Board, ECNL Staff Coach and College Consultant.
> 
> “Amanda Cromwell is one of the most accomplished women’s soccer coaches in the world,” said Mike Page, Club Director for LA Breakers FC. “She brings a wealth of knowledge and unrivaled connections with the NCAA and US Soccer. Her hiring demonstrates the commitment that LA Breakers has to elite player and coaching development in the Los Angeles region.”
> 
> Cromwell’s accomplishments in the game include leading the UCLA Bruins to the program’s first-ever NCAA Championship only eight months after being hired in April, 2013. Cromwell was subsequently named Soccer America’s Coach of the Year, the first-such honor for a UCLA Women’s Soccer coach. *In addition to coaching at UCLA, Cromwell was instrumental in securing a $5-million dollar donation for the transformation of UCLA’s Wallis Annenberg Stadium as the new home for Bruins Soccer.*
> 
> “I am very passionate about being an integral part of developing the L.A. youth soccer scene,” said Coach Cromwell. “I have been looking for the ideal partnership in the area, and LA Breakers and their vision for youth soccer are the perfect fit for me. I am really excited to begin my work with them.”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cromwell earned 55 caps while representing the U.S. Women’s National Team. She was a member of the United States’ 1995 FIFA Women’s World Cup team and an alternate for the U.S. Olympic team in 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cromwell has already begun working with LA Breakers FC teams and will be working with and evaluating players at our ECNL tryouts this month.


Is this for real? That said, it may mean that AC simply wouldn’t be allowed to recruit any of those players...

It reminds me of what SD Surf is doing when they hired Rob Becerra from Stanford and recently the coach from ASU... They’re pushing that angle hard...


----------



## soccer661

Those coaches should be able to work with the younger ages groups though, right...is it U13 and below?
We have seen those instances working with youngers, just not working with high school ages.
After U13 isn't that a conflict of interest/against NCAA rules?


----------



## bullsputboll

Not a problem with salcedo- he will get a job at socal clubs.  Have you seen some of the coaches at the clubs and high school?  Trades people or if you have accent they masquerade as a coach. LOL


----------



## MarkM

Soccer43 said:


> How many HEAD coaches from top 25 schools coach at youth clubs?


Well, I know the Rutgers coach does. 

https://scarletknights.com/news/2010/6/4/Rutgers_Women_s_Soccer_Coaches_Lead_PDA_To_ECNL_Final_Four.aspx


----------



## dk_b

A number of college coaches - HCs and ACs - coach in the Bay Area (or have) and it has not been limited to the younger age groups.  I believe the only restriction is in private (non-clinic) coaching - once in HS, that is prohibited.  There is also some geographic limit but I am not sure how that applies.  MVLA has had a Stanford connection (and a number of Stanford players come from that club) and Mustang has had a Cal connection (with a number of ex-Mustang players playing there).  Not sure Chastain has been at Thorns long enough (or that Thorns has existed in the Bay Area long enough) to create a pipeline (I do know she coaches pre-HS kids (no idea about kids in HS) and, watching my younger kids playing against her team, she is a great ambassador for the game (she compliments EVERY kid coming off the field and, for them, it is like a bolt of magic (not on topic but deserves to be noted)).

I understand that they CANNOT coach in a HS program - not sure if that is a CIF rule or an NCAA rule or both (I'd guess both).


----------



## jpeter

JS is the director at TFA still and was out coaching last week's game.  He's a feature at several "camps" so the $$ still coming in.

That's the funny thing about club soccer, mess up, embezzle money, take bribes,  do whatever and before you know it these people are back at a new club, affiliate, or starting something back up grifting again...


----------



## espola

espola said:


> I shouldn't gloat in UCLA's hour of sadness.


I was going to post a picture here of my son getting by the last defender to score the winning goal in OT to beat UCLA the only time Davis played them in his college career, but the photographer has put copyright restrictions on all his posted work, and he does good work so I don't want to mess with his rights.  If anyone is interested, look at this page --

https://www.aggiephoto.com/p521027952

and click on the photo Henry UCLA0597.  This is the middle of a nice sequence of still photos that read almost like a movie.


----------



## espola

dk_b said:


> A number of college coaches - HCs and ACs - coach in the Bay Area (or have) and it has not been limited to the younger age groups.  I believe the only restriction is in private (non-clinic) coaching - once in HS, that is prohibited.  There is also some geographic limit but I am not sure how that applies.  MVLA has had a Stanford connection (and a number of Stanford players come from that club) and Mustang has had a Cal connection (with a number of ex-Mustang players playing there).  Not sure Chastain has been at Thorns long enough (or that Thorns has existed in the Bay Area long enough) to create a pipeline (I do know she coaches pre-HS kids (no idea about kids in HS) and, watching my younger kids playing against her team, she is a great ambassador for the game (she compliments EVERY kid coming off the field and, for them, it is like a bolt of magic (not on topic but deserves to be noted)).
> 
> I understand that they CANNOT coach in a HS program - not sure if that is a CIF rule or an NCAA rule or both (I'd guess both).


We tried to work a group discount or free tickets for our club boys for a game at SDSU back when I was on the local club's BOD.  They told us they could only do it for players below age 13 because of NCAA restrictions about contacts or special treatment for high school age players.  

As for college coaches working local club teams - all the coaches at the two San Diego D1 programs (USD and SDSU) were coaching (some of them DOCs) at local clubs when we were going through the recruiting passage.  Right now, both Brian Quinn (head coach at USD) and Seamus McFadden (former head coach at USD) are listed on the coaches' page at San Diego Soccer Club.  BQ is Director of Coaches:Younger boys, which may satisfy the NCAA restriction.

https://www.sandiegosoccerclub.org/board-of-directors


----------



## dk_b

espola said:


> We tried to work a group discount or free tickets for our club boys for a game at SDSU back when I was on the local club's BOD.  They told us they could only do it for players below age 13 because of NCAA restrictions about contacts or special treatment for high school age players.


Yes, that's my understanding, too (though not age-based but grade-based).  When our local schools put out calls for ball boys/ball girls, it is always limited to pre-HS age.


----------



## Sons of Pitches

Soccer43 said:


> How many HEAD coaches from top 25 schools coach at youth clubs?


Pepperdine coach is also at Real SoCal.


----------



## outside!

Sons of Pitches said:


> Pepperdine coach is also at Real SoCal.


I thought TW used to be a youngers coach at Blues.


----------



## Sons of Pitches

outside! said:


> I thought TW used to be a youngers coach at Blues.


don't know, only know where he is now.

http://www.realsocal.org/directory/coaching-staff


----------



## End of the Line

soccer661 said:


> Those coaches should be able to work with the younger ages groups though, right...is it U13 and below?
> We have seen those instances working with youngers, just not working with high school ages.
> After U13 isn't that a conflict of interest/against NCAA rules?


NCAA Bylaw 13.11.2.4 allows college coaches to coach in any age group for a local club team based within 50 miles of the college so long as the players also live in that radius.  How refreshing that there's at least one NCAA rule that gives some kids an opportunity to make an educated decision about a coach.


----------



## Sons of Pitches

Fact said:


> What you’re missing is that some of the bribe money found its way into the team’s account and that is a NCAA violation that has cost schools national championships, post season play and scholarships.


Wait, I missed that?  Bribe money ended up in what/which team's account?


----------



## Lambchop

surfrider said:


> The media train is rolling with this.   For gods sake it’s made it on headlines in Europe. The Administration has got to do something.  It just looks bad with the silence


The FBI needs to take a look at the THOUSANDS of international students who take up spots of US students.  Who is checking their classes, grades and tests?  A lot of money pours into universities from international students.


----------



## Lambchop

Supermodel56 said:


> Geez... back to topic at hand...
> 
> Wasn’t there more than one CA school? UCLA, USC, and Stanford?


Heard rumors Cal is investigating a few of their own.


----------



## davin

Soccer43 said:


> How many HEAD coaches from top 25 schools coach at youth clubs?


Paul Ratcliffe, the head coach at Stanford, coaches a team at MVLA Soccer Club.  One of his assistant coaches at Stanford coaches an ECNL team at MVLA as well.


----------



## Soccer43

Just curious how you can have close contact with high school players like this and not cross a line into "recruiting".   Every coach we have talked to over the years has been very strict about contact with players outside of the college campus so there are no NCAA violations.


----------



## sdb

Mauricio Ingrassia is the head coach at Long Beach State and also Beach FC. Paul Krumpe from LMU just joined LA Galaxy South Bay. Seems pretty common.


----------



## jpeter

Double dippers, some are knee deep in the "foundation" business also like this sham shows.

Clubs are involved heavily also in the non-profit, foundation, etc shenanigans and there is $$$ changing hands.   Youth sports in a mutiple billion dollar business that if scrutinized, auidted in depth would likely undercover some legal, ethical, and business problems but most people don't care enough....don't ask don't tell kind of deal.  In this case someone was mad enough to blow the whistle


----------



## Dubs

Lambchop said:


> Heard rumors Cal is investigating a few of their own.


To what degree?  In the Soccer program?  I saw something about a kid on the rowing team but that's it.


----------



## mirage

Lambchop said:


> The FBI needs to take a look at the THOUSANDS of international students who take up spots of US students.  Who is checking their classes, grades and tests?  A lot of money pours into universities from international students.


There's a perfect guy for that...Robert Mueller.

Now that the other gig appears to have ran its course, he needs another few years at taxpayers expense....


----------



## mirage

Sons of Pitches said:


> Wait, I missed that?  Bribe money ended up in what/which team's account?


Bump...

I never read that part either.  I would be shocked if the bribe money was actually used for school purposes.  Are you saying that these coaches had something other than self serving motivation????


----------



## Fact

Lambchop said:


> Heard rumors Cal is investigating a few of their own.


You are a moron throwing out bombshells without any facts.

Who did you hear this from?  That’s right no one Lamb...you’re just probably upset with Cal because they most likely have a percentage of internationals that you are angry about.

The ONLY involvement Cal has been investigating is an international student from Canada that is alleged to have cheated on the SAT.


----------



## Fact

mirage said:


> Bump...
> 
> I never read that part either.  I would be shocked if the bribe money was actually used for school purposes.  Are you saying that these coaches had something other than self serving motivation????


I will try to look for the article later but I remember that a Texas school uses some of the money on tennis?  facilities and some of the money funneled into the nonprofit was earmarked for some of the school’s athletic programs.


----------



## LadiesMan217

Good reading. http://thekeyathleticsclub.com/blog/


----------



## LadiesMan217

Fact said:


> You are a moron throwing out bombshells without any facts.
> 
> Who did you hear this from?  That’s right no one Lamb...you’re just probably upset with Cal because they most likely have a percentage of internationals that you are angry about.
> 
> The ONLY involvement Cal has been investigating is an international student from Canada that is alleged to have cheated on the SAT.


I don't believe you are correct. There are about a half dozen "Singer's" there...


----------



## LadiesMan217

LadiesMan217 said:


> I don't believe you are correct. There are about a half dozen "Singer's" there...


There are even two of them thanking 'Singer' on the link I posted above lol!


----------



## gefelchnik

LadiesMan217 said:


> Good reading. http://thekeyathleticsclub.com/blog/


This is some really second-level stuff here.

Someone ran part of the girl's cover into the story on this blog post even before she went to college.  The piece about being the captain of her club team, which both the FBI and that club said is not true.


----------



## gefelchnik

gefelchnik said:


> This is some really second-level stuff here.
> 
> Someone ran part of the girl's cover into the story on this blog post even before she went to college.  The piece about being the captain of her club team, which both the FBI and that club said is not true.


3rd level would be if the link in the blog post of the track results from the Key Athletics Club meet were also made up.
4th level would be if the Key Athletics Club meet was also fake.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

gefelchnik said:


> This is some really second-level stuff here.
> 
> Someone ran part of the girl's cover into the story on this blog post even before she went to college.  The piece about being the captain of her club team, which both the FBI and that club said is not true.


Anytime the FBI disagrees with you it's a bad day.


----------



## dk_b

Sheriff Joe said:


> Anytime the FBI disagrees with you it's a bad day.


Not soccer but I immediately thought of the closing line from this BNB scene.


----------



## surfrider

mirage said:


> Bump...
> 
> I never read that part either.  I would be shocked if the bribe money was actually used for school purposes.  Are you saying that these coaches had something other than self serving motivation????


Pretty sure the Stanford Sailing coach invested it in new boats for his program


----------



## Fact

LadiesMan217 said:


> There are even two of them thanking 'Singer' on the link I posted above lol!


David Sidoo from Canada sons went to Cal.  But Cal is not alleged to be involved.  Rather he is accused of fraudulently having someone to take tests for his sons.  No one at Cal is alleged to have done anything wrong. If you know otherwise, please share.... I just hate the mass hysteria and drama that always seems to follow  Lambpchop.


----------



## Fact

Fact said:


> David Sidoo from Canada sons went to Cal.  But Cal is not alleged to be involved.  Rather he is accused of fraudulently having someone to take tests for his sons.  No one at Cal is alleged to have done anything wrong. If you know otherwise, please share.... I just hate the mass hysteria and drama that always seems to follow  Lambpchop.


I should add that not all families that used Singer are being accused of fraud.  Some like Joe Montana used him for his 3 kids but there is no allegations of wrongdoing.

The football player on the Key Club was legit.  His senior year he was 4th in the PAC-12 for punting and went on to punt at Arizona during grad school.  So lets not condemn everyone that knew the creep.


----------



## LadiesMan217

Fact said:


> I should add that not all families that used Singer are being accused of fraud.  Some like Joe Montana used him for his 3 kids but there is no allegations of wrongdoing.
> 
> The football player on the Key Club was legit.  His senior year he was 4th in the PAC-12 for punting and went on to punt at Arizona during grad school.  So lets not condemn everyone that knew the creep.


How do you know the football player was legit and didn't have someone fix his SAT score - kicking a ball doesn't mean he is smart enough to get into Cal... But I agree no one else has been accused yet. I think lambchop is correct BTW but my source is not something I would bet on.


----------



## Lambchop

Fact said:


> You are a moron throwing out bombshells without any facts.
> 
> Who did you hear this from?  That’s right no one Lamb...you’re just probably upset with Cal because they most likely have a percentage of internationals that you are angry about.
> 
> The ONLY involvement Cal has been investigating is an international student from Canada that is alleged to have cheated on the SAT.[/QUOT
> Well there you go.  You said it.


----------



## Lambchop

Fact said:


> David Sidoo from Canada sons went to Cal.  But Cal is not alleged to be involved.  Rather he is accused of fraudulently having someone to take tests for his sons.  No one at Cal is alleged to have done anything wrong. If you know otherwise, please share.... I just hate the mass hysteria and drama that always seems to follow  Lambpchop.


By the way, I said Cal was investigating not the FBI, idiot. Which they are.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

dk_b said:


> Not soccer but I immediately thought of the closing line from this BNB scene.


Kids these days don't get enough of that.


----------



## tenacious

Lambchop said:


> By the way, I said Cal was investigating not the FBI, idiot. Which they are.


Would it be public record who all "donated" money to Singers charity?  Got to imagine that list contains a pretty definitive breakdown of all the guilty parties...


----------



## tenacious

So is there anyone, anyone at all who thinks is satisfied that the #41 shite-storm has passed for UCLA now that the men's soccer coach has left the program?


----------



## Soccer43

Well, it looks like UCLA has no intention of going any further with investigating anything and seems quite content with letting the men’s soccer coach taking the fall for all if it:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/faq-admissions-justice-department

Nothing to see here, move along now...


----------



## Soccer43

My favorite part of the FAQ’s:

“_What is UCLA’s admission process for students and student-athletes?
UCLA conducts a holistic review of each applicant. For each applicant, selection is based on a comprehensive review that considers a wide range of academic and non-academic achievements, in the context of the opportunities available to them and their demonstrated capacity to contribute to the intellectual life at UCLA. 

Student-athletes and other students with special talents are reviewed by a similarly rigorous process that takes into consideration the strength of their academic record, as well as their athletic ability.....”
_
What was the special talent and where was the evidence of athletic ability???


----------



## Fact

Lambchop said:


> Heard rumors Cal is investigating a few of their own.


We were discussing administrators/coaches involved in the scandal so your statement implies that “their own” refers to coaches. And again it was 1 kid that cheated on the SAT that did not involve any Cal staff.

Your problem is that your screen name should have been chicken little.  Any time you deem something is not fair (in this case college admissions for international students) you cannot shut up hoping to get your way. The problem is this is a public forum and you’re not going to get your way because life it not fair.  So stop playing the victim.


----------



## abfool

from the BRO

https://247sports.com/college/ucla/Article/Message-From-Dan-Guerrero-Regarding-College-Admissions-Scandal-130388564/

The 4th paragraph:

"All prospective scholarship and recruited non-scholarship student-athletes are vetted via a multi-step evaluation process. This process includes an evaluation of athletic ability, and academic preparation and engagement. "

I wonder who and how many people evaluate athletic ability.  If atheltic ability means #41 has 2 legs and can kick the ball, then I guess #41 has the athletic ability to join a nationally contending team.

UCLA has set very low standards for athletic ability.

While Yale, USC, Stanford ommediately issued statements regarding their academic fraud, it took UCLA 2 weeks to address their academic fraud.


----------



## HouseofCards

abfool said:


> While Yale, USC, Stanford ommediately issued statements regarding their academic fraud, it took UCLA 2 weeks to address their academic fraud.


I would rather get it right than get it quick (not saying Yale, USC, or Stanford didn't get it right). All too often in today's instant gratification, social media age, people rush to get things out before fully assessing the situation and getting all the facts and information.

I have been on here and said, I don't see how AC isn't involved in some way, directly or indirectly, but I have no issue with UCLA not making a knee-jerk reaction and taking action based on speculation and without all the facts. As noted, the DOJ investigation is ongoing. More facts and context will surely come to the surface. I will reserve my judgment on the handling of the case by all schools involved until a later date.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

abfool said:


> from the BRO
> 
> https://247sports.com/college/ucla/Article/Message-From-Dan-Guerrero-Regarding-College-Admissions-Scandal-130388564/
> 
> The 4th paragraph:
> 
> "All prospective scholarship and recruited non-scholarship student-athletes are vetted via a multi-step evaluation process. This process includes an evaluation of athletic ability, and academic preparation and engagement. "
> 
> I wonder who and how many people evaluate athletic ability.  If atheltic ability means #41 has 2 legs and can kick the ball, then I guess #41 has the athletic ability to join a nationally contending team.
> 
> UCLA has set very low standards for athletic ability.
> 
> While Yale, USC, Stanford ommediately issued statements regarding their academic fraud, it took UCLA 2 weeks to address their academic fraud.


They were busy preparing for Bernie Sanders, give em a break.


----------



## Soccer43

HouseofCards said:


> I would rather get it right than get it quick (not saying Yale, USC, or Stanford didn't get it right). All too often in today's instant gratification, social media age, people rush to get things out before fully assessing the situation and getting all the facts and information.
> 
> I have been on here and said, I don't see how AC isn't involved in some way, directly or indirectly, but I have no issue with UCLA not making a knee-jerk reaction and taking action based on speculation and without all the facts. As noted, the DOJ investigation is ongoing. More facts and context will surely come to the surface. I will reserve my judgment on the handling of the case by all schools involved until a later date.


I don't read this as UCLA taking their time to get it right.  All of the issued statements seems like a handler trying to control the negative spin and to manipulate the public so UCLA can get away with this in the way that serves themselves - shame on them for trying to spin this.  I am disappointed in UCLA.  If we don't mention AC in an press releases maybe everyone will forget that she is the head coach of the women's team and should have some type of responsibility for who is on her roster.   At the end of the day, whether she got money or not, she provided a gift to someone from a public university.  That is an abuse of tax payer dollars and her position as a public employee.  Are they looking into where the $5 mil donation came from for the new stadium?  Unfortunate timing but it doesn't seem like anyone is asking about that.


----------



## soccerobserver

Olivia blaming her parents for ruining her life now...

https://pagesix.com/2019/03/23/olivia-jade-giannulli-blames-her-parents-for-ruining-her-life/?_ga=2.217643539.447074870.1553142021-479322424.1552313420


----------



## sdb

abfool said:


> from the BRO
> 
> https://247sports.com/college/ucla/Article/Message-From-Dan-Guerrero-Regarding-College-Admissions-Scandal-130388564/
> 
> The 4th paragraph:
> 
> "All prospective scholarship and recruited non-scholarship student-athletes are vetted via a multi-step evaluation process. This process includes an evaluation of athletic ability, and academic preparation and engagement. "
> 
> I wonder who and how many people evaluate athletic ability.  If atheltic ability means #41 has 2 legs and can kick the ball, then I guess #41 has the athletic ability to join a nationally contending team.
> 
> UCLA has set very low standards for athletic ability.
> 
> While Yale, USC, Stanford ommediately issued statements regarding their academic fraud, it took UCLA 2 weeks to address their academic fraud.


I thought that this was another relevant quote from the AD:

"Coaches submit a list of candidates for admissions consideration in their respective sports to athletic administration officials, who then review the candidates."

Wonder who this is on the women's side.


----------



## Soccer43

soccerobserver said:


> Olivia blaming her parents for ruining her life now...
> 
> https://pagesix.com/2019/03/23/olivia-jade-giannulli-blames-her-parents-for-ruining-her-life/?_ga=2.217643539.447074870.1553142021-479322424.1552313420


It seems like all the publicity will bring more attention to her internet career which could be a good thing once the attention dies down


----------



## Fact

Soccer43 said:


> It seems like all the publicity will bring more attention to her internet career which could be a good thing once the attention dies down


I agree, just being a drama queen like Lampchop.


----------



## Nefutous

This is an interesting story of how Singer streamed money directly to coaches and or college sports programs.  I hope no school unknowingly took funds from his charity and thus gets caught in this mess. It will be interesting to see what appproach the NCAA takes on all of this.

https://news.wttw.com/2019/03/15/feds-charity-funneled-millions-college-bribery-scam


----------



## Glen

sdb said:


> I thought that this was another relevant quote from the AD:
> 
> "Coaches submit a list of candidates for admissions consideration in their respective sports to athletic administration officials, who then review the candidates."
> 
> Wonder who this is on the women's side.


This is the big question.  Josh Walters boasts on the JMU website about how he was in charge of UCLA recruiting for that very, ironically, highly regarded class.  I would start with him - I’m sure JMU is asking questions.

Bill Plaschke was on the radio the other day and mentioned without prompting that the UCLA story seemed to be the most interesting of the entire scandal because the team actually put the kid on the roster.  Plaschke said he wanted to interview the players to see what they were thinking when this lady was listed on the roster.  It takes the deception to another level.  It will be interesting to see if he goes forward with the column.


----------



## abfool

Who had final say on who was on the final roster of ucla women's soccer?

Salcedo?
Walters?
Cromwell?

ARe you saying Cromwell had no final say on who was on the final roster?  If so, then who?

Some are missing the point entirely.  Poingting the finger ar \walters is like putting the pistol on a dead man and saying we caught the guy who pulled the trigger.


----------



## abfool

About 10 years ago, USC announced that they have an endowment for the women's soccer head coach.  that endowment was made under the name of Ali\s father.  Smelled fishy then, stinks now.  USC needs to coem clean where that maoney actually came from.  I have no doubt from \singer.


----------



## Swoosh

abfool said:


> About 10 years ago, USC announced that they have an endowment for the women's soccer head coach.  that endowment was made under the name of Ali\s father.  Smelled fishy then, stinks now.  USC needs to coem clean where that maoney actually came from.  I have no doubt from \singer.


 This is from a New York Times article:

In 2013, in what former players said was an unusual move, the Yale women’s coaching position itself was endowed in Mr. Meredith’s name, thanks to an anonymous donation: For a time, Rudy Meredith was the Rudolph L. Meredith Head Coach of Women’s Soccer. Even after Mr. Meredith’s resignation in November, the name stuck: When Brendan Flaherty was hired as Mr. Meredith’s replacement the next month, it was as the Loring Family and Rudolph L. Meredith Head Coach of Women’s Soccer.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

So two soccer programs caught up in this scandal both received anonymous endowments in the names of their then respective coaches? Coincidence?


----------



## Zerodenero

SpeedK1llz said:


> So two soccer programs caught up in this scandal both received anonymous endowments in the names of their then respective coaches? Coincidence?


Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire. There’s a kid on the roster now who’s story duplicates what’s been broadcasted....show up once, can’t play, “purports” an injury, never to be seen by the team again. 

Coincidence. Naw....hell naw.


----------



## espola

SpeedK1llz said:


> So two soccer programs caught up in this scandal both received anonymous endowments in the names of their then respective coaches? Coincidence?


"Loring Family and Rudolph L. Meredith " doesn't look anonymous.


----------



## espola

Zerodenero said:


> Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire. There’s a kid on the roster now who’s story duplicates what’s been broadcasted....show up once, can’t play, “purports” an injury, never to be seen by the team again.
> 
> Coincidence. Naw....hell naw.


Which roster is that?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

*Dr. Dre Celebrates Daughter's Acceptance to USC 'All on Her Own,' Despite His $70M Donation*
_





Instagram/DrDre
BEN KEW 24 Mar 2019 
*Rap mogul Dr. Dre celebrated his daughter’s acceptance into the University of Southern California (USC) — appeared to mock those celebrities currently embroiled in a college admissions scandal — even though he previously donated $70 million to the university.*




The 54-year-old Grammy-winner took to Instagram to share the news, declaring that his 18-year-old daughter Truly Young had got into the university “all on her own.”


“My daughter got accepted into USC all on her own,” Dre wrote on Instagram on Saturday that ha been deleted. “No jail time!!!”


There is no evidence that Dr. Dre, whose real name is Andre Romelle Young, has ever engaged in fraudulent practices to help his daughter’s application. However, he has previously donated $70 million to the university for the construction of a new arts, technology, and business academy, a move which is unlikely to have harmed her own chances of acceptance.

Earlier this month, authorities charged several celebrities, including Full House stars Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, of using fraudulent tactics to ensure their children were accepted into top universities such as Havard, Yale, and USC. Officials have described the scheme as the “largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice.”
_


----------



## Zerodenero

espola said:


> Which roster is that?


Hint: The one who’s constituents are better known for leading countries, businesses and governments than producing soccer players.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

espola said:


> "Loring Family and Rudolph L. Meredith " doesn't look anonymous.


If you’d read the article properly, you’d know that the Loring Family wasn’t part of the initial endowment.


----------



## tenacious

SpeedK1llz said:


> If you’d read the article properly, you’d know that the Loring Family wasn’t part of the initial endowment.


From what I've read most of the parents were paying a couple hundred thousand at most (seems like most got help with SATs and paid less then $50k), with a large portion of that going out to pay bribes or in Singer's pocket.  So what are folks saying with these endowment allegations; that instead of a dozen kids Singer had been getting closer to a 100 kids into elite colleges and somehow kept it quiet for years?

IDK... starting to sound like conspiracy theory to me.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

tenacious said:


> From what I've read most of the parents were paying a couple hundred thousand at most (seems like most got help with SATs and paid less then $50k), with a large portion of that going out to pay bribes or in Singer's pocket.  So what are folks saying with these endowment allegations; that instead of a dozen kids Singer had been getting closer to a 100 kids into elite colleges and somehow kept it quiet for years?
> 
> IDK... starting to sound like conspiracy theory to me.


Nobody knows at this point but it does seem odd that two of the schools and soccer coaches embroiled in this scandal received anonymous endowments given to support their respective positions. If it was from Singer’s charity, maybe it was his way of attempting to secure the coaches positions for as long as possible to keep the “side door” open? Man, I would love to see several years financial statements for that Charity...


----------



## espola

SpeedK1llz said:


> Nobody knows at this point but it does seem odd that two of the schools and soccer coaches embroiled in this scandal received anonymous endowments given to support their respective positions. If it was from Singer’s charity, maybe it was his way of attempting to secure the coaches positions for as long as possible to keep the “side door” open? Man, I would love to see several years financial statements for that Charity...


Go to guidestar.org and create a free account (takes 5 minutes).  You can access KWF IRS 990 reports for 2014, 2015, and 2016.


----------



## dk_b

tenacious said:


> From what I've read most of the parents were paying a couple hundred thousand at most (seems like most got help with SATs and paid less then $50k), with a large portion of that going out to pay bribes or in Singer's pocket.  So what are folks saying with these endowment allegations; that instead of a dozen kids Singer had been getting closer to a 100 kids into elite colleges and somehow kept it quiet for years?
> 
> IDK... starting to sound like conspiracy theory to me.


Isn't Singer himself on wiretap saying he's helped 761 parents (an oddly precise #) over "decades"?  The guy was working his business for a long time so it is not a huge stretch that he may have helped 100 or even more and it was kept quiet until someone jammed up on something else could expose the scheme in exchange for leniency.  (of note, some of this business appears to be legitimate)

The "brilliance" of his scheme is that, to the parents, it likely appeared "victimless" and w/o someone knowing his/she is a victim, there was no incentive to blow it open.  Parents don't want to be exposed for paying for cheating on tests or clearly gaming the admissions system and he had no incentive to close the $$$ pipeline.  That's a challenge with any type of financial wrongdoing but even fraudulent stock schemes are easier to spot as electronic monitoring can expose odd trading patters and/or illogical price swings (even if seemingly immaterial to lay people (of which I am one)).

There is a "conspiracy theory" angle to this - especially as we venture into thinking about these endowed coaching positions.  But two things about conspiracy theories - some conspiracies do actually exist and when you act fraudulently (like Singer and the coaches), you expose yourself to much greater scrutiny.  The donations absolutely should be investigated.  I don't wish ill on anyone so I hope these are unrelated but there is enough of a stain from dealing with Singer that some dive needs to be undertaken.


----------



## End of the Line

Soccer43 said:


> I don't read this as UCLA taking their time to get it right.  All of the issued statements seems like a handler trying to control the negative spin and to manipulate the public so UCLA can get away with this in the way that serves themselves - shame on them for trying to spin this.  I am disappointed in UCLA.  If we don't mention AC in an press releases maybe everyone will forget that she is the head coach of the women's team and should have some type of responsibility for who is on her roster.   At the end of the day, whether she got money or not, she provided a gift to someone from a public university.  That is an abuse of tax payer dollars and her position as a public employee.  Are they looking into where the $5 mil donation came from for the new stadium?  Unfortunate timing but it doesn't seem like anyone is asking about that.


Are you serious?  You want to know where the $5 million donation came from for Wallis Annenberg Stadium?   You ok buddy? 

UCLA is handling this perfectly.  Unless you are personally affected, employment and student enrollment issues are none of anyone's f**king business, and it doesn't care one bit that its initial statement during a pending investigation did not answer questions to the satisfaction of a handful of crazy soccer conspiracy theorists.  You should prepare yourself mentally for the possibility that UCLA never tells you anything about what Cromwell did or didn't know or do, since you're a nobody with no legitimate reason to know anything. UCLA probably also realizes that you and the other nuts will get distracted and lose interest once your next Us Magazine arrives in the mail anyway.


----------



## Soccer43

End of the Line said:


> Are you serious?  You want to know where the $5 million donation came from for Wallis Annenberg Stadium?   You ok buddy?
> 
> UCLA is handling this perfectly.  Unless you are personally affected, employment and student enrollment issues are none of anyone's f**king business, and it doesn't care one bit that its initial statement during a pending investigation did not answer questions to the satisfaction of a handful of crazy soccer conspiracy theorists.  You should prepare yourself mentally for the possibility that UCLA never tells you anything about what Cromwell did or didn't know or do, since you're a nobody with no legitimate reason to know anything. UCLA probably also realizes that you and the other nuts will get distracted and lose interest once your next Us Magazine arrives in the mail anyway.


ouch and ouch EOTL -  Are you ok buddy?  I am usually one of your only supporters on this forum, my feelings are hurt and I think I am going to my safe space for a bit ....  I agree, UCLA is handling it perfectly and yes,  I  also expect that this will all die down and people will lose interest and it is business as usual.  I don't expect to have any other information coming out in regards to most of the schools.  In terms of who's business this is, however, I don't agree.  This is a public institution where the salaries and expenses are supported by taxpayers.  It is the business of everyone that pays taxes in the state of California and public employees have an obligation to the public.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

End of the Line said:


> Are you serious?  You want to know where the $5 million donation came from for Wallis Annenberg Stadium?   You ok buddy?
> 
> UCLA is handling this perfectly.  Unless you are personally affected, employment and student enrollment issues are none of anyone's f**king business, and it doesn't care one bit that its initial statement during a pending investigation did not answer questions to the satisfaction of a handful of crazy soccer conspiracy theorists.  You should prepare yourself mentally for the possibility that UCLA never tells you anything about what Cromwell did or didn't know or do, since you're a nobody with no legitimate reason to know anything. UCLA probably also realizes that you and the other nuts will get distracted and lose interest once your next Us Magazine arrives in the mail anyway.


It is a UC school.


----------



## Abdul

End of the Line said:


> Are you serious?  You want to know where the $5 million donation came from for Wallis Annenberg Stadium?   You ok buddy?
> 
> UCLA is handling this perfectly.  Unless you are personally affected, employment and student enrollment issues are none of anyone's f**king business, and it doesn't care one bit that its initial statement during a pending investigation did not answer questions to the satisfaction of a handful of crazy soccer conspiracy theorists.  You should prepare yourself mentally for the possibility that UCLA never tells you anything about what Cromwell did or didn't know or do, since you're a nobody with no legitimate reason to know anything. UCLA probably also realizes that you and the other nuts will get distracted and lose interest once your next Us Magazine arrives in the mail anyway.


MAP is this you?


----------



## End of the Line

Abdul said:


> MAP is this you?


I was previously outed as the homeless guy in WA who hangs out at the public library.


----------



## espola

End of the Line said:


> Are you serious?  You want to know where the $5 million donation came from for Wallis Annenberg Stadium?   You ok buddy?
> 
> UCLA is handling this perfectly.  Unless you are personally affected, employment and student enrollment issues are none of anyone's f**king business, and it doesn't care one bit that its initial statement during a pending investigation did not answer questions to the satisfaction of a handful of crazy soccer conspiracy theorists.  You should prepare yourself mentally for the possibility that UCLA never tells you anything about what Cromwell did or didn't know or do, since you're a nobody with no legitimate reason to know anything. UCLA probably also realizes that you and the other nuts will get distracted and lose interest once your next Us Magazine arrives in the mail anyway.


UCLA is a public institution.  All taxpayers and citizens of California have a stake in their game.


----------



## Surfref

End of the Line said:


> Are you serious?  You want to know where the $5 million donation came from for Wallis Annenberg Stadium?   You ok buddy?
> 
> UCLA is handling this perfectly.  Unless you are personally affected, employment and student enrollment issues are none of anyone's f**king business, and it doesn't care one bit that its initial statement during a pending investigation did not answer questions to the satisfaction of a handful of crazy soccer conspiracy theorists.  You should prepare yourself mentally for the possibility that UCLA never tells you anything about what Cromwell did or didn't know or do, since you're a nobody with no legitimate reason to know anything. UCLA probably also realizes that you and the other nuts will get distracted and lose interest once your next Us Magazine arrives in the mail anyway.


If this was USC I would agree with you, but UCLA is a public university that receives a good bit of money from the California tax payers.  So, we do have a right to full and transparent disclosures.


----------



## Lambchop

Soccer43 said:


> ouch and ouch EOTL -  Are you ok buddy?  I am usually one of your only supporters on this forum, my feelings are hurt and I think I am going to my safe space for a bit ....  I agree, UCLA is handling it perfectly and yes,  I  also expect that this will all die down and people will lose interest and it is business as usual.  I don't expect to have any other information coming out in regards to most of the schools.  In terms of who's business this is, however, I don't agree.  This is a public institution where the salaries and expenses are supported by taxpayers.  It is the business of everyone that pays taxes in the state of California and public employees have an obligation to the public.


Each university involved should hire an outside counsel to review every single athlete and verify grades, transcripts and tests.  Clear the air and be transparent, this would dispel any rumors of conspiracy or additional wrong doing.  If everything is on the up and up the universities should welcome this.


----------



## dk_b

Lambchop said:


> Each university involved should hire an outside counsel to review every single athlete and verify grades, transcripts and tests.  Clear the air and be transparent, this would dispel any rumors of conspiracy or additional wrong doing.  If everything is on the up and up the universities should welcome this.


I'd guess that they are doing EXACTLY what you have written except doing it in a transparent way - and certainly not until the outside investigation shows there are NO PROBLEMS.  So I'd expect we will hear from some schools but not all.


----------



## tenacious

dk_b said:


> Isn't Singer himself on wiretap saying he's helped 761 parents (an oddly precise #) over "decades"?  The guy was working his business for a long time so it is not a huge stretch that he may have helped 100 or even more and it was kept quiet until someone jammed up on something else could expose the scheme in exchange for leniency.  (of note, some of this business appears to be legitimate)
> 
> The "brilliance" of his scheme is that, to the parents, it likely appeared "victimless" and w/o someone knowing his/she is a victim, there was no incentive to blow it open.  Parents don't want to be exposed for paying for cheating on tests or clearly gaming the admissions system and he had no incentive to close the $$$ pipeline.  That's a challenge with any type of financial wrongdoing but even fraudulent stock schemes are easier to spot as electronic monitoring can expose odd trading patters and/or illogical price swings (even if seemingly immaterial to lay people (of which I am one)).
> 
> There is a "conspiracy theory" angle to this - especially as we venture into thinking about these endowed coaching positions.  But two things about conspiracy theories - some conspiracies do actually exist and when you act fraudulently (like Singer and the coaches), you expose yourself to much greater scrutiny.  The donations absolutely should be investigated.  I don't wish ill on anyone so I hope these are unrelated but there is enough of a stain from dealing with Singer that some dive needs to be undertaken.


In my experience it’s difficult to keep a secret that three people know. I just doubt if hundreds were in the know... it could possibly stay secret very long.   

Moreover that this guy Singer set up a non-profit in his own name so parents could write off donations and having parents transfer Facebook shares directly to him (as #41’s parents are said to have done) makes me think Jonny Law already knows who and how much was paid to play... and have given the schools a list of names they want records on.  If the Universities are bracing for hundreds of more names to go public, so far they don’t seem to be behaving like it.

Really the most interesting part to this whole story is UCLA because that girl was put on the roster and the coach of the team still has her job.


----------



## dk_b

tenacious said:


> In my experience it’s difficult to keep a secret that three people know. I just doubt if hundreds were in the know... it could possibly stay secret very long.
> 
> Moreover that this guy Singer set up a non-profit in his own name so parents could write off donations and having parents transfer Facebook shares directly to him (as #41’s parents are said to have done) makes me think Jonny Law already knows who and how much was paid to play... and have given the schools a list of names they want records on.  If the Universities are bracing for hundreds of more names to go public, so far they don’t seem to be behaving like it.
> 
> Really the most interesting part to this whole story is UCLA because that girl was put on the roster and the coach of the team still has her job.


I hear you and don't disagree in most cases but this was SILENT until the guy being charged with SEC crimes flipped and blew the lid off the muther.  And it led to dozens of indictments we know of, a number of unindicted co-conspirators (including a UCLA women's coach) and who knows how many who are not yet indicted.  I am quite certain that there are people shaking, talking to lawyers and HOPING that nobody looks too closely (if I were they or advising them, I'd be talking to a lawyer; if I gave him a dollar, I'd be talking to a lawyer just so I know how to respond if/when the Feds coming calling - full disclosure, I am a lawyer and I'd STILL talk with a lawyer).

And I agree that the most interesting part is the UCLA - no surprise given this bulletin board.


----------



## gefelchnik

dk_b said:


> I hear you and don't disagree in most cases but this was SILENT until the guy being charged with SEC crimes flipped and blew the lid off the muther.  And it led to dozens of indictments we know of, a number of unindicted co-conspirators (including a UCLA women's coach) and who knows how many who are not yet indicted.  I am quite certain that there are people shaking, talking to lawyers and HOPING that nobody looks too closely (if I were they or advising them, I'd be talking to a lawyer; if I gave him a dollar, I'd be talking to a lawyer just so I know how to respond if/when the Feds coming calling - full disclosure, I am a lawyer and I'd STILL talk with a lawyer).
> 
> And I agree that the most interesting part is the UCLA - no surprise given this bulletin board.


This was in the latimes today...wonder where this leads:

Of the many outrageous allegations revealed by federal prosecutors in the college cheating scandal, one stands out.

Someone paid $6.5 million to get his or her children into elite schools. But the identity of that parent — and details about which schools were involved — remains a mystery nearly two weeks after authorities in Boston filed the charges against dozens of wealthy individuals.

The lack of information about the money is more notable given that the charges go into intense detail about the alleged actions of other parents, who are accused of bribing and cheating to get their kids into schools such as Yale, USC and UCLA.

Prosecutors have mentioned the $6.5 million in payments at a news conference and in court. But they are not included in the hundreds of pages detailing the charges.

“The name was not divulged,” Christina Sterling, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston, told The Times in an email. “We did not tie the amount to anyone by name. That is not public.”

She declined to say whether the person who paid the massive sum is among those already charged. But that is unlikely because the court records show none of the other parents allegedly paid anywhere close to that amount of money.

The payment is more sign that there is still much more to come in the case that has rocked American universities and placed a harsh spotlight on the college admissions process.


----------



## tenacious

gefelchnik said:


> This was in the latimes today...wonder where this leads:
> 
> Of the many outrageous allegations revealed by federal prosecutors in the college cheating scandal, one stands out.
> 
> Someone paid $6.5 million to get his or her children into elite schools. But the identity of that parent — and details about which schools were involved — remains a mystery nearly two weeks after authorities in Boston filed the charges against dozens of wealthy individuals.
> 
> The lack of information about the money is more notable given that the charges go into intense detail about the alleged actions of other parents, who are accused of bribing and cheating to get their kids into schools such as Yale, USC and UCLA.
> 
> Prosecutors have mentioned the $6.5 million in payments at a news conference and in court. But they are not included in the hundreds of pages detailing the charges.
> 
> “The name was not divulged,” Christina Sterling, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston, told The Times in an email. “We did not tie the amount to anyone by name. That is not public.”
> 
> She declined to say whether the person who paid the massive sum is among those already charged. But that is unlikely because the court records show none of the other parents allegedly paid anywhere close to that amount of money.
> 
> The payment is more sign that there is still much more to come in the case that has rocked American universities and placed a harsh spotlight on the college admissions process.


My guess would be this is the person who told the FBI in the first place.  The one who had committed some sort of securities fraud and was looking to plead for a lighter sentence.

Also I would suspect there are more names to come out. I remember initial reports saying this was a $12 million scam?  Supposing the $6 million dollar man/woman accounts for half... the other 15 or so kids we know about bribes’ still don’t cover the other half of the $12 million. So yes there must be more people out there. That said, using only info I’ve read on the internet (whatever that’s worth), I predict were just not looking at anything close to 100’s more names.


----------



## surfrider

I believe it was said this scam ran since 2011 and at 25 million


----------



## tenacious

surfrider said:


> I believe it was said this scam ran since 2011 and at 25 million


I looked it up and you're right... $25 million and he started scamming people into colleges in 2011.  
Although I still think my larger point holds.   I just don't see evidence that is on the scale where 100's of people are going to jail.


----------



## dk_b

tenacious said:


> I looked it up and you're right... $25 million and he started scamming people into colleges in 2011.
> Although I still think my larger point holds.   I just don't see evidence that is on the scale where 100's of people are going to jail.


Few people will go to jail - in that sense, the coaches/college administrators have the greatest risk.  The parents are of such means to hire the best lawyers, will pay significant fines (w/o putting a dent in their wealth) and do some humiliating community service.  The coaches likely don't have similar means and run a greater risk of doing time (I think Singer will do time).  The "punishment" of the parents will be that tension between them and their kids and the humiliation their kids will feel in their circle of "elites" - won't surprise me if the kids are able to leverage this humiliation into a season skiing in the French Alps, a new Ferrari and a condo in Manhattan.  Really painful stuff.

(I think Meredith seems like a real snake but it does not seem just if he has to go to prison while others skate)


----------



## younothat

College acceptance notices have been going out this last couple of weeks and will continue for some and this scandal has had a effect already since I heard some programs have been frozen in helping out students who maybe deserving or qualified with a special need or talent but for one reason or the others admission admin is now vary wary of any special "admissions".

The other shoe is that we personally know some players who had verbal commits, signed or where close to signing but the programs now are reevaluating,  changing coaches, or policies/programs as a results and things are a bit up in the air.   With College choices/commitments due in what May or so things are in flux for some so I hope things work out for them.


----------



## End of the Line

Surfref said:


> If this was USC I would agree with you, but UCLA is a public university that receives a good bit of money from the California tax payers.  So, we do have a right to full and transparent disclosures.


How ironic that the little people are trying to throw their limited financial (taxpayer) weight around in revenge for rich people throwing their actual financial weight around.  Just eat your cake and move on, will you?

If you think you're entitled to anything about Cromwell at this point, read the California Public Records Act.  And since anything relating to Cromwell would almost assuredly implicate the student Isackson, also read the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.  If there is eventually a finding of wrongdoing against Cromwell, the public will probably be entitled to some info, but not until then.  In the meantime, people will have to continue speculating that Singer conspired with Grandma Annenberg to pay a $5 million bribe to UCLA to build the new stadium while Isackson was still in middle school - just in case the $50 million she gave to USC ended up being insufficient to get her in over there.  Man, that took some serious forethought.


----------



## Soccer43

End of the Line said:


> How ironic that the little people are trying to throw their limited financial (taxpayer) weight around in revenge for rich people throwing their actual financial weight around.  Just eat your cake and move on, will you?
> 
> If you think you're entitled to anything about Cromwell at this point, read the California Public Records Act.  And since anything relating to Cromwell would almost assuredly implicate the student Isackson, also read the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.  If there is eventually a finding of wrongdoing against Cromwell, the public will probably be entitled to some info, but not until then.  In the meantime, people will have to continue speculating that Singer conspired with Grandma Annenberg to pay a $5 million bribe to UCLA to build the new stadium while Isackson was still in middle school - just in case the $50 million she gave to USC ended up being insufficient to get her in over there.  Man, that took some serious forethought.


If the two situations  happened it doesn’t mean they have to be linked to each other.  If someone is unethical it is unlikely it is just one time or one situation


----------



## oh canada

here come more Feds...college admins are sh**ting themselves, trust me:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/education-department-investigating-yale-schools-college-scam


----------



## ChalkOnYourBoots

Interesting to note that for four the eight schools are in California.  A nice target for Betsy and her crew, although only two are public.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

ChalkOnYourBoots said:


> Interesting to note that for four the eight schools are in California.  A nice target for Betsy and her crew, although only two are public.


Big Sis is in charge of the UC schools, keep an eye on her.


----------



## Lambchop

tenacious said:


> In my experience it’s difficult to keep a secret that three people know. I just doubt if hundreds were in the know... it could possibly stay secret very long.
> 
> Moreover that this guy Singer set up a non-profit in his own name so parents could write off donations and having parents transfer Facebook shares directly to him (as #41’s parents are said to have done) makes me think Jonny Law already knows who and how much was paid to play... and have given the schools a list of names they want records on.  If the Universities are bracing for hundreds of more names to go public, so far they don’t seem to be behaving like it.
> 
> Really the most interesting part to this whole story is UCLA because that girl was put on the roster and the coach of the team still has her job.


Someone will probably file a lawsuit saying their player had top grades, test score, played ECNL and DA in her career and may have been ranked but didn't get in because of this.  Huge lawsuit waiting to happen.


----------



## dk_b

Lambchop said:


> Someone will probably file a lawsuit saying their player had top grades, test score, played ECNL and DA in her career and may have been ranked but didn't get in because of this.  Huge lawsuit waiting to happen.


The challenge with a suit like that by a single player is that is very difficult to prove that HER spot was lost to a specific person.  That's why the two Stanford students who are suing are trying to create a plaintiff class.  If there were a class action suit of DA/ECNL players, they might have a chance BUT - and this is key - there can't be more plaintiffs than roster slots or the claim of damages would be much, much harder (esp, in the UCLA case, they can just say, "hey, you would not have be given that slot.  It would have gone unfilled" and that argument is compelling.  It is easier to take the general student argument and say that the slots that were not the unique athletic slots were taken from them, making a difficult admissions process even harder.

I also think that there is a chance of suits over the fraud and misuse of the position since a taxpayer - or taxpayer class - can claim a misuse of public funds (even private schools have state and federal money in buckets coming through the doors).  I anticipate waves of legal developments on this story that is far from over.


----------



## Soccer43

dk_b said:


> The challenge with a suit like that by a single player is that is very difficult to prove that HER spot was lost to a specific person.  That's why the two Stanford students who are suing are trying to create a plaintiff class.  If there were a class action suit of DA/ECNL players, they might have a chance BUT - and this is key - there can't be more plaintiffs than roster slots or the claim of damages would be much, much harder (esp, in the UCLA case, they can just say, "hey, you would not have be given that slot.  It would have gone unfilled" and that argument is compelling.  It is easier to take the general student argument and say that the slots that were not the unique athletic slots were taken from them, making a difficult admissions process even harder.
> 
> I also think that there is a chance of suits over the fraud and misuse of the position since a taxpayer - or taxpayer class - can claim a misuse of public funds (even private schools have state and federal money in buckets coming through the doors).  I anticipate waves of legal developments on this story that is far from over.


or, everyone starts to lose interest and stops talking about it and the problem floats away and all go back to business as usual.


----------



## goldentoe

oh canada said:


> here come more Feds...college admins are sh**ting themselves, trust me:
> 
> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/education-department-investigating-yale-schools-college-scam


It’s getting real, with the first round of arraignments going down in federal court yesterday.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

goldentoe said:


> It’s getting real, with the first round of arraignments going down in federal court yesterday.


That's when people start singing.


----------



## gotothebushes

Sheriff Joe said:


> That's when people start singing.


 They will be singing like they caught the HOLY GHOST in church shouting  " PRAISE JESUS"!!!!


----------



## dk_b

They will only sing if they are otherwise looking at prison time.  Otherwise, they will negotiate a hefty fine and community service and promise to "never, never do it again".  That's why they really F'd themselves if they concealed the bribe as a charitable donation and then took a deduction.  The tax fraud is the WOW! factor that makes things much harder on them. (I write that w/o any sympathy; I can't stand how people who cheat on their taxes think they are only cheating the gov't - they are cheating all of us).  They'd have been much "better" off just paying it to Singer directly (or to his for-profit arm)


----------



## beachbum

dk_b said:


> The challenge with a suit like that by a single player is that is very difficult to prove that HER spot was lost to a specific person.  That's why the two Stanford students who are suing are trying to create a plaintiff class.  If there were a class action suit of DA/ECNL players, they might have a chance BUT - and this is key - there can't be more plaintiffs than roster slots or the claim of damages would be much, much harder (esp, in the UCLA case, they can just say, "hey, you would not have be given that slot.  It would have gone unfilled" and that argument is compelling.  It is easier to take the general student argument and say that the slots that were not the unique athletic slots were taken from them, making a difficult admissions process even harder.
> 
> I also think that there is a chance of suits over the fraud and misuse of the position since a taxpayer - or taxpayer class - can claim a misuse of public funds (even private schools have state and federal money in buckets coming through the doors).  I anticipate waves of legal developments on this story that is far from over.


Correct me if i'm wrong but there are unlimited roster spots but only 14 scholarships. Some schools roster 25-28 while some roster 30 plus.


----------



## espola

beachbum said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong but there are unlimited roster spots but only 14 scholarships. Some schools roster 25-28 while some roster 30 plus.


There is also no NCAA limit to the number of admissions without athletic money that can be granted.  Each college is free to set its own limit internally, which may be more or less than the number allowed by the NCAA with athletic money.


----------



## mirage

beachbum said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong but there are unlimited roster spots but only 14 scholarships. Some schools roster 25-28 while some roster 30 plus.


Roster spots are not unlimited.  There is a practical number and, while most schools carry ~30 to 35 on the high side, there is a financial impact to the program from the infrastructure perspective. Additionally, student athletes get a preferential registration as well as additional tutoring so the school limits the roster size.

As for the scholarships, the number is equivalent person (EP). so the program can distribute up to the NCAA limit in terms of EPs over the entire or most of the roster.  There is a catch though.  Some public D1 schools use out of state costs for their EPs, whereas some use in-state costs EPs.  The difference being how well funded the athletic program is at that particular school.  I believe its a loop hole in the rules.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

dk_b said:


> They will only sing if they are otherwise looking at prison time.  Otherwise, they will negotiate a hefty fine and community service and promise to "never, never do it again".  That's why they really F'd themselves if they concealed the bribe as a charitable donation and then took a deduction.  The tax fraud is the WOW! factor that makes things much harder on them. (I write that w/o any sympathy; I can't stand how people who cheat on their taxes think they are only cheating the gov't - they are cheating all of us).  They'd have been much "better" off just paying it to Singer directly (or to his for-profit arm)


Hey, after this new Smollett hoax twist, all bets are off.


----------



## gotothebushes

Sheriff Joe said:


> Hey, after this new Smollett hoax twist, all bets are off.


 Now your being too funny!!


----------



## Sheriff Joe

gotothebushes said:


> Now your being too funny!!


Sorry, I'll stop.


----------



## gotothebushes

Sheriff Joe said:


> Sorry, I'll stop.


 Oh god!! Please don’t. Gets me through my day. Serious though, I wonder why only UCLA and USC are the only schools there focusing on! Interesting


----------



## surfrider

gotothebushes said:


> Oh god!! Please don’t. Gets me through my day. Serious though, I wonder why only UCLA and USC are the only schools there focusing on! Interesting


USC because it was rampant and involved administration and UCLA because they were dumb enough to roster a non player that they knew would never see the pitch


----------



## dk_b

beachbum said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong but there are unlimited roster spots but only 14 scholarships. Some schools roster 25-28 while some roster 30 plus.


That is consistent with my point.  Anyone can sue for anything.  But to win you need to show a bad act, damages and a causal link between the bad act and the damage.  If I sue on behalf of my kid and say #41 took her spot, I will have a hard time winning because even if my kid is a talented player, there is no direct link between UCLA's act and my kid's damage (not getting picked).  There are reasons for that - UCLA may not have filled the spot, UCLA may have taken my kid EVEN WITH #41 (she could have been #42!), UCLA may have passed on dozens of other more talented players before they'd even look at my kid, etc.  If I file a class action suit, maybe I have a better chance b/c I can allege that among the group of plaintiffs (the "plaintiff class") are girls who missed out b/c of #41 (which specific girl is less relevant; like with a med device suit - my pacemaker may not be causing me problems but I still get some settlement b/c I am part of the plaintiff class (that is entirely made up - well, I do have a PM . . .)).  I think the stronger case is non-athletes and how the admissions process is skewed by letting non-athletes get the athletic goodies.  And I think the strongest case is to allege fraudulent use of funds/position BUT that is also the MOST attenuated in terms of damages (unless it is a suit BY the gov't or the school).  

(this is all lay-speak.  I am sure there are other lawyers on here who can (and might) go into great detail and may tell me how off base I am.  I want to stress, I am not commenting on the actual merits beyond "better chance" and the like.  Litigation is a crap shoot.  Obvious winners lose and longshots pay off.)


----------



## goldentoe

Sheriff Joe said:


> That's when people start singing.


All that showed plead “not guilty”. Maybe the prosecutor will go easy and they’ll get sweetheart deals. I don’t know though. This is the first case of it’s kind that I know of involving a clearly prosecutable case of conspiracy amongst parents and coaches, working with an intermediary to defraud the admissions systems at elite colleges. There’s also the whole 
charitable donation/tax fraud angle for some. I don’t care how innocent you think you are, or how trivial your attorney tells you the charges are, no one likes to be arraigned. 

Politics seem to drive the bus in almost all legal matters. The lead prosecutor, Andrew Lelling, was nominated to his federal post Sept. 2017 by President Trump. He might try to make a name for himself and send a strong message to those amongst the coastal elites who think they can throw money at anyone for anything. 

I doubt anyone will do long term jail time, but I also think no one gets off as clean as Jussie. 

MAP may have the inside story on the UCLA situation, , my gut has shifted on this. It’s probably a nothing-burger. The feds are not interested in the women’s program, that we know of. Internally they’ll handle it, and only if the NCAA flexes their muscle will we ever hear which coach allowed Isackson to be rostered. It’s still sketchy though, and sketchy people do sketchy thjngs.


----------



## Messi>CR7

gotothebushes said:


> Oh god!! Please don’t. Gets me through my day. Serious though, I wonder why only UCLA and USC are the only schools there focusing on! Interesting


Because it's just too good of a story.  Before this story broke, would you ever believe a girl can get on UCLA's women' team by going through a USC coach?


----------



## espola

Messi>CR7 said:


> Because it's just too good of a story.  Before this story broke, would you ever believe a girl can get on UCLA's women' team by going through a USC coach?


Well, yes, if she was not a good player.


----------



## tenacious

goldentoe said:


> All that showed plead “not guilty”. Maybe the prosecutor will go easy and they’ll get sweetheart deals. I don’t know though. This is the first case of it’s kind that I know of involving a clearly prosecutable case of conspiracy amongst parents and coaches, working with an intermediary to defraud the admissions systems at elite colleges. There’s also the whole
> charitable donation/tax fraud angle for some. I don’t care how innocent you think you are, or how trivial your attorney tells you the charges are, no one likes to be arraigned.
> 
> Politics seem to drive the bus in almost all legal matters. The lead prosecutor, Andrew Lelling, was nominated to his federal post Sept. 2017 by President Trump. He might try to make a name for himself and send a strong message to those amongst the coastal elites who think they can throw money at anyone for anything.
> 
> I doubt anyone will do long term jail time, but I also think no one gets off as clean as Jussie.
> 
> MAP may have the inside story on the UCLA situation, , my gut has shifted on this. It’s probably a nothing-burger. The feds are not interested in the women’s program, that we know of. Internally they’ll handle it, and only if the NCAA flexes their muscle will we ever hear which coach allowed Isackson to be rostered. It’s still sketchy though, and sketchy people do sketchy thjngs.


Is there any info on what the Fed's are investigating?  Seems to me what the real scandal here is the cheating on the SAT/ACT test.  Maybe standardized testing isn't the usual front page sell-a-million newspapers type story, but fug- if this Singer guy was able to game the system that easy, only charging in the $10k - $20k range, then that sounds to me like we might actually be looking at the tip of an iceberg.

Beyond that, I don't know how many point's Trump would get going after UCLA or USC.  Maybe if we we were talking Cal then I could see why politics would matter to Trump and the rabid right wing crazy people.  But somehow I just doubt arresting people at UCLA / USC over a handful of kids gaming the system and corrupt coaches will win him many political points in places like Texas or Ohio?  It's fun to see your rival lose for a season or two... but not sure Trump coming in and using the government to destroy rival programs is a vote winner.

However if they blow the lid off SAT's scores being for sale... now that might win some hearts and minds.  Especially in rural America where a high SAT score is one of the only ways truly gifted (Trump supporting) blue-collar kid would have to go to an elite college out where they wouldn't have access to a guy like Singer.


----------



## goldentoe

tenacious said:


> Is there any info on what the Fed's are investigating?  Seems to me what the real scandal here is the cheating on the SAT/ACT test.  Maybe standardized testing isn't the usual front page sell-a-million newspapers type story, but fug- if this Singer guy was able to game the system that easy, only charging in the $10k - $20k range, then that sounds to me like we might actually be looking at the tip of an iceberg.
> 
> Beyond that, I don't know how many point's Trump would get going after UCLA or USC.  Maybe if we we were talking Cal then I could see why politics would matter to Trump and the rabid right wing crazy people.  But somehow I just doubt arresting people at UCLA / USC over a handful of kids gaming the system and corrupt coaches will win him many political points in places like Texas or Ohio?  It's fun to see your rival lose for a season or two... but not sure Trump coming in and using the government to destroy rival programs is a vote winner.
> 
> However if they blow the lid off SAT's scores being for sale... now that might win some hearts and minds.  Especially in rural America where a high SAT score is one of the only ways truly gifted (Trump supporting) blue-collar kid would have to go to an elite college out where they wouldn't have access to a guy like Singer.


https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/03/twelve-defendants-in-college-admissions-scandal-arraigned-in-boston-federal-court/

This an article about the arraignments, the idictment link was posted at the beginning of this thread, which lays out the charges.
From a political standpoint, I was referring to the prosecutor, not the President. As a recent appointee he might look to make his mark.


----------



## Lambchop

ChalkOnYourBoots said:


> Interesting to note that for four the eight schools are in California.  A nice target for Betsy and her crew, although only two are public.





goldentoe said:


> All that showed plead “not guilty”. Maybe the prosecutor will go easy and they’ll get sweetheart deals. I don’t know though. This is the first case of it’s kind that I know of involving a clearly prosecutable case of conspiracy amongst parents and coaches, working with an intermediary to defraud the admissions systems at elite colleges. There’s also the whole
> charitable donation/tax fraud angle for some. I don’t care how innocent you think you are, or how trivial your attorney tells you the charges are, no one likes to be arraigned.
> 
> Politics seem to drive the bus in almost all legal matters. The lead prosecutor, Andrew Lelling, was nominated to his federal post Sept. 2017 by President Trump. He might try to make a name for himself and send a strong message to those amongst the coastal elites who think they can throw money at anyone for anything.
> 
> I doubt anyone will do long term jail time, but I also think no one gets off as clean as Jussie.
> 
> MAP may have the inside story on the UCLA situation, , my gut has shifted on this. It’s probably a nothing-burger. The feds are not interested in the women’s program, that we know of. Internally they’ll handle it, and only if the NCAA flexes their muscle will we ever hear which coach allowed Isackson to be rostered. It’s still sketchy though, and sketchy people do sketchy thjngs.


Seriously, how many club coaches aren't aware of who is on their roster?  The women's head coach had to know and approve of everything! Period!  This is a top Division 1, soccer program.  Give me a break.  Everyone in charge of the team should be removed.  There are plenty of good, honest coaches out there who would love to coach a group of talented young women. UCLA should not be trying to protect anyone. Period.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Lambchop said:


> Seriously, how many club coaches aren't aware of who is on their roster?  The women's head coach had to know and approve of everything! Period!  This is a top Division 1, soccer program.  Give me a break.  Everyone in charge of the team should be removed.  There are plenty of good, honest coaches out there who would love to coach a group of talented young women. UCLA should not be trying to protect anyone. Period.


These people are supposed to be teaching and setting these kids up with life lessons, lock em up.


----------



## Lambchop

surfrider said:


> USC because it was rampant and involved administration and UCLA because they were dumb enough to roster a non player that they knew would never see the pitch


Didn't Georgetown have twelve students involved?  Isn't there a women,  from a Houston high school, very deeply involved with this whole mess?  How many of those students who had their SAT's changed etc. that are now at universities across the country?  It will be interesting to see what additional  information comes out in the next few weeks and months.


----------



## espola

Lambchop said:


> Seriously, how many club coaches aren't aware of who is on their roster?  The women's head coach had to know and approve of everything! Period!  This is a top Division 1, soccer program.  Give me a break.  Everyone in charge of the team should be removed.  There are plenty of good, honest coaches out there who would love to coach a group of talented young women. UCLA should not be trying to protect anyone. Period.


You favor punishing the innocent as well as the guilty?


----------



## espola

Lambchop said:


> Didn't Georgetown have twelve students involved?  Isn't there a women,  from a Houston high school, very deeply involved with this whole mess?  How many of those students who had their SAT's changed etc. that are now at universities across the country?  It will be interesting to see what additional  information comes out in the next few weeks and months.


I think it may be reasonable to believe that colleges in some instances did not know about the SAT frauds and accepted the scores at face value.


----------



## dk_b

Guilty plea for Rudy Meredith.  http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/26382291/ex-yale-coach-pleads-guilty-admissions-scandal.

I predict he'll still do some time though not a lot.


----------



## tenacious

This has nothing to do with college soccer... but yet, it sort of does.  
Signs and wonders.



> *Opinion: Auburn's Bruce Pearl symbolizes the rot in college athletics*
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/nancy-armour/2019/03/29/bruce-pearl-auburn-march-madness-sweet-16/3301783002/
> 
> KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Bruce Pearl could outlive a cat.
> 
> Just one of his run-ins with the NCAA would have been enough to torpedo the career of pretty much any other coach. There was the secret taping of a recruit to try and bust a rival. There was the barbecue with recruits, at his house, which he made worse by lying about afterward and encouraging his assistants to do the same. There were the assistants caught up in FBI investigations.
> 
> Yet here Pearl is, not only still employed, but back in the Sweet 16 for the first time in almost a decade. With Auburn, no less, which doesn’t remotely resemble the kind of backwater school where most disgraced coaches have to go to find redemption.
> 
> But that’s Pearl. There is no jam too big for him to escape, no sin too grave for him to be forgiven. Somehow, he’s managed to turn sleaze into an attribute.
> 
> “Coach Pearl is enthusiastic and, as welcoming and exciting as he is, he’s been a tremendous blessing for the Auburn family,” Auburn athletic director Allen Greene said last year.
> 
> Mind you, Greene made those comments after Auburn had fired one of Pearl’s assistants, Chuck Person, and suspended players Austin Wiley and Daniel Purifoy for their roles in the FBI investigation into college basketball corruption. This is not to be confused with the corruption investigation that resulted in the suspension of another Pearl assistant, Ira Bowman, earlier this month.
> 
> But, hey, how about those SEC titles and improved attendance!
> 
> “It's not a cesspool. There are some things that are wrong with it, things that take place that are inappropriate. That's the business of college basketball,” Pearl said Thursday when asked about the state of the game. “The reason why the NCAA is involved in this is because it's their job to monitor. It's their job to enforce. It's their job to encourage people to work hard, to do it the right way and not allow some of the other things to seep into the business because of the business and the money and the pressures.
> 
> “So again, it's part of the process. The question is, what do you want to focus on? We need to continue to work to keep it clean, but we need to understand all the good that's being done.”
> 
> It’s hard to take any of that seriously, listening to Pearl and his three coaching cohorts at the Midwest Regional. Every program here is tarnished in some way, an apt, if not uncomfortable, representation of the game today.
> 
> Like Pearl, Houston’s Kelvin Sampson has a show cause penalty on his resume, punishment for hundreds of impermissible calls to recruits while he was at Indiana and Oklahoma. North Carolina has acknowledged that some of its athletes took sham classes, but dodged severe NCAA sanctions by saying it couldn’t be a violation because the bogus classes were available to all students, possibly the most novel defense ever for an institution of higher education.
> 
> And while John Calipari hasn’t personally been tied to any violations, his Final Four appearances with UMass and Memphis were later vacated.
> 
> “Whether it was going on or not, we'd all be naive to think it was not,” Sampson said when asked about the perpetual stains on college basketball.
> 
> Part of the reason Pearl has survived for so long is that he talks a better game than almost anyone. As shrewd and calculated as he is charming, he can deflect from his flaws and failings so effectively you almost forget they existed.
> 
> Take Thursday, when he somehow turned a question about his exile from college basketball into a humble brag about being a civil rights champion.
> 
> “That was a fight that I was fighting for many years in the '70s and the '80s when I was a young coach, because there was a lot more segregation, there was a lot more racism, antisemitism. It still exists, but worse then,” Pearl said.
> 
> How exactly that worked when Pearl, who turned 59 on March 18, didn’t even graduate from Boston College until 1982, I’m not quite sure. Nor do I understand how Pearl squared his passion for social justice with his criticism of Colin Kaepernick for the NFL protests – protests designed to call attention to systemic racism and economic disparity.
> 
> But I digress …
> 
> The power brokers in college athletics – athletic directors, school presidents, powerful alums – love to claim the moral high ground. In their minds, they are molding the lives and characters of young men and women. The billions that come with it are simply a lucky happenstance.
> 
> No doubt Pearl has touched lives and helped many young men along the way. But at what cost? Bottom line, he has survived scandal because he wins. There's something to be said for that but, as we're reminded constantly by guys like him, the game is supposed to be about more than just winning and losing.
> 
> Unless that's all a fraud, too.


----------



## Supermodel56

Wow, over 850 parents involved...

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-morrie-tobin-college-admissions-scandal-20190331-story.html


----------



## ChalkOnYourBoots

Supermodel56 said:


> Wow, over 850 parents involved...


Singer says: "You can tell them I did 760 of these this year, 96 the year before"

I'm guessing there may be an error in that number, as there were several typos in the article. He reportedly said this in May... that would have been a pace of 5 frauds a day. I have to believe the actual number is less. Maybe "76 this year and 96 last year"...?  I haven't seen this inflated number anywhere else. 

Regardless, it is an outrageous scam that went on for years before anyone stood up and outed anyone. It actually took a crook on his way to federal prison to finally expose this. Every last one of them should be outed in a very public way as the shameless p.o.s. they all are. We need to restore some reasonable level of fair play and respect for each other in our society before the (social) playing field gets tilted past a tipping point.


----------



## Lambchop

goldentoe said:


> All that showed plead “not guilty”. Maybe the prosecutor will go easy and they’ll get sweetheart deals. I don’t know though. This is the first case of it’s kind that I know of involving a clearly prosecutable case of conspiracy amongst parents and coaches, working with an intermediary to defraud the admissions systems at elite colleges. There’s also the whole
> charitable donation/tax fraud angle for some. I don’t care how innocent you think you are, or how trivial your attorney tells you the charges are, no one likes to be arraigned.
> 
> Politics seem to drive the bus in almost all legal matters. The lead prosecutor, Andrew Lelling, was nominated to his federal post Sept. 2017 by President Trump. He might try to make a name for himself and send a strong message to those amongst the coastal elites who think they can throw money at anyone for anything.
> 
> I doubt anyone will do long term jail time, but I also think no one gets off as clean as Jussie.
> 
> MAP may have the inside story on the UCLA situation, , my gut has shifted on this. It’s probably a nothing-burger. The feds are not interested in the women’s program, that we know of. Internally they’ll handle it, and only if the NCAA flexes their muscle will we ever hear which coach allowed Isackson to be rostered. It’s still sketchy though, and sketchy people do sketchy thjngs.


A "nothing burger"?  You are saying that after months of recruitment, table discussions, video clips, etc etc etc that every single coach didn't know exactly who was going to be recruited for that year.  Come on, really??  How many new players are put on the roster each year?  Maybe 8-10 at the most, maybe a couple more a couple less.  They all knew exactly who was recruited.  They all are part of the cheating. Period.  This UCLA team is a group of talented athletes that will perform well with whatever coaching staff they have and I am pretty sure there are plenty of excellent, honest coaches out there with great records who would love to have the opportunity to coach this team.


----------



## espola

Lambchop said:


> A "nothing burger"?  You are saying that after months of recruitment, table discussions, video clips, etc etc etc that every single coach didn't know exactly who was going to be recruited for that year.  Come on, really??  How many new players are put on the roster each year?  Maybe 8-10 at the most, maybe a couple more a couple less.  They all knew exactly who was recruited.  They all are part of the cheating. Period.  This UCLA team is a group of talented athletes that will perform well with whatever coaching staff they have and I am pretty sure there are plenty of excellent, honest coaches out there with great records who would love to have the opportunity to coach this team.


First question on the application form for the new coach - "Are you now under indictment?  Have you ever been?  Is there some chance you might be in the near future?"


----------



## outside!

espola said:


> First question on the application form for the new coach - "Are you now under indictment?  Have you ever been?  Is there some chance you might be in the near future?"


Convicted? No.


----------



## espola

outside! said:


> Convicted? No.


In the current situation, I don't think any UC school wants even a whiff of a scent of an admissions scandal.


----------



## outside!

espola said:


> In the current situation, I don't think any UC school wants even a whiff of a scent of an admissions scandal.


My response was a Bill Murray quote from Stripes.
Recruiter: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
BM: "Convicted? No."


----------



## espola

outside! said:


> My response was a Bill Murray quote from Stripes.
> Recruiter: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
> BM: "Convicted? No."


Welcome to the Army of the 60's.


----------



## dk_b

outside! said:


> My response was a Bill Murray quote from Stripes.
> Recruiter: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
> BM: "Convicted? No."


Saw it during some formative years.  Could never look at a spatula the same way.


----------



## Surfref

beachbum said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong but there are unlimited roster spots but only 14 scholarships. Some schools roster 25-28 while some roster 30 plus.


Those 14 scholarships can each be broken up to 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc. scholarships.  That allows the college to issue more than the 14 full scholarships.


----------



## goldentoe

Lambchop said:


> A "nothing burger"?  You are saying that after months of recruitment, table discussions, video clips, etc etc etc that every single coach didn't know exactly who was going to be recruited for that year.  Come on, really??  How many new players are put on the roster each year?  Maybe 8-10 at the most, maybe a couple more a couple less.  They all knew exactly who was recruited.  They all are part of the cheating. Period.  This UCLA team is a group of talented athletes that will perform well with whatever coaching staff they have and I am pretty sure there are plenty of excellent, honest coaches out there with great records who would love to have the opportunity to coach this team.


I agree with you Lambchop. I think the whole stinks, but I’m not convinced the university will go hard on the  punishment. Based on what we know so far, I feel there should be some penalties, but not my deal to worry about.


----------



## goldentoe

An Associate Professor of Dentitstry at USC took 100k out of his house in a refi and gave it to the Associate AD so that his kid could be admitted through the Lacrosse team. That’s crazy, a tenured professor’s kid wasn’t a decent enough applicant to get in fairly!


----------



## surfrider

goldentoe said:


> An Associate Professor of Dentitstry at USC took 100k out of his house in a refi and gave it to the Associate AD so that his kid could be admitted through the Lacrosse team. That’s crazy, a tenured professor’s kid wasn’t a decent enough applicant to get in fairly! View attachment 4372


Damn. This this gets deeper by the day


----------



## oh canada

#88 could catch a pigskin with the best of them, but sticky hands are clearly not a predictor of AD job performance.  He should go:

https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-usc-swann-admissions-corruption-20190313-story.html


----------



## Supermodel56

Another interesting article from a different perspective... not so much about college athletics, but it touches on the wealthy and getting into schools - in this case, Disney heir and Yale...

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/abigail-disney-has-more-money-than-shell-ever-spend.html?fbclid=IwAR310TKIlY9PAy2_wiGNchCmPwZV8oizEc1TRgO_8Gsy7Y73tCzMjpcEl1c


----------



## Zerodenero

Supermodel56 said:


> Another interesting article from a different perspective... not so much about college athletics, but it touches on the wealthy and getting into schools - in this case, Disney heir and Yale...
> 
> https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/abigail-disney-has-more-money-than-shell-ever-spend.html?fbclid=IwAR310TKIlY9PAy2_wiGNchCmPwZV8oizEc1TRgO_8Gsy7Y73tCzMjpcEl1c


Another perspective....from the Bulldogs mouth. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=330937617562277&id=235852889908002&refsrc=http://www.google.com/&_rdr


----------



## LASTMAN14

Zerodenero said:


> Another perspective....from the Bulldogs mouth.
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=330937617562277&id=235852889908002&refsrc=http://www.google.com/&_rdr


Got to admit interesting perspectives  to see from the two sides, but it would be very interesting to see the two sides merge into one conversation.


----------



## surfrider

Zerodenero said:


> Another perspective....from the Bulldogs mouth.
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=330937617562277&id=235852889908002&refsrc=http://www.google.com/&_rdr


That was actually powerful
Thanks for posting


----------



## outside!

Zerodenero said:


> Another perspective....from the Bulldogs mouth.
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=330937617562277&id=235852889908002&refsrc=http://www.google.com/&_rdr


This might be a non Zuckerbook link to the same story,


----------



## soccerobserver

"Its owner: Peter Brand, Harvard University’s legendary fencing coach. Its assessed value: $549,300.


So when the house sold to a wealthy Maryland businessman for close to a million dollars in May 2016, the town’s top assessor was so dumbfounded that he wrote the following in his notes: “Makes no sense.”

Now it might.

The buyer, it turns out, was the father of a high school junior who was actively looking at applying to Harvard with an eye toward being on the fencing team.

Soon enough, Jie Zhao’s younger son would gain admission and join the team. And Zhao, who never lived a day in the Needham house, would sell it 17 months after he bought it for a $324,500 loss.

The home sale may become the next chapter in the national debate over fairness in college admissions."

When you read the actual article this one actually seems a bit nuanced...Here is the link:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/he-bought-the-fencing-coachs-house-then-his-son-got-into-harvard/ar-BBVCRMs?ocid=spartanntp#image=1


----------



## mirage

soccerobserver said:


> "Its owner: Peter Brand, Harvard University’s legendary fencing coach. Its assessed value: $549,300.
> 
> 
> So when the house sold to a wealthy Maryland businessman for close to a million dollars in May 2016, the town’s top assessor was so dumbfounded that he wrote the following in his notes: “Makes no sense.”
> 
> Now it might.
> 
> The buyer, it turns out, was the father of a high school junior who was actively looking at applying to Harvard with an eye toward being on the fencing team.
> 
> Soon enough, Jie Zhao’s younger son would gain admission and join the team. And Zhao, who never lived a day in the Needham house, would sell it 17 months after he bought it for a $324,500 loss.
> 
> The home sale may become the next chapter in the national debate over fairness in college admissions."
> 
> When you read the actual article this one actually seems a bit nuanced...Here is the link:
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/he-bought-the-fencing-coachs-house-then-his-son-got-into-harvard/ar-BBVCRMs?ocid=spartanntp#image=1


Cleaver...

Form of laundering money and be able to take the capital loss on taxes.... The duration of ownership is such that one can argue it was just a bad investment. No red flag raised.

I just believe the current situation is that they just got caught.  Its been going on probably as long as these schools exist.  I also believe it will happen in the future.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

I don’t see a problem with:

1) someone making a donation and saying “btw,  my son is applying to your school”.   And he gets in.  At least students at the school can reap the benefits of the donation in some way.  The school realizes that if they accept the kid that more donations could be coming their way in the future. 

I do have a problem with:

1) “ hey here’s some money how can we get my kid into your school”.   The money changes hands with an Individual person.


----------



## soccerobserver

It is interesting that in this case the kids were well qualified, excelled in the sport and had the grades and scores apparently.


----------



## Zerodenero

eastbaysoccer said:


> I don’t see a problem with:
> 
> 1) someone making a donation and saying “btw,  my son is applying to your school”.   And he gets in.  At least students at the school can reap the benefits of the donation in some way.  The school realizes that if they accept the kid that more donations could be coming their way in the future.
> 
> I do have a problem with:
> 
> 1) “ hey here’s some money how can we get my kid into your school”.   The money changes hands with an Individual person.


Ebay (_aka - Buford T. Justice_), what you’re really saying is.....


----------



## Sheriff Joe

eastbaysoccer said:


> I don’t see a problem with:
> 
> 1) someone making a donation and saying “btw,  my son is applying to your school”.   And he gets in.  At least students at the school can reap the benefits of the donation in some way.  The school realizes that if they accept the kid that more donations could be coming their way in the future.
> 
> I do have a problem with:
> 
> 1) “ hey here’s some money how can we get my kid into your school”.   The money changes hands with an Individual person.


You must work for the Clinton foundation.


----------



## Justafan

eastbaysoccer said:


> I don’t see a problem with:
> 
> 1) someone making a donation and saying “btw,  my son is applying to your school”.   And he gets in.  At least students at the school can reap the benefits of the donation in some way.  The school realizes that if they accept the kid that more donations could be coming their way in the future.
> 
> I do have a problem with:
> 
> 1) “ hey here’s some money how can we get my kid into your school”.   The money changes hands with an Individual person.



Which one would piss you off more if your kid didn’t get in?


----------



## Justafan

Sheriff Joe said:


> You must work for the Clinton foundation.


When are you ever gonna be happy SJ?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Justafan said:


> When are you ever gonna be happy SJ?


As soon as you buy me that beer you owe me.


----------



## LASTMAN14

Sheriff Joe said:


> As soon as you buy me that beer you owe me.


Love the simple response, just make sure the beer is complex.


----------



## Zerodenero

Sheriff Joe said:


> As soon as you buy me that beer you owe me.


Shoot....reminds me. I still owe Bernie a bottle to cover my wager from last season


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Zerodenero said:


> Shoot....reminds me. I still owe Bernie a bottle to cover my wager from last season


Yeah and he is pissed.


----------



## Ricky Fandango

Zerodenero said:


> Shoot....reminds me. I still owe Bernie a bottle to cover my wager from last season


I have no worries about that, brother.
Looking from the outside in now, I just hope everything works out for all of our kids.
We will cross paths again, and when we do, we will imbibe and enjoy our friendship,and talk about how proud we are of our kids.


----------



## abfool

abfool said:


> About 10 years ago, USC announced that they have an endowment for the women's soccer head coach.  that endowment was made under the name of Ali\s father.  Smelled fishy then, stinks now.  USC needs to coem clean where that maoney actually came from.  I have no doubt from \singer.


This is the link to the article about the USC soccer coach position endowment

https://usctrojans.com/news/2011/8/31/lead_gift_establishes_head_soccer_coach_endowment.aspx

"
*LEAD GIFT ESTABLISHES HEAD SOCCER COACH ENDOWMENT*

AUGUST 31, 2011

In 2011, USC Athletics received a generous commitment from members of the Trojan Family to establish the Mehdi Khosroshahin Head Soccer Coach Endowment. Much like endowed professorships in academic departments, when fully funded, this endowment will provide for the salary of USC's Head Soccer Coach in perpetuity."

USC needs to be transparent about the nature of this 'lead gift'.

If it's anything like Yale's, "lead gift" = Singer.  if it's Singer, really sad that Ali had to drag his pld man;s name into all this


----------



## surfrider

I doubt it has an atttaychment to the singer thing but god does it make him look that much more like a dickhead. Had no idea he came from that kind of money.  Just thought he was a middling soccer coach. What an ass


----------



## Lambchop

goldentoe said:


> An Associate Professor of Dentitstry at USC took 100k out of his house in a refi and gave it to the Associate AD so that his kid could be admitted through the Lacrosse team. That’s crazy, a tenured professor’s kid wasn’t a decent enough applicant to get in fairly! View attachment 4372


Seems the media likes to focus on USC.  Georgetown had twelve students involved, not much press on each of those parents, coaches etc. etc. etc.  A women in Texas very involved with the cheating/SAT not much mention of her high school where she worked.  How many students did she "help"?  We aren't hearing much about Cromwell at UCLA.  Not hearing much about the parents/student at USD and Wake Forest.  How many other schools doing the same thing but not yet caught??


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Lambchop said:


> Seems the media likes to focus on USC.  Georgetown had twelve students involved, not much press on each of those parents, coaches etc. etc. etc.  A women in Texas very involved with the cheating/SAT not much mention of her high school where she worked.  How many students did she "help"?  We aren't hearing much about Cromwell at UCLA.  Not hearing much about the parents/student at USD and Wake Forest.  How many other schools doing the same thing but not yet caught??


Right vs Left


----------



## abfool

Lambchop said:


> Seems the media likes to focus on USC.  Georgetown had twelve students involved, not much press on each of those parents, coaches etc. etc. etc.  A women in Texas very involved with the cheating/SAT not much mention of her high school where she worked.  How many students did she "help"?  We aren't hearing much about Cromwell at UCLA.  Not hearing much about the parents/student at USD and Wake Forest.  How many other schools doing the same thing but not yet caught??


The most prominent parents were those hollywood actresses who cheated their daughters' way into SC.  To the media, their name recognition is the hook for the story to have legs.

UCLA doesn't stop at Salcedo.  Cromwell is still there probably because the admnistrator above her must have forced her to roster #41.  Like SC, Ucla needs a senior administrative official to get involved for these bogus athletes to get through.  Stay tuned if the state attorney general gets involved


----------



## goldentoe

The Isackson's have plead guilty and cut a deal, putting them in postion to testify against both UCLA and USC.  Cromwell's office has not responded to messages from the NYT for comment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/college-admissions-scandal-plea-ucla.html

LA Times reporting per the Isackson's agreeement, if they provide "substantial assistance" with the investigation, the prosecutor will ask the judge to sentence to a shorter prison term than what the sentencing guidelines ask for.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-college-admissions-guilty-plea-20190408-story.html


----------



## outside!

I think Lauren Isackson should be charged.


----------



## gefelchnik

goldentoe said:


> The Isackson's have plead guilty and cut a deal, putting them in postion to testify against both UCLA and USC.  Cromwell's office has not responded to messages from the NYT for comment.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/college-admissions-scandal-plea-ucla.html
> 
> LA Times reporting per the Isackson's agreeement, if they provide "substantial assistance" with the investigation, the prosecutor will ask the judge to sentence to a shorter prison term than what the sentencing guidelines ask for.
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-college-admissions-guilty-plea-20190408-story.html


This is interesting. 

There isn't much cooperation necessary from these parents against the already named defendants.  They have enough on those guys and unlikely anything that could be provided that would qualify as "substantial assistance" that would warrant a reduced sentence.

Where these parents potentially could provide "substantial assistance" would be related to what happened after the admission. 

Who did they interact with and send the player profile information to for the website, who told their daughter what to say when asked about why she was listed as a player, etc.  

Basically they will want to find out if anyone else at the school was a) involved in the conspiracy and b) took money.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Feds want to fish out everyone.  Leading feds looking to add stuff to their resume for when they run for office.

Feds are looking for institutional corruption.  Cromwell is most certainly in their crosshairs.  

Honestly I’m tired of hearing about this.  Instead of filling up our prisons with cheating rich people, let’s  make room for all the violent criminals, rapists, robbers, pedophiles and amazon package stealers.


----------



## Justafan

eastbaysoccer said:


> Honestly I’m tired of hearing about this.  Instead of filling up our prisons with cheating rich people, let’s  make room for all the violent criminals, rapists, robbers, pedophiles and amazon package stealers.


Really? What are YOU hiding?


----------



## Lambchop

eastbaysoccer said:


> Feds want to fish out everyone.  Leading feds looking to add stuff to their resume for when they run for office.
> 
> Feds are looking for institutional corruption.  Cromwell is most certainly in their crosshairs.
> 
> Honestly I’m tired of hearing about this.  Instead of filling up our prisons with cheating rich people, let’s  make room for all the violent criminals, rapists, robbers, pedophiles and amazon package stealers.


Actually, I would like to hear about the over 700 students who had their SAT scores altered.  Just waiting for that list of come out.  Students from a Texas  high school are in the cross hairs of the Feds if what they are saying about the high school employee who had scores altered. It is going to be interesting to see what schools are impacted by the "700"!  Everybody out there thinking "my kids university wasn't involved"  are probably going to be surprised when that information is released.


----------



## espola

Lambchop said:


> Actually, I would like to hear about the over 700 students who had their SAT scores altered.  Just waiting for that list of come out.  Students from a Texas  high school are in the cross hairs of the Feds if what they are saying about the high school employee who had scores altered. It is going to be interesting to see what schools are impacted by the "700"!  Everybody out there thinking "my kids university wasn't involved"  are probably going to be surprised when that information is released.


Did I miss something?  What is this all about?


----------



## Lambchop

espola said:


> Did I miss something?  What is this all about?


When the FBI charged the Harvard grad who took tests for students said there were over 700 students who had their scores changed.  They didn't


Lion Eyes said:


> Yeah? So?
> John Kerry had a lower GPA than Bush...and they both got into Yale.
> So?


For most top students when they attend a top university they become average students because all the students are very smart (exception the students who cheated)!


----------



## espola

Lambchop said:


> When the FBI charged the Harvard grad who took tests for students said there were over 700 students who had their scores changed.  They didn't


?? 

I heard about substitutes taking tests and test answers being changed, but didn't know it was 700 deep.


----------



## Lambchop

espola said:


> Did I miss something?  What is this all about?


Singer had over 700 hundred students he helped get into universities with the help of the Florida man, Harvard grad, who would take tests for students.  Someone else was implicated from Texas, a women, who also worked to have tests scores changed.  I am sure over the next month or two, names will be released and/or universities involved. I have to wonder what other small companies that help students get into college have unsavory methods as well.  This is sad for the small, honest companies who really do try to advise and direct students to a school they can get into and be successful at.


----------



## espola

Lambchop said:


> Singer had over 700 hundred students he helped get into universities with the help of the Florida man, Harvard grad, who would take tests for students.  Someone else was implicated from Texas, a women, who also worked to have tests scores changed.  I am sure over the next month or two, names will be released and/or universities involved. I have to wonder what other small companies that help students get into college have unsavory methods as well.  This is sad for the small, honest companies who really do try to advise and direct students to a school they can get into and be successful at.


SAT is given 4 times a year, so for a substitute to take tests for 700 paying clients would take about 175 years.


----------



## Lambchop

espola said:


> SAT is given 4 times a year, so for a substitute to take tests for 700 paying clients would take about 175 years.


I should have said he wasn't the only one.  There were two members affiliated with SAT that would alter test scores, I think at one point their names were mentioned. Maybe they are working on a plea deal so all is quiet for now.  Singer also cheated over many years.  It is going to be interesting.  I would imagine there are a lot of students who are involved and don't even know it.


----------



## espola

Lambchop said:


> I should have said he wasn't the only one.  There were two members affiliated with SAT that would alter test scores, I think at one point their names were mentioned. Maybe they are working on a plea deal so all is quiet for now.  Singer also cheated over many years.  It is going to be interesting.  I would imagine there are a lot of students who are involved and don't even know it.


It seems to me that the most wide-spread form of cheating was encouraging his clients to file for disability treatment so they could get more time to take the tests.  Unless they are already going to do very well on the tests, that is an obvious advantage.  

I wonder if Singer or one of his agents will write a how-we-did-it book.


----------



## timbuck

This was buried in the High School soccer forum.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-biggest-clients-in-the-college-admissions-scandal-were-from-china-11556301872

“Mr. Singer wrote that he would “revise” the art materials to soccer, according to a filing, which said that he falsely listed her as a member of a junior national development team in China *and co-captain of a prominent club soccer team in southern California.”*
This is about J Serra.
Oooh this is getting good now.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Honestly if you have to hire tutors and enroll in Kaplan courses to score well on the SAT you don’t deserve to be at the elite schools.  My dd had friends who rolled out of bed and scored close to perfect.   

Go to a school that’s a tight fit for you.  Then take advantage of every opportunity.


----------



## gkrent

timbuck said:


> This was buried in the High School soccer forum.
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-biggest-clients-in-the-college-admissions-scandal-were-from-china-11556301872
> 
> “Mr. Singer wrote that he would “revise” the art materials to soccer, according to a filing, which said that he falsely listed her as a member of a junior national development team in China *and co-captain of a prominent club soccer team in southern California.”*
> This is about J Serra.
> Oooh this is getting good now.


too bad the article is behind a paywall


----------



## timbuck

gkrent said:


> too bad the article is behind a paywall


Here you go.  I highlighted the part about club soccer at the end
:
Families from China were among those who allegedly paid the most in the college admissions scandal, a new sign of the reach of the cheating ring.

One Chinese family allegedly paid $6.5 million to William “Rick” Singer, the California-based college counselor who has admitted to masterminding the scheme, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Another was the family of a student—referred to in court filings as “Yale Applicant 1”—who paid $1.2 million to secure her admission to Yale University. The student is 21-year-old Sherry Guo, who moved to Southern California from China to attend high school, her lawyer confirmed.

The families have been of particular interest in the case because they allegedly paid far more than nearly all of the 33 parents currently facing criminal charges in the scheme. Many parents paid $250,000 to $400,000 for the illegal admissions services, including securing fraudulent test scores and bribing coaches to have their children designated as recruited athletes, prosecutors say.

Ms. Guo had her eye on Columbia University or Oxford University, said her lawyer, James Spertus of Spertus, Landes & Umhofer LLP in Los Angeles.

But Mr. Singer told her she would go to Yale University. It was a sure thing, he said, according to Mr. Spertus. An attorney for Mr. Singer, who has pleaded guilty to four felony charges, including racketeering conspiracy, declined to comment.

Ms. Guo learned English after arriving in California about five years ago, Mr. Spertus said. She attended JSerra Catholic High School in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., south of Los Angeles, starting high school as an older student.

Ms. Guo was “so unfamiliar with how people apply to schools in the U.S.,” Mr. Spertus said. “Rick Singer’s instructions to her didn’t seem as out of place as they would to a student who grew up in the United States and has more of an expectation of free choice.”

The young woman did get into Yale, after Mr. Singer allegedly got her tagged as a recruited athlete, and started school there last fall, according to Mr. Spertus and court filings. She’s no longer at the school, her attorney confirmed.

A growing number of Chinese families are bringing their children to the U.S. for high school, or even elementary school, in the hopes of helping smooth the path to college admission down the line. Colleges sometimes scrutinize foreign agents who help coordinate applications from overseas students, but less so the role of U.S.-based independent college counselors—particularly those whose main client base is domestic.

Mr. Spertus said he was authorized to answer questions on Ms. Guo’s behalf and declined to make her available.

The Wall Street Journal hasn’t learned the identity of the family that allegedly paid $6.5 million.


Ms. Guo’s family was introduced to Mr. Singer by a Los Angeles financial adviser, Mr. Spertus said.

Ms. Guo’s family hasn’t been charged. Prosecutors have said the investigation is ongoing. The family that allegedly paid $6.5 million for Mr. Singer’s services also hasn’t been charged, according to a person familiar with the matter.

“I just don’t think the question of guilt is clear-cut in Sherry’s case, at all,” Mr. Spertus said.

According to court filings, a Los Angeles-based employee of a financial adviser allegedly told Mr. Singer in November 2017 that the father of Yale Applicant 1 wanted to make a “donation” to “one of those top schools” for his daughter’s “application.”

*The next day, Mr. Singer sent Rudolph “Rudy” Meredith, then the Yale women’s soccer coach, the student’s résumé and personal statement, which included links to her art portfolio, according to filings by prosecutors.

Mr. Singer wrote that he would “revise” the art materials to soccer, according to a filing, which said that he falsely listed her as a member of a junior national development team in China and co-captain of a prominent club soccer team in southern California.

Mr. Singer paid $400,000 to Mr. Meredith in exchange for having him designate the girl as a recruited athlete, nearly guaranteeing her a spot at the school, according to court filings. Mr. Meredith pleaded guilty last month for his role in the scheme, which prosecutors say started in 2015 and included taking bribes for multiple students.*

Yale said it rescinded the admission of a student last month after investigating allegations that its former women’s head soccer coach was involved in Mr. Singer’s scheme. The school said it did so “as a result of this matter,” referring to the admissions scandal, and didn’t identify the individual.

Ms. Guo was listed in the Yale directory as recently as April 10, but no longer appears there.

Ms. Guo won awards for her artwork, according to news stories posted on the JSerra Catholic High School website. She was also listed as an international student officer for the school’s National Honor Society chapter.

Eric Stroupe, the school’s principal, said she is an “unbelievable artist” and “super talented,” and had very strong grades. He said he didn’t know of Ms. Guo’s alleged connection to the admissions scandal until he was contacted by the Journal, and he was shocked.


----------



## Zerodenero

gkrent said:


> too bad the article is behind a paywall


If you use an apple, this should work. 

https://apple.news/AHNnr_MffSj-duP2qo30AUg


----------



## Zerodenero

eastbaysoccer said:


> Honestly if you have to hire tutors and enroll in Kaplan courses to score well on the SAT you don’t deserve to be at the elite schools.  My dd had friends who rolled out of bed and scored close to perfect.
> 
> Go to a school that’s a tight fit for you.  Then take advantage of every opportunity.


Honestly....you are clueless


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Zerodenero said:


> Honestly....you are clueless


Pretty harsh Z. LoL.
Are you ok?


----------



## Justafan

eastbaysoccer said:


> Honestly if you have to hire tutors and enroll in Kaplan courses to score well on the SAT you don’t deserve to be at the elite schools.  My dd had friends who rolled out of bed and scored close to perfect.
> 
> Go to a school that’s a tight fit for you.  Then take advantage of every opportunity.


My dd has friends who rolled out of bed and made the U18-WNT.


----------



## Zerodenero

Sheriff Joe said:


> Pretty harsh Z. LoL.
> Are you ok?


Yup....call me Mr. Grumpy-pants 

Maybe I read it wrong.....but the net-net of ebays comment is to  “stay in your lane” - He’ll Naw!!

That’s not what this country is about, and it sure isn’t what my player and the real “student-athletes” at Yale are about. 

Is it happy hour yet


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Zerodenero said:


> Yup....call me Mr. Grumpy-pants
> 
> Maybe I read it wrong.....but the net-net of ebays comment is to  “stay in your lane” - He’ll Naw!!
> 
> That’s not what this country is about, and it sure isn’t what my player and the real “student-athletes” at Yale are about.
> 
> Is it happy hour yet


Little hard work never hurt anyone.
He must be a Bernie supporter.


----------



## Supermodel56

eastbaysoccer said:


> Honestly if you have to hire tutors and enroll in Kaplan courses to score well on the SAT you don’t deserve to be at the elite schools.  My dd had friends who rolled out of bed and scored close to perfect.
> 
> Go to a school that’s a tight fit for you.  Then take advantage of every opportunity.


I have friends who grew up in underprivileged neighborhoods. The schools they attended were focused on just getting their students to graduate with very few who would ever go on to even attend community college. They were all very smart kids but the schools weren't teaching them the material and their parents worked multiple jobs - so they hired tutors to help their kids learn material and pass exams. They ended up attending Cornell, Columbia, Northwestern, etc... they even admitted to not feeling like they fit in when they got there - but they adapted, made new friends and did great. They have very successful careers today. 

The idea that just because you need some tutoring or took a Kaplan test to prepare for an exam means you don't deserve to attend an elite school is absurd.


----------



## Gokicksomegrass

timbuck said:


> Here you go.  I highlighted the part about club soccer at the end
> 
> Eric Stroupe, the school’s principal, said she is an “unbelievable artist” and “super talented,” and had very strong grades. He said he didn’t know of Ms. Guo’s alleged connection to the admissions scandal until he was contacted by the Journal, and he was _*shocked*_.







Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money] Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!


----------



## oh canada

One big reason why this bigger problem for UCLA than USC...public records requests...mark your calendars for June 30...

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-admissions-scandal-ucla-emails-20190418-story.html

If link stopped by paywall....a few highlights...

_As public employees, correspondence from the coaches’ university email accounts and phones can be requested under the California Public Records Act. 

A week after the U.S. attorney’s office in Massachusetts charged 50 people in an alleged conspiracy to tamper with college entrance exams and bypass admissions offices with an athletic recruiting scam, The Times made a public records request for any emails and text messages exchanged between three UCLA coaches and five people implicated in the scheme, along with an employee of Cal State Fullerton.

UCLA record-keepers said that compiling those emails and texts is a “lengthy, time-consuming process,” and the records won’t be turned over until June 30.

The three UCLA coaches whose correspondence The Times requested are Jorge Salcedo, the former men’s soccer coach; Amanda Cromwell, the women’s soccer coach; and Joshua Walters, the former associate head coach for women’s soccer.

The Times also requested declarations of outside financial interests for Salcedo and Cromwell. Salcedo accepted the $200,000 bribe through a sports marketing company he controlled, prosecutors allege._


----------



## Supermodel56

oh canada said:


> One big reason why this bigger problem for UCLA than USC...public records requests...mark your calendars for June 30...


More importantly... apparently, it's not just Singer, but looks like in one way or another this is fairly common practice for the wealthy - to make donations for preference in admission... not just at UCLA but at other schools as well. What makes it interesting is that from the wealthy parent perspective, it doesn't make a difference if the donation is to a charity, athletic program, prep course, or coach - in other words, if it wasn't illegal in the making a donation to the school in exchange for preference, then they could make an argument that this is no different and wasn't aware of what Singer was doing to help her get into school behind the scenes. It would certainly put into question the charges of racketeering and mail fraud - they weren't trying to defraud anyone, to them it was simply a financial transaction.

"But a 2014 internal report, obtained by The Times, showed UCLA was aware of under-qualified athletes being admitted in exchange for donations.

William Cormier, who headed UCLA’s compliance office at the time, said an investigation into a young woman who, despite subpar times, was admitted as a recruited runner once her parents pledged $100,000 to the athletic department “removes any reasonable doubt that the contribution from the parents was obtained quid pro quo for the daughter’s admission.”

In a statement, the university said it quickly investigated the matter and, after deciding four coaches had violated school policy, adopted new safeguards to vet walk-ons and restricted donations from families of athletic prospects. It pointed out that, unlike Salcedo’s alleged criminal activity, the coaches found to have broken policy were not personally enriched by the donations.

“UCLA took this matter seriously and strengthened its policies in the wake of it,” the statement said.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

So Cromwell did wrong but no money received so she's ok.  fair enough.  hopefully all coaches can learn from this and realize they aren't gods and goddesses.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

eastbaysoccer said:


> So Cromwell did wrong but no money received so she's ok.  fair enough.  hopefully all coaches can learn from this and realize they aren't gods and goddesses.


huh? How did you reach that conclusion?


----------



## Soccer43

SpeedK1llz said:


> huh? How did you reach that conclusion?


exactly - there was nothing in the news article that said that.


----------



## Dos Equis

Soccer43 said:


> exactly - there was nothing in the news article that said that.


The article reads like genuine news, not an opinion piece -- how refreshing. While there is no reference to Cromwell, it does make it clear UCLA was aware as early as 2014 of coaches helping non-athletes gain admissions through the athletic process by committing to large donations to the school/program.  The coaches were willingly and knowingly gaming the system ("violating policy") and, in some cases, engaging in deceptive acts (false rosters) to hide their activity.   

UCLA's recommendation, when this was discovered, was to "educate" the coaches about policy, since no law was broken.  No money was returned by UCLA, no parents or students held accountable, no coaches removed/disciplined.  As a comparison, Stanford fired their sailing coach for violating their "values" for essentially similar acts, even before he pled guilty to racketeering (the payments were directly linked to the fraudulent business of Singer).  There is no evidence he personally gained from any payments, news reports it all went to the sailing program.

We can all have an opinion on what UCLA's response to these violations says about UCLA as an institution.  They are using our tax dollars, therefore we also should expect more from them.  While the acquiescence of the women's soccer staff in the admissions process and roster fraud may not break any law, borrowing the words of their athletic director, it is "disturbing and unacceptable."


----------



## espola

Dos Equis said:


> The article reads like genuine news, not an opinion piece -- how refreshing. While there is no reference to Cromwell, it does make it clear UCLA was aware as early as 2014 of coaches helping non-athletes gain admissions through the athletic process by committing to large donations to the school/program.  The coaches were willingly and knowingly gaming the system ("violating policy") and, in some cases, engaging in deceptive acts (false rosters) to hide their activity.
> 
> UCLA's recommendation, when this was discovered, was to "educate" the coaches about policy, since no law was broken.  No money was returned by UCLA, no parents or students held accountable, no coaches removed/disciplined.  As a comparison, Stanford fired their sailing coach for violating their "values" for essentially similar acts, even before he pled guilty to racketeering (the payments were directly linked to the fraudulent business of Singer).  There is no evidence he personally gained from any payments, news reports it all went to the sailing program.
> 
> We can all have an opinion on what UCLA's response to these violations says about UCLA as an institution.  They are using our tax dollars, therefore we also should expect more from them.  While the acquiescence of the women's soccer staff in the admissions process and roster fraud may not break any law, borrowing the words of their athletic director, it is "disturbing and unacceptable."


Stanford is a private entity, so their employment contracts (and employment litigation history) may be considerably different from those of UCLA.  Stanford could also just pay off an employee (such as  "how much will it cost us for you to just go away") whose behavior has embarrassed the institution without it becoming a public record.


----------



## Dos Equis

espola said:


> Stanford is a private entity, so their employment contracts (and employment litigation history) may be considerably different from those of UCLA.  Stanford could also just pay off an employee (such as  "how much will it cost us for you to just go away") whose behavior has embarrassed the institution without it becoming a public record.


While I realize you like being devil's advocate, are you really suggesting any disciplinary action for engaging in fraudulent activity (someone produced and approved the fake roster and media guides, that is a fact) might have been appealed based on their employment contracts, therefore UCLA decided to do nothing?  That does not improve my view of UCLA's response here. These are not tenured professors, coaches are typically at will employees.


----------



## espola

Dos Equis said:


> While I realize you like being devil's advocate, are you really suggesting any disciplinary action for engaging in fraudulent activity (someone produced and approved the fake roster and media guides, that is a fact) might have been appealed based on their employment contracts, therefore UCLA decided to do nothing?  That does not improve my view of UCLA's response here. These are not tenured professors, coaches are typically at will employees.


I'm not saying UCLA can't (or won't eventually) fire the women's socccer coach over this, but pointing out a difference between how the institutions operate.


----------



## Sons of Pitches

Someone in the UCLA women's program at the time knew.  They had to.  Mahybe they don't work there anymore, maybe they still do, maybe several people knew.  I would think that if it was as simple as this persosn knew, they are no longer with the program, UCLA would have made that announcement already.  Someone on the Women's side has to take the fall.  They can't blame Salcedo and move on.  He did not have the power to have a player rostered, in the media guide, etc... Someone did a favor and has to take the fall.  UCLA needs to name the person on the women's side.


----------



## espola

Sons of Pitches said:


> Someone in the UCLA women's program at the time knew.  They had to.  Mahybe they don't work there anymore, maybe they still do, maybe several people knew.  I would think that if it was as simple as this persosn knew, they are no longer with the program, UCLA would have made that announcement already.  Someone on the Women's side has to take the fall.  They can't blame Salcedo and move on.  He did not have the power to have a player rostered, in the media guide, etc... Someone did a favor and has to take the fall.  UCLA needs to name the person on the women's side.


"needs"?


----------



## Sons of Pitches

espola said:


> "needs"?


need, must, have to - whatever!  It is just my opinion.  This is not a courtroom.


----------



## espola

Sons of Pitches said:


> need, must, have to - whatever!  It is just my opinion.  This is not a courtroom.


I would like to see the whole story on this myself.  Has the coach in question made a public statement yet?


----------



## Sons of Pitches

espola said:


> I would like to see the whole story on this myself.  Has the coach in question made a public statement yet?


I have not seen anything from any person on the women's staff since the story broke.


----------



## Grow The Game

Sons of Pitches said:


> I have not seen anything from any person on the women's staff since the story broke.


Why do you think that is?  This is a test of your logic in case you haven’t guessed.


----------



## Sons of Pitches

Speculation - Legal counsel, could be UCLA's, could be Board of Regents, could be an individuals own counsel.


----------



## Grow The Game

Sons of Pitches said:


> Speculation - Legal counsel, could be UCLA's, could be Board of Regents, could be an individuals own counsel.


I noticed that innocence wasn’t one of your speculative options.  Would you be upset if nothing happens?


----------



## Sons of Pitches

Grow The Game said:


> I noticed that innocence wasn’t one of your speculative options.  Would you be upset if nothing happens?


Upset - No, Dubious - Yes.


----------



## Dos Equis

Grow The Game said:


> I noticed that innocence wasn’t one of your speculative options.  Would you be upset if nothing happens?


So her name and picture appeared on the roster spontaneously?  No one asked her to pose for a picture, no one assigned her a uniform number, no one published her profile in the media guide?  It was elves?  Notre Dame has a Leprechaun, not UCLA. 

Someone in the soccer program participated.


----------



## Grow The Game

Dos Equis said:


> So her name and picture appeared on the roster spontaneously?  No one asked her to pose for a picture, no one assigned her a uniform number, no one published her profile in the media guide?  It was elves?  Notre Dame has a Leprechaun, not UCLA.
> 
> Someone in the soccer program participated.


That’s pretty funny but not a fact.  The sports information department is in charge of the media guide so no, not elves.  For all of the actual evidence that has been presented it could be you!   

Regardless of the entertainment that you get by speculating.  And in spite of how satisfying it might be to you personally to have something happen to the coaching staff there, nobody has anything and the emails will prove it.  That is why they are sitting tight and doing what innocent people do.  They go about their business and let the peanut gallery feed the elephants.

Hey if you get your rocks off by wishing people ill I think there are much better targets.  But carry on if you wish, just don’t be pissed off at the team because your speculation was for naught.

Have a great day!


----------



## soccerobserver

Grow The Game said:


> That’s pretty funny but not a fact.  The sports information department is in charge of the media guide so no, not elves.  For all of the actual evidence that has been presented it could be you!
> 
> Regardless of the entertainment that you get by speculating.  And in spite of how satisfying it might be to you personally to have something happen to the coaching staff there, nobody has anything and the emails will prove it.  That is why they are sitting tight and doing what innocent people do.  They go about their business and let the peanut gallery feed the elephants.
> 
> Hey if you get your rocks off by wishing people ill I think there are much better targets.  But carry on if you wish, just don’t be pissed off at the team because your speculation was for naught.
> 
> Have a great day!


GrowTG, I am a fan of the Bruins. As such it pains me greatly to write that USC has set the example of how innocent parties handled the issue of phantom players on the wsoccer roster. USC Athletic Director Lynn Swan explained to the LA Times that an administrative individual put the fake players on the roster that was presented to his admissions committee. Then after the fake player was admitted, the USC administrator took the player off the list of admitted players that was sent to the USC coach. Makes sense.

Moreover, if you read the complaint filed by the Feds, when new USC wsoccer coach McAlpine did eventually see a fake player on one of his lists, Coach McAlpine emailed her to demand to meet her since he did not know her. After the fake player failed to respond to McAlpine, he emailed the fake player and cc'd other USC officials renouncing her and stating he had no idea who she was and therefore would not count her in his numbers. I am sad to say that if UCLA had nothing to hide then they would proffer a similarly easy to understand explanation and thereby clear the smoke in the air.


----------



## Grow The Game

soccerobserver said:


> GrowTG, I am a fan of the Bruins. As such it pains me greatly to write that USC has set the example of how innocent parties handled the issue of phantom players on the wsoccer roster. USC Athletic Director Lynn Swan explained to the LA Times that an administrative individual put the fake players on the roster that was presented to his admissions committee. Then after the fake player was admitted, the USC administrator took the player off the list of admitted players that was sent to the USC coach. Makes sense.
> 
> Moreover, if you read the complaint filed by the Feds, when new USC wsoccer coach McAlpine did eventually see a fake player on one of his lists, Coach McAlpine emailed her to demand to meet her since he did not know her. After the fake player failed to respond to McAlpine, he emailed the fake player and cc'd other USC officials renouncing her and stating he had no idea who she was and therefore would not count her in his numbers. I am sad to say that if UCLA had nothing to hide then they would proffer a similarly easy to understand explanation and thereby clear the smoke in the air.


Is that how you think that it should go?  You have no idea what happened behind the scenes so you are just speculating and placing your opinions out there.  Does this affect you?  Did your daughter lose a spot because of anything that went on?  Why do you care?  USC did what they did to cover their collective asses due to an extreme lack of institutional control.  That is nowhere close to what happened at UCLA which is why the Feds are doing nothing.  The only people reaching out to the players and staff (and parents) are media people looking for some clickbait for people like yourself that aren’t involved.

Please post some proof of all your speculation or just let it go.  Absolutely nothing is going to happen and you can quote me on that.


----------



## Dos Equis

Grow The Game said:


> Please post some proof of all your speculation or just let it go.  Absolutely nothing is going to happen and you can quote me on that.


The proof was posted for the world to see online in their roster and media guide. Do not hide behind the sports information department, are you claiming the coaching staff never saw this information?  Post your proof -- so far all you have mentioned are some phantom emails. 

I am not indicting the team -- the players and likely most coaches had nothing to do with this, and some may indeed have believed she was some sort of recruiting mistake, injured player, etc. I would be fine if no one gets fired, but some explanation is warranted, given this is a public institution using our tax dollars to pay these individuals.  They should lift the cloud of suspicion, I would want it done if I was an innocent on the coaching staff.  

Please do not insult our intelligence, and that of AC, by suggesting she never saw this player nor knew this was wrong.


----------



## End of the Line

soccerobserver said:


> GrowTG, I am a fan of the Bruins. As such it pains me greatly to write that USC has set the example of how innocent parties handled the issue of phantom players on the wsoccer roster. USC Athletic Director Lynn Swan explained to the LA Times that an administrative individual put the fake players on the roster that was presented to his admissions committee. Then after the fake player was admitted, the USC administrator took the player off the list of admitted players that was sent to the USC coach. Makes sense.
> 
> Moreover, if you read the complaint filed by the Feds, when new USC wsoccer coach McAlpine did eventually see a fake player on one of his lists, Coach McAlpine emailed her to demand to meet her since he did not know her. After the fake player failed to respond to McAlpine, he emailed the fake player and cc'd other USC officials renouncing her and stating he had no idea who she was and therefore would not count her in his numbers. I am sad to say that if UCLA had nothing to hide then they would proffer a similarly easy to understand explanation and thereby clear the smoke in the air.


Why is it so hard to accept that UCLA would have fired Cromwell if Cromwell deserved to get fired?

If you are trying to compare USC favorably to UCLA in a discussion of how to handle corruption, you lost that argument even before you started typing.  You should read the LA Magazine article "How USC Became the Most Scandal-Plagued Campus in America".  How quickly people forget Olivia Jade learned she'd been caught while partying on the USC board president's yacht.  That the 3rd ranking member of USC's entire athletic department was involved in the scandal, plus an assistant soccer coach and two other staff members.  That USC Singer clients were "recruited" for at least eight different sports involving more than a dozen students compared to 1 at UCLA.  Also don't forget that USC is still dealing with the repercussions of the medical school scandal in which it allowed its former coke-sniffing, prostitute-using alcoholic dean to get away with operating on people drunk because he was a great fundraiser and all around fun guy.  That the med school is facing 3 dozen lawsuits alleging one of its doctors was sexually assaulting them.  Oh, and Reggie Bush's family got a free house.  I'd say USC handled things differently than UCLA because it had no choice.  USC is a cesspool of institutional corruption that is losing millions in donations because it can't get out of its own way.  UCLA had a rogue employee whom it fired, and probably some others who should have been more diligent but deserve (and probably received) lesser punishment.

If I were McAlpine, I'd be pissed too if I had to give up a roster spot without getting a cut of the bribe money.  I do have one question about that, however.  If Swann was being truthful that the USC administrator was taking the player off the list of admitted players before they were even sent to the coach, why did McAlpine even think she was on the team and know to send her self-serving emails and then publicly "renounce" her?  Could it possibly be because one of them is lying and you're a sucker who'd rather take lies at face value than accept UCLA's professional approach of not holding press conferences to discuss personnel and student issues that are none of your business?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

End of the Line said:


> Why is it so hard to accept that UCLA would have fired Cromwell if Cromwell deserved to get fired?
> 
> If you are trying to compare USC favorably to UCLA in a discussion of how to handle corruption, you lost that argument even before you started typing.  You should read the LA Magazine article "How USC Became the Most Scandal-Plagued Campus in America".  How quickly people forget Olivia Jade learned she'd been caught while partying on the USC board president's yacht.  That the 3rd ranking member of USC's entire athletic department was involved in the scandal, plus an assistant soccer coach and two other staff members.  That USC Singer clients were "recruited" for at least eight different sports involving more than a dozen students compared to 1 at UCLA.  Also don't forget that USC is still dealing with the repercussions of the medical school scandal in which it allowed its former coke-sniffing, prostitute-using alcoholic dean to get away with operating on people drunk because he was a great fundraiser and all around fun guy.  That the med school is facing 3 dozen lawsuits alleging one of its doctors was sexually assaulting them.  Oh, and Reggie Bush's family got a free house.  I'd say USC handled things differently than UCLA because it had no choice.  USC is a cesspool of institutional corruption that is losing millions in donations because it can't get out of its own way.  UCLA had a rogue employee whom it fired, and probably some others who should have been more diligent but deserve (and probably received) lesser punishment.
> 
> If I were McAlpine, I'd be pissed too if I had to give up a roster spot without getting a cut of the bribe money.  I do have one question about that, however.  If Swann was being truthful that the USC administrator was taking the player off the list of admitted players before they were even sent to the coach, why did McAlpine even think she was on the team and know to send her self-serving emails and then publicly "renounce" her?  Could it possibly be because one of them is lying and you're a sucker who'd rather take lies at face value than accept UCLA's professional approach of not holding press conferences to discuss personnel and student issues that are none of your business?


Is UCLA a private institution?


----------



## Glen

Grow The Game said:


> Is that how you think that it should go?  You have no idea what happened behind the scenes so you are just speculating and placing your opinions out there.  Does this affect you?  Did your daughter lose a spot because of anything that went on?  Why do you care?  USC did what they did to cover their collective asses due to an extreme lack of institutional control.  That is nowhere close to what happened at UCLA which is why the Feds are doing nothing.  The only people reaching out to the players and staff (and parents) are media people looking for some clickbait for people like yourself that aren’t involved.
> 
> Please post some proof of all your speculation or just let it go.  Absolutely nothing is going to happen and you can quote me on that.


So people shouldn't care about public corruption unless people are directly impacted by that public corruption?  Should people not care about the poor treatment of minorities because they are not minorities?  It's extremely odd to argue that people shouldn't care about curtailing bad behavior because it doesn't impact them personally.  

And if federal prosecution is the bar set for the UCLA coaching staff's behavior (which seems consistent with Arizona and LSU's recent basketball decisions), we are in some sad times.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Grow The Game said:


> Is that how you think that it should go?  You have no idea what happened behind the scenes so you are just speculating and placing your opinions out there.  Does this affect you?  Did your daughter lose a spot because of anything that went on?  Why do you care?  USC did what they did to cover their collective asses due to an extreme lack of institutional control.  That is nowhere close to what happened at UCLA which is why the Feds are doing nothing.  The only people reaching out to the players and staff (and parents) are media people looking for some clickbait for people like yourself that aren’t involved.
> 
> Please post some proof of all your speculation or just let it go.  Absolutely nothing is going to happen and you can quote me on that.


Does your kid play for UCLA?


----------



## Lambchop

End of the Line said:


> Why is it so hard to accept that UCLA would have fired Cromwell if Cromwell deserved to get fired?
> 
> If you are trying to compare USC favorably to UCLA in a discussion of how to handle corruption, you lost that argument even before you started typing.  You should read the LA Magazine article "How USC Became the Most Scandal-Plagued Campus in America".  How quickly people forget Olivia Jade learned she'd been caught while partying on the USC board president's yacht.  That the 3rd ranking member of USC's entire athletic department was involved in the scandal, plus an assistant soccer coach and two other staff members.  That USC Singer clients were "recruited" for at least eight different sports involving more than a dozen students compared to 1 at UCLA.  Also don't forget that USC is still dealing with the repercussions of the medical school scandal in which it allowed its former coke-sniffing, prostitute-using alcoholic dean to get away with operating on people drunk because he was a great fundraiser and all around fun guy.  That the med school is facing 3 dozen lawsuits alleging one of its doctors was sexually assaulting them.  Oh, and Reggie Bush's family got a free house.  I'd say USC handled things differently than UCLA because it had no choice.  USC is a cesspool of institutional corruption that is losing millions in donations because it can't get out of its own way.  UCLA had a rogue employee whom it fired, and probably some others who should have been more diligent but deserve (and probably received) lesser punishment.
> 
> If I were McAlpine, I'd be pissed too if I had to give up a roster spot without getting a cut of the bribe money.  I do have one question about that, however.  If Swann was being truthful that the USC administrator was taking the player off the list of admitted players before they were even sent to the coach, why did McAlpine even think she was on the team and know to send her self-serving emails and then publicly "renounce" her?  Could it possibly be because one of them is lying and you're a sucker who'd rather take lies at face value than accept UCLA's professional approach of not holding press conferences to discuss personnel and student issues that are none of your business?


So UCLA spends a couple of years recruiting their new players every year as do most D1 schools. They know everything about their recruits, stats, tournaments, grades etc. etc. etc. They have watched videos of them playing and probably sat around debating which players to make offers too.  These school add maybe 8-10 players each year give or take a couple and you expect everyone to believe that every single coach at UCLA wasn't aware of who they recruited and didn't know about this phantom player. How stupid do you think everyone is?


----------



## Abdul

Grow The Game said:


> That’s pretty funny but not a fact.  The sports information department is in charge of the media guide so no, not elves.  For all of the actual evidence that has been presented it could be you!
> 
> Regardless of the entertainment that you get by speculating.  And in spite of how satisfying it might be to you personally to have something happen to the coaching staff there, nobody has anything and the emails will prove it.  That is why they are sitting tight and doing what innocent people do.  They go about their business and let the peanut gallery feed the elephants.
> 
> Hey if you get your rocks off by wishing people ill I think there are much better targets.  But carry on if you wish, just don’t be pissed off at the team because your speculation was for naught.
> 
> Have a great day!


MAP got a new name....


----------



## eastbaysoccer

can UCLA self-impose punishment?  like take away scholarships or ban them from post season play.  OR could the NCAA impose this also?  This happens in college basketball.   Someone in the womens program needs to be punished for having a fake player on the web page.


----------



## Soccer43

eastbaysoccer said:


> can UCLA self-impose punishment?  like take away scholarships or ban them from post season play.  OR could the NCAA impose this also?  This happens in college basketball.   Someone in the womens program needs to be punished for having a fake player on the web page.


I think they are hoping if they just keep ignoring this that people will lose interest and it will go away.


----------



## outside!

End of the Line said:


> Could it possibly be because one of them is lying and you're a sucker who'd rather take lies at face value than accept UCLA's professional approach of not holding press conferences to discuss personnel and student issues that are none of your business?


As a state funded university, UCLA's personnel issues are the public's business. That is why the LA Times were able to file a FOI request. The facts are that a non-player was posted on their internet roster. Somebody in the program approved this. As taxpayers, we deserve to know the full story.


----------



## Glen

End of the Line said:


> Could it possibly be because one of them is lying and you're a sucker who'd rather take lies at face value than accept UCLA's professional approach of not holding press conferences to discuss personnel and student issues that are none of your business?


Issuing press releases about "personnel and student issues", but refusing to answer questions is hardly professional.  It's hiding.


----------



## mirage

eastbaysoccer said:


> can UCLA self-impose punishment?  like take away scholarships or ban them from post season play.  OR could the NCAA impose this also?  This happens in college basketball.   Someone in the womens program needs to be punished for having a fake player on the web page.


Of course they can but will they is the question.

Couple of years ago, Harvard mens soccer team was caught rating the women soccer team players' attractiveness, and did so by having a website for it.  Incredibly stupid but nothing compared to what has happened to the scandals herein.  That said, they forfeited all of their games and ineligible for the NCAA playoffs.  They were the Ivy League leader at the time in standings.  One of their assistant coach left as a result, even though he had nothing to do with the problem, other than he was in charge of recruiting for Harvard mens soccer.  The character of the players were the issue and they probably needed a fall guy.

Each organization, private or public, has a choice how they decide to deal with crisis situation of this kind.  Often Tylenol example is used as a landmark "right thing to do".  If one apply the similar stance, any university should fire their athletic director and all of the coaching staff in that sport, and suspend the program for a period of time that takes to fully investigate and put remedy in place - it happened under their watch.  Clearly, this would not be fair to all the players but the university has higher integrity issue and the school needs to help place the players onto other programs/schools, if they so desire to play.

As I've watched the behavior of USC and UCLA regarding this matter, we have decided our youngest kid (boy) who is a junior in HS, will not apply to either of these schools.  He has the grades (GPA 4.7, SAT 1490) but we'll send him elsewhere.  He plays soccer but does not want to play in college, like his brother is doing.  Taking the recruiting element out makes the school choice much easier.

At the end of the day, quality of education can be found in many. many places.  We raised our kids to believe in integrity and honesty, and act accordingly.  It would be in direct conflict to send him to one of these schools, given how they've dealt with this particular scandal.  In particular to USC, there are too many other examples of not dealing with it quickly and directly that we would not consider it amongst private institutions we are looking, inspire of their excellent alumni network.


----------



## Grow The Game

mirage said:


> Of course they can but will they is the question.
> 
> Couple of years ago, Harvard mens soccer team was caught rating the women soccer team players' attractiveness, and did so by having a website for it.  Incredibly stupid but nothing compared to what has happened to the scandals herein.  That said, they forfeited all of their games and ineligible for the NCAA playoffs.  They were the Ivy League leader at the time in standings.  One of their assistant coach left as a result, even though he had nothing to do with the problem, other than he was in charge of recruiting for Harvard mens soccer.  The character of the players were the issue and they probably needed a fall guy.
> 
> Each organization, private or public, has a choice how they decide to deal with crisis situation of this kind.  Often Tylenol example is used as a landmark "right thing to do".  If one apply the similar stance, any university should fire their athletic director and all of the coaching staff in that sport, and suspend the program for a period of time that takes to fully investigate and put remedy in place - it happened under their watch.  Clearly, this would not be fair to all the players but the university has higher integrity issue and the school needs to help place the players onto other programs/schools, if they so desire to play.
> 
> As I've watched the behavior of USC and UCLA regarding this matter, we have decided our youngest kid (boy) who is a junior in HS, will not apply to either of these schools.  He has the grades (GPA 4.7, SAT 1490) but we'll send him elsewhere.  He plays soccer but does not want to play in college, like his brother is doing.  Taking the recruiting element out makes the school choice much easier.
> 
> At the end of the day, quality of education can be found in many. many places.  We raised our kids to believe in integrity and honesty, and act accordingly.  It would be in direct conflict to send him to one of these schools, given how they've dealt with this particular scandal.  In particular to USC, there are too many other examples of not dealing with it quickly and directly that we would not consider it amongst private institutions we are looking, inspire of their excellent alumni network.


Do you really think that anybody cares about what you do with your kid’s education?  I doubt UCLA  or USC does.  They get more applications and than anyone and their alumni do fine.  Were your son’s even recruited by UCLA?  With all due respect, your statement is laughable.


----------



## End of the Line

Glen said:


> So people shouldn't care about public corruption unless people are directly impacted by that public corruption?  Should people not care about the poor treatment of minorities because they are not minorities?  It's extremely odd to argue that people shouldn't care about curtailing bad behavior because it doesn't impact them personally.
> 
> And if federal prosecution is the bar set for the UCLA coaching staff's behavior (which seems consistent with Arizona and LSU's recent basketball decisions), we are in some sad times.


It must be hard to be a nobody, and frustrating that UCLA doesn't care what you think or what information you think you're entitled to by virtue of being a "taxpayer".  But it is not surprising you are a nobody based on your lack of cognitive and analytical ability.  To the extent there is a scandal at UCLA, it is private corruption and UCLA was the victim.  UCLA received zero benefit - either directly or indirectly - by virtue of what happened.  UCLA does not benefit in any way by having an unqualified female soccer player on its roster.  In the Arizona and LSU basketball scandal, on the other hand, those schools receive millions in revenue when it brings in players using unlawful bribes.  You are making false equivalencies because you lack the brain power to understand what is actually happening.

What is really sad, Glen, is that you feel compelled to throw a racial comparator into this.  You're like the religious zealots who fall back on god when they're losing an argument because they think that's untouchable, which is a similarly pathetic rhetorical tactic I have already mocked here as a final act of desperation in an argument.  The truth is you are only "in some sad times" because you can't get past feeling sorry for yourself about much of anything and have reached the conclusion that everything in the world is rigged against you.  The truth is it isn't.  What you will eventually learn is that Cromwell should have been more diligent and was probably reprimanded as a result.   I fully understand that you will still demand her termination because you apply a standard of "purity" to others that you don't apply to yourself.  You are not Jean Valjean, and UCLA is not the corrupt French government depriving you of crumbs.


----------



## Grow The Game

Glen said:


> Issuing press releases about "personnel and student issues", but refusing to answer questions is hardly professional.  It's hiding.


Again this is laughable and I haven’t heard anything approaching proof and you clearly don’t know anything about the situation other than speculation.


----------



## Grow The Game

outside! said:


> As a state funded university, UCLA's personnel issues are the public's business. That is why the LA Times were able to file a FOI request. The facts are that a non-player was posted on their internet roster. Somebody in the program approved this. As taxpayers, we deserve to know the full story.


Not one athletic scholarship is state funded, nor does the athletic department cost the school one cent so the public pays nothing so try again.


----------



## Grow The Game

Soccer43 said:


> I think they are hoping if they just keep ignoring this that people will lose interest and it will go away.


Or they know the truth and are unconcerned with the phony news out there.


----------



## End of the Line

mirage said:


> Of course they can but will they is the question.
> 
> Couple of years ago, Harvard mens soccer team was caught rating the women soccer team players' attractiveness, and did so by having a website for it.  Incredibly stupid but nothing compared to what has happened to the scandals herein.  That said, they forfeited all of their games and ineligible for the NCAA playoffs.  They were the Ivy League leader at the time in standings.  One of their assistant coach left as a result, even though he had nothing to do with the problem, other than he was in charge of recruiting for Harvard mens soccer.  The character of the players were the issue and they probably needed a fall guy.
> 
> Each organization, private or public, has a choice how they decide to deal with crisis situation of this kind.  Often Tylenol example is used as a landmark "right thing to do".  If one apply the similar stance, any university should fire their athletic director and all of the coaching staff in that sport, and suspend the program for a period of time that takes to fully investigate and put remedy in place - it happened under their watch.  Clearly, this would not be fair to all the players but the university has higher integrity issue and the school needs to help place the players onto other programs/schools, if they so desire to play.
> 
> As I've watched the behavior of USC and UCLA regarding this matter, we have decided our youngest kid (boy) who is a junior in HS, will not apply to either of these schools.  He has the grades (GPA 4.7, SAT 1490) but we'll send him elsewhere.  He plays soccer but does not want to play in college, like his brother is doing.  Taking the recruiting element out makes the school choice much easier.
> 
> At the end of the day, quality of education can be found in many. many places.  We raised our kids to believe in integrity and honesty, and act accordingly.  It would be in direct conflict to send him to one of these schools, given how they've dealt with this particular scandal.  In particular to USC, there are too many other examples of not dealing with it quickly and directly that we would not consider it amongst private institutions we are looking, inspire of their excellent alumni network.


So what schools are you recommending for your child?


----------



## mirage

Grow The Game said:


> Do you really think that anybody cares about what you do with your kid’s education?  I doubt UCLA  or USC does.  They get more applications and than anyone and their alumni do fine.  Were your son’s even recruited by UCLA?  With all due respect, your statement is laughable.


That's not the point.  Its my/our personal integrity.

No he was not recruited by UCLA and not because he doesn't want to play in college but he's not on the national team pool, like the most recruited are.  

Glad you've found it laughable.  At least you got a laugh from it.


----------



## outside!

Grow The Game said:


> Not one athletic scholarship is state funded, nor does the athletic department cost the school one cent so the public pays nothing so try again.


UCLA is publicly funded and sits on land that was paid for by the tax payers. To say the athletic department has never benefited from being part of UCLA (and hence benefited from our tax dollars) is just fancy accounting. Without the institution, the athletic department would not exist. Without tax dollars, UCLA would not exist. The UC in UCLA stands for University OF California. We have a right to know.

I am not among the crowd saying anyone should be fired. I am saying that what we know now shows that poor decisions were made at a public university and we tax payers deserve to know the whole story. Once the full story is known, decisions can be made.


----------



## mirage

End of the Line said:


> So what schools are you recommending for your child?


We're looking at U of Chi, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Georgetown and alike.  We'll apply to UCSD/SB as safety schools too.  He didn't like Berkeley itself so no Cal for us.

We probably won't bother with Ivys or Stanford, unless he gets up into SAT 1500+/ACT 34+, and subject tests in 780-800 range.


----------



## Grow The Game

outside! said:


> UCLA is publicly funded and sits on land that was paid for by the tax payers. To say the athletic department has never benefited from being part of UCLA (and hence benefited from our tax dollars) is just fancy accounting. Without the institution, the athletic department would not exist. Without tax dollars, UCLA would not exist. The UC in UCLA stands for University OF California. We have a right to know.
> 
> I am not among the crowd saying anyone should be fired. I am saying that what we know now shows that poor decisions were made at a public university and we tax payers deserve to know the whole story. Once the full story is known, decisions can be made.


I am not disagreeing with the fact that poor decision making happened but the responsible party is already suffering and could see significant jail time.  You fail to realize that UCLA and their women’s soccer team were the victims here.


----------



## outside!

Grow The Game said:


> I am not disagreeing with the fact that poor decision making happened but the responsible party is already suffering and could see significant jail time.  You fail to realize that UCLA and their women’s soccer team were the victims here.


I don't fail to realize that. The players are especially the victims. Having said all that and to some extent on behalf of the players, the public deserves to know the full story. At this point we do not and until we do the integrity of the program is in question.


----------



## Lambchop

outside! said:


> I don't fail to realize that. The players are especially the victims. Having said all that and to some extent on behalf of the players, the public deserves to know the full story. At this point we do not and until we do the integrity of the program is in question.


All athletes at these programs are victims, every single school involved and even the ones that haven't been discovered yet and even student/athletes who are or will be applying to college.  I would also add the general student body as well.  How many students were admitted because they "knew" somebody or had family donate money to the school?


----------



## End of the Line

mirage said:


> We're looking at U of Chi, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Georgetown and alike.  We'll apply to UCSD/SB as safety schools too.  He didn't like Berkeley itself so no Cal for us.
> 
> We probably won't bother with Ivys or Stanford, unless he gets up into SAT 1500+/ACT 34+, and subject tests in 780-800 range.


You have curious purity standards.  I'm surprised Georgetown is an option given it turned a blind eye for years while more than 12x as many unqualified kids got in through the tennis team as part of the same scandal.  Georgetown also has a slight issue with its history of selling slaves to finance the school and sloppy handling of that little tidbit of information.  Oh, and at least 14 current and former Georgetown connected priests have been credibly accused of sexual abuse. which shouldn't be a surprise given the horrific handling of sex abuse by the Catholic church.  But I guess the systematic molesting of little boys is small potatoes compared to the horror of one girl at UCLA getting admitted who didn't deserve to make the soccer team.

Wanna talk about Duke?  It recently paid $112 million for fraudulently obtaining federal grants using fabricated research.  But at least the basketball team is perfectly clean.


----------



## full90

Grow The Game said:


> I am not disagreeing with the fact that poor decision making happened but the responsible party is already suffering and could see significant jail time.  You fail to realize that UCLA and their women’s soccer team were the victims here.


How was UCLA the victim? The head coach of a sport has to personally present any special admits to the admissions committee. Amanda herself has to do that. Secondly, the head coach of a team has to personally sign the official roster which is then circulated to compliance, housing, sports information, training room etc. The roster is an official document. Signed off on by AC herself. How are they the victims? 

AC knowingly admitted a player on a w soccer slot who wasn't deserving. That is fraud. 

There is an active investigation happening now. AC is telling parents "I did someone a favor" as her spin on the situation but that might not be enough to save her as admitting someone whether it's a favor or in exchange for money it is still fraud. UCLA wants to save her but it might not be up to them if the optics look bad enough.


----------



## Grow The Game

outside! said:


> I don't fail to realize that. The players are especially the victims. Having said all that and to some extent on behalf of the players, the public deserves to know the full story. At this point we do not and until we do the integrity of the program is in question.


What makes you think that the players don’t know what is going on and that they and all involved parties and their parents haven’t been instructed to not comment?


----------



## Grow The Game

full90 said:


> How was UCLA the victim? The head coach of a sport has to personally present any special admits to the admissions committee. Amanda herself has to do that. Secondly, the head coach of a team has to personally sign the official roster which is then circulated to compliance, housing, sports information, training room etc. The roster is an official document. Signed off on by AC herself. How are they the victims?
> 
> AC knowingly admitted a player on a w soccer slot who wasn't deserving. That is fraud.
> 
> There is an active investigation happening now. AC is telling parents "I did someone a favor" as her spin on the situation but that might not be enough to save her as admitting someone whether it's a favor or in exchange for money it is still fraud. UCLA wants to save her but it might not be up to them if the optics look bad enough.


You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.  You have no clue what was told to anyone and you are dead wrong about the athletic admissions process.

This is exactly the reason why everyone is keeping quiet.  The media and people like you are assuming a lot.


----------



## mirage

End of the Line said:


> You have curious purity standards.  I'm surprised Georgetown is an option given it turned a blind eye for years while more than 12x as many unqualified kids got in through the tennis team as part of the same scandal.  Georgetown also has a slight issue with its history of selling slaves to finance the school and sloppy handling of that little tidbit of information.  Oh, and at least 14 current and former Georgetown connected priests have been credibly accused of sexual abuse. which shouldn't be a surprise given the horrific handling of sex abuse by the Catholic church.  But I guess the systematic molesting of little boys is small potatoes compared to the horror of one girl at UCLA getting admitted who didn't deserve to make the soccer team.
> 
> Wanna talk about Duke?  It recently paid $112 million for fraudulently obtaining federal grants using fabricated research.  But at least the basketball team is perfectly clean.


Didn't realize that I was stepping into a trap.  You only wanted to know what schools we were considering so you can simply bring up all the mishaps of the past, including what happened during slavery period of our country.  I'm certain none of us, not just Georgetown, are proud of those times.  Perhaps you're either UCLA or USC grad?  Our family has two UCLA grads.

Yes almost every school has issues but the difference is who they are today, as our kid is considering to apply.  Cannot go back and change the past and often is the case, those involved are gone today.  Clearly not the case for either USC or UCLA administrators or ADs.

I only mentioned that we have crossed off these two schools because we have options, thanks to my kids grades/scores and his extracurriculars.


----------



## Dos Equis

Grow The Game said:


> You have no clue what was told to anyone and you are dead wrong about the athletic admissions process.


We all have a vested interest in the admissions process for our public universities, given how competitive it is to get in.  One would hope the process to gain admission outside of normal application channels would be closely monitored, have multiple layers of approval and review, and the decision maker who vouches for someone's direct admission remains accountable for that person.  I doubt the process was "just pay Salcedo."

In this case, it may be that a favor resulted in or necessitated future fraud, and the mistakes and poor judgment multiplied. That is what happens when you start out with a lie -- the cover-up is often worse.

By way of contrast, my own child's athletic commitment to a D1 program required meeting and an interview with every member of the coaching staff, an interview with the assistant athletic director, meeting with the head trainer, and meeting with people in academic services and advising (not to mention spending two days with the team).  On an ongoing basis, in addition to still watching her play, the soccer staff requires she send every standardized test score and her interim and final grades/transcripts every semester.  The coaching staff also met with us, her parents, several times, both with and without our daughter present, and we met with the assistant AD at their request.  When I expressed my surprise at the amount of time they spent with us prior to the commitment, the coach made it very clear it was not about soccer.  He stated that his career, the soccer program and the school are directly impacted by the decisions every player makes, both on and off the field.  He needed to be confident that the players he recruited had the right character.

I do not know AC.  She seems like a hell of a coach, and we need more of those in this country.  I am less certain about who she is as a person, but I hope this experience makes her an even better one.


----------



## espola

Grow The Game said:


> What makes you think that the players don’t know what is going on and that they and all involved parties and their parents haven’t been instructed to not comment?


??? How do we know you're not just a girl in a kangaroo suit?


----------



## End of the Line

full90 said:


> How was UCLA the victim? The head coach of a sport has to personally present any special admits to the admissions committee. Amanda herself has to do that. Secondly, the head coach of a team has to personally sign the official roster which is then circulated to compliance, housing, sports information, training room etc. The roster is an official document. Signed off on by AC herself. How are they the victims?
> 
> AC knowingly admitted a player on a w soccer slot who wasn't deserving. That is fraud.
> 
> There is an active investigation happening now. AC is telling parents "I did someone a favor" as her spin on the situation but that might not be enough to save her as admitting someone whether it's a favor or in exchange for money it is still fraud. UCLA wants to save her but it might not be up to them if the optics look bad enough.


To find fraud, you must have a victim who is harmed because they reasonably relied to their detriment on a false misrepresentation.  If UCLA is not a victim as you claim, then there is no fraud. Which means the Isackson's were morons for pleading guilty on the fraud claim. Unless, just maybe, you're the one who's the moron.


----------



## Glen

End of the Line said:


> To find fraud, you must have a victim who is harmed because they reasonably relied to their detriment on a false misrepresentation.  If UCLA is not a victim as you claim, then there is no fraud. Which means the Isackson's were morons for pleading guilty on the fraud claim. Unless, just maybe, you're the one who's the moron.


There does not need to be an actual victim for mail fraud - no one needs to be harmed.  It's the Isackson's intent that matters.

The forum's collective IQ level seems to drop every time you post.  Please stop.


----------



## Supermodel56

Glen said:


> There does not need to be an actual victim for mail fraud - no one needs to be harmed.  It's the Isackson's intent that matters.
> 
> The forum's collective IQ level seems to drop every time you post.  Please stop.


The legal definition for mail/wire fraud is that the intent has to be to obtain money or property... in other words, if you send a letter to a friend that contained a lie, you wouldn’t be charged for fraud unless you we’re trying to use that lie to obtain money or property - which in the case of this scam they did neither. They lied to gain admission - to pay money, the Isaacksons were not seeking any financial benefit.

Racketeering is when an organized business is dealing with illegal or fraudulent activity. The families involved were not part of the business - they were simply customers.


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> The legal definition for mail/wire fraud is that the intent has to be to obtain money or property... in other words, if you send a letter to a friend that contained a lie, you wouldn’t be charged for fraud unless you we’re trying to use that lie to obtain money or property - which in the case of this scam they did neither. They lied to gain admission - to pay money, the Isaacksons were not seeking any financial benefit.
> 
> Racketeering is when an organized business is dealing with illegal or fraudulent activity. The families involved were not part of the business - they were simply customers.


You would be laughed out of court.


----------



## Supermodel56

espola said:


> You would be laughed out of court.


Kinda like how you get laughed out of this forum?


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> Kinda like how you get laughed out of this forum?


You think that will ever happen?  

Please continue.


----------



## Supermodel56

espola said:


> You would be laughed out of court.


I don’t think you know how the law works... you actually have to break a law to be convicted. The first question the lawyers will ask is what money or property did they seek to defraud the university from? 

Again, with the whole definition thing, try looking it up...


----------



## surfrider

Supermodel56 said:


> Kinda like how you get laughed out of this forum?


A court of law or this forum?  I think you just established the value of your own posts


----------



## Supermodel56

espola said:


> You think that will ever happen?
> 
> Please continue.


It already has... goodbye, you and your nonsense is officially blocked.


----------



## Supermodel56

surfrider said:


> A court of law or this forum?  I think you just established the value of your own posts


Why don’t you look up the legal definition of mail fraud and fraud.  it doesn’t matter what this forum thinks... if they are being charged with mail/wire fraud, what is the criteria for mail/wire fraud? 

Legal definitions are there for a reason. Singer and the coaches certainly are guilty. They lied to the university to obtain money. 

Regarding the parents, they can easily be charged with bribery because a coach (public official) got money in exchange for admission, but re: mail fraud, the prosecution would have to prove they did it to gain financial or property benefit. Prosecution argument would be that they were part of the financial transaction - but they weren’t the financial beneficiaries. It’s an interesting legal case. In a typical mail fraud case, the person that paid the money is the victim...

The big question is, does admission to the university count as financial or property benefit?!? And if so, is it tangible? How much was defrauded?


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> Why don’t you look up the legal definition of mail fraud and fraud.  it doesn’t matter what this forum thinks... if they are being charged with mail/wire fraud, what is the criteria for mail/wire fraud?
> 
> Legal definitions are there for a reason. Singer and the coaches certainly are guilty. They lied to the university to obtain money.
> 
> Regarding the parents, they can easily be charged with bribery because a coach (public official) got money in exchange for admission, but re: mail fraud, the prosecution would have to prove they did it to gain financial or property benefit. Prosecution argument would be that they were part of the financial transaction - but they weren’t the financial beneficiaries. It’s an interesting legal case. In a typical mail fraud case, the person that paid the money is the victim...
> 
> The big question is, does admission to the university count as financial or property benefit?!? And if so, is it tangible? How much was defrauded?


It's "what is the criterion" or "what are the criteria".  Your choice.


----------



## LASTMAN14

espola said:


> It's "what is the criterion" or "what are the criteria".  Your choice.


E, they blocked you. She won. You lost. I tied you.


----------



## dk_b

Mom's plea agreement was to attempted fraud (1349) - her plea letter is available online.  The judge did express some concern about the fraud charge.  Dad's plea agreement was for money laundering and tax fraud (in addition to attempted fraud, presumably; I have not seen his agreement). The tax fraud is easy since his payment to Singer was to Singer's non-profit.  My guess is that part of the plea was to charge only one of them with that count.


----------



## espola

LASTMAN14 said:


> E, they blocked you. She won. You lost. I tied you.


Is that a rule?  Or a Law of the Game (whatever the game is)?


----------



## Supermodel56

dk_b said:


> Mom's plea agreement was to attempted fraud (1349) - her plea letter is available online.  The judge did express some concern about the fraud charge.  Dad's plea agreement was for money laundering and tax fraud (in addition to attempted fraud, presumably; I have not seen his agreement). The tax fraud is easy since his payment to Singer was to Singer's non-profit.  My guess is that part of the plea was to charge only one of them with that count.


Yeah... they shouldn’t have pled so early. I don’t think money laundering was the right charge and tax fraud is a stretch... their intent for doing this was not to reduce their tax liability or hide money from the gov. 

They shouldn’t have claimed it as a deduction because they received benefit (or intended to receive benefit)... but again, when it comes to charitable donations - you can deduct donations so long as you subtract the benefit you received. For example, if you donate $100 to a charity at a silent auction for an item that’s worth $75 You can only deduct $25. In this case, how do you quantify the value of admission?

Does that also mean the mega donors who donated to the college for a building can’t deduct the gift because their kid got in?

I think if they fought this, at the end of the day at most it would’ve resulted in paying the tax penalties to offset any improper deductions and a fine for bribery w/maybe community service.

The tax part is a very common mistake because charities will simply send you a statement at the end of the year with your total donation and don’t disclose what the value of the benefit is. Most people just turn this doc over to their accountant and they have no idea what it was for and their accountant just deducts it all.


----------



## LASTMAN14

espola said:


> Is that a rule?  Or a Law of the Game (whatever the game is)?


It is one of many unwritten rules.


----------



## dk_b

I think the tax fraud is what makes this all the more problematic - I have a hard time they did not know what they were doing and there is clear intent behind couching the bribes as charitable donations.  It's hard for me to think of it as a common mistake - too much intent behind it but maybe I am giving too much credit to the uber-wealthy to know what they were doing was foul.

(And I do think there is a categorical difference between an above-board donation to the school - while greatly enhancing the possibility of admission, it is not a guarantee.  As Singer himself said, that's the back door but it was his side door that was the guarantee.)


----------



## Supermodel56

dk_b said:


> I think the tax fraud is what makes this all the more problematic - I have a hard time they did not know what they were doing and there is clear intent behind couching the bribes as charitable donations.  It's hard for me to think of it as a common mistake - too much intent behind it but maybe I am giving too much credit to the uber-wealthy to know what they were doing was foul.
> 
> (And I do think there is a categorical difference between an above-board donation to the school - while greatly enhancing the possibility of admission, it is not a guarantee.  As Singer himself said, that's the back door but it was his side door that was the guarantee.)


For Singer, it was definitely tax fraud, racketeering, money laundering, etc... the question is for the parents, I don’t think they cared if it was a charity or Singer himself, that’s just what Singer wanted them to do. He was the one hiding the money. They simply didn’t pay taxes on the money they paid Singer and improperly deducted the expense.

Just read that Huffman plead guilty to honest services fraud which I think is the most appropriate charge for most parents - however, if you read the wiki, there’s a lot of debate as to whether this statute is even constitutional as it’s so vague, any type of influence to gain preference could be construed as such. They gave the example of a government official getting a priority reservation or table at a restaurant as violating this law. There are no limits here.... 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_services_fraud


----------



## dk_b

I follow and maybe I'm giving them too much credit but I think that they absolutely knew what they were doing was wrong and figured, "what the F?  I'm cool also getting a tax benny out of this.  I will pay to Singer's charity".

I know some folks who have had contact with Singer up here in the Bay Area (extended) and he did offer legit services.  If you considered paying $500K or more for "guarantees", you can't be that naïve to believe it was on the up and up.  My guess is the mental calculus was, "well, I can make a $5MM donation to School X and enhance my kid's chance to get admitted or I can pay this guy $500K to guarantee it.  If I do this through his charity, I'll take a deduction, too.  A good use of my money.  And worth the risk."  It's only a problem b/c they got caught - just like in so many other contexts when people express remorse (remorse they got caught, not of the act itself).


----------



## Supermodel56

dk_b said:


> I follow and maybe I'm giving them too much credit but I think that they absolutely knew what they were doing was wrong and figured, "what the F?  I'm cool also getting a tax benny out of this.  I will pay to Singer's charity".
> 
> I know some folks who have had contact with Singer up here in the Bay Area (extended) and he did offer legit services.  If you considered paying $500K or more for "guarantees", you can't be that naïve to believe it was on the up and up.  My guess is the mental calculus was, "well, I can make a $5MM donation to School X and enhance my kid's chance to get admitted or I can pay this guy $500K to guarantee it.  If I do this through his charity, I'll take a deduction, too.  A good use of my money.  And worth the risk."  It's only a problem b/c they got caught - just like in so many other contexts when people express remorse (remorse they got caught, not of the act itself).


I’m with you here, 100%. It’s very possible, if not likely, they thought “hey cool, tax deduction too!”  

I’m just not sure if that qualifies as tax fraud...  It’s murky and just like we’re wrestling with this, it’d probably be hard for a jury to agree beyond reasonable doubt that they did this with that intent. 

At the end of the day, you have parents who would do anything to help their kids and lost sight of the line. If nothing else, the kids who worked their asses off and got in on their own merit should be extremely proud of themselves. They are the ones who gained the most because it’s the journey that shapes who you are more than the destination.


----------



## Supermodel56

LASTMAN14 said:


> E, they blocked you. She won. You lost. I tied you.


LOL. I have no idea what e said but already I’m so glad I didn’t get sucked into his nonsense...


----------



## gefelchnik

Supermodel56 said:


> I’m with you here, 100%. It’s very possible, if not likely, they thought “hey cool, tax deduction too!”
> 
> I’m just not sure if that qualifies as tax fraud...  It’s murky and just like we’re wrestling with this, it’d probably be hard for a jury to agree beyond reasonable doubt that they did this with that intent.
> 
> At the end of the day, you have parents who would do anything to help their kids and lost sight of the line. If nothing else, the kids who worked their asses off and got in on their own merit should be extremely proud of themselves. They are the ones who gained the most because it’s the journey that shapes who you are more than the destination.


These parents surely had good lawyers - so you have to assume that they didn't plea out if there wasn't a decent case.

I believe this one could have had to do with their kid.  Even though the prosecutors don't seem to be after the kids, in this case, there was a clear path to charge her.  The player helped facilitate the conspiracy that the men's coach was a part of.  She can't claim that she was not involved.

So I suspect part of the parents settling fast was a guarantee that there would be no charges for their daughter.  And they have to cooperate (their daughter too) about the exact details of what happened and who else helped facilitate.


----------



## dk_b

Supermodel56 said:


> At the end of the day, you have parents who would do anything to help their kids and lost sight of the line.


I respectfully disagree with this - I think the parents in this scheme want to convince themselves they were doing it to help their kids but I think it is 100% about the parents' ego.  These are wealthy enough people that dropping $1/2 Million is something they can do.  Wealth is the ultimate safety-net for any kid so whether that kid attended Yale or USC or Chico State, his/her future is largely secure and the difference of one school over another (and the resulting impact on the kid's future) is marginal at best.  So why wouldn't a parent just help the child find the right spot for the kid based on the kid's interest, abilities, drive, future dreams?  Because the parents' EGO is all about telling their buddies at the club that "my kid got into Yale. She really is amazing" or "my kid got into USC.  He's sure to be a leader.  Fight on!"

Would the parents do anything?  Yes.  But it is for themselves.  The kids are afterthoughts.


----------



## eastbaysoccer

these rich people see elite college admission as jewelry.  Just want bragging rights and love to show off their kids.  

Immoral as it is, admitting a handful of rich kids whose parents donate money to the school to improve conditions for existing students is ........ugh....ugh...ok as I can see value for the whole.  “The whole is greater than it’s parts”.   

Trying to get out of paying taxes by deducting these donations that are affecting the “whole” is what I have an issue with.


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> I’m with you here, 100%. It’s very possible, if not likely, they thought “hey cool, tax deduction too!”
> 
> I’m just not sure if that qualifies as tax fraud...  It’s murky and just like we’re wrestling with this, it’d probably be hard for a jury to agree beyond reasonable doubt that they did this with that intent.
> 
> At the end of the day, you have parents who would do anything to help their kids and lost sight of the line. If nothing else, the kids who worked their asses off and got in on their own merit should be extremely proud of themselves. They are the ones who gained the most because it’s the journey that shapes who you are more than the destination.


It's tax fraud.


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> LOL. I have no idea what e said but already I’m so glad I didn’t get sucked into his nonsense...


If you read LM14's post, my message he is responding to is embedded in it.


----------



## LASTMAN14

espola said:


> It's tax fraud.


She’s not talking to you. Did you forget?


----------



## LASTMAN14

espola said:


> If you read LM14's post, my message he is responding to is embedded in it.


You sure about that?


----------



## Supermodel56

dk_b said:


> I respectfully disagree with this - I think the parents in this scheme want to convince themselves they were doing it to help their kids but I think it is 100% about the parents' ego.  These are wealthy enough people that dropping $1/2 Million is something they can do.  Wealth is the ultimate safety-net for any kid so whether that kid attended Yale or USC or Chico State, his/her future is largely secure and the difference of one school over another (and the resulting impact on the kid's future) is marginal at best.  So why wouldn't a parent just help the child find the right spot for the kid based on the kid's interest, abilities, drive, future dreams?  Because the parents' EGO is all about telling their buddies at the club that "my kid got into Yale. She really is amazing" or "my kid got into USC.  He's sure to be a leader.  Fight on!"
> 
> Would the parents do anything?  Yes.  But it is for themselves.  The kids are afterthoughts.


I’ll agree, I’m sure there’s ego involved...  But only they know what was going through their minds. It was likely a combination of a lot of things... Was it a poor choice? Absolutely.


eastbaysoccer said:


> these rich people see elite college admission as jewelry.  Just want bragging rights and love to show off their kids.
> 
> Immoral as it is, admitting a handful of rich kids whose parents donate money to the school to improve conditions for existing students is ........ugh....ugh...ok as I can see value for the whole.  “The whole is greater than it’s parts”.
> 
> Trying to get out of paying taxes by deducting these donations that are affecting the “whole” is what I have an issue with.


I don’t think that’s quite how they see it... sure there’s the element of pride being able to say your kid goes to XYZ school - But so does everyone else on this forum... 

But regarding the tax issue, it’s not what you think. The wealthy don’t think about it as, “we get to save on taxes by donating to this charity”, rather when they donate to the charity, they see a $500k donation as only costing them $250k because the gov would’ve taken half of the $500k in taxes anyway. They don’t get to keep the tax savings. They actually spend more and keep less by giving to a tax deductible cause than if they were to not donate at all.


----------



## espola

LASTMAN14 said:


> You sure about that?


I'm waiting for her response.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

*SAT exam reportedly to give students "adversity score" in bid to level playing field*
BY BRIAN PASCUS

MAY 16, 2019 / 10:03 AM / CBS NEWS

_A new "adversity score" assigned by the College Board on the SAT exam will reportedly reflect students' family income, environment and educational differences in an effort to level the playing field in the highly competitive college admissions process. The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that 50 schools used the new indicator as part of a beta test last year and the College Board plans to bring more than 150 schools into the fold this fall. 

The College Board is a New York-based non-profit that is in charge of overseeing the SAT. A dialogue about wealth and privilege in educational institutions exploded this year in wake of the college admissions scandal, in which 33 parentswere charged with paying huge sums of money to have their children cheat on the SAT and be admitted into top colleges under the false pretenses of being student athletes._
Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student's adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual's adversity score on a scale of one to 100.

According to the Journal, a score of 50 is considered "average." Anything above 50 proves "hardship" while anything below 50 is considered "privilege." The College Board did not immediately respond to a CBS News request for more information about the methodology behind its calculation of the adversity score and if other factors are considered.

The Journal reported that this new score will appear alongside a student's SAT score and will be featured in a section labeled the "Environmental Context Dashboard." The adversity score's formal name on the dashboard is "Overall Disadvantage Level," but it has been colloquially called the "adversity score" by college admissions officers, per The Journal's article.


----------



## Nefutous

Colleges already take all these factors into consideration.  The first read of an application is by someone that is familiar with the student’s school.  Not everyone financially secure spends money on test prepare and college advising, so this system would penalize those students.  

Also essay questions provide a good opportunity for student to discuss challenges they faced.

Another good reason to take the ACT.


----------



## Real Deal

Sheriff Joe said:


> *SAT exam reportedly to give students "adversity score" in bid to level playing field*
> BY BRIAN PASCUS
> 
> MAY 16, 2019 / 10:03 AM / CBS NEWS
> 
> _A new "adversity score" assigned by the College Board on the SAT exam will reportedly reflect students' family income, environment and educational differences in an effort to level the playing field in the highly competitive college admissions process. The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that 50 schools used the new indicator as part of a beta test last year and the College Board plans to bring more than 150 schools into the fold this fall.
> 
> The College Board is a New York-based non-profit that is in charge of overseeing the SAT. A dialogue about wealth and privilege in educational institutions exploded this year in wake of the college admissions scandal, in which 33 parentswere charged with paying huge sums of money to have their children cheat on the SAT and be admitted into top colleges under the false pretenses of being student athletes._
> Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student's adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual's adversity score on a scale of one to 100.
> 
> According to the Journal, a score of 50 is considered "average." Anything above 50 proves "hardship" while anything below 50 is considered "privilege." The College Board did not immediately respond to a CBS News request for more information about the methodology behind its calculation of the adversity score and if other factors are considered.
> 
> The Journal reported that this new score will appear alongside a student's SAT score and will be featured in a section labeled the "Environmental Context Dashboard." The adversity score's formal name on the dashboard is "Overall Disadvantage Level," but it has been colloquially called the "adversity score" by college admissions officers, per The Journal's article.


Just reading that makes me want to cheat.


----------



## espola

Real Deal said:


> Just reading that makes me want to cheat.


Why?


----------



## Real Deal

espola said:


> Why?


I would hope in this day and age we could strive to provide equal educational opportunities for children in underprivileged neighborhoods.  A rubric like this above pretty much gives up on that.  Plus... exactly as Nefutous points out above, it then becomes unfair to "median" or even affluent families who chose not to throw thousands at test study programs and collge consultants- in other words it could serve to penalize those who do _not_ crazily control their kids' lives.


----------



## espola

Real Deal said:


> I would hope in this day and age we could strive to provide equal educational opportunities for children in underprivileged neighborhoods.  A rubric like this above pretty much gives up on that.  Plus... exactly as Nefutous points out above, it then becomes unfair to "median" or even affluent families who chose not to throw thousands at test study programs and collge consultants- in other words it could serve to penalize those who do _not_ crazily control their kids' lives.


Rubric?  You lost me.


----------



## Real Deal

espola said:


> Rubric?  You lost me.


Oh forget it.  I was being sarcastic in the first place.  But can't you see how it might be more beneficial to do something like providing free test prep services to underprivileged students instead?

Another option could be for them to hire test proctors who don't accept bribes.


----------



## espola

Real Deal said:


> Oh forget it.  I was being sarcastic in the first place.  But can't you see how it might be more beneficial to do something like providing free test prep services to underprivileged students instead?
> 
> Another option could be for them to hire test proctors who don't accept bribes.


I think the overwhelming majority of test proctors don't take bribes.


----------



## outside!

Real Deal said:


> Oh forget it.  I was being sarcastic in the first place.  But can't you see how it might be more beneficial to do something like providing free test prep services to underprivileged students instead?
> 
> Another option could be for them to hire test proctors who don't accept bribes.


Providing equal education funding to all schools instead of basing their funding on their local tax base would be an even better idea. When inner city schools don't have enough books but the school in the neighboring suburb has a campus that rivals many college campuses it highlights the inequities in our educational funding.


----------



## Lambchop

Real Deal said:


> I would hope in this day and age we could strive to provide equal educational opportunities for children in underprivileged neighborhoods.  A rubric like this above pretty much gives up on that.  Plus... exactly as Nefutous points out above, it then becomes unfair to "median" or even affluent families who chose not to throw thousands at test study programs and collge consultants- in other words it could serve to penalize those who do _not_ crazily control their kids' lives.


It doesn't matter now.  SAT just announced that they will give an "adversity" score along with the regular SAT score.  Don't know all the details but it will essentially take into account parents income, where the student went to high school, is it in a dangerous area, etc. etc. Anyone with more info please post.


----------



## espola

Lambchop said:


> It doesn't matter now.  SAT just announced that they will give an "adversity" score along with the regular SAT score.  Don't know all the details but it will essentially take into account parents income, where the student went to high school, is it in a dangerous area, etc. etc. Anyone with more info please post.


Every article I can find quotes the WSJ or various university sources.  No statement has been seen yet by the College Board, which is the organization that actually administers the test.


----------



## dk_b

Here's an interesting article from a year ago about the impact of becoming "testing option" has on admissions (and the resulting class of frosh):  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/04/27/large-study-finds-colleges-go-test-optional-become-more-diverse-and-maintain.  And here's a more recent WaPo article in the wake of the admissions scandal:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/03/19/is-it-finally-time-get-rid-sat-act-college-admissions-tests/?utm_term=.394e603887d3.  (the underlying study is here:  https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/publications/research/defining-access-report-2018.pdf).

You know that the College Board and ACT felt a deep chill in their bones when they read this:  "Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California system, said in an interview last week that she created a task force last year to review the use of test scores in admissions."  If UC drops standardized testing as part of admissions, the standardized test industry will be forever changed.


----------



## Justafan

Real Deal said:


> Plus... exactly as Nefutous points out above, it then becomes unfair to "median" or even affluent families who chose not to throw thousands at test study programs and collge consultants- in other words it could serve to penalize those who do _not_ crazily control their kids' lives.


I disagree with you and Nefutous, it doesn't penalize anybody.  All it does is document where you come from and the typical advantages or disadvantages associated with it.  Put it this way, if you are not working the typical academic angle, then you better be working on another angle to get into your school of choice.  I think most of us on this board are working the athletic scholarship angle.  So if you're not spending the 10-20 hours per week perfecting your soccer skills, you better be doing another activity or hitting the books for those 10-20.  And that is great that most schools use readers from your area so they can decipher real shit from bull shit.  

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic with this quote or leading into an "affirmative action" type argument, but you bet your ass that if you come from an "advantaged" upbringing, you better score better than someone from a "disadvantaged" upbringing.  I grew up in ELA and your damn right, if my dd's don't score AT LEAST 200 points higher than me on the SAT, I've been a complete and utter failure, period!  They read more books through 5th grade than I did through all of high school and then some.  If Bill Gate's kid scores a 1050, that is an utter disaster.  If you're an inner city first generation Latino where Spanish was your first language, a 1050 score is very, very, good.


----------



## Real Deal

Justafan said:


> I disagree with you and Nefutous, it doesn't penalize anybody.  All it does is document where you come from and the typical advantages or disadvantages associated with it.  Put it this way, if you are not working the typical academic angle, then you better be working on another angle to get into your school of choice.  I think most of us on this board are working the athletic scholarship angle.  So if you're not spending the 10-20 hours per week perfecting your soccer skills, you better be doing another activity or hitting the books for those 10-20.  And that is great that most schools use readers from your area so they can decipher real shit from bull shit.
> 
> I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic with this quote or leading into an "affirmative action" type argument, but you bet your ass that if you come from an "advantaged" upbringing, you better score better than someone from a "disadvantaged" upbringing.  I grew up in ELA and your damn right, if my dd's don't score AT LEAST 200 points higher than me on the SAT, I've been a complete and utter failure, period!  They read more books through 5th grade than I did through all of high school and then some.  If Bill Gate's kid scores a 1050, that is an utter disaster.  If you're an inner city first generation Latino where Spanish was your first language, a 1050 score is very, very, good.


I am merely suggesting that the root problem of bad elementary and high school education for the poor needs to be addressed-- it is not solved by just some asterisk by a kid's name on a standardized test.

Beyond that, much more can be told about a student -from any background- by an essay, an exploration of past achievements over time, or just a conversation, than by a standardized test anyways.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

David Coleman is the president of the college board, he is also the common core mastermind.
Nut job.
Just another way to destroy the middle class.


----------



## espola

Sheriff Joe said:


> David Coleman is the president of the college board, he is also the common core mastermind.
> Nut job.
> Just another way to destroy the middle class.


Coocoo.


----------



## Justafan

Sheriff Joe said:


> Just another way to destroy the middle class.


Oh, you poor little baby!  Who’s playing victim politics now?  Get off your lazy boy, stop eating fried twinkies and hit the f’n books!


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Justafan said:


> Oh, you poor little baby!  Who’s playing victim politics now?  Get off your lazy boy, stop eating fried twinkies and hit the f’n books!


What could be more fair than the SAT?
Everyone takes the same test at the same time.
Maybe you should tell these People who want this carve out to hit the books.
Anyone who thinks this is anything other than affirmative action needs their head examined.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

espola said:


> Coocoo.


What can I say, just clairvoyant I guess.
College Board president pushing 'adversity score' is same man behind controversial Common Core program
https://www.foxnews.com/us/college-board-president-pushing-adversity-score-is-same-man-behind-disastrous-common-core-program


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Telling the awful truth about the new SAT ‘adversity’ score
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/telling_the_awful_truth_about_the_new_sat_adversity_score.html


----------



## Supermodel56

outside! said:


> Providing equal education funding to all schools instead of basing their funding on their local tax base would be an even better idea. When inner city schools don't have enough books but the school in the neighboring suburb has a campus that rivals many college campuses it highlights the inequities in our educational funding.


This is asinine. Nice buildings aren’t going to teach your kids how to read and let’s be honest, access to books are not the real issue - it’s mentality. I say each neighborhood should fund their own. Federal funding should be a flat rate per head count - every kid gets the same amount, same treatment. Then, local funding should go to local neighborhoods because those are dollars coming directly from the parents and local neighbors. There is no reason your tax dollars should pay for my kids education and vice versa. If you want to support inner city kids, donate to a non-profit or volunteer your time - I certainly have and people should have a choice as to whether or not they want to support other people’s kids. Don’t like the kids or schools in your neighborhood? Move. Wish you could move but can’t afford to? The reality is you probably should’ve made better life choices - you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. but now it’s time to make the most of what you have. I know plenty of inner city kids who have made it out - there’s really no excuse.

At the end of the day, it’s the parents responsibility to provide for your kids, whether food, education, books, environment, or otherwise. It’s the kid’s responsibility to make the most of his/her education, resources, opportunities or lack thereof - regardless of what the parents do/don’t provide. And if they care, they can and will make it happen - just look at soccer - ever the poorest parents are spending $5-12k a yr on soccer, countless hours at training and private’s - and it’s not like the parents are dropping off, they’re sitting and watching, doing nothing. If they spent that time studying or even the cost of a few private’s for SAT prep, they’d do fine. Sure, expensive tutors may help, but you really don’t need that much to succeed academically and there are plenty of free resources out there, especially online and at your local library. Go into any wealthy school and tell them about how your inner city school doesn’t have books and you would be hard pressed to find a parent who wouldn’t buy your kids the books they need. More likely than not, you’d see the students start a fundraising campaign to raise money for your school. And yet poor kids and families resent them.

Access to resources is not the problem.


----------



## outside!

Supermodel56 said:


> This is asinine. .
> Access to resources is not the problem.


Wow. So the quality of the school has no bearing on the success of the students? You get no benefit from the educational success of other people's children that go on to become the work force that will keep society running when you are old? You are clueless and your privilege is showing.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

outside! said:


> Wow. So the quality of the school has no bearing on the success of the students? You get no benefit from the educational success of other people's children that go on to become the work force that will keep society running when you are old? You are clueless and your privilege is showing.


Raising victims isn't the answer.


----------



## Supermodel56

outside! said:


> Wow. So the quality of the school has no bearing on the success of the students? You get no benefit from the educational success of other people's children that go on to become the work force that will keep society running when you are old? You are clueless and your privilege is showing.


Lol, it’s always the idiot middle class white dude who knows neither what it’s like to be rich nor poor who uses that line... 

Dude, I lived in the ghetto when I was a kid, you have no freakin clue. I went back to visit a couple years back and drug deals were going on in front of the house i lived in in broad daylight. When I was a kid, my neighbors pulled a prank and dumped mud into the mail slot in our door. When my dad confronted the parents, they didn’t even have towels to wipe it up, they literally had to use their shirts and underwear. I witnessed first hand what it took to get outta there and making excuses because of lack of resources was not one of them.

The people who talk about privilege only do so because they have no idea why people are in poverty, nor how to solve it.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Supermodel56 said:


> This is asinine. Nice buildings aren’t going to teach your kids how to read and let’s be honest, access to books are not the real issue - it’s mentality. I say each neighborhood should fund their own. Federal funding should be a flat rate per head count - every kid gets the same amount, same treatment. Then, local funding should go to local neighborhoods because those are dollars coming directly from the parents and local neighbors. There is no reason your tax dollars should pay for my kids education and vice versa. If you want to support inner city kids, donate to a non-profit or volunteer your time - I certainly have and people should have a choice as to whether or not they want to support other people’s kids. Don’t like the kids or schools in your neighborhood? Move. Wish you could move but can’t afford to? The reality is you probably should’ve made better life choices - you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. but now it’s time to make the most of what you have. I know plenty of inner city kids who have made it out - there’s really no excuse.
> 
> At the end of the day, it’s the parents responsibility to provide for your kids, whether food, education, books, environment, or otherwise. It’s the kid’s responsibility to make the most of his/her education, resources, opportunities or lack thereof - regardless of what the parents do/don’t provide. And if they care, they can and will make it happen - just look at soccer - ever the poorest parents are spending $5-12k a yr on soccer, countless hours at training and private’s - and it’s not like the parents are dropping off, they’re sitting and watching, doing nothing. If they spent that time studying or even the cost of a few private’s for SAT prep, they’d do fine. Sure, expensive tutors may help, but you really don’t need that much to succeed academically and there are plenty of free resources out there, especially online and at your local library. Go into any wealthy school and tell them about how your inner city school doesn’t have books and you would be hard pressed to find a parent who wouldn’t buy your kids the books they need. More likely than not, you’d see the students start a fundraising campaign to raise money for your school. And yet poor kids and families resent them.
> 
> Access to resources is not the problem.


The government control of education isn't working.


----------



## full90

Supermodel56 said:


> This is asinine. Nice buildings aren’t going to teach your kids how to read and let’s be honest, access to books are not the real issue - it’s mentality. I say each neighborhood should fund their own. Federal funding should be a flat rate per head count - every kid gets the same amount, same treatment. Then, local funding should go to local neighborhoods because those are dollars coming directly from the parents and local neighbors. There is no reason your tax dollars should pay for my kids education and vice versa. If you want to support inner city kids, donate to a non-profit or volunteer your time - I certainly have and people should have a choice as to whether or not they want to support other people’s kids. Don’t like the kids or schools in your neighborhood? Move. Wish you could move but can’t afford to? The reality is you probably should’ve made better life choices - you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. but now it’s time to make the most of what you have. I know plenty of inner city kids who have made it out - there’s really no excuse.
> 
> At the end of the day, it’s the parents responsibility to provide for your kids, whether food, education, books, environment, or otherwise. It’s the kid’s responsibility to make the most of his/her education, resources, opportunities or lack thereof - regardless of what the parents do/don’t provide. And if they care, they can and will make it happen - just look at soccer - ever the poorest parents are spending $5-12k a yr on soccer, countless hours at training and private’s - and it’s not like the parents are dropping off, they’re sitting and watching, doing nothing. If they spent that time studying or even the cost of a few private’s for SAT prep, they’d do fine. Sure, expensive tutors may help, but you really don’t need that much to succeed academically and there are plenty of free resources out there, especially online and at your local library. Go into any wealthy school and tell them about how your inner city school doesn’t have books and you would be hard pressed to find a parent who wouldn’t buy your kids the books they need. More likely than not, you’d see the students start a fundraising campaign to raise money for your school. And yet poor kids and families resent them.
> 
> Access to resources is not the problem.



Wow. 

I give you props for owning this and not trying to sugar coat it. The ignorance and arrogance without even a shade of trying to make it palatable is refreshing. 

I will forever link this post so when people wonder what white privilege is I can easily find it.


----------



## espola

Sheriff Joe said:


> Raising victims isn't the answer.


Crying baby meme.


----------



## Supermodel56

full90 said:


> Wow.
> 
> I give you props for owning this and not trying to sugar coat it. The ignorance and arrogance without even a shade of trying to make it palatable is refreshing.
> 
> I will forever link this post so when people wonder what white privilege is I can easily find it.


Umm.... nice try, except I’m not white... maybe you should forever link this post so you can remind yourself just how ignorant you are.

Quit drinking the liberal koolaid and start thinking critically for once, will ya?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Supermodel56 said:


> Umm.... nice try, except I’m not white... maybe you should forever link this post so you can remind yourself just how ignorant you are.
> 
> Quit drinking the liberal koolaid and start thinking critically for once, will ya?


Liberals are and always have been the party of racism.
KKK
FDR
Civil War


----------



## Justafan

Sheriff Joe said:


> What could be more fair than the SAT?
> Everyone takes the same test at the same time.
> Maybe you should tell these People who want this carve out to hit the books.
> Anyone who thinks this is anything other than affirmative action needs their head examined.


Guess what genius, there’s no race involved whatsoever.  And this is nothing more than most schools do already.  And guess what, if there is any benefit, Trump’s base will benefit.  You’ll be surprised how much I’m common Trump’s base, disenfranchised white people, have with people of color.  

Believe it or not, that rural white kid from Mississippi from a single parent home whose mother is unemployed or hooked on opiates has many of the same disadvantages as an inner city kid with similar circumstances.  And nobody is saying it can’t be done, it’s just harder.


----------



## Justafan

Sheriff Joe said:


> Raising victims isn't the answer.


Well Trump’s base sure thinks it is.   “Yeah it’s that undocumented gardener busting his ass in 100 degree heat that’s the cause of all my problems.”  Why are there no white kids at the spelling bee?  Who’s stopping them from busting their ass like the Indian-American kids?  Again, get off your lazy boy, and put down those fried twinkies!


----------



## mirage

Sheriff Joe said:


> What could be more fair than the SAT?
> Everyone takes the same test at the same time.
> Maybe you should tell these People who want this carve out to hit the books.
> Anyone who thinks this is anything other than affirmative action needs their head examined.


This thread now officially belongs in the "kitchen"......for those of you old timer on the forum!

SAT is not fair, per sa, in the absolute terms.  But no test is, neither is life so it is what it is.

Adversity score is reverse discrimination against middle class kids.  What it says is that all things being equal, kids from one of the included criteria gets rated higher or supposed to get preferential considerations.  It is affirmative action - agree.

Hope you were in a different time zone when you posted these comments...Yikes 4.45AM!!!


----------



## eastbaysoccer

Sat is fair-

The library is free! With plenty of resources.

Can anyone tell me why kids from China and other countries can score higher in the English section than kids in the US?


----------



## Justafan

mirage said:


> Adversity score is reverse discrimination against middle class kids.  What it says is that all things being equal, kids from one of the included criteria gets rated higher or supposed to get preferential considerations.  It is affirmative action - agree.


You are not being intellectually honest.  There is no discrimination whatsoever.  It just puts kids of all races, creeds, and colors, in their proper perspective.


----------



## Justafan

Sheriff Joe said:


> Liberals are and always have been the party of racism.
> KKK
> FDR
> Civil War


Stop it SJ, this isn’t the off topic forum, people can see you here.


----------



## mirage

Supermodel56 said:


> This is asinine. Nice buildings aren’t going to teach your kids how to read and let’s be honest, access to books are not the real issue - it’s mentality. I say each neighborhood should fund their own. Federal funding should be a flat rate per head count - every kid gets the same amount, same treatment. Then, local funding should go to local neighborhoods because those are dollars coming directly from the parents and local neighbors. There is no reason your tax dollars should pay for my kids education and vice versa. If you want to support inner city kids, donate to a non-profit or volunteer your time - I certainly have and people should have a choice as to whether or not they want to support other people’s kids. Don’t like the kids or schools in your neighborhood? Move. Wish you could move but can’t afford to? The reality is you probably should’ve made better life choices - you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. but now it’s time to make the most of what you have. I know plenty of inner city kids who have made it out - there’s really no excuse.
> 
> At the end of the day, it’s the parents responsibility to provide for your kids, whether food, education, books, environment, or otherwise. It’s the kid’s responsibility to make the most of his/her education, resources, opportunities or lack thereof - regardless of what the parents do/don’t provide. And if they care, they can and will make it happen - just look at soccer - ever the poorest parents are spending $5-12k a yr on soccer, countless hours at training and private’s - and it’s not like the parents are dropping off, they’re sitting and watching, doing nothing. If they spent that time studying or even the cost of a few private’s for SAT prep, they’d do fine. Sure, expensive tutors may help, but you really don’t need that much to succeed academically and there are plenty of free resources out there, especially online and at your local library. Go into any wealthy school and tell them about how your inner city school doesn’t have books and you would be hard pressed to find a parent who wouldn’t buy your kids the books they need. More likely than not, you’d see the students start a fundraising campaign to raise money for your school. And yet poor kids and families resent them.
> 
> Access to resources is not the problem.


I agree with most points.  Its quality of teachers and teachings, not buildings that inspire and motivate kids to learn.  While infrastructure of nice buildings and equipment and supplies help, it pales in comparison to teachers that actually care and want to inspire the students (I know there are many out there teaching - not saying that they don't exist).

It all starts with self will and motivation to want to get better and succeed.  NOT entitlement mentality that says the government/others must take care of me.

Because of our modest success in life, we are now faced with negative adversity score - not consistent with the American values and way of life.


----------



## mirage

Justafan said:


> You are not being intellectually honest.  There is no discrimination whatsoever.  It just puts kids of all races, creeds, and colors, in their proper perspective.


And just what is that "proper perspective"?

The last time I looked, we don't live in a country that predetermine person's place in society.


----------



## Supermodel56

Sheriff Joe said:


> Liberals are and always have been the party of racism.
> KKK
> FDR
> Civil War


I wouldn’t know about that... I think most are very well meaning good people who want to do the right thing. But then they hear the activists and/or media and their intentionally emotional (manipulative) stories who will spin anything (lie) to achieve their narrow minded goal, not knowing any better they fall for it instead of taking it as a data point and then digging deeper to see the big picture in context. 

Because liberals lack the ability to critically think, you’ll see them resort to name calling, one word blanket responses, blaming racism, criticize solutions without providing their own ideas/solutions. Or, the worst is they’ll propose solutions that make things worse.

Prime example, in this forum, they want to help the poor kids and complain about how they don’t have enough resources. They complain about large class sizes and not enough books. Yet, they are against stopping illegal immigration.

Let’s stop here: The liberal activist spin is that conservatives are against immigrants - that is FALSE. Nobody is against immigrants. There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. The keyword is ILLEGAL and conservatives are simply against activities that fall outside the legal system or manipulates it. 

Why? The US wants to be a responsible country and as such, we want to make sure the resources are in place to support incoming immigrants - Medicare, food stamps, housing, etc... it would be irresponsible to let someone come into the country without assuring they will have a place to live, be able to provide for themselves, won’t starve, kids have access to school, won’t end up on the street, will have a job available, basic needs, etc... it costs taxpayers significantly to support this and that is why we have a budget and limit the number of immigrants. Exceptions to this process include H1B visas where companies take responsibility for making sure these folks are taken care of. 

When people come here illegally, they are outside the budget - they still need resources, jobs, their kids attend schools, etc...

Back to my point - liberals, where do you think the illegal immigrants go when they come here?  They’re not moving into upper middle class neighborhoods, not mine, nor yours. They’re moving into the poor ones. So guess what?!? You basically just screwed the poor kids you claim to care so much about. That poor kid who is here legally now has to share class ratio, books, Medicare budget, lunch programs, WIC, etc... with the kids there illegally thereby straining existing resources even more. It’s basically stealing from the poor.  And guess what, those kids here illegally are going to compete for college entrance with the same poor kids who are here legally and trying to get out of their situation.

I’ll even venture to say this, the illegal kids are probably going to outperform them - why? Because they have a different mindset, they and their parents are here for opportunity and for a better life. These kids are much different from the kids who grew up from generations of poverty, drug use, etc... who have the mindset that being poor is their destiny. 

So no, I don’t have any problem with illegal immigrants themselves as people, I don’t blame them at all, but they are stealing from the REAL poor kids, making it even harder for them to get out and for us to solve the problem of poverty in this country. They are also stealing in the sense that the government looks at the employment rate and assesses how many workers the economy needs and how many we need to keep employed - this is another factor in determining how many people we let in. These illegal immigrants are largely uneducated, so the first gen will effectively be stealing jobs from the same poor neighborhoods our own citizens that we are responsible for.

Just like giving bonus points for the SAT to offset poverty, allowing/encouraging illegal immigration is a bad solution that only creates new problems.


----------



## espola

Sheriff Joe said:


> Liberals are and always have been the party of racism.
> KKK
> FDR
> Civil War


Show me.


----------



## espola

Justafan said:


> Stop it SJ, this isn’t the off topic forum, people can see you here.


And he hides his true identity behind a racist pseudonym.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Justafan said:


> Stop it SJ, this isn’t the off topic forum, people can see you here.


Sorry.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

espola said:


> And he hides his true identity behind a racist pseudonym.


Racist?
Too funny.
You must be the dummy super model is talking about.


----------



## espola

Sheriff Joe said:


> Racist?
> Too funny.
> You must be the dummy super model is talking about.


I know you are not as racist in real life as you pretend to be here.  Your ass would have been kicked all the way back to Alabama.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

espola said:


> I know you are not as racist in real life as you pretend to be here.  Your ass would have been kicked all the way back to Alabama.


IDK, I'm a pretty tough guy.


----------



## espola

Sheriff Joe said:


> IDK, I'm a pretty tough guy.


Maybe so, but you're a coward.


----------



## El Clasico

Justafan said:


> You are not being intellectually honest.  There is no discrimination whatsoever.  It just puts kids of all races, creeds, and colors, in their proper perspective.


Why do we need to be put in our proper perspective?  Maybe the reason that some of us came here and have thrived is the opportunity that this country has offered us.  It is about choices, and some of those are difficult but doesn't change facts.  Like probably everyone else on this board, I can look up and down my street and know, because I have lived there for a couple of decades and know all the families and watched the kids growing up, what choices were made that lead to their station in life.  Based on what I think you may have said in a previous thread, we may even be neighbors but I don't believe in excuses.  Still came down to choices and I can almost guarantee, that my kids will not live in the same neighborhood that I live and will have much different life choices to make than those that I had to make.  Different social economic station just means different problems.  I don't usually agree with supermodel but I do agree that it always seems like middle class white people feel the need to speak up about racism and privilege like they feel guilty about something.  Funny that these fakers only feel guilty enough to go overboard to try to convince people they aren't racist but never had a white lady offer to give my kids a ride to or from a game or tournament. All I know is that my kids better not start talking that trash when they get older.  I have had to bust my ass and make unbelievable sacrifices for them to have the lives that is there in front of them now for the taking.  If white people feel so guilty that they feel the need to talk about it, then man up and offer to switch places with them.  Go take your ass to our neighborhoods and learn to navigate the crime and violence that we live with everyday. It would make me sick to look down 50 years from now and hear my descendants talking about privilege. I'll reach down from the heavens and smack the sh*t out of them.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

El Clasico said:


> Why do we need to be put in our proper perspective?  Maybe the reason that some of us came here and have thrived is the opportunity that this country has offered us.  It is about choices, and some of those are difficult but doesn't change facts.  Like probably everyone else on this board, I can look up and down my street and know, because I have lived there for a couple of decades and know all the families and watched the kids growing up, what choices were made that lead to their station in life.  Based on what I think you may have said in a previous thread, we may even be neighbors but I don't believe in excuses.  Still came down to choices and I can almost guarantee, that my kids will not live in the same neighborhood that I live and will have much different life choices to make than those that I had to make.  Different social economic station just means different problems.  I don't usually agree with supermodel but I do agree that it always seems like middle class white people feel the need to speak up about racism and privilege like they feel guilty about something.  Funny that these fakers only feel guilty enough to go overboard to try to convince people they aren't racist but never had a white lady offer to give my kids a ride to or from a game or tournament. All I know is that my kids better not start talking that trash when they get older.  I have had to bust my ass and make unbelievable sacrifices for them to have the lives that is there in front of them now for the taking.  If white people feel so guilty that they feel the need to talk about it, then man up and offer to switch places with them.  Go take your ass to our neighborhoods and learn to navigate the crime and violence that we live with everyday. It would make me sick to look down 50 years from now and hear my descendants talking about privilege. I'll reach down from the heavens and smack the sh*t out of them.


All we can hope for is our kids do better than us, no matter what color you are.


----------



## MakeAPlay

Supermodel56 said:


> I wouldn’t know about that... I think most are very well meaning good people who want to do the right thing. But then they hear the activists and/or media and their intentionally emotional (manipulative) stories who will spin anything (lie) to achieve their narrow minded goal, not knowing any better they fall for it instead of taking it as a data point and then digging deeper to see the big picture in context.
> 
> Because liberals lack the ability to critically think, you’ll see them resort to name calling, one word blanket responses, blaming racism, criticize solutions without providing their own ideas/solutions. Or, the worst is they’ll propose solutions that make things worse.
> 
> Prime example, in this forum, they want to help the poor kids and complain about how they don’t have enough resources. They complain about large class sizes and not enough books. Yet, they are against stopping illegal immigration.
> 
> Let’s stop here: The liberal activist spin is that conservatives are against immigrants - that is FALSE. Nobody is against immigrants. There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. The keyword is ILLEGAL and conservatives are simply against activities that fall outside the legal system or manipulates it.
> 
> Why? The US wants to be a responsible country and as such, we want to make sure the resources are in place to support incoming immigrants - Medicare, food stamps, housing, etc... it would be irresponsible to let someone come into the country without assuring they will have a place to live, be able to provide for themselves, won’t starve, kids have access to school, won’t end up on the street, will have a job available, basic needs, etc... it costs taxpayers significantly to support this and that is why we have a budget and limit the number of immigrants. Exceptions to this process include H1B visas where companies take responsibility for making sure these folks are taken care of.
> 
> When people come here illegally, they are outside the budget - they still need resources, jobs, their kids attend schools, etc...
> 
> Back to my point - liberals, where do you think the illegal immigrants go when they come here?  They’re not moving into upper middle class neighborhoods, not mine, nor yours. They’re moving into the poor ones. So guess what?!? You basically just screwed the poor kids you claim to care so much about. That poor kid who is here legally now has to share class ratio, books, Medicare budget, lunch programs, WIC, etc... with the kids there illegally thereby straining existing resources even more. It’s basically stealing from the poor.  And guess what, those kids here illegally are going to compete for college entrance with the same poor kids who are here legally and trying to get out of their situation.
> 
> I’ll even venture to say this, the illegal kids are probably going to outperform them - why? Because they have a different mindset, they and their parents are here for opportunity and for a better life. These kids are much different from the kids who grew up from generations of poverty, drug use, etc... who have the mindset that being poor is their destiny.
> 
> So no, I don’t have any problem with illegal immigrants themselves as people, I don’t blame them at all, but they are stealing from the REAL poor kids, making it even harder for them to get out and for us to solve the problem of poverty in this country. They are also stealing in the sense that the government looks at the employment rate and assesses how many workers the economy needs and how many we need to keep employed - this is another factor in determining how many people we let in. These illegal immigrants are largely uneducated, so the first gen will effectively be stealing jobs from the same poor neighborhoods our own citizens that we are responsible for.
> 
> Just like giving bonus points for the SAT to offset poverty, allowing/encouraging illegal immigration is a bad solution that only creates new problems.


I’m not allowed in this thread but this post is something special.  You have a lot of self hate chica.  You aren’t anywhere close to the real money yet you act like you are better than the “hood” that you allegedly escaped from. 

Keep drinking the kool aid while they look at you just like the rest of the the “mud” people.  You aren’t fooling anyone other than yourself.  Let me guess you married into The man’s household now you think that you are one of them.

Sad.


----------



## Supermodel56

MakeAPlay said:


> I’m not allowed in this thread but this post is something special.  You have a lot of self hate chica.  You aren’t anywhere close to the real money yet you act like you are better than the “hood” that you allegedly escaped from.
> 
> Keep drinking the kool aid while they look at you just like the rest of the the “mud” people.  You aren’t fooling anyone other than yourself.  Let me guess you married into The man’s household now you think that you are one of them.
> 
> Sad.


You sure make a lot of assumptions and accusations for someone who has no rebuttal and completely unable to dispute my argument with any facts whatsoever. Please do point out where my explanation was amiss on the net effect of illegal immigration in poor communities... or is name calling all you got? 

I’m damn well proud of not just who I am today but where I came from and I can tell you this, sure life isn’t always fair, but unlike you, I don’t make excuses and that was the difference. Everyone has power over their own destiny, you can’t move forward until you let go of the past. 

I’m more than happy to have an intellectual debate if you’d like, but as said before, anytime a liberal is called out, they claim you’re a racist, an Uncle Tom, bigot, repeat their sob story for sympathy, whatever...  to avoid actually having a productive discussion or risk having to admit their own role in their predicament.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

I always loved the concept of "white privilege".  My parents both worked their asses off and put themselves through a masters program.  Worked 50-60 hour weeks while I was a latch key kid.  Then I started working 20-30 hours per week in high school, while playing sports, and continued that same load through college... paying 90% of my own tuition.  Then I worked 50-60 hours per week as an adult for the "privilege" of paying full price for my kid's college because they're white and I earn too much money.

Yeah... some fucking privilege.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Supermodel56 said:


> I wouldn’t know about that... I think most are very well meaning good people who want to do the right thing. But then they hear the activists and/or media and their intentionally emotional (manipulative) stories who will spin anything (lie) to achieve their narrow minded goal, not knowing any better they fall for it instead of taking it as a data point and then digging deeper to see the big picture in context.
> 
> Because liberals lack the ability to critically think, you’ll see them resort to name calling, one word blanket responses, blaming racism, criticize solutions without providing their own ideas/solutions. Or, the worst is they’ll propose solutions that make things worse.
> 
> Prime example, in this forum, they want to help the poor kids and complain about how they don’t have enough resources. They complain about large class sizes and not enough books. Yet, they are against stopping illegal immigration.
> 
> Let’s stop here: The liberal activist spin is that conservatives are against immigrants - that is FALSE. Nobody is against immigrants. There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. The keyword is ILLEGAL and conservatives are simply against activities that fall outside the legal system or manipulates it.
> 
> Why? The US wants to be a responsible country and as such, we want to make sure the resources are in place to support incoming immigrants - Medicare, food stamps, housing, etc... it would be irresponsible to let someone come into the country without assuring they will have a place to live, be able to provide for themselves, won’t starve, kids have access to school, won’t end up on the street, will have a job available, basic needs, etc... it costs taxpayers significantly to support this and that is why we have a budget and limit the number of immigrants. Exceptions to this process include H1B visas where companies take responsibility for making sure these folks are taken care of.
> 
> When people come here illegally, they are outside the budget - they still need resources, jobs, their kids attend schools, etc...
> 
> Back to my point - liberals, where do you think the illegal immigrants go when they come here?  They’re not moving into upper middle class neighborhoods, not mine, nor yours. They’re moving into the poor ones. So guess what?!? You basically just screwed the poor kids you claim to care so much about. That poor kid who is here legally now has to share class ratio, books, Medicare budget, lunch programs, WIC, etc... with the kids there illegally thereby straining existing resources even more. It’s basically stealing from the poor.  And guess what, those kids here illegally are going to compete for college entrance with the same poor kids who are here legally and trying to get out of their situation.
> 
> I’ll even venture to say this, the illegal kids are probably going to outperform them - why? Because they have a different mindset, they and their parents are here for opportunity and for a better life. These kids are much different from the kids who grew up from generations of poverty, drug use, etc... who have the mindset that being poor is their destiny.
> 
> So no, I don’t have any problem with illegal immigrants themselves as people, I don’t blame them at all, but they are stealing from the REAL poor kids, making it even harder for them to get out and for us to solve the problem of poverty in this country. They are also stealing in the sense that the government looks at the employment rate and assesses how many workers the economy needs and how many we need to keep employed - this is another factor in determining how many people we let in. These illegal immigrants are largely uneducated, so the first gen will effectively be stealing jobs from the same poor neighborhoods our own citizens that we are responsible for.
> 
> Just like giving bonus points for the SAT to offset poverty, allowing/encouraging illegal immigration is a bad solution that only creates new problems.


Well said. I’ll add that not one ILLEGAL immigrant should get a dime of support or taxpayer funded handouts as long as we have U.S. citizens and/or Veterans in need. Totally support LEGAL immigration.


----------



## Emma

Supermodel56 said:


> You sure make a lot of assumptions and accusations for someone who has no rebuttal and completely unable to dispute my argument with any facts whatsoever. Please do point out where my explanation was amiss on the net effect of illegal immigration in poor communities... or is name calling all you got?
> 
> I’m damn well proud of not just who I am today but where I came from and I can tell you this, sure life isn’t always fair, but unlike you, I don’t make excuses and that was the difference. Everyone has power over their own destiny, you can’t move forward until you let go of the past.
> 
> I’m more than happy to have an intellectual debate if you’d like, but as said before, anytime a liberal is called out, they claim you’re a racist, an Uncle Tom, bigot, repeat their sob story for sympathy, whatever...  to avoid actually having a productive discussion or risk having to admit their own role in their predicament.


You're not a racist, you've just convinced yourself that your situation was the worse it can get and since you were able to pull yourself into a better financial life, you expect that others should too.  What you fail to see, is that you didn't have it as bad as many people out there.  As a friend of mine once said...I thought I had it bad until I knew your story.  I told him, I'm one of the luckier people I know.  

As for your argument - it's flawed bc you're not willing to look at the finances , WE (liberals, conservatives and moderates) as a country use to fight illegal immigration.   That money - could be spent helping illegal immigrants, which would make us more humane and follow the teachings of Christ.  Look at Europe...why do you think an open border method was created with the European Union?  They realized they were spending a lot of money trying to keep people out when the net financial benefit would be better if they help make it easier for people to move around.  
A lot of illegal immigrants work and pay taxes as they generally use other people's social security numbers, but are not able to collect a tax refund from the number they use bc it's illegal.  A lot of illegal immigrants spend money on food, housing, clothes, etc...putting money into our government with sales tax, putting money into US citizen landlords, pay for jobs in clothes manufacturing, etc....  Illegal immigrants do not utilize benefits and are not drain resources from the poor communities bc they can't qualify for those programs.  Take a look at the states and counties that utilize the most federal assistance...they're red states.  

As for the name calling - don't call someone's opinion asinine if you want to debate issues rationally.  This whole country needs to stop calling each other liberals and conservatives as if they're bad words or insulting words.  We have different ways of looking at how to solve the same issues and instead of working together, we choose to fight each other to the death.  Watch our kids on the soccer pitch...we tell them to work with each other as a team bc each player has their own abilities and areas to cover, but outside of soccer, we set ourselves up as opposing forces.  We're not.  We're a team.  Liberals are attackers and go full force to try to score, conservatives want to protect the goal more, and moderates are our midfielders.  

The media is just representative of the US as a country what we want to see on TV.  They do it for ratings and money.   Do not blame the media for anything, blame ourselves - take responsibility.  Currently we are all the media bc we choose to voice our opinion on a public forum, even with our thumbs up and thumbs down.


----------



## Supermodel56

Emma said:


> You're not a racist, you've just convinced yourself that your situation was the worse it can get and since you were able to pull yourself into a better financial life, you expect that others should too.  What you fail to see, is that you didn't have it as bad as many people out there.  As a friend of mine once said...I thought I had it bad until I knew your story.  I told him, I'm one of the luckier people I know.
> 
> As for your argument - it's flawed bc you're not willing to look at the finances , WE (liberals, conservatives and moderates) as a country use to fight illegal immigration.   That money - could be spent helping illegal immigrants, which would make us more humane and follow the teachings of Christ.  Look at Europe...why do you think an open border method was created with the European Union?  They realized they were spending a lot of money trying to keep people out when the net financial benefit would be better if they help make it easier for people to move around.
> A lot of illegal immigrants work and pay taxes as they generally use other people's social security numbers, but are not able to collect a tax refund from the number they use bc it's illegal.  A lot of illegal immigrants spend money on food, housing, clothes, etc...putting money into our government with sales tax, putting money into US citizen landlords, pay for jobs in clothes manufacturing, etc....  Illegal immigrants do not utilize benefits and are not drain resources from the poor communities bc they can't qualify for those programs.  Take a look at the states and counties that utilize the most federal assistance...they're red states.
> 
> As for the name calling - don't call someone's opinion asinine if you want to debate issues rationally.  This whole country needs to stop calling each other liberals and conservatives as if they're bad words or insulting words.  We have different ways of looking at how to solve the same issues and instead of working together, we choose to fight each other to the death.  Watch our kids on the soccer pitch...we tell them to work with each other as a team bc each player has their own abilities and areas to cover, but outside of soccer, we set ourselves up as opposing forces.  We're not.  We're a team.  Liberals are attackers and go full force to try to score, conservatives want to protect the goal more, and moderates are our midfielders.
> 
> The media is just representative of the US as a country what we want to see on TV.  They do it for ratings and money.   Do not blame the media for anything, blame ourselves - take responsibility.  Currently we are all the media bc we choose to voice our opinion on a public forum, even with our thumbs up and thumbs down.


Finally a decent argument without name calling. Thank you. Will address one at a time.

For one, I do recognize that I had it better than many others. But that doesn’t mean I don’t know what it takes to get out or that I don’t know many friends who had it much worse than me. You can always say someone had it worse. But that doesn’t make me out of touch.  In my younger days when I had more time I’d spent hours at the soup kitchen every other month just sitting on the curb listening to these homeless guys tell their story, it’s weird but for some reason I always felt like one day I could very well be homeless - I had a heart for them and wanted to serve. I’ve volunteered in inner city schools as well as well as missions projects in TJ.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it comes down to this and it’s the same for everyone - do you want it and are you willing to do what it takes? Nothing else matters.

If you listen to homeless guys, they’ll tell their story and it’s usually like, this bad thing happened... and then I started doing drugs... first off, doing drugs was a choice and that choice is why they’re in the condition they’re in. But here’s the other thing - there are so many resources to help the homeless get out of their situation. The reality is they always say one day they’ll get back on their feet, but rarely do, because they never want it bad enough to get help, get clean, stay clean. They’re simply not willing to do what it takes. I could sit with a guy for weeks, months, try to talk him into making a change, but unless he really wanted to, no amount of time nor resources would make it better. In fact it made it worse because now he saw it as my responsibility to get him out, not his. 

The real disadvantage for inner city kids isn’t the resources. It’s that they just don’t know and/or they don’t take their situation seriously. Nobody tells them that they don’t have the luxury to screw around and when we do, they don’t listen. Nobody there tells them there’s a “better” world out there and they can get there,  but when you tell them, they don’t believe they can. Middle class basic luxuries are things they never knew existed. The real problem they need to own is for most of these kids, when you do tell them, they don’t care and don’t do anything about it. When teachers try to teach, they don’t listen. Their parents just brush it off and just make excuses. Parents think life is hard so they want to let their kids enjoy their childhood for the fullest - basically trading in 18 years of no responsibilities for a lifetime of hardship. 

So yeah, while on the one hand you can say the rest of us are privileged, on the other hand, they have full control to escape their situation if they change their mindset, but they choose not to make the change in their lives. They choose not to take education seriously. They choose not to look into how to get those better jobs or get into college. Everything they need to get into a college is there for them - today. They may not get into an Ivy League, but they can easily make it to the middle class and guess what, their kids will have opportunities to get into top schools and the wisdom they’ve gained now get to be passed on to their kids. They just need to break the cycle. Lowering expectations or standards is not the answer. Helping them understand the requirements and benefits of achieving these goals is.


----------



## Supermodel56

Emma said:


> You're not a racist, you've just convinced yourself that your situation was the worse it can get and since you were able to pull yourself into a better financial life, you expect that others should too.  What you fail to see, is that you didn't have it as bad as many people out there.  As a friend of mine once said...I thought I had it bad until I knew your story.  I told him, I'm one of the luckier people I know.
> 
> As for your argument - it's flawed bc you're not willing to look at the finances , WE (liberals, conservatives and moderates) as a country use to fight illegal immigration.   That money - could be spent helping illegal immigrants, which would make us more humane and follow the teachings of Christ.  Look at Europe...why do you think an open border method was created with the European Union?  They realized they were spending a lot of money trying to keep people out when the net financial benefit would be better if they help make it easier for people to move around.
> A lot of illegal immigrants work and pay taxes as they generally use other people's social security numbers, but are not able to collect a tax refund from the number they use bc it's illegal.  A lot of illegal immigrants spend money on food, housing, clothes, etc...putting money into our government with sales tax, putting money into US citizen landlords, pay for jobs in clothes manufacturing, etc....  Illegal immigrants do not utilize benefits and are not drain resources from the poor communities bc they can't qualify for those programs.  Take a look at the states and counties that utilize the most federal assistance...they're red states.


I’m sorry but your statements on this are incorrect. The cost to fight illegal immigration pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants on taxpayers - simply because of economies of scale. The cost of a wall is much cheaper than the cost of supporting the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants year after year.

Regarding ineligible for services, they do find their ways, but from first hand experience, the costs are not limited to gov. For example, many of these patients skip out on medical bills - they’ll go in as self pay and then actually leave after receiving services.  Yes I have witnessed this and it does contribute to higher medical costs because now you have to take into account unpaid receivables.

Secondly, why don’t we just decide how much we can afford to support immigration and make that the budget so it’s legal? How many do you want to let in? Should we give an open invitation to anyone in Honduras who wants to come over? How much can we afford and how many until it impacts our communities and/or unemployment rates?  Are there enough jobs to support their skill sets. Would it be better to fund programs in Honduras to help the people take leadership and improve their communities there as well as economy?  Why not just have a process for this so it’s orderly?

The European Union was not about immigration so much as trade. Here are a bunch of European countries adjacent to each other with fairly similar economic status who wanted to make commerce simpler. There are no third world countries in the EU. Hence immigration was free and had no net impact on the economy. Whenever you hear about sending refugees to the EU, you will hear them arguing over who takes how many just the same.


----------



## pooka

Supermodel56 said:


> This is asinine. Nice buildings aren’t going to teach your kids how to read and let’s be honest, access to books are not the real issue - it’s mentality. I say each neighborhood should fund their own. Federal funding should be a flat rate per head count - every kid gets the same amount, same treatment. Then, local funding should go to local neighborhoods because those are dollars coming directly from the parents and local neighbors. There is no reason your tax dollars should pay for my kids education and vice versa. If you want to support inner city kids, donate to a non-profit or volunteer your time - I certainly have and people should have a choice as to whether or not they want to support other people’s kids. Don’t like the kids or schools in your neighborhood? Move. Wish you could move but can’t afford to? The reality is you probably should’ve made better life choices - you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. but now it’s time to make the most of what you have. I know plenty of inner city kids who have made it out - there’s really no excuse.
> 
> At the end of the day, it’s the parents responsibility to provide for your kids, whether food, education, books, environment, or otherwise. It’s the kid’s responsibility to make the most of his/her education, resources, opportunities or lack thereof - regardless of what the parents do/don’t provide. And if they care, they can and will make it happen - just look at soccer - ever the poorest parents are spending $5-12k a yr on soccer, countless hours at training and private’s - and it’s not like the parents are dropping off, they’re sitting and watching, doing nothing. If they spent that time studying or even the cost of a few private’s for SAT prep, they’d do fine. Sure, expensive tutors may help, but you really don’t need that much to succeed academically and there are plenty of free resources out there, especially online and at your local library. Go into any wealthy school and tell them about how your inner city school doesn’t have books and you would be hard pressed to find a parent who wouldn’t buy your kids the books they need. More likely than not, you’d see the students start a fundraising campaign to raise money for your school. And yet poor kids and families resent them.
> 
> Access to resources is not the problem.


You really think "the poorest parents are spending 5-12k on soccer"?HOW? what poor people do you know, that also have kids in club soccer? Who do you personally know?  "Wish you could move but can't afford to? Make better decisions?" You, are seriously what is wrong with this country. Head up your butt, "omg all I got was a head start in the race, why can't everyone else catch up" STUPID. The fact that a FEW make it out of poverty and are able to transcend is not something to brag about. " Go to a wealthy school and ask the parents to buy you books"? Seriously? Why not just distribute the money to all schools so that they can have the resources from the jump? Oh no, you want poor people to come beg your ass so you can then go back and brag to your friends that you "totally helped those poor kids, and you're so totally gracious". As one of the richest nations in the world the US should be ASHAMED that our educational system has such huge disparities. But no, we have people like you who continue to look the other way and take it for granted that since YOU'RE ok, and YOUR KIDS are ok, screw everyone else. GFYS. 
You are the 53%. Idiot. I'm blocking your dumb ass, so don't bother responding.
And @Sheriff Joe affirmative action isn't just for black people. I'm blocking your dumb ass too. God forbid your precious snowflakes have to actually compete on a level playing field. WHATEVER WILL THEY DO when the poor folk, and the brown folk, and all the other folk who don't automatically get the benefit of the doubt like your snowflakes do, get to start at the same point and run the same race.


----------



## pooka

Supermodel56 said:


> Finally a decent argument without name calling. Thank you. Will address one at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> The real disadvantage for inner city kids isn’t the resources. It’s that they just don’t know and/or they don’t take their situation seriously. Nobody tells them that they don’t have the luxury to screw around and when we do, they don’t listen. Nobody there tells them there’s a “better” world out there and they can get there,  but when you tell them, they don’t believe they can. Middle class basic luxuries are things they never knew existed. The real problem they need to own is for most of these kids, when you do tell them, they don’t care and don’t do anything about it. When teachers try to teach, they don’t listen. Their parents just brush it off and just make excuses. Parents think life is hard so they want to let their kids enjoy their childhood for the fullest - basically trading in 18 years of no responsibilities for a lifetime of hardship.
> 
> So yeah, while on the one hand you can say the rest of us are privileged, on the other hand, they have full control to escape their situation if they change their mindset, but they choose not to make the change in their lives. They choose not to take education seriously. They choose not to look into how to get those better jobs or get into college. Everything they need to get into a college is there for them - today. They may not get into an Ivy League, but they can easily make it to the middle class and guess what, their kids will have opportunities to get into top schools and the wisdom they’ve gained now get to be passed on to their kids. They just need to break the cycle. Lowering expectations or standards is not the answer. Helping them understand the requirements and benefits of achieving these goals is.


You're an idiot. Full stop. soooooo every other child has the "luxury" to screw around and make mistakes, but a poor child needs to be perfect. A poor child can just change their mindset, and then they will change their entire life huh? It's just that easy huh? Damn why has no one hired you to just fix it? Stupid poor people, if they would just listen to you, their life would be perfect!


----------



## pooka

The Outlaw said:


> I always loved the concept of "white privilege".  My parents both worked their asses off and put themselves through a masters program.  Worked 50-60 hour weeks while I was a latch key kid.  Then I started working 20-30 hours per week in high school, while playing sports, and continued that same load through college... paying 90% of my own tuition.  Then I worked 50-60 hours per week as an adult for the "privilege" of paying full price for my kid's college because they're white and I earn too much money.
> 
> Yeah... some fucking privilege.


Come on. Do I need to spell it out for you? Privilege doesn't mean you dont have to work hard. privilege means that when you DO work hard, and are, say ready to buy a home, that you don't get directed to 3 "acceptable" neighborhoods in a city; or worse, automatically offered a higher interest rate on your mortgage. its when a white man who shoots up an entire church in South Carolina or San Antonio is taken into custody ALIVE, but a black man selling illegal cigarettes is choked to death on a sidewalk. do you need me to continue breaking it down? There are several groups that have privilege. lets take christians. as a christian in this country I know that I am afforded more respect than my friend who are muslim. doesn't mean christianity is perfect, it is just respected more, and seen as "normal". Get it?

FYI, I will call EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU OUT. this is NOT 1950, 60, 70, or 80. No more getting to say random, racist, whoa is me crap in peace. The only safe place for you to spew your hatred is at home alone with your other friends. Read. Learn. Try to see that it's not all about you.

Now can we PLEASE get back to soccer?


----------



## Supermodel56

pooka said:


> You really think "the poorest parents are spending 5-12k on soccer"?HOW? what poor people do you know, that also have kids in club soccer? Who do you personally know?


LOL you’re as ignorant as they come. point was they find a way. Poor parents can get financial aid and spend weekends volunteering, I know of several. Or they join a Mexican league, whatever. Point is when they want it, they make it happen. It’s no different with academic achievement.




pooka said:


> omg all I got was a head start in the race, why can't everyone else catch up“


- it’s not about catching up, it’s about making progress. Why should an underperforming kid get a spot at a top school just because he was poor? Should we have an extra set of bigger goals for players who can’t afford private’s too? 



pooka said:


> “Why not just distribute the money to all schools so that they can have the resources from the jump? Oh no, you want poor people to come beg your ass so you can then go back and brag to your friends that you "totally helped those poor kids, and you're so totally gracious".


Um... isn’t distributing money to all schools evenly the same thing? You do realize that the money to schools comes from taxes, right? Poor families contribute basically zero in income taxes after credits and deductions, so all/most money allocated to their schools come from wealthy families. So yeah, when you’re asking for more funding and resources for your schools, you’re begging my ass for money because you and your neighbors can’t pay for it yourself. When you rely on gov services, like WIC or Medicare, that’s money I earned that’s paying for it. I’d be more than happy for you to pay for it your own damn self... but you can’t and educating your ass is our only hope so you can actually contribute to society and have a better life. The other option is I have to pay for your food stamps the rest of your life or support your sorry ass in jail. Believe me, nobody wants you to be poor or uneducated there is absolutely zero incentive. 

Ever think Dookie, you’re the privileged one who is getting a free education until 18 on everyone else’s dime... And now you want some bonus pts on your SATs too?  Who’s the entitled one now?!?


----------



## Supermodel56

pooka said:


> You're an idiot. Full stop. soooooo every other child has the "luxury" to screw around and make mistakes, but a poor child needs to be perfect. A poor child can just change their mindset, and then they will change their entire life huh? It's just that easy huh? Damn why has no one hired you to just fix it? Stupid poor people, if they would just listen to you, their life would be perfect!


And this is exactly why the poor stay poor... no sympathy for you my friend.


----------



## Supermodel56

pooka said:


> Come on. Do I need to spell it out for you? Privilege doesn't mean you dont have to work hard. privilege means that when you DO work hard, and are, say ready to buy a home, that you don't get directed to 3 "acceptable" neighborhoods in a city;


You can call up any realtor to see a home. Realtors have an incentive to sell that home because they get commission. They nor the person selling the home cares who buys it so long as they get top dollar. The only reason a realtor wouldn’t take you to see a home or neighborhood is because they know you can’t afford it and it’s a waste of their time. A realtor will take a wealthier person to see other neighborhoods because they know they can afford it in both cases they want to sell the highest priced home they can.



pooka said:


> or worse, automatically offered a higher interest rate on your mortgage.


Your interest rate is based on your credit score and points paid. If you have bad credit or low income, you will have a higher interest rate because you’re at higher risk of default. Sure, banks want to charge as high a rate as possible, but the rates are published and the lender wants your business because that’s how they make money. Beware, some Realtors may direct you to lenders with higher rates because they’re getting a kickback. Be sure to educate yourself on the different types of loans so you don’t get into a bad situation. They are designed for different purposes. If you’re unhappy with one, look elsewhere. Many applications are online so it’s not as easy to discover race unless you have an ethnic name and personally I’ve found aimloan.com has pretty good rates. 




pooka said:


> its when a white man who shoots up an entire church in South Carolina or San Antonio is taken into custody ALIVE, but a black man selling illegal cigarettes is choked to death on a sidewalk.


I’ve watched a lot of these bodycam videos and  usually it’s pretty obvious, at least to me, where the person who got shot went wrong. You have to look at the entire video in context. every situation is different but a lot of times the difference is whether the person is resisting arrest or surrenders voluntarily.  I’ve been pulled over and profiled before. It’s infuriating. But then, I see some of the knuckleheads out there and I don’t blame em. 

Do you need ME to continue breaking it down?



pooka said:


> FYI, I will call EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU OUT. this is NOT 1950, 60, 70, or 80. No more getting to say random, racist, whoa is me crap in peace. The only safe place for you to spew your hatred is at home alone with your other friends. Read. Learn. Try to see that it's not all about you.


I will be happy to return the favor and call you out as well... if you’re gonna give it, you better be able to take it. between the two of us, seems like you’re certainly the one with the hate all built up. might want to take your own advice on it not being about you and your woe is me crap. You made your choices in life. (Btw, it’s not spelled whoa)...


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Emma said:


> You're not a racist, you've just convinced yourself that your situation was the worse it can get and since you were able to pull yourself into a better financial life, you expect that others should too.  What you fail to see, is that you didn't have it as bad as many people out there.  As a friend of mine once said...I thought I had it bad until I knew your story.  I told him, I'm one of the luckier people I know.
> 
> As for your argument - it's flawed bc you're not willing to look at the finances , WE (liberals, conservatives and moderates) as a country use to fight illegal immigration.   That money - could be spent helping illegal immigrants, which would make us more humane and follow the teachings of Christ.  Look at Europe...why do you think an open border method was created with the European Union?  They realized they were spending a lot of money trying to keep people out when the net financial benefit would be better if they help make it easier for people to move around.
> A lot of illegal immigrants work and pay taxes as they generally use other people's social security numbers, but are not able to collect a tax refund from the number they use bc it's illegal.  A lot of illegal immigrants spend money on food, housing, clothes, etc...putting money into our government with sales tax, putting money into US citizen landlords, pay for jobs in clothes manufacturing, etc....  Illegal immigrants do not utilize benefits and are not drain resources from the poor communities bc they can't qualify for those programs.  Take a look at the states and counties that utilize the most federal assistance...they're red states.
> 
> As for the name calling - don't call someone's opinion asinine if you want to debate issues rationally.  This whole country needs to stop calling each other liberals and conservatives as if they're bad words or insulting words.  We have different ways of looking at how to solve the same issues and instead of working together, we choose to fight each other to the death.  Watch our kids on the soccer pitch...we tell them to work with each other as a team bc each player has their own abilities and areas to cover, but outside of soccer, we set ourselves up as opposing forces.  We're not.  We're a team.  Liberals are attackers and go full force to try to score, conservatives want to protect the goal more, and moderates are our midfielders.
> 
> The media is just representative of the US as a country what we want to see on TV.  They do it for ratings and money.   Do not blame the media for anything, blame ourselves - take responsibility.  Currently we are all the media bc we choose to voice our opinion on a public forum, even with our thumbs up and thumbs down.


Thanks for making our point.
You think the EU is a success?
Worst post ever.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

pooka said:


> You really think "the poorest parents are spending 5-12k on soccer"?HOW? what poor people do you know, that also have kids in club soccer? Who do you personally know?  "Wish you could move but can't afford to? Make better decisions?" You, are seriously what is wrong with this country. Head up your butt, "omg all I got was a head start in the race, why can't everyone else catch up" STUPID. The fact that a FEW make it out of poverty and are able to transcend is not something to brag about. " Go to a wealthy school and ask the parents to buy you books"? Seriously? Why not just distribute the money to all schools so that they can have the resources from the jump? Oh no, you want poor people to come beg your ass so you can then go back and brag to your friends that you "totally helped those poor kids, and you're so totally gracious". As one of the richest nations in the world the US should be ASHAMED that our educational system has such huge disparities. But no, we have people like you who continue to look the other way and take it for granted that since YOU'RE ok, and YOUR KIDS are ok, screw everyone else. GFYS.
> You are the 53%. Idiot. I'm blocking your dumb ass, so don't bother responding.
> And @Sheriff Joe affirmative action isn't just for black people. I'm blocking your dumb ass too. God forbid your precious snowflakes have to actually compete on a level playing field. WHATEVER WILL THEY DO when the poor folk, and the brown folk, and all the other folk who don't automatically get the benefit of the doubt like your snowflakes do, get to start at the same point and run the same race.


And we're the snowflakes?
Back to your safe space.
MAGA.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

pooka said:


> You're an idiot. Full stop. soooooo every other child has the "luxury" to screw around and make mistakes, but a poor child needs to be perfect. A poor child can just change their mindset, and then they will change their entire life huh? It's just that easy huh? Damn why has no one hired you to just fix it? Stupid poor people, if they would just listen to you, their life would be perfect!


I thought you were blocking SM?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Telling the awful truth about the new SAT ‘adversity’ score
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/telling_the_awful_truth_about_the_new_sat_adversity_score.html


----------



## Supermodel56

Sheriff Joe said:


> Telling the awful truth about the new SAT ‘adversity’ score
> https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/telling_the_awful_truth_about_the_new_sat_adversity_score.html


Couldn’t agree more. In fact, the adversity score is sooo far down the wrong road. It solves nothing and has the potential to make racism and discrimination worse.

By saying we need to give the poor, black, and Latino kids more points, it essentially says regardless of how hard they work, no matter what, they will never score as well as the whites, Asians and middle class. To argue that poverty makes it impossible, the fact that Asians still do well proves otherwise and implies that blacks and Latinos are genetically disadvantaged. This is racism plain and simple and it’s a lie.

Just like soccer... if you’re on a bad team with a bad coach, sure, it’s going to make it harder to develop, but if you have the talent and want to compete and keep up, it just means you’re going to have to train on your own, find other opportunities to play, and find a way to surround yourself with like minded players who can challenge you. If you do nothing but blame your situation and don’t get better, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. Academics is no different.

to come full circle with the original topic, like the scam, yes, the sad reality in life is there are coaches out there who will take players not because they’re the best players but because the kids parents are paying for private’s or they made a donation to the club, etc... in rare cases the coach is flat out getting kickbacks. but those cases are limited to a few and is overall noise - ending this will only improve your situation if you’re on the bubble - and you shouldn’t be training just to be on the bubble anyway.


----------



## Justafan

mirage said:


> And just what is that "proper perspective"?
> 
> The last time I looked, we don't live in a country that predetermine person's place in society.


Because as a college admissions administrator  you are trying to asses the student's potential and capacity.  Let me put it in a way that I think everybody on this board can relate to.

Instead of a college admissions administrator, lets say you are a college soccer coach looking for recruits.  You get two "resumes" and each has the exact same qualifications.  I play ECNL, I'm the 2nd best player on my team, I made ODP, my team is ranked 2nd in my state, I'm the 2nd ranked player in my state, I made 1st team all league 4 years straight, etc. etc. 

As a college soccer coach I want to know which state you play in, what team, what ECNL league, what high school league, etc.  That is all that the adversity score is doing!  All it tells is you where that "soccer player" comes from.  Because if I have all those same credentials from two players and one is from SoCal and one is from Montana, guess what, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PLAYER!  99% of the time (maybe a little lower), the player from SoCal is going to be BETTER.  So not all scores are the same.

In my previous post I said a 1050 SAT score from Bill Gates son is an utter disaster while a 1050 score from an inner city first generation Latino whose first language was Spanish was a very good score (also probably a good/decent score for a rural white kid from Mississippi).  In this scenario, the Montana player is Bill Gate's son (i.e. much easier for a Montana player to have those accolades than a SoCal player, just as Bill Gate's son should be able to roll out of bed and score a 1050).  Similarly, the inner city kid is the SoCal kid where it is much harder to achieve that score and have those soccer accolades.      

And yes, I will take the SoCal kid and inner city kid, all day every day.  They are not the same soccer player or student.  The ceiling on both these kids is much higher than the others.  Are there exceptions, of course, but if I'm a betting man . . . . 

Supermodel 56, you want an intellectually honest discussion on immigration, cool, I'll be posting later.  But let me leave you with one question to ponder, you point out all the costs of illegal immigration (economically speaking), and that's fine, because surely there is a cost, but what are the economic benefits, if any?  Everybody points to the costs because they are perhaps easiest to calculate (welfare, food stamps, medical, etc.), but again what are the economic benefits?  There are tow sides to the ledger, red and black.  

It's like pointing to the rocket and saying "look at that big plume of smoke, those emissions are horrible for the environment . . . .  "   What they forgot to mention is that the rocket got somebody to the moon.  What country had "open borders" till 1923 and became the richest country in the world?  Which state has the highest rate of illegal immigration (for decades upon decades) and is 5th richest country in the world (if it were a country) and the richest state in the United States by a country mile?  And guess which states are the next richest (hint they all have high rates of illegal immigration)?  Scoreboard my friend, scoreboard!


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Justafan said:


> Because as a college admissions administrator  you are trying to asses the student's potential and capacity.  Let me put it in a way that I think everybody on this board can relate to.
> 
> Instead of a college admissions administrator, lets say you are a college soccer coach looking for recruits.  You get two "resumes" and each has the exact same qualifications.  I play ECNL, I'm the 2nd best player on my team, I made ODP, my team is ranked 2nd in my state, I'm the 2nd ranked player in my state, I made 1st team all league 4 years straight, etc. etc.
> 
> As a college soccer coach I want to know which state you play in, what team, what ECNL league, what high school league, etc.  That is all that the adversity score is doing!  All it tells is you where that "soccer player" comes from.  Because if I have all those same credentials from two players and one is from SoCal and one is from Montana, guess what, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PLAYER!  99% of the time (maybe a little lower), the player from SoCal is going to be BETTER.  So not all scores are the same.
> 
> In my previous post I said a 1050 SAT score from Bill Gates son is an utter disaster while a 1050 score from an inner city first generation Latino whose first language was Spanish was a very good score (also probably a good/decent score for a rural white kid from Mississippi).  In this scenario, the Montana player is Bill Gate's son (i.e. much easier for a Montana player to have those accolades than a SoCal player, just as Bill Gate's son should be able to roll out of bed and score a 1050).  Similarly, the inner city kid is the SoCal kid where it is much harder to achieve that score and have those soccer accolades.
> 
> And yes, I will take the SoCal kid and inner city kid, all day every day.  They are not the same soccer player or student.  The ceiling on both these kids is much higher than the others.  Are there exceptions, of course, but if I'm a betting man . . . .
> 
> Supermodel 56, you want an intellectually honest discussion on immigration, cool, I'll be posting later.  But let me leave you with one question to ponder, you point out all the costs of illegal immigration (economically speaking), and that's fine, because surely there is a cost, but what are the economic benefits, if any?  Everybody points to the costs because they are perhaps easiest to calculate (welfare, food stamps, medical, etc.), but again what are the economic benefits?  There are tow sides to the ledger, red and black.
> 
> It's like pointing to the rocket and saying "look at that big plume of smoke, those emissions are horrible for the environment . . . .  "   What they forgot to mention is that the rocket got somebody to the moon.  What country had "open borders" till 1923 and became the richest country in the world?  Which state has the highest rate of illegal immigration (for decades upon decades) and is 5th richest country in the world (if it were a country) and the richest state in the United States by a country mile?  And guess which states are the next richest (hint they all have high rates of illegal immigration)?  Scoreboard my friend, scoreboard!


The negatives of illegals far out weigh the positives.
We can't even take care of our own citizens, just look at the homeless in LA and Frisco. Ca is a disaster and you can blame the libs for that.


----------



## Justafan

Sheriff Joe said:


> The negatives of illegals far out weigh the positives.
> We can't even take care of our own citizens, just look at the homeless in LA and Frisco. Ca is a disaster and you can blame the libs for that.


So you’re saying that economically speaking it’s a net negative?  If that was the case, we would have been bankrupt a long time ago and we certainly wouldn’t have moved up to be the 5th largest economic power in the world.  

Notice I’m only speaking in economic terms, because all other issues you may have with illegal immigration are certainly subjective.


----------



## dk_b

Justafan said:


> So you’re saying that economically speaking it’s a net negative?  If that was the case, we would have been bankrupt a long time ago and we certainly wouldn’t have moved up to be the 5th largest economic power in the world.
> 
> Notice I’m only speaking in economic terms, because all other issues you may have with illegal immigration are certainly subjective.


Overlooked benefits:  the cost of our produce and other agg products, the cost of our dinners when we eat out, the cost of our lodging when we stay in any of these places for soccer tournaments and showcases, the cost of construction if we are able to build or remodel our home, the cost of caring for our little ones so that we can go to our own jobs, etc.  Obviously, not every picker is an undocumented worker but the presence of undocumented workers impacts the salaries that the business owners are willing to pay and that keeps the cost of a head of lettuce or those tomatoes much lower than they would otherwise be, just like childcare costs for me were way higher b/c there were not as many undocumented caregivers than the costs for my sister-in-law who lives in an area with an entire industry of undocumented babysitters.   Other overlooked benefits are the sales taxes that those folks are paying, just everyone else, when they buy their TP, soap, plastic bags, shirts, jeans, gas, etc.  Do the social programming costs outweigh these benefits?  Is there a comprehensive study on the true - not just direct but ascertainable indirect - economic costs/benefits of undocumented workers?  Some are making pretty definitive assertions about "costs" - not that I don't believe you but I'd love to see the sources of those costs (in a rigorous study, not an op-ed piece, no matter what side of the position you are on).


----------



## espola

Sheriff Joe said:


> The negatives of illegals far out weigh the positives.
> We can't even take care of our own citizens, just look at the homeless in LA and Frisco. Ca is a disaster and you can blame the libs for that.


You complain about illegals, and your argument is about the homeless.

Coocoo.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Justafan said:


> So you’re saying that economically speaking it’s a net negative?  If that was the case, we would have been bankrupt a long time ago and we certainly wouldn’t have moved up to be the 5th largest economic power in the world.
> 
> Notice I’m only speaking in economic terms, because all other issues you may have with illegal immigration are certainly subjective.


I wonder what Kate Steinle thinks about that?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

espola said:


> You complain about illegals, and your argument is about the homeless.
> 
> Coocoo.


Spend the money we waste on illegals on our homless citizens, that would more than take care of that problem.


----------



## Supermodel56

dk_b said:


> Overlooked benefits:  the cost of our produce and other agg products, the cost of our dinners when we eat out, the cost of our lodging when we stay in any of these places for soccer tournaments and showcases, the cost of construction if we are able to build or remodel our home, the cost of caring for our little ones so that we can go to our own jobs, etc.  Obviously, not every picker is an undocumented worker but the presence of undocumented workers impacts the salaries that the business owners are willing to pay and that keeps the cost of a head of lettuce or those tomatoes much lower than they would otherwise be, just like childcare costs for me were way higher b/c there were not as many undocumented caregivers than the costs for my sister-in-law who lives in an area with an entire industry of undocumented babysitters.   Other overlooked benefits are the sales taxes that those folks are paying, just everyone else, when they buy their TP, soap, plastic bags, shirts, jeans, gas, etc.  Do the social programming costs outweigh these benefits?  Is there a comprehensive study on the true - not just direct but ascertainable indirect - economic costs/benefits of undocumented workers?  Some are making pretty definitive assertions about "costs" - not that I don't believe you but I'd love to see the sources of those costs (in a rigorous study, not an op-ed piece, no matter what side of the position you are on).


I see your general argument is that it helps the economy because it’s cheap labor and keeps consumer costs down.

In other words, you agree with republicans that the minimum wage is too high for a sustainable economy - which is contradictory to liberal demands to increase the min wage, in other words, liberals created this problem. 

Furthermore, this means that the liberal claim saying the min wage is not a living wage is bunk since obviously illegal immigrants are able to thrive and even enable their kids to succeed and go to college. 

On top of that, libs want to expand healthcare and social security - which would put more strain on businesses. Since this is withheld from legal employee paychecks, illegals don’t pay into this system because it is illegal activity and the wages need to be kept off the books (paid in cash) and as such they are not only driving down wages for already poor unskilled workers as you stated, but they are drawing down funds from Medicare programs or skipping out on medical bills altogether when they use public services. It’s stealing, plain and simple.

You admitted illegal immigrants are also taking jobs away from legal unskilled workers - leaving these workers with less options and the higher likelihood they’ll be on welfare - another strain on the economy.  If your argument is that US citizens aren’t willing to do that kind of work for min wage, then they need to either pay more or the farmers/hotels can apply for H1B visas so they can hire workers who are willing - they can come from Honduras, wherever but this guarantees the businesses are responsible for these workers and taxes are collected and paid.

Bottom line, there is no excuse for illegal activity and keeping these off the books and your arguments for illegal immigration are entirely hypocritical to the liberal position on wages and social services.


----------



## Justafan

Sheriff Joe said:


> I wonder what Kate Steinle thinks about that?


Did you give up on the economic argument?  Kate Steinle, very legitimate point.  So do we demonize all illegal immigrants for one nut job?  Do we take everybody’s guns away for the actions of Stephen Paddock, the Vegas shooter?   I can respect either side you take, but be consistent.


----------



## dk_b

I’m not saying those things and you know that I am not. What I am saying is that the economic argument - undocumented people are a drain on the economy - is often stated as an absolute but I don’t recall seeing data to back that up. The data might but if it does not consider ways in which undocumented immigrants contribute to our economy is overly simplistic at best and disingenuous or misleading or intentionally ignorant at worst.

Without the name calling and taking of concepts out of context, and with the caveat that it is an odd digression from the original topic, I think the discussion is a good one and I think it is important to consider opposing viewpoints (I don’t consider disagreements to be character flaws). I do think honest discussion is essential to civil discussion. And I always enjoy learning - whether on the micro level (about specific stories of specific individuals) or on a macro level.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Justafan said:


> Did you give up on the economic argument?  Kate Steinle, very legitimate point.  So do we demonize all illegal immigrants for one nut job?  Do we take everybody’s guns away for the actions of Stephen Paddock, the Vegas shooter?   I can respect either side you take, but be consistent.


The economic issue is a non issue, we spend billions of education, medication and incarceration. I will gladly pay the price.
We have to deal with whatever crime citizens commit, but we sure don't need to import crime and disease.
Democrats will do anything for votes and power.


----------



## Justafan

Supermodel56 said:


> I see your general argument is that it helps the economy because it’s cheap labor and keeps consumer costs down.
> 
> In other words, you agree with republicans that the minimum wage is too high for a sustainable economy - which is contradictory to liberal demands to increase the min wage, in other words, liberals created this problem.
> 
> Furthermore, this means that the liberal claim saying the min wage is not a living wage is bunk since obviously illegal immigrants are able to thrive and even enable their kids to succeed and go to college.
> 
> On top of that, libs want to expand healthcare and social security - which would put more strain on businesses. Since this is withheld from legal employee paychecks, illegals don’t pay into this system because it is illegal activity and the wages need to be kept off the books (paid in cash) and as such they are not only driving down wages for already poor unskilled workers as you stated, but they are drawing down funds from Medicare programs or skipping out on medical bills altogether when they use public services. It’s stealing, plain and simple.
> 
> You admitted illegal immigrants are also taking jobs away from legal unskilled workers - leaving these workers with less options and the higher likelihood they’ll be on welfare - another strain on the economy.  If your argument is that US citizens aren’t willing to do that kind of work for min wage, then they need to either pay more or the farmers/hotels can apply for H1B visas so they can hire workers who are willing - they can come from Honduras, wherever but this guarantees the businesses are responsible for these workers and taxes are collected and paid.
> 
> Bottom line, there is no excuse for illegal activity and keeping these off the books and your arguments for illegal immigration are entirely hypocritical to the liberal position on wages and social services.


You never answered my question.  Your going off on tangents and did not address dk_b’s point.  Putting the “liberal” label on everybody without addressing the content of the argument is weak.  Your not being intellectually honest.  

Even after I admitted there are costs to illegal immigration, Sheriff Joe did not have the integrity to admit there are any benefits.  He’s so emotionally involved that he can’t handle even admitting a very basic fact.  

Look, you may not like or agree with America’s or California’s economic model, but you can’t argue that it has been successful.  What’s the model?  Take young, healthy, hungry, and ambitious immigrants (legal or not) and let them be the fuel to your economy and growth.  It’s that simple.  In California we have an endless supply of this “fuel.”  It has made both the USA and California number one.  

You know why SoCal is number one in girls soccer, because we have a seemingly endless supply of talent coming through the pipelines.  The South and the SEC dominate college football because they have an endless supply of 6’6” 350 lb linemen who can run a 4.5 40.  

Now I’m going to anticipate the “well, I’m only against illegal immigration, let them do it legally and get in line...”. First, there has never been a line to do America’s dirty work (think cotton, railroads, and fruits and vegetables).
Before 1923, as long as you were not missing two arms an a leg, you were allowed in.  Sound like open borders?  There have been restrictions ever since but we all know illegal immigration exists.  Have American businesses turned a blind eye, of course and we all know why.

You want to change the economic model and kick all illegal immigrants out, thats’s fine, just don’t shot on the illegals immigrants and pretend you did not gain any benefit from it.


----------



## Justafan

“Just don’t shit on ....”


----------



## Justafan

Sheriff Joe said:


> The economic issue is a non issue


What does this mean?  Because that’s the only issue we are discussing.


----------



## Supermodel56

Justafan said:


> You never answered my question.  Your going off on tangents and did not address dk_b’s point.  Putting the “liberal” label on everybody without addressing the content of the argument is weak.  Your not being intellectually honest.
> 
> Even after I admitted there are costs to illegal immigration, Sheriff Joe did not have the integrity to admit there are any benefits.  He’s so emotionally involved that he can’t handle even admitting a very basic fact.
> 
> Look, you may not like or agree with America’s or California’s economic model, but you can’t argue that it has been successful.  What’s the model?  Take young, healthy, hungry, and ambitious immigrants (legal or not) and let them be the fuel to your economy and growth.  It’s that simple.  In California we have an endless supply of this “fuel.”  It has made both the USA and California number one.
> 
> You know why SoCal is number one in girls soccer, because we have a seemingly endless supply of talent coming through the pipelines.  The South and the SEC dominate college football because they have an endless supply of 6’6” 350 lb linemen who can run a 4.5 40.
> 
> Now I’m going to anticipate the “well, I’m only against illegal immigration, let them do it legally and get in line...”. First, there has never been a line to do America’s dirty work (think cotton, railroads, and fruits and vegetables).
> Before 1923, as long as you were not missing two arms an a leg, you were allowed in.  Sound like open borders?  There have been restrictions ever since but we all know illegal immigration exists.  Have American businesses turned a blind eye, of course and we all know why.
> 
> You want to change the economic model and kick all illegal immigrants out, thats’s fine, just don’t shot on the illegals immigrants and pretend you did not gain any benefit from it.


I did answer your question. 

You’re saying they help the economy but you provide no numbers with direct correlation to back it up any positives are significantly outweighed by the negatives. Sure businesses have relied on them even today, but they do not contribute more to the economy than if they were legal employees. 

Here’s why: 

1)the jobs performed by illegal immigrants today are jobs that need to be done by someone. Hence, hiring a legal worker will not only generate the same local sales as paying an illegal would, except this legal worker would get paid more and have more disposable income - higher sales more sales tax collected.

2) illegals often send money back to their home country to support their families. This takes more money away from the US economy and in essence contributes to the trade deficit because money is spent out of the country.

3) monies paid to illegals are under the table and not taxed, therefore they also do not contribute to paying for gov services which is part of the economy.

4) re: lower cost of goods. The corporations and farmers are the real winners, not the end consumer nor our economy. Again it’s a net negative effect because paying more for a service to an American citizen contributes more to the economy since the money is going to be spent here, taxes are paid, etc... all the above. And like I said before, the wage issue can be addressed with lowering the minimum wage and/or using H1B visas. 

Bottom line, every job given to an illegal immigrant or outsourced takes away a job from an American citizen and/or lowers wages. We have a responsibility to take care of our own citizens, especially the poor folks and their unskilled labor. They have few enough options as it is. In one breath you’re saying give them help to get into college, in the next you’re like let’s give their parents jobs away to illegal immigrants to save a few bucks an hour. 

Re: railroads, please read up on this. This was not illegal activity rather gov approved. Look into the story of Leland Stanford who was against using Chinese workers only to find they did a better job than the whites but still paid them less. 

If you’re black, latino, or Asian, pay attention. Justafan’s (liberals) argument for illegal immigration is because they want to pay you less. This is in the corporate interest, not yours. This has nothing to do with equality and it works against you, quit being fooled.

It’s the same as Bernie Sanders plan to make college free. This puts the burden of educating the workforce on the taxpayers and what happens if we have more qualified workers? The worker pool grows and wages decrease - basically making your degree worth less by creating more competition for the same jobs - great for corporations, bad for employees. Even worse for the middle class because not only are you paying for your kids to get that degree, you’re paying for the poor kids to get the same degree to compete against yours - double whammy.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Justafan said:


> You never answered my question.  Your going off on tangents and did not address dk_b’s point.  Putting the “liberal” label on everybody without addressing the content of the argument is weak.  Your not being intellectually honest.
> 
> Even after I admitted there are costs to illegal immigration, Sheriff Joe did not have the integrity to admit there are any benefits.  He’s so emotionally involved that he can’t handle even admitting a very basic fact.
> 
> Look, you may not like or agree with America’s or California’s economic model, but you can’t argue that it has been successful.  What’s the model?  Take young, healthy, hungry, and ambitious immigrants (legal or not) and let them be the fuel to your economy and growth.  It’s that simple.  In California we have an endless supply of this “fuel.”  It has made both the USA and California number one.
> 
> You know why SoCal is number one in girls soccer, because we have a seemingly endless supply of talent coming through the pipelines.  The South and the SEC dominate college football because they have an endless supply of 6’6” 350 lb linemen who can run a 4.5 40.
> 
> Now I’m going to anticipate the “well, I’m only against illegal immigration, let them do it legally and get in line...”. First, there has never been a line to do America’s dirty work (think cotton, railroads, and fruits and vegetables).
> Before 1923, as long as you were not missing two arms an a leg, you were allowed in.  Sound like open borders?  There have been restrictions ever since but we all know illegal immigration exists.  Have American businesses turned a blind eye, of course and we all know why.
> 
> You want to change the economic model and kick all illegal immigrants out, thats’s fine, just don’t shot on the illegals immigrants and pretend you did not gain any benefit from it.


No need to put words in my mouth, let's enforce our current laws, how about that?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually | National
Watchdog.org
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.watchdog.org/national/analysis-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-billion-annually/article_b51222e8-8b7b-11e8-8546-37063af1f318.amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwi23LHPtKbiAhURM6wKHToTC6oQFjAKegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2kgQOhcrIBDA3wcwb0fKAU&ampcf=1&cshid=1558228398309


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Can you imagine CA with an educational system that could actually teach, in English? Maybe we can put the school standards back where they were before the invasion.

Can you imagine going to an emergency room and not have to wait?


----------



## MacDre

Sheriff Joe said:


> Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually | National
> Watchdog.org
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.watchdog.org/national/analysis-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-billion-annually/article_b51222e8-8b7b-11e8-8546-37063af1f318.amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwi23LHPtKbiAhURM6wKHToTC6oQFjAKegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2kgQOhcrIBDA3wcwb0fKAU&ampcf=1&cshid=1558228398309


How much does corporate welfare cost taxpayers Sheriff?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

MacDre said:


> How much does corporate welfare cost taxpayers Sheriff?


Those legal corporations?

How many dead American citizens at the hands of illegals are ok with you for power and votes?


----------



## dk_b

Sheriff Joe said:


> Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually | National
> Watchdog.org
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.watchdog.org/national/analysis-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-billion-annually/article_b51222e8-8b7b-11e8-8546-37063af1f318.amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwi23LHPtKbiAhURM6wKHToTC6oQFjAKegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2kgQOhcrIBDA3wcwb0fKAU&ampcf=1&cshid=1558228398309


I appreciate you linking that but it still only measures direct inputs and outflows. It does not address less direct but still measurable data points that are essential for assessing economic impact. Take the child care example - if paying a certain market rate (i) allows a 2d parent to take a higher paying job that allows more taxes from the hiring family (income and sales and property because of a more expensive home) (ii) allows the childcare worker to rent an apt, spend money on daily living expenses, the only direct measure in that article would be school and other social services and sales tax but not the added income for the 2d parent, the increase consumption for two households, etc.

I’m not sitting here saying that the net net economic impact is definitively positive because I’m neither that knowledgeable nor have I ever seen a study that looks at the true impact. I can say that none of you knows either - or if you do know with certainty you have not shown that data (that article certainly doesn’t).  A highly complex problem is rarely describable or solvable in simple absolutes.


----------



## Soccer43

Can you all take this to the off topic section?  I would prefer not to keep checking in on the college scam topic for any updates just to read more of the same old arguments back and forth.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Soccer43 said:


> Can you all take this to the off topic section?  I would prefer not to keep checking in on the college scam topic for any updates just to read more of the same old arguments back and forth.


Ok


----------



## Supermodel56

dk_b said:


> I appreciate you linking that but it still only measures direct inputs and outflows. It does not address less direct but still measurable data points that are essential for assessing economic impact. Take the child care example - if paying a certain market rate (i) allows a 2d parent to take a higher paying job that allows more taxes from the hiring family (income and sales and property because of a more expensive home) (ii) allows the childcare worker to rent an apt, spend money on daily living expenses, the only direct measure in that article would be school and other social services and sales tax but not the added income for the 2d parent, the increase consumption for two households, etc.
> 
> I’m not sitting here saying that the net net economic impact is definitively positive because I’m neither that knowledgeable nor have I ever seen a study that looks at the true impact. I can say that none of you knows either - or if you do know with certainty you have not shown that data (that article certainly doesn’t).  A highly complex problem is rarely describable or solvable in simple absolutes.


either you believe you should pay people a living wage or you don’t. You can’t demand a minimum wage law and then also support illegal activity to get around that law. There is no justifiable reason for this and home care workers should be paid a living wage.

You’ve got to be kidding. The reason supporting this is bad is because it opens up a very high risk for human trafficking and serious abuse. This is why minimum wage laws are important to be followed. People who have illegal immigrants living in their home and only paying them nominal wages to care for their kids, cook, clean, etc... SHOULD BE ARRESTED. Can you imagine?  It could easily become modern day slavery - the illegal worker has no recourse out of fear they’ll get deported so you’re going to have owners who don’t have to pay them anything, mistreat them however they want, whatever. This is what leads to human trafficking and is not okay by any means.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

The College Board: Dumbing Down America
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/the_college_board_dumbing_down_america.html


----------



## Supermodel56

Sheriff Joe said:


> The College Board: Dumbing Down America
> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/the_college_board_dumbing_down_america.html


This. 

“If there’s anything we learned from the college admissions cheating scandal it's that students from wealthy families aren’t automatically advantaged. These were highly advantaged kids who still needed to cheat their way into good schools because they or their parents felt entitled to success. Tests only discriminate against those who don’t know the answers.  ”

The questions on the test don’t know nor care what your race nor background is. It’s a test that tests for reasoning and acquired knowledge, not race, nothing else. Either you know the answers or you don’t, either you came prepared for it or you didn’t. Either you can complete it in time, or you can’t - or did you forget that the most commonly abused feature in the cheating scandal was the time limit exception for kids with learning disabilities?


----------



## Glen

Sheriff Joe said:


> The College Board: Dumbing Down America
> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/the_college_board_dumbing_down_america.html


You got nothing better to do than annoy the crap out of people?  You have been asked nicely to take it to the off topic forum.  You can't control yourself though.  You are a child.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Glen said:


> You got nothing better to do than annoy the crap out of people?  You have been asked nicely to take it to the off topic forum.  You can't control yourself though.  You are a child.


Sorry snowflake, but this is about college entrance.
Why would this annoy anyone?
Go back to your soy nonfat latte, you dick.


----------



## Supermodel56

Glen said:


> You got nothing better to do than annoy the crap out of people?  You have been asked nicely to take it to the off topic forum.  You can't control yourself though.  You are a child.


I appreciate Sheriff’s post and it’s relevant to the college scandal as it addresses it. You’re only annoyed because you can’t handle the truth when someone points out how dumb you are.

Re: calling him a child...Who’s more childish? Someone who posts relevant information or someone who has to resort to name calling cause you’re incapable of recognizing when you’ve been wrong all along.


----------



## Supermodel56

MacDre said:


> How much does corporate welfare cost taxpayers Sheriff?


It depends. Are you referring to the Amazon deal that was going to create over ten thousand jobs in New York which AOC destroyed or the $3 Billion dollars that Obama gave to build a website for Obamacare that didn’t even work?

Or are you referring to the $5Billion dollars Obama gave to First Solar that went bankrupt in less than 5 years where the owners basically kept the money?

If you read justafans and dk’s justification for illegal immigration, supporting illegal immigrants is essentially corporate welfare by allowing them to pay lower wages at the expense of the taxpayer.


----------



## Justafan

Supermodel56 said:


> I did answer your question.
> 
> You’re saying they help the economy but you provide no numbers with direct correlation to back it up any positives are significantly outweighed by the negatives. Sure businesses have relied on them even today, but they do not contribute more to the economy than if they were legal employees.


This is the only part of your response that addresses my question.   You’re right, I don’t have numbers (people always disagree on the positive and negative numbers).  What I do have, however,  is the USA and California as proof.  That’s called scoreboard.  

“but they do not contribute more to the economy than if they were legal employees” Thats a red herring, irrelevant, non-responsive, and vague and ambiguous.  You know there’s a saying, when you have the law, pound the law, when you have the facts pound the facts, when you have nothing, pound the table.  Your pounding the table.  

You may hate the Patriots, you may disagree on how they run their franchise, you may think that your OWN plan can be more successful, BUT you can’t dent that they’ve been the best of all time until now.  You don’t have the BALLS to admit that and that’s weak.


----------



## Justafan

That was my last post on that subject, however, I think it points to the benefits of “diversity” in the classroom.  You can’t have a meaningful debate without different viewpoints.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Justafan said:


> That was my last post on that subject, however, I think it points to the benefits of “diversity” in the classroom.  You can’t have a meaningful debate without different viewpoints.


Just as long as they agree with you.


----------



## Supermodel56

Justafan said:


> This is the only part of your response that addresses my question.   You’re right, I don’t have numbers (people always disagree on the positive and negative numbers).  What I do have, however,  is the USA and California as proof.  That’s called scoreboard.
> 
> “but they do not contribute more to the economy than if they were legal employees” Thats a red herring, irrelevant, non-responsive, and vague and ambiguous.  You know there’s a saying, when you have the law, pound the law, when you have the facts pound the facts, when you have nothing, pound the table.  Your pounding the table.


Well, I’m trying to explain to you the why, because it’s not like I track these numbers everyday, but given I have an MBA, have studied and invested in multiple industries, and have personally managed nearly a billion  in revenue - in other words, tracking these metrics and their drivers is what I specialize in, I can confidently say I know my shit.

So here’s the question, if I go through and the pull the numbers for you - from non-biased sources, would you even believe them?


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> Well, I’m trying to explain to you the why, because it’s not like I track these numbers everyday, but given I have an MBA, have studied and invested in multiple industries, and have personally managed nearly a billion  in revenue - in other words, tracking these metrics and their drivers is what I specialize in, I can confidently say I know my shit.
> 
> So here’s the question, if I go through and the pull the numbers for you - from non-biased sources, would you even believe them?


I'd like to see that.


----------



## Justafan

Sheriff Joe said:


> Just as long as they agree with you.


Quite the opposite my friend, the more points of view the better.  Come on, you know you get all flustered every time I post.  

Put it this way, if I was starting my own off topic forum and we could only have ten posters, I’d take you and SM56, me and Espola, and hopefully 6 other posters with a different viewpoint than all 4 of us.


----------



## espola

Justafan said:


> Quite the opposite my friend, the more points of view the better.  Come on, you know you get all flustered every time I post.
> 
> Put it this way, if I was starting my own off topic forum and we could only have ten posters, I’d take you and SM56, me and Espola, and hopefully 6 other posters with a different viewpoint than all 4 of us.


I wouldn't want to join any group that would have me as a member -- Groucho Marx (I think) (more or less)


----------



## LASTMAN14

espola said:


> I wouldn't want to join any group that would have me as a member -- Groucho Marx (I think) (more or less)


Good call.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

pooka said:


> Come on. Do I need to spell it out for you? Privilege doesn't mean you dont have to work hard. privilege means that when you DO work hard, and are, say ready to buy a home, that you don't get directed to 3 "acceptable" neighborhoods in a city; or worse, automatically offered a higher interest rate on your mortgage. its when a white man who shoots up an entire church in South Carolina or San Antonio is taken into custody ALIVE, but a black man selling illegal cigarettes is choked to death on a sidewalk. do you need me to continue breaking it down? There are several groups that have privilege. lets take christians. as a christian in this country I know that I am afforded more respect than my friend who are muslim. doesn't mean christianity is perfect, it is just respected more, and seen as "normal". Get it?
> 
> FYI, I will call EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU OUT. this is NOT 1950, 60, 70, or 80. No more getting to say random, racist, whoa is me crap in peace. The only safe place for you to spew your hatred is at home alone with your other friends. Read. Learn. Try to see that it's not all about you.
> 
> Now can we PLEASE get back to soccer?


  LOL... you mean "choked out" because he refused to comply and fought cops?  The same shit he'd done over and over before?  What does it take to get you clowns to be honest with yourselves?  Thousands of people are arrested everyday... they live because they comply.  It's just really not THAT complicated.  If holding EVERYONE accountable for their actions, instead of making excuses, is racist, so be it.


----------



## Supermodel56

Justafan said:


> This is the only part of your response that addresses my question.   You’re right, I don’t have numbers (people always disagree on the positive and negative numbers).  What I do have, however,  is the USA and California as proof.  That’s called scoreboard.


Here’s your proof. it’s just the tip of the iceberg, USAToday is certainly more liberal leaning so hope it’s a good enough source for ya, but I can use other sources if you like. A few things to note:
1) hopefully we can agree that the illegals coming here aren’t significantly contributing to the financial, real estate, tech companies, and manufacturing - those are very difficult for illegals to get jobs in without documentation.

2) hopefully we can also agree they are mostly participating in the agricultural/farming industry.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/05/california-now-worlds-5th-largest-economy-beating-out-uk/583508002/

Key takeaway:
“All economic sectors except agriculture contributed to California’s higher GDP”

In other words - not only are illegal immigrants costing federal taxpayers across the country, the entire argicultural industry in CA isn’t a top contributor to its GDP. All the subsidies, discounted water leases, etc... for farmers, still not enough.

But let’s not stop there:

Based on above, we know illegals don’t contribute to GDP, but, do they do any harm? Are illegals even a problem at all? Remember, CA has 2.2 million illegals, the most in the country. First link below shows for overall GDP, CA is the #1 state. But if you look at it by Per Capita, CA drops to #8.

All states with high GDP and high illegals drop significantly when calculated by Per Capita except NY because their financial services (Wall Street) is just such a huge player. There is a significant inverse correlation on GDP Per Capita and Illegal population. In layman speak, if illegals were helping boost GDP, ie the economy, GDP Per Capita ranking would go up with more illegals. If they are hurting the economy, GDP Per Capita ranking will go down. It clearly goes down.

GDP by State: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP

GDP Per Capita by State: CA & Texas drop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita

Unauthorized Immigrant Populations by State:
https://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/

Bottom line, yes the US is winning, CA has some very strong players, but it’s not because of illegals.


----------



## Real Deal

Supermodel56 said:


> Here’s your proof. it’s just the tip of the iceberg, USAToday is certainly more liberal leaning so hope it’s a good enough source for ya, but I can use other sources if you like. A few things to note:
> 1) hopefully we can agree that the illegals coming here aren’t significantly contributing to the financial, real estate, tech companies, and manufacturing - those are very difficult for illegals to get jobs in without documentation.
> 
> 2) hopefully we can also agree they are mostly participating in the agricultural/farming industry.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/05/california-now-worlds-5th-largest-economy-beating-out-uk/583508002/
> 
> Key takeaway:
> “All economic sectors except agriculture contributed to California’s higher GDP”
> 
> In other words - not only are illegal immigrants costing federal taxpayers across the country, the entire argicultural industry in CA isn’t a top contributor to its GDP. All the subsidies, discounted water leases, etc... for farmers, still not enough.
> 
> But let’s not stop there:
> 
> Based on above, we know illegals don’t contribute to GDP, but, do they do any harm? Are illegals even a problem at all? Remember, CA has 2.2 million illegals, the most in the country. First link below shows for overall GDP, CA is the #1 state. But if you look at it by Per Capita, CA drops to #8.
> 
> All states with high GDP and high illegals drop significantly when calculated by Per Capita except NY because their financial services (Wall Street) is just such a huge player. There is a significant inverse correlation on GDP Per Capita and Illegal population. In layman speak, if illegals were helping boost GDP, ie the economy, GDP Per Capita ranking would go up with more illegals. If they are hurting the economy, GDP Per Capita ranking will go down. It clearly goes down.
> 
> GDP by State: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP
> 
> GDP Per Capita by State: CA & Texas drop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita
> 
> Unauthorized Immigrant Populations by State:
> https://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/
> 
> Bottom line, yes the US is winning, CA has some very strong players, but it’s not because of illegals.


Look I think I'm way over on the other side from you (as in, I'd rather build a wall around Alabama than Mexico), but I think we can for sure agree we need better immigration policy as it applies to our neighboring countries.  I'd prefer finding a way to make it more feasible for people to become legal tax-paying citizens, rather than say we should either 1. deny them entry or 2. exploit them as illegals.

But again, I'm not sure how a thread about cheating rich people became a discussion of dirt poor illegals.  So...


----------



## Supermodel56

Real Deal said:


> Look I think I'm way over on the other side from you (as in, I'd rather build a wall around Alabama than Mexico), but I think we can for sure agree we need better immigration policy as it applies to our neighboring countries.  I'd prefer finding a way to make it more feasible for people to become legal tax-paying citizens, rather than say we should either 1. deny them entry or 2. exploit them as illegals.
> 
> But again, I'm not sure how a thread about cheating rich people became a discussion of dirt poor illegals.  So...


I’m fine with that, but please see previous thread on why/how the US determines the limit on how many to accept. It’s because we have to budget for the cost of supporting X many due to cost and can’t handle more than that - need to have jobs ready, etc... so they aren’t taking away from current citizens.


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> Here’s your proof. it’s just the tip of the iceberg, USAToday is certainly more liberal leaning so hope it’s a good enough source for ya, but I can use other sources if you like. A few things to note:
> 1) hopefully we can agree that the illegals coming here aren’t significantly contributing to the financial, real estate, tech companies, and manufacturing - those are very difficult for illegals to get jobs in without documentation.
> 
> 2) hopefully we can also agree they are mostly participating in the agricultural/farming industry.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/05/california-now-worlds-5th-largest-economy-beating-out-uk/583508002/
> 
> Key takeaway:
> “All economic sectors except agriculture contributed to California’s higher GDP”
> 
> In other words - not only are illegal immigrants costing federal taxpayers across the country, the entire argicultural industry in CA isn’t a top contributor to its GDP. All the subsidies, discounted water leases, etc... for farmers, still not enough.
> 
> But let’s not stop there:
> 
> Based on above, we know illegals don’t contribute to GDP, but, do they do any harm? Are illegals even a problem at all? Remember, CA has 2.2 million illegals, the most in the country. First link below shows for overall GDP, CA is the #1 state. But if you look at it by Per Capita, CA drops to #8.
> 
> All states with high GDP and high illegals drop significantly when calculated by Per Capita except NY because their financial services (Wall Street) is just such a huge player. There is a significant inverse correlation on GDP Per Capita and Illegal population. In layman speak, if illegals were helping boost GDP, ie the economy, GDP Per Capita ranking would go up with more illegals. If they are hurting the economy, GDP Per Capita ranking will go down. It clearly goes down.
> 
> GDP by State: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP
> 
> GDP Per Capita by State: CA & Texas drop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita
> 
> Unauthorized Immigrant Populations by State:
> https://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/
> 
> Bottom line, yes the US is winning, CA has some very strong players, but it’s not because of illegals.


??? What is this proof of?


----------



## Real Deal

Supermodel56 said:


> I’m fine with that, but please see previous thread on why/how the US determines the limit on how many to accept. It’s because we have to budget for the cost of supporting X many due to cost and can’t handle more than that - need to have jobs ready, etc... so they aren’t taking away from current citizens.


Well clearly there are jobs ready-- the ones many illegals are already doing!  Most citizens of the USA don't want those jobs. Think Honey Boo-Boo.  It ain't the pay. It's the work.  It's like the same reason rich kids can't just study for their SATs.  There's a lack of work ethic and a huge amount of- yes- _entitlement_ by people who have citizenship in this country- of all income brackets.  Let's just be a little real about this fact.  I don't know of many US citizens who'd like to scrape the asbestos-filled cottage cheese off my ceiling.


----------



## Supermodel56

Real Deal said:


> Well clearly there are jobs ready-- the ones many illegals are already doing!  Most citizens of the USA don't want those jobs. Think Honey Boo-Boo.  It ain't the pay. It's the work.


Which jobs are you referring to? Only one I think Americans won’t do is the farm labor, but who knows if paid higher? You can still do it legally by sponsoring an H1B visa and bring them in. This guarantees you’re responsible for this person coming in.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Real Deal said:


> Well clearly there are jobs ready-- the ones many illegals are already doing!  Most citizens of the USA don't want those jobs. Think Honey Boo-Boo.  It ain't the pay. It's the work.  It's like the same reason rich kids can't just study for their SATs.  There's a lack of work ethic and a huge amount of- yes- _entitlement_ by people who have citizenship in this country- of all income brackets.  Let's just be a little real about this fact.  I don't know of many US citizens who'd like to scrape the asbestos-filled cottage cheese off my ceiling.


Who did these jobs before the envision?
I scraped off acoustic in the 70's as did my white boss and white coworker, what has changed? Many construction jobs were done by blacks back then as well, what has changed? ESL was 1 class in my highschool, what has changed?


----------



## Supermodel56

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/19/723739490/deported-after-living-in-the-u-s-for-26-years-he-navigates-a-new-life-in-mexico?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190519


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Supermodel56 said:


> https://www.npr.org/2019/05/19/723739490/deported-after-living-in-the-u-s-for-26-years-he-navigates-a-new-life-in-mexico?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190519


MAGA


----------



## Supermodel56

“The National Research Council concluded that immigrants collectively add as much as $10 billion to the national economy each year, paying on average $80,000 per capita more in taxes than they use in government services over their lifetimes...”

Think about this. At first you’re like, see? It’s positive and that sounds like a big number. But if you think a little deeper - It is crazy. If you average it out across all immigrants including legal ones, it comes out to net, each person only contributes $80k in taxes TOTAL by the end of their LIFE. I pay more than that in less a year. If you consider the cost of capital over their lifetime in terms of investing in our economy vs investing those dollars into something else, it’s a very poor investment. The cost of healthcare alone for an illegal far outweighs any economic contribution whatsoever. It’s like buying a truck for your business that makes $50k a year but costs $100k/year to maintain.

Now to be clear before some of you idiots start hating on all immigrants, it would be completely false to say all immigrants only contribute little to our economy. Rather it shows just how much illegals and refugees drag down the contributions of legal immigrants in this country with higher tax paying jobs lined up and able to fully support themselves - companies cover their healthcare, etc... I include  refugees because when they arrive most come from impoverished countries and will require more in public money than they contribute, they come with nothing but the shirts on their backs. But at least for the real refugees, these people really are in life or death situations and as a American, I am proud that we are able to provide a safe place and opportunity for as many as we can. But the ones manipulating the system for refugee status are literally thieves and those helping them are accomplices who should be prosecuted.

Reference link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_availability_for_undocumented_immigrants_in_the_United_States


----------



## Soccer43

Well, thank you all for continuing to hijack this thread for your own personal agendas and repetitive debates about immigration and racism-  I for one will not be checking any more of the updates on this thread - the long lectures and debates about a  topic other  than what this thread is about has  gotten  old.  I have no issue with the new topic or discussion about this topic but this thread is not the place for this. Maybe some of you are UCLA fans and looking to shift this conversation so everyone stops paying attention and the original topic all goes away


----------



## Supermodel56

Sheriff Joe said:


> MAGA


Not helping..


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> “The National Research Council concluded that immigrants collectively add as much as $10 billion to the national economy each year, paying on average $80,000 per capita more in taxes than they use in government services over their lifetimes...”
> 
> Think about this. At first you’re like, see? It’s positive and that sounds like a big number. But if you think a little deeper - It is crazy. If you average it out across all immigrants including legal ones, it comes out to net, each person only contributes $80k in taxes TOTAL by the end of their LIFE. I pay more than that in less a year. If you consider the cost of capital over their lifetime in terms of investing in our economy vs investing those dollars into something else, it’s a very poor investment. The cost of healthcare alone for an illegal far outweighs any economic contribution whatsoever. It’s like buying a truck for your business that makes $50k a year but costs $100k/year to maintain.
> 
> Now to be clear before some of you idiots start hating on all immigrants, it would be completely false to say all immigrants only contribute little to our economy. Rather it shows just how much illegals and refugees drag down the contributions of legal immigrants in this country with higher tax paying jobs lined up and able to fully support themselves - companies cover their healthcare, etc... I include  refugees because when they arrive most come from impoverished countries and will require more in public money than they contribute, they come with nothing but the shirts on their backs. But at least for the real refugees, these people really are in life or death situations and as a American, I am proud that we are able to provide a safe place and opportunity for as many as we can. But the ones manipulating the system for refugee status are literally thieves and those helping them are accomplices who should be prosecuted.
> 
> Reference link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_availability_for_undocumented_immigrants_in_the_United_States


I see.  You will show us some numbers, but then from your MBA eminence, you can tell us why we should ignore them.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Supermodel56 said:


> Not helping..


Just summarizing.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Supermodel56 said:


> “The National Research Council concluded that immigrants collectively add as much as $10 billion to the national economy each year, paying on average $80,000 per capita more in taxes than they use in government services over their lifetimes...”
> 
> Think about this. At first you’re like, see? It’s positive and that sounds like a big number. But if you think a little deeper - It is crazy. If you average it out across all immigrants including legal ones, it comes out to net, each person only contributes $80k in taxes TOTAL by the end of their LIFE. I pay more than that in less a year. If you consider the cost of capital over their lifetime in terms of investing in our economy vs investing those dollars into something else, it’s a very poor investment. The cost of healthcare alone for an illegal far outweighs any economic contribution whatsoever. It’s like buying a truck for your business that makes $50k a year but costs $100k/year to maintain.
> 
> Now to be clear before some of you idiots start hating on all immigrants, it would be completely false to say all immigrants only contribute little to our economy. Rather it shows just how much illegals and refugees drag down the contributions of legal immigrants in this country with higher tax paying jobs lined up and able to fully support themselves - companies cover their healthcare, etc... I include  refugees because when they arrive most come from impoverished countries and will require more in public money than they contribute, they come with nothing but the shirts on their backs. But at least for the real refugees, these people really are in life or death situations and as a American, I am proud that we are able to provide a safe place and opportunity for as many as we can. But the ones manipulating the system for refugee status are literally thieves and those helping them are accomplices who should be prosecuted.
> 
> Reference link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_availability_for_undocumented_immigrants_in_the_United_States


Lumping illegals in with legal immigrants just another way liberals vilify the right, I have not heard anyone in here talking  about all immigrants being a drain, but I could be wrong, it's happened before.


----------



## Supermodel56

Soccer43 said:


> Well, thank you all for continuing to hijack this thread for your own personal agendas and repetitive debates about immigration and racism-  I for one will not be checking any more of the updates on this thread - the long lectures and debates about a  topic other  than what this thread is about has  gotten  old.  I have no issue with the new topic or discussion about this topic but this thread is not the place for this. Maybe some of you are UCLA fans and looking to shift this conversation so everyone stops paying attention and the original topic all goes away


It’s absolutely relevant to the thread. So many of you are outraged over a handful of wealthy parents who felt they had to bribe coaches to get their kids into college.

These wealthy parents basically subsidized the poor kids upbringing, healthcare, education etc... and yet, hundreds of illegal immigrant and affirmative action kids are getting preference in their applications.

Hopefully it sheds some light on why someone would naturally feel like it’s unfair for the wealthy and middle class. The only reason we have to do it is because it benefits society to help these kids get educated and out of poverty so it ends the cycle and they can start contributing positively. The last thing we need is another generation of people we have to financially support. But we can do that with helping them into avg schools. Don’t undermine the integrity of the elite schools by lowering standards.

If you feel like people are trying to keep you poor or oppressing you, it’s false. You have nothing to be bitter about. Nobody wants you to be poor, it benefits no one whatsoever.


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> Not helping..


Loser Joe announced when he starting posting here that he would on a regular basis post lies and insults.  So far, he is holding true to that.


----------



## Supermodel56

Sheriff Joe said:


> Lumping illegals in with legal immigrants just another way liberals vilify the right, I have not heard anyone in here talking  about all immigrants being a drain, but I could be wrong, it's happened before.


Yep. That’s why I had to clarify and hopefully offer some insight. Sadly some people don’t really understand the difference and/or don’t care. Adding to the problem, it’s easy to just lump them all together because they have the same color skin, speak the same language, etc...  it’s how racism begins. 

If each race addressed their own bad apples, racism would decline dramatically. Racism today stems mostly from a perception/branding issue. Fighting it with hate, accusations,  bitterness and anger will only make it worse. Until you change their perception - ie change their hearts, you will never solve the problem and you can’t do that with laws -ie by force. You change hearts by taking responsibility/addressing your own bad apples and yourself, contributing positively to the larger community, and also making yourself approachable/vulnerable by letting people get to know you as well as demonstrating a genuine interest in others. That is how we end racism.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Supermodel56 said:


> That is how we end racism.


That would declaw many liberals.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

_The College Board’s SAT ‘Environmental Context Dashboard’ Does Not Change SAT Scores, But Will Probably Influence Admissions
Alex Nitzberg | May 20, 2019
 









The College Board’s SAT, an exam taken by many as they strive to gain admittance to college, has attracted significant attention due to news about an “adversity score” to be included in SAT results.


The College Board has pushed back against the use of the term “adversity score.” As seen in the tweet below, the organization uses the phrase “Environmental Context Dashboard.” 

This Dashboard includes several categories of information, including, “SAT scores in context,” “Information on the high school,” and “Contextual data on the neighborhood and high school environment,” according to The College Board. The only information tied directly to each individual SAT test taker is their actual SAT score. The neighborhood and high school information is not specific to each individual who took the SAT.

“The SAT score is the only piece of student-specific information admissions officers see in the Dashboard,” the College Board says. The organization explains that, “All students living in the same census tract will have the same neighborhood data and all students attending the same high school will have the same high school data.”

In the Dashboard the “Student’s SAT scores can be seen within the context of the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile of SAT scores from the student’s high school (3-year average),” according to The College Board website. “The neighborhood and high school measures are percentiles between 1 and 100 with a flat distribution, with 1 corresponding to the least disadvantaged and 100 to the most disadvantaged.”


During an interview on Fox News, The College Board’s President and CEO David Coleman said that his organization is not changing students’ SAT scores: “We don’t change the SAT score. It’s not a new score,” he explained, saying the Environmental Context Dashboard is “a general context in which to look at scores.”

He provided the example of a female from a rural school in Mississippi who had earned 400 points more than fellow students at her high school: 

“So, if you look at a test score alone, but don’t know she was 400 points higher than all her peers, you might not see how exceptional her achievement was, you might miss her resourcefulness. So only when you look a score in context can you see that despite growing up in a more impoverished neighborhood with less resources she’s done so well.”

The Environmental Context Dashboard has already been rolled out as a pilot with over 50 institutions and The College Board plans to eventually offer it to all colleges:

“In 2018-19 we piloted the Dashboard with more than 50 colleges and universities. This fall we plan to expand to include more than 150 colleges in a research partnership as we continue to shape the tool, and next year we plan to make it broadly available to colleges and universities for free,” The College Board explains.


The Dashboard will likely have an impact on college admissions. 

In a tweet that references the 50-school pilot, The College Board said: “Application readers reported that applicants from higher levels of disadvantage were more likely to be admitted when using the Dashboard.”

“The Dashboard enables colleges to witness the strength and resourcefulness of students in a huge swath of America who would otherwise be overlooked, including students in rural areas, students in inner city areas, and military dependents,” another tweet explains. 

The College Board also stated in another tweet: “We're proud that results from our pilot show that using the Dashboard makes it more likely that students who demonstrate strength in overcoming challenges are more likely to be admitted to college.”
_


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> If each race addressed their own bad apples, racism would decline dramatically.


That's one of the most racist statements I have ever read.


----------



## Zerodenero

Sheriff Joe said:


> Lumping illegals in with legal immigrants just another way liberals vilify the right, I have not heard anyone in here talking  about all immigrants being a drain, but I could be wrong, it's happened before.


Reading this thread is a trip.....No immigrant thesis to add, just a real American story;

My pop was an illegal who became legal....His 1st born, was a punk ass teenager who had he not been born in the US, would no doubt have been deported.

The illegal, who-became-legal immigrant, 1st US born grandchild now attends the university of subject.

If that illegal did not take the 1st step....the pre-mentioned would not be true. But it is, and he did.

Thank you pops, aka, Mr former illegal.....Thank you for taking the risk w/the law. Then working your ass off to make it right


----------



## Supermodel56

Zerodenero said:


> Reading this thread is a trip.....No immigrant thesis to add, just a real American story;
> 
> My pop was an illegal who became legal....His 1st born, was a punk ass teenager who had he not been born in the US, would no doubt have been deported.
> 
> The illegal, who-became-legal immigrant, 1st US born grandchild now attends the university of subject.
> 
> If that illegal did not take the 1st step....the pre-mentioned would not be true. But it is, and he did.
> 
> Thank you pops, aka, Mr former illegal.....Thank you for taking the risk w/the law. Then working your ass off to make it right


You should be thanking taxpayers instead. But hey, thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Zerodenero said:


> Reading this thread is a trip.....No immigrant thesis to add, just a real American story;
> 
> My pop was an illegal who became legal....His 1st born, was a punk ass teenager who had he not been born in the US, would no doubt have been deported.
> 
> The illegal, who-became-legal immigrant, 1st US born grandchild now attends the university of subject.
> 
> If that illegal did not take the 1st step....the pre-mentioned would not be true. But it is, and he did.
> 
> Thank you pops, aka, Mr former illegal.....Thank you for taking the risk w/the law. Then working your ass off to make it right


Congratulations on your success, but how can any country function when  laws are not obeyed? I am going to go out on a limb here and assume your dad came here and assimilated and made his own way.
Unfortunately your case isn't the norm these days and if it were I doubt we would be discussing it right now.


----------



## Zerodenero




----------



## Zerodenero

Supermodel56 said:


> You should be thanking taxpayers instead. But hey, thanks for proving my point.


Perspective. 

On all fronts. 

Does a body good.

Try it.


----------



## Supermodel56

Zerodenero said:


> Reading this thread is a trip.....No immigrant thesis to add, just a real American story;
> 
> My pop was an illegal who became legal....His 1st born, was a punk ass teenager who had he not been born in the US, would no doubt have been deported.
> 
> The illegal, who-became-legal immigrant, 1st US born grandchild now attends the university of subject.
> 
> If that illegal did not take the 1st step....the pre-mentioned would not be true. But it is, and he did.
> 
> Thank you pops, aka, Mr former illegal.....Thank you for taking the risk w/the law. Then working your ass off to make it right


Btw, good for you, I mean why not if gov isn’t going to do anything to try and stop you? No consequences, right?


----------



## Zerodenero

Supermodel56 said:


> Btw, good for you, I mean why not if gov isn’t going to do anything to try and stop you? No consequences, right?


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> You should be thanking taxpayers instead. But hey, thanks for proving my point.


Did you miss the "hardworking" part?


----------



## Fact

Sheriff Joe said:


> Lumping illegals in with legal immigrants just another way liberals vilify the right, I have not heard anyone in here talking  about all immigrants being a drain, but I could be wrong, it's happened before.


It is short sighted to judge that some immigrants will be productive contributing members of US society while others will live off the system.  To me the real issue is why illegal immigrates feel entitled to break the law and jump ahead of other deserving people that fill out the proper paperwork and wait for their lottery number to hit.  If we allow this free for all, let them cage fight for entrance.  Same with the college scandal, these parents think that their kids are more special and more deserving thanks to their money.  ( see how I transitioned back to the top...take a hint).


----------



## Supermodel56

espola said:


> Did you miss the "hardworking" part?


I love the hardworking part.  But in your own favorite words... His dad cheated.


----------



## Fact

Fact said:


> ( see how I transitioned back to the top...take a hint).


I meant see how I transitioned back to the TOPIC...take a hint


----------



## Supermodel56

Zerodenero said:


> View attachment 4725


Don't worry, once your kid actually starts paying real taxes and the bar is raised on your grandkids to give preference to the new illegals, you'll start to get it... (assuming they ever develop financial literacy)


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Anybody seen any good soccer games lately?


----------



## surfrider

SpeedK1llz said:


> Anybody seen any good soccer games lately?


Amen. This thread has gone in to the shitter


----------



## Zerodenero

Supermodel56 said:


> Don't worry, once your kid actually starts paying real taxes and the bar is raised on your grandkids to give preference to the new illegals, you'll start to get it... (assuming they ever develop financial literacy)


Oh supermodel, so good on the outside.....how about within? So deep in the woods are you, that you don’t see what can been seen.

Good night my love


----------



## Supermodel56

Zerodenero said:


> Oh supermodel, so good on the outside.....how about within? So deep in the woods are you, that you don’t see what can been seen.


Oh I see alright... =)  some people like seeing cheaters win, others prefer to see those who played by the rules succeed. But hey, I don't blame you brother - if the ref never calls it....


----------



## Supermodel56

Still excited about more illegals? Californians, better start saving cause it’s gonna be time to pay up! Wonder how much cancer treatments and dialysis is going to cost for 1.2m illegals...  really rollin out the welcome mat!

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-lawmakers-weigh-budgets-proposals-to-cover-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants


----------



## espola

espola said:


> I'm waiting for her response.





Supermodel56 said:


> I love the hardworking part.  But in your own favorite words... His dad cheated.


How about that?


----------



## surfrider

SpeedK1llz said:


> Anybody seen any good soccer games lately?


LA Galaxy ladies Sunday was entertaining. A bit one sided but good to see the ladies out for a good run


----------



## Supermodel56

surfrider said:


> Amen. This thread has gone in to the shitter


I thought this thread was about parents/people who cheat to get their kids into college?


----------



## ToonArmy

I thought it was about turning pro at 13


----------



## LBSoccer

Zerodenero said:


> Reading this thread is a trip.....No immigrant thesis to add, just a real American story;
> 
> My pop was an illegal who became legal....His 1st born, was a punk ass teenager who had he not been born in the US, would no doubt have been deported.
> 
> The illegal, who-became-legal immigrant, 1st US born grandchild now attends the university of subject.
> 
> If that illegal did not take the 1st step....the pre-mentioned would not be true. But it is, and he did.
> 
> Thank you pops, aka, Mr former illegal.....Thank you for taking the risk w/the law. Then working your ass off to make it right


Congrats to you and your kid! We share almost exact same American story. My kid busted his butt off to get where he is yet because of his race some people think his success was handed to him.


----------



## espola

ToonArmy said:


> I thought it was about turning pro at 13


Different thread; different parents.


----------



## Supermodel56

LBSoccer said:


> Congrats to you and your kid! We share almost exact same American story. My kid busted his butt off to get where he is yet because of his race some people think his success was handed to him.


Us too... except my parents did it legally... and now, not only did I work my ass off to provide for my kids and my kids work their ass off, I’m subsidizing the kids who cheated to get here to compete against mine and colleges are giving them preference.


----------



## gkrent

This thread is exhausting and shocking.  I'm disgusted at what people are saying.  My ignore list is growing by the minute....

I guess I'll go somewhere else and get my college cheating scandal talk, because this thread has gone completely off the rails.


----------



## gkrent

surfrider said:


> LA Galaxy ladies Sunday was entertaining. A bit one sided but good to see the ladies out for a good run


Let's hear some details on this in the 2019 college thread!!


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> Us too... except my parents did it legally... and now, not only did I work my ass off to provide for my kids and my kids work their ass off, I’m subsidizing the kids who cheated to get here to compete against mine and colleges are giving them preference.


You  tried to show how that "subsidizing" works and failed.


----------



## Supermodel56

gkrent said:


> This thread is exhausting and shocking.  I'm disgusted at what people are saying.  My ignore list is growing by the minute....
> 
> I guess I'll go somewhere else and get my college cheating scandal talk, because this thread has gone completely off the rails.


True, it’s sad that many choose to ignore the facts and bury their head in the sand instead of discuss and think critically with an open mind.


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> True, it’s sad that many choose to ignore the facts and bury their head in the sand instead of discuss and think critically with an open mind.


Oh, the irony.


----------



## ToonArmy

espola said:


> Different thread; different parents.


Was a joke. That thread got off topic and went to shit too


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

You can't justify illegal behavior... ever.  There are "immigrants" and there are "illegal aliens".  They are not the same... and to put them in the same category is incorrect and immoral.


----------



## Dubs

Supermodel56 said:


> Still excited about more illegals? Californians, better start saving cause it’s gonna be time to pay up! Wonder how much cancer treatments and dialysis is going to cost for 1.2m illegals...  really rollin out the welcome mat!
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-lawmakers-weigh-budgets-proposals-to-cover-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants


You lost us all with the Fox news reference


----------



## espola

Dubs said:


> You lost us all with the Fox news reference


That's how she got her MBA.


----------



## Supermodel56

Dubs said:


> You lost us all with the Fox news reference


Oh that’s right, you can only read things that are filtered through your liberal blinders...

What are you afraid of? How about read it and decide for yourself if there’s any truth to it? Or even better, before you make judgement look at other sources too...


----------



## Supermodel56

Dubs said:


> You lost us all with the Fox news reference


Here you go... same facts, just told with a little heart tugging liberal spin on it for ya to set the mood...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/california-considers-health-care-undocumented-immigrants-n1008201

...Tried to find it on CNN but they won’t even mention this, cause 1) they can’t use the word illegal and 2) god forbid people find out how much this will cost


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Dubs said:


> You lost us all with the Fox news reference


Speak for yourself, snowflake.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

gkrent said:


> This thread is exhausting and shocking.  I'm disgusted at what people are saying.  My ignore list is growing by the minute....
> 
> I guess I'll go somewhere else and get my college cheating scandal talk, because this thread has gone completely off the rails.


Back to your safe space.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Supermodel56 said:


> Oh that’s right, you can only read things that are filtered through your liberal blinders...
> 
> What are you afraid of? How about read it and decide for yourself if there’s any truth to it? Or even better, before you make judgement look at other sources too...


Just another goose stepping brown shirt who needs to be told what and how to think.
Fox News Bad.
Red Hat Bad.
Orange Man Bad.
Too Funny.


----------



## Supermodel56

I think I know how to resolve this so we can all be friends...  Liberals should write all their representatives to stop using taxpayer dollars for all these services, stop affirmative action, etc... 

Instead, because, I do believe it is a noble cause, they should set up a non-profit organization where liberals can put their money where their mouth is and make tax free contributions to support the expenses of illegal immigrants, pay for whatever it takes to help inner city kids score just as high as everyone else on their SAT's, pay for their college, etc... It's like a gofundme, but you get to deduct the expense since it's a charitable cause.

This allows libs to follow their convictions without dragging everyone else into it, fuck the conservatives, libs are going to unify this country and make the world a better place.  In fact, if they did this, since it's already paid for, illegal immigrants would no longer be illegal, since they are sponsored for life and no longer a drain on resources. It would only be limited by the amount of budget available in the fund. So if libs want to invite all of Honduras over, they are more than welcome to, so long as they can afford it. If they can't afford to support the entire Honduran population, then I guess they'll have to decide who gets in or just work harder and make more money. 

Likewise, since they're sympathetic to those who arrive illegally and/or manipulate the process, this fund will be responsible for paying for anyone who sidesteps this system or any crimes committed by those sponsored. It would only make sense. Any expenses over the budget would be deducted directly from their paycheck, because they are the guarantors. Since libs claim the illegals help the economy, this should really make the economy take off - so making more money shouldn't be a problem. That said, libs will need to compete with the sponsored immigrants for jobs, again, not a problem because they're not jobs libs want.

As far as schooling, it's all on raw scores... since liberals are paying for these kids to have the same resources as they have - no kid will have an unfair disadvantage - no need for affirmative action. but if their kid has the same scores as a sponsored child - obviously the sponsored child should get priority over their kid because the liberal has the resources and the sponsored child had to be sponsored.

Problem solved. It's time to stop the madness, let's do this and put the issue behind us.


----------



## MakeAPlay

Supermodel56 said:


> I think I know how to resolve this so we can all be friends...  Liberals should write all their representatives to stop using taxpayer dollars for all these services, stop affirmative action, etc...
> 
> Instead, because, I do believe it is a noble cause, they should set up a non-profit organization where liberals can put their money where their mouth is and make tax free contributions to support the expenses of illegal immigrants, pay for whatever it takes to help inner city kids score just as high as everyone else on their SAT's, pay for their college, etc... It's like a gofundme, but you get to deduct the expense since it's a charitable cause.
> 
> This allows libs to follow their convictions without dragging everyone else into it, fuck the conservatives, libs are going to unify this country and make the world a better place.  In fact, if they did this, since it's already paid for, illegal immigrants would no longer be illegal, since they are sponsored for life and no longer a drain on resources. It would only be limited by the amount of budget available in the fund. So if libs want to invite all of Honduras over, they are more than welcome to, so long as they can afford it. If they can't afford to support the entire Honduran population, then I guess they'll have to decide who gets in or just work harder and make more money.
> 
> Likewise, since they're sympathetic to those who arrive illegally and/or manipulate the process, this fund will be responsible for paying for anyone who sidesteps this system or any crimes committed by those sponsored. It would only make sense. Any expenses over the budget would be deducted directly from their paycheck, because they are the guarantors. Since libs claim the illegals help the economy, this should really make the economy take off - so making more money shouldn't be a problem. That said, libs will need to compete with the sponsored immigrants for jobs, again, not a problem because they're not jobs libs want.
> 
> As far as schooling, it's all on raw scores... since liberals are paying for these kids to have the same resources as they have - no kid will have an unfair disadvantage - no need for affirmative action. but if their kid has the same scores as a sponsored child - obviously the sponsored child should get priority over their kid because the liberal has the resources and the sponsored child had to be sponsored.
> 
> Problem solved. It's time to stop the madness, let's do this and put the issue behind us.


You are so fucking gross that it is hard to read the puke that you put on a page.  

Self hate kills...


----------



## MakeAPlay

Supermodel56 said:


> Don't worry, once your kid actually starts paying real taxes and the bar is raised on your grandkids to give preference to the new illegals, you'll start to get it... (assuming they ever develop financial literacy)


You can tell that you are all front.  Trying hard to sound smart.  Chica you aren’t one of them so please stop trying so hard.


----------



## Supermodel56

MakeAPlay said:


> You can tell that you are all front.  Trying hard to sound smart.  Chica you aren’t one of them so please stop trying so hard.


There is no us nor them. That is incredibly racist. We’re all part of the human race my friend. There are only people contribute to society and pull their own weight/find their way and those who don’t and instead make excuse after excuse. 

Both you and I have been discriminated against. The difference between us is I don’t use that as an excuse and I’m not looking for handouts.

Clearly you must be smarter than I though, be my guest and prove me wrong, I’m open to all proposals and discussion so long as it’s fact based.


----------



## Supermodel56

MakeAPlay said:


> You are so fucking gross that it is hard to read the puke that you put on a page.
> 
> Self hate kills...


What?!? I’m giving you what you want... ?

I agree the truth is hard to swallow sometimes..


----------



## Supermodel56

MakeAPlay said:


> You can tell that you are all front.  Trying hard to sound smart.  Chica you aren’t one of them so please stop trying so hard.


Btw, I can tell you’re scared... the house of lies you’ve built is collapsing...


----------



## LBSoccer

Supermodel56 said:


> There is no us nor them. That is incredibly racist. We’re all part of the human race my friend. There are only people contribute to society and pull their own weight/find their way and those who don’t and instead make excuse after excuse.
> 
> Both you and I have been discriminated against. The difference between us is I don’t use that as an excuse and I’m not looking for handouts.


Who is the one discriminating? You are the one making excuses. We are all part of the human race huh? Yet if they pull their own weight and earn entrance to an elite university you say it’s because of affirmative action so instead they should go to an average college.  You made that decision on race and only race.  The dreamers at my kids Ivy League school didn’t get there because of a handout or because a charity case. They worked for it, grit and determination to succeed.  Much more than I can say for some of the legacy kids that get in and they account for more than half of the kids there. It’s a shame that people like you can’t see the person for who they really are and past the label of being illegal.


----------



## Supermodel56

MakeAPlay said:


> You can tell that you are all front.  Trying hard to sound smart.  Chica you aren’t one of them so please stop trying so hard.


I just realized this... did you really just say that I’m trying to sound smart but I’m not because I’m not one of them?!? 

So basically minorities can’t be smart? Ouch.

Speak for yourself.


----------



## Calisoccer11

So back to the topic at hand--here is a somewhat new article of one of the rich, white, privileged parents who has a dumb ass kid--or who knows -maybe this kid was just never taught the importance of working hard and putting education as a priority.  https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/05/21/three-bay-area-parents-pleading-guilty-this-week-in-college-admission-scandal/


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

Seems a lot of that 'white privilege' is allowing many minorities to get college scholarships for athletics.  How many of those kids would have qualified and earned/received a degree without it?


----------



## Supermodel56

LBSoccer said:


> Who is the one discriminating? You are the one making excuses. We are all part of the human race huh? Yet if they pull their own weight and earn entrance to an elite university you say it’s because of affirmative action so instead they should go to an average college.  You made that decision on race and only race.  The dreamers at my kids Ivy League school didn’t get there because of a handout or because a charity case. They worked for it, grit and determination to succeed.  Much more than I can say for some of the legacy kids that get in and they account for more than half of the kids there. It’s a shame that people like you can’t see the person for who they really are and past the label of being illegal.


Nah, I’m saying if they earned it and have better scores than the others, then, of course they should be there. I just think if they didn’t have the grades and scores, race and economic status should not be considered - at least for the top schools... 

For the avg schools, there are way more of them, so if you get into one vs another it’s a wash and nobody is negatively impacted. Go ahead and give all the extra leeway for lower grades and scores you want. It’s still not fair for those to did better, but at least it will help end the poverty cycle.

Zerodenero’s story is proof hard work can get you out even if you show up with nothing but the clothes on your back. Whats everyone else’s excuse? My only problem was that his dad came illegally but you know what, I respect the hell out of him and his family otherwise.


----------



## Glen

The Outlaw said:


> Seems a lot of that 'white privilege' is allowing many minorities to get college scholarships for athletics.  How many of those kids would have qualified and earned/received a degree without it?


It "seems" like you may be wrong.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/10/college-sports-benefits-white-students/573688/


----------



## Glen

Supermodel56 said:


> The legal definition for mail/wire fraud is that the intent has to be to obtain money or property... in other words, if you send a letter to a friend that contained a lie, you wouldn’t be charged for fraud unless you we’re trying to use that lie to obtain money or property - which in the case of this scam they did neither. They lied to gain admission - to pay money, the Isaacksons were not seeking any financial benefit.
> 
> Racketeering is when an organized business is dealing with illegal or fraudulent activity. The families involved were not part of the business - they were simply customers.


@Supermodel56 - this is completely wrong.  The Isaacksons weren't charged with mail fraud.  They were charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud.  The government just needs to show that couple agreed to the conspiracy and committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy.  And honest services fraud is part of the mail fraud statute - it specifically covers intangible property rights.  To quote you, " I don't think you know how the law works."


----------



## Calisoccer11

The Outlaw said:


> Seems a lot of that 'white privilege' is allowing many minorities to get college scholarships for athletics.  How many of those kids would have qualified and earned/received a degree without it?


How many of what kids?  Minority kids?  Minority kids who get recruited and are actually talented and can earn university titles and championships, which in turn makes colleges money and prestige?  Just to be clear - I'm talking about rich kids who are not smart enough nor athletic enough to gain admission to a college their parents deem acceptable.   These kids whose parents paid their way into college, were not SMART enough to get into an Ivy league or top university.  They were not ATHLETIC.  They had nothing going for them except their parents' wealth.  Olivia Jade was at least making a good living before her parent's interference but I don't know of any other exception involved in the scandal.    I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.  


The Outlaw said:


> Seems a lot of that 'white privilege' is allowing many minorities to get college scholarships for athletics.  How many of those kids would have qualified and earned/received a degree without it?


----------



## Supermodel56

Glen said:


> It "seems" like you may be wrong.
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/10/college-sports-benefits-white-students/573688/


The writer makes a false assertion because they don’t look at how many African American/minority athletes apply/try out for those alternative sports.  If few to none African Americans fence, row, swim, play lacrosse, etc... of course they’re not going to get in for those sports... (except at Yale, USC, and UCLA) 

The writer also does not compare academic scores from the white sports vs the ones that a lot of African Americans try out for. Athletes in general have a lower academic requirement across the board and the correct comparison to determine bias would be to compare white athlete gpa vs black athlete gpa. Not white athlete gpa vs non-athlete.

Dumb article and simply race baiting.


----------



## Glen

Supermodel56 said:


> The writer makes a false assertion because they don’t look at how many African American/minority athletes apply/try out for those alternative sports.  If few to none African Americans fence, row, swim, play lacrosse, etc... of course they’re not going to get in for those sports... (except at Yale, USC, and UCLA)
> 
> The writer also does not compare academic scores from the white sports vs the ones that a lot of African Americans try out for. Athletes in general have a lower academic requirement across the board and the correct comparison to determine bias would be to compare white athlete gpa vs black athlete gpa. Not white athlete gpa vs non-athlete.
> 
> Dumb article and simply race baiting.


You should probably explain the false assertion before claiming it is false.  But hey, I'm a stickler for logic so you can just ignore me.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

MakeAPlay said:


> You can tell that you are all front.  Trying hard to sound smart.  Chica you aren’t one of them so please stop trying so hard.


One of what?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Supermodel56 said:


> I just realized this... did you really just say that I’m trying to sound smart but I’m not because I’m not one of them?!?
> 
> So basically minorities can’t be smart? Ouch.
> 
> Speak for yourself.


Must be that self hate he's talking about.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

LBSoccer said:


> Who is the one discriminating? You are the one making excuses. We are all part of the human race huh? Yet if they pull their own weight and earn entrance to an elite university you say it’s because of affirmative action so instead they should go to an average college.  You made that decision on race and only race.  The dreamers at my kids Ivy League school didn’t get there because of a handout or because a charity case. They worked for it, grit and determination to succeed.  Much more than I can say for some of the legacy kids that get in and they account for more than half of the kids there. It’s a shame that people like you can’t see the person for who they really are and past the label of being illegal.


You think an illegal, any illegal should get into any US college a head of any US citizen?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

Glen said:


> It "seems" like you may be wrong.
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/10/college-sports-benefits-white-students/573688/


So you saw 65% white in Ivy League and that's your argument?  LMAO!  The estimate is that 61% of collegiate athletes are white.  Well, considering 72% of the United States population is Caucasian, it kind of pisses on your argument, doesn't it?


----------



## Glen

Sheriff Joe said:


> You think an illegal, any illegal should get into any US college a head of any US citizen?


Your question is incorrectly framed.  US colleges admit both US citizens and non-citizens.  Correcting for your grammar, "Do you think an immigrant residing in the US illegally should get into any US college over any US citizen or non-citizen?"  The answer is obviously yes, particularly for children brought to the US at a young age.


----------



## Glen

The Outlaw said:


> So you saw 65% white in Ivy League and that's your argument?  LMAO!  The estimate is that 61% of collegiate athletes are white.  Well, considering 72% of the United States population is Caucasian, it kind of pisses on your argument, doesn't it?


No, it doesn't.  According to the last US census, white people make up less than 61% of the population, not 72%.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Glen said:


> Your question is incorrectly framed.  US colleges admit both US citizens and non-citizens.  Correcting for your grammar, "Do you think an immigrant residing in the US illegally should get into any US college over any US citizen or non-citizen?"  The answer is obviously yes, particularly for children brought to the US at a young age.


Nothing wrong with my question, you just want to mix things up. No illegal deserves to be college educated before an American citizen no matter how they arrived.


----------



## Glen

Sheriff Joe said:


> Nothing wrong with my question, you just want to mix things up. No illegal deserves to be college educated before an American citizen no matter how they arrived.


So you are OK with non-US citizens getting admissions spots over US citizens?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Glen said:


> So you are OK with non-US citizens getting admissions spots over US citizens?


You must be a product of the LAUSD.


----------



## Supermodel56

Glen said:


> You should probably explain the false assertion before claiming it is false.  But hey, I'm a stickler for logic so you can just ignore me.


Oh I’m sorry, I thought it was obvious. My bad.

The title of the article claims that “*College Sports Are Affirmative Action for Rich White Students” *

Here, let me simplify. That statement is false. The article is misleading. You can read my prev post as to why.


----------



## Supermodel56

Glen said:


> So you are OK with non-US citizens getting admissions spots over US citizens?


That’s actually a great question and there is a distinction between non-US citizens here legally vs illegally residing in the US. International students are funded entirely by foreigners and pay higher tuition. Since it is foreign dollars, it contributes positively to the trade balance and GDP so it’s a good thing and spots should be allocated to them.

Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to apply unless they return to their home country, get a student visa and pay non resident - intl student tuition. They should not be eligible for any funding - except the non-profit fund that the liberals have set up and are paying out of pocket. 

Non-citizens should be evaluated in the international student pool for admission and not compete against US citizens for spots.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

Glen said:


> No, it doesn't.  According to the last US census, white people make up less than 61% of the population, not 72%.


According to the US Census Bureau, the number is actually 76.6%.  It's 60% if you're not counting any Hispanic or Latino.  African Americans are 13% and Hispanic/Latino are 18%.

So even if we use your number of 60% Caucasian, and 60% of college athletes are Caucasian, it's fairly interesting to know 40% are "other".  Again... that "white privilege" notion seems fairly silly to me.  As in, it doesn't exist.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Looky here, especially the last line.

Wake up America




FOX NEWS FLASH
Published 39 mins ago
Last Update 38 mins ago
*'So infuriating': Tomi Lahren takes on California Democrats' plans to offer health care to illegal immigrants*
By David Montanaro | Fox News
Video
*Tomi Lahren sounds off on California offering health care to illegal immigrants.*
Tomi Lahren sounded&nbsp;off Wednesday on "Fox &amp; Friends" on California Democrats considering several plans to offer health care to illegal immigrants in the state.&nbsp;

Fox Nation host Tomi Lahren sounded off Wednesday on "Fox & Friends" on the issue of California Democrats considering several plans to offer health care to illegal immigrants in the state.


Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed $98 million a year to cover low-income illegal immigrants between the ages of 19 and 25, but the state Assembly’s bill would cover all illegal immigrants over the age of 19 living in California – a proposal that would cost an estimated $3.4 billion.


The state Senate, meanwhile, wants to cover adults ages 19 to 25, plus seniors 65 and older. That bill's sponsor, Sen. Maria Elana Durazo, scoffed at cost concerns, noting the state has a projected $21.5 billion budget surplus.


----------



## Glen

The Outlaw said:


> According to the US Census Bureau, the number is actually 76.6%.  It's 60% if you're not counting any Hispanic or Latino.  African Americans are 13% and Hispanic/Latino are 18%.
> 
> So even if we use your number of 60% Caucasian, and 60% of college athletes are Caucasian, it's fairly interesting to know 40% are "other".  Again... that "white privilege" notion seems fairly silly to me.  As in, it doesn't exist.


You used a statistic from 2010 (72%).  The exact same stat updated for 2018 is approximately 60%.  Are you really arguing that I used the wrong stat because I used the most updated version?  Can you be more disingenuous?  And no, I don't count Hispanics or Latinos as caucasians - nor do universities.  And you didn't either before you realized you had egg on your face.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

Glen said:


> You used a statistic from 2010 (72%).  The exact same stat updated for 2018 is approximately 60%.  Are you really arguing that I used the wrong stat because I used the most updated version?  Can you be more disingenuous?  And no, I don't count Hispanics or Latinos as caucasians - nor do universities.  And you didn't either before you realized you had egg on your face.


No, I'm arguing that you cherry picked... same way MAP did with Eric Garner (a career criminal) to make your point.  The relevant statistic is that 40% of college athletes are not white.  So they're either affluent enough to afford college on their own, in this white man's world of slavery and oppression, or they somehow manage to receive scholarship money.  So oppressive!

Your implication that it's "white privilege" is the only egg in this room... and I scrambled it for you.  Apparently some Hispanics and Latinos DO consider themselves "white" on occasion... otherwise the US Census Bureau would not have a separate column, accordingly.  And to correct your grammar from earlier, Glen, it's not "an immigrant living in the U.S. illegally..."  Those are not immigrants... they're here illegally, they're here breaking our laws and they should receive nothing because of it.


----------



## gkrent




----------



## Supermodel56

Glen said:


> No, it doesn't.  According to the last US census, white people make up less than 61% of the population, not 72%.





The Outlaw said:


> So even if we use your number of 60% Caucasian, and 60% of college athletes are Caucasian, it's fairly interesting to know 40% are "other".  Again... that "white privilege" notion seems fairly silly to me.  As in, it doesn't exist.


I don’t think he gets it (Glen)....  his college probably let him slide when he missed these problems on the SAT.   Glen, even using your numbers, it doesn’t help your case. Maybe this will help...

Glen, I have 100 pieces of fruit.  60 are apples, 20 are oranges, and 20 are bananas. If you ask me to pick 10 pieces of fruit and I pick 6 apples, 2 oranges, and 2 banana, is that a fair representative sample?  Or am showing a preference for apples?

Correct answer: it is a fair representative sample. Both groups are composed of 60% apples, 20% oranges, 20% bananas.

Let’s try this again... but this time let’s use toy trains... never mind... You're right, we need affirmative action, how would you ever survive?


----------



## MakeAPlay

Sheriff Joe said:


> One of what?


One of you Sheriff.  White boys with no clue.

https://knock-la.com/how-much-does-la-spend-on-policing-29e15532a5a7


----------



## MakeAPlay

Supermodel56 said:


> Btw, I can tell you’re scared... the house of lies you’ve built is collapsing...


House of lies?  Chica you clearly have no clue as to who I am but let me tell you.  What you aspire to I already have.  And I am far from scared of you.  I am married to a woman that is what you hope to be when you grow up and I done much more that you can ever hope to do. 

Sounds like you have some penis envy.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

MakeAPlay said:


> House of lies?  Chica you clearly have no clue as to who I am but let me tell you.  What you aspire to I already have.  And I am far from scared of you.  I am married to a woman that is what you hope to be when you grow up and I done much more that you can ever hope to do.
> 
> Sounds like you have some penis envy.


There's the MAP we all know and love to laugh at.
Libs love to get personal when they are losing the argument.


----------



## Supermodel56

MakeAPlay said:


> House of lies?  Chica you clearly have no clue as to who I am but let me tell you.  What you aspire to I already have.  And I am far from scared of you.  I am married to a woman that is what you hope to be when you grow up and I done much more that you can ever hope to do.
> 
> Sounds like you have some penis envy.


In that case, if you're such a self-made man and so successful, first off, good for you! We need more like that. But then, isn't that proof that we don't need affirmative action? I mean, unless you couldn't have done it without a lower standard?  

@LBSoccer was complaining about how even though his kid busted his ass, people still think he got in because of affirmative action - well, we can solve that stigma. Get RID of affirmative action.  Stop asking for handouts. If you want to support inner city kids, this is a free country, set up a non-profit and use your own money, don't force the rest of them into it. 

All I know is, on this thread, you're the only one who's been outrageously racist and your hatred for white people is beyond evident. And now your penis-envy comment... guess you hate women too? are you implying women can't be smart? I thought liberals were FOR women?


----------



## Supermodel56

MakeAPlay said:


> One of you Sheriff.  White boys with no clue.
> 
> https://knock-la.com/how-much-does-la-spend-on-policing-29e15532a5a7


Hmm.. white boys have no clue? Careful MAP, you need to get your info straight... as a minority, this is embarrassing...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1a52vkpjans/UmjAc5fGxtI/AAAAAAAAA6U/EmUPxCtOsXg/s1600/sat+race+income+1995.png


----------



## Supermodel56

MakeAPlay said:


> House of lies?  Chica you clearly have no clue as to who I am but let me tell you.  What you aspire to I already have.  And I am far from scared of you.  I am married to a woman that is what you hope to be when you grow up and I done much more that you can ever hope to do.
> 
> Sounds like you have some penis envy.


Btw, not impressed. If what you have is so great, why you so bitter and hateful? No thank you.


----------



## Glen

Supermodel56 said:


> I don’t think he gets it (Glen)....  his college probably let him slide when he missed these problems on the SAT.   Glen, even using your numbers, it doesn’t help your case. Maybe this will help...
> 
> Glen, I have 100 pieces of fruit.  60 are apples, 20 are oranges, and 20 are bananas. If you ask me to pick 10 pieces of fruit and I pick 6 apples, 2 oranges, and 2 banana, is that a fair representative sample?  Or am showing a preference for apples?
> 
> Correct answer: it is a fair representative sample. Both groups are composed of 60% apples, 20% oranges, 20% bananas.
> 
> Let’s try this again... but this time let’s use toy trains... never mind... You're right, we need affirmative action, how would you ever survive?


God, you're dumb - painfully dumb.  I don't like affirmative action at all, which is why sports (if you can call sailing a sport) shouldn't be used as a back door for otherwise unqualified (mostly white people) to get into elite institutions.  And somehow you spun that into me claiming that we need affirmative action?

If you take away affirmative action policies at elite institutions, whites are most negatively impacted because they are forced to compete head to head with Asians/Indians on academic merit.  All races are negatively impacted (except Asians/Indians), but whites are impacted the most.   There is no better example of that than the elimination of affirmative action in California in 1996 and the current student population at our best schools.  Did African Americans and Hispanics lose spots?  Yes.  But whites lost far more.   

If you take away sports programs at Ivy League schools and admit based on academic merit, whites won't get 65 percent of those spots on academic merit.  Asians/Indians would take many of those spots, along with eating up spots from other minority groups.  So yes, sports work as an affirmative action for white kids at elite schools because it avoids them competing on a level academic playing field with certain more qualified minority students.

BTW - the article said 65 percent of ivy league athletes are white and 79% in the little ivys,  not 60 percent.  The number is even in the subtitle - I'm not sure why you couldn't get that right.  So to answer your question, picking 6.5 apples or 7.9 apples is not a representative sample out of 60 apples.  That would be an over-representative sample, which is the article's point.


----------



## Supermodel56

Glen said:


> .
> 
> BTW - the article said 65 percent of ivy league athletes are white and 79% in the little ivys,  not 60 percent.  The number is even in the subtitle - I'm not sure why you couldn't get that right.  So to answer your question, picking 6.5 apples or 7.9 apples is not a representative sample out of 60 apples.  That would be an over-representative sample, which is the article's point.


Not if minorities aren’t playing/applying for those sports... you need to compare to minority applications/tryouts for those sports, not just total population.


----------



## Glen

Supermodel56 said:


> Not if minorities aren’t playing/applying for those sports... you need to compare to minority applications/tryouts for those sports, not just total population.


Why?  What do sports (or race) have to do with academic merit?  It's not a very compelling argument to say that less academically qualified white students or minority students should be able to take spots from more qualified Asians/Indians students just because Asian/Indians don't invest their time or money in sports.  Sports don't have anything to do with academic merit.  Picking admissions factors that have nothing to do with academic merit, but that disproportionately favor certain racial or socioeconomic demographics (in this case wealthy/whites), should be criticized just as much as affirmative action based on race.  The answer is not to tell Asian/Indians to take up sailing.  The answer is for white kids to drop the anchor and pick up a freakin' book.


----------



## Dummy

Glen said:


> Why?  What do sports (or race) have to do with academic merit?  It's not a very compelling argument to say that less academically qualified white students or minority students should be able to take spots from more qualified Asians/Indians students just because Asian/Indians don't invest their time or money in sports.  Sports don't have anything to do with academic merit.  Picking admissions factors that have nothing to do with academic merit, but that disproportionately favor certain racial or socioeconomic demographics (in this case wealthy/whites), should be criticized just as much as affirmative action based on race.  The answer is not to tell Asian/Indians to take up sailing.  The answer is for white kids to drop the anchor and pick up a freakin' book.


In “David,” Malcom Gladwell makes the point that in every college there is a bottom 15%.  There are kids that thought they would go to college and succeed in the classroom, but for whatever reason they don’t.  He says that colleges try to construct a student body where these 15% have something else they can be proud of to keep them from jumping off roofs.  Athletic or other special abilities (or being rich and not really needing college) can be this something else.  I don’t think that affirmative action is the right name for it because the goal is different from the goal of affirmative action, but I am not sure that it is entirely unreasonable for college admissions officers to take special abilities or circumstances into account.  I just wish that colleges would be more transparent about how they do what they do because it might help families be more realistic about the college application process.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Glen said:


> Why?  What do sports (or race) have to do with academic merit?  It's not a very compelling argument to say that less academically qualified white students or minority students should be able to take spots from more qualified Asians/Indians students just because Asian/Indians don't invest their time or money in sports.  Sports don't have anything to do with academic merit.  Picking admissions factors that have nothing to do with academic merit, but that disproportionately favor certain racial or socioeconomic demographics (in this case wealthy/whites), should be criticized just as much as affirmative action based on race.  The answer is not to tell Asian/Indians to take up sailing.  The answer is for white kids to drop the anchor and pick up a freakin' book.


----------



## Supermodel56

Glen said:


> Why?  What do sports (or race) have to do with academic merit?  It's not a very compelling argument to say that less academically qualified white students or minority students should be able to take spots from more qualified Asians/Indians students just because Asian/Indians don't invest their time or money in sports.  Sports don't have anything to do with academic merit.  Picking admissions factors that have nothing to do with academic merit, but that disproportionately favor certain racial or socioeconomic demographics (in this case wealthy/whites), should be criticized just as much as affirmative action based on race.  The answer is not to tell Asian/Indians to take up sailing.  The answer is for white kids to drop the anchor and pick up a freakin' book.


Dude, you’re so all over the place... it sounds like we both agree that we should just have the same standard and not show any preference by race and/or income. Everyone should compete by the same set of rules. Since everyone’s different some will have to work harder at some things than others. We agree, right?

Regarding sports though - you’re saying that allowing lower grades for athletes is unfair - at least that’s what I think you’re saying... or that this unfairly helps white kids. The part about giving slack for lower grades for athletes... well, I can see reasons for both, but you’re right athletes should be generally held to the same standard. 

Regarding certain sports unfairly helping whites, that is false - keyword "Unfairly". Whites may be benefitting from this currently, but it doesn’t mean it gives an unfair advantage. The reason is because nothing is preventing any race from participating. Just because certain groups choose not to participate in a sport, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist. Just because certain races may naturally be more genetically predisposed to be better (or at least appear that way) does not mean we shouldn’t have that sport, nor support it. Take basketball and football, both predominately black sports. Should we scrap the sport or force affirmative action? Of course not. Should we give white kids trying out for basketball an extra 6 inch leeway on their vertical just so we can get back to 60-20-20 race split? Of course not.

Set the standard, make it a fair competition, leave politics out of it, and it’s up to the families and kids to get them there. You want to make the sailing team? Learn how to sail, get good at it and get good grades.


----------



## Dubs

Supermodel56 said:


> Oh that’s right, you can only read things that are filtered through your liberal blinders...
> 
> What are you afraid of? How about read it and decide for yourself if there’s any truth to it? Or even better, before you make judgement look at other sources too...


I do read... quite a lot actually.  Hence my ability to know/understand what is/is not propoganda.  You have no idea who I am so to paint me as a "liberal" (whatever that means) and so easily dismiss shows who's actually blind.


----------



## Supermodel56

Dubs said:


> I do read... quite a lot actually.  Hence my ability to know/understand what is/is not propoganda.  You have no idea who I am so to paint me as a "liberal" (whatever that means) and so easily dismiss shows who's actually blind.


Ok, I’m open to this discussion... if you claim the Fox article was loaded with propaganda, please show me what part of the article was propaganda compared to the NBC version or whichever source you prefer...

I mean, you quickly dismissed the source, you must’ve read it, no? Or biased?


----------



## Glen

Supermodel56 said:


> Ok, I’m open to this discussion... if you claim the Fox article was loaded with propaganda, please show me what part of the article was propaganda compared to the NBC version or whichever source you prefer...
> 
> I mean, you quickly dismissed the source, you must’ve read it, no? Or biased?


Did you read them?  The two article links that you posted from Fox News and NBC News are sourced from the exact same AP article.  Except, NBC posted the entire AP article in full.  NBC News neither wrote the article or selectively edited it.  Fox News, on the other hand, deleted from the AP article the very reasons why certain lawmakers are seeking additional health care funding.  There was no journalistic reason to remove that information from the article.  It was accurate and relevant.

If you are getting your news from Fox News, or for that matter MSNBC, you are just listening to an echo chamber.


----------



## Supermodel56

Glen said:


> Did you read them?  The two article links that you posted from Fox News and NBC News are sourced from the exact same AP article.  Except, NBC posted the entire AP article in full.  NBC News neither wrote the article or selectively edited it.  Fox News, on the other hand, deleted from the AP article the very reasons why certain lawmakers are seeking additional health care funding.  There was no journalistic reason to remove that information from the article.  It was accurate and relevant.
> 
> If you are getting your news from Fox News, or for that matter MSNBC, you are just listening to an echo chamber.


Umm... if you read both, Fox basically stripped out the propaganda and kept it to the facts. The AP writer framed the story around a poor grandma who wouldn’t get her treatment without this funding. That’s called emotional manipulation and clear bias. If it were a “fair/honest” article sure, it could’ve brought up the Grandma’s story, but at the same time, the fact that she came into country illegally by choice and has never paid a dime into Medicare and has already used xx dollars paid by citizens (you and I) for healthcare. That’s not propaganda, that’s fact. At the same time, they need to show on avg how much each citizen already gets deducted from their paycheck for Medicare and that this bill covering illegal immigrants is going to mean how much more is going to be deducted from everyone’s paychecks. That would be a fair article. You can’t just tell the partial truth.

At the end of the day, to be honest, I’m not even that much against it... it will make my Medicare taxes go up, more than others due to income, but what am I gonna say, let the bitch die? Of course not. 

But, I’m more concerned about the implications of this law. It now gives an even greater incentive for illegals to come to California - free healthcare  - in the most expensive state for healthcare, btw. And so with no border controls and a state government that won’t deport them... the cost is bound to grow exponentially. Like I said before, for taxpayers, how many more illegals do you want to support until it’s too much? The big winners here are the hospitals and doctors - corporations and the wealthy. They now get paid whereas before the illegals would just not pay their bills or go to the ER, not fair to the doctors either. So long as Californians turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, they should be held responsible for taking care of them. 

If we enforce our borders, we can have better control of this expense.


----------



## oh canada

opening further a can of worms, but...(what has this thread turned into!!??    )  in Canada and in Mexico, voters are required to show picture ID.


----------



## wc_baller

oh canada said:


> opening further a can of worms, but...(what has this thread turned into!!??    )  in Canada and in Mexico, voters are required to show picture ID.


Yeah, but does Canada have a history of suppressing minority votes by closing the offices where minorities can get IDs, like in Alabama where they closed DMVs in predominantly black neighborhoods a few years back?


----------



## Sheriff Joe

wc_baller said:


> Yeah, but does Canada have a history of suppressing minority votes by closing the offices where minorities can get IDs, like in Alabama where they closed DMVs in predominantly black neighborhoods a few years back?


Fake News


----------



## wc_baller

Sheriff Joe said:


> Fake News


Sure, Arpaio. The familiar  “Fake News” cry from the Alternative Fact crowd is so predictable.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al.com/opinion/2017/01/as_it_turns_out_bentleys_drive.html?outputType=amp


----------



## espola

wc_baller said:


> Sure, Arpaio. The familiar  “Fake News” cry from the Alternative Fact crowd is so predictable.
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al.com/opinion/2017/01/as_it_turns_out_bentleys_drive.html?outputType=amp


You're feeding the troll.


----------



## Supermodel56

wc_baller said:


> Yeah, but does Canada have a history of suppressing minority votes by closing the offices where minorities can get IDs, like in Alabama where they closed DMVs in predominantly black neighborhoods a few years back?


Sure, that’s one way to look at it. 

But think about it this way... if you were governor and wanted to save money, where would you close DMV’s? Would you close them in the wealthier neighborhoods who actually pay taxes and make those people drive into the hood? Or would you close them in the poor neighborhoods that not only don’t pay taxes and can’t afford to support a DMV office, but half of them cant afford cars and don’t drive anyway? 

How often are ID’s renewed? Once every 4 years And they make it sound like the only reason to have an ID is to vote. But the reality is, you need an ID for just about everything. Open a bank account, get a job, etc... so most likely if they are in any way contributing to society, they’ll already have an ID or make the bus ride to go get one if they don’t have a car. The impact on voting would’ve been nominal unless someone was trying to artificially inflate the voter participation rate.


----------



## davin

Supermodel56 said:


> Sure, that’s one way to look at it.
> 
> But think about it this way... if you were governor and wanted to save money, where would you close DMV’s? Would you close them in the wealthier neighborhoods who actually pay taxes and make those people drive into the hood? Or would you close them in the poor neighborhoods that not only don’t pay taxes and can’t afford to support a DMV office, but half of them cant afford cars and don’t drive anyway?
> 
> How often are ID’s renewed? Once every 4 years And they make it sound like the only reason to have an ID is to vote. But the reality is, you need an ID for just about everything. Open a bank account, get a job, etc... so most likely if they are in any way contributing to society, they’ll already have an ID or make the bus ride to go get one if they don’t have a car. The impact on voting would’ve been nominal unless someone was trying to artificially inflate the voter participation rate.


Were you wearing a white hood when you wrote that? Can't believe I'm reading this BS on a youth soccer board.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

davin said:


> Were you wearing a white hood when you wrote that? Can't believe I'm reading this BS on a youth soccer board.


I hope you aren’t raising any offspring, world already has too many snowflakes.


----------



## espola

davin said:


> Were you wearing a white hood when you wrote that? Can't believe I'm reading this BS on a youth soccer board.


She's getting worse daily, like an ingrown hair.


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> Sure, that’s one way to look at it.
> 
> But think about it this way... if you were governor and wanted to save money, where would you close DMV’s? Would you close them in the wealthier neighborhoods who actually pay taxes and make those people drive into the hood? Or would you close them in the poor neighborhoods that not only don’t pay taxes and can’t afford to support a DMV office, but half of them cant afford cars and don’t drive anyway?
> 
> How often are ID’s renewed? Once every 4 years And they make it sound like the only reason to have an ID is to vote. But the reality is, you need an ID for just about everything. Open a bank account, get a job, etc... so most likely if they are in any way contributing to society, they’ll already have an ID or make the bus ride to go get one if they don’t have a car. The impact on voting would’ve been nominal unless someone was trying to artificially inflate the voter participation rate.


"You will need an ID to vote.  The easiest way to get an ID is at the DMV.  By the way, in a totally unrelated matter, the DMV Office in your neighborhood is going to be closed."

I am in favor of voter ID.  I am not in favor of using the suddenly-imposed requirement to disenfranchise existing voters.  Allow me to propose a compromise - any new voter registration must prove residence at least to the level needed to get a library card, and a voter ID card is given from that.  Any existing registrations on the voting rosters are grandfathered in.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

espola said:


> "You will need an ID to vote.  The easiest way to get an ID is at the DMV.  By the way, in a totally unrelated matter, the DMV Office in your neighborhood is going to be closed."
> 
> I am in favor of voter ID.  I am not in favor of using the suddenly-imposed requirement to disenfranchise existing voters.  Allow me to propose a compromise - any new voter registration must prove residence at least to the level needed to get a library card, and a voter ID card is given from that.  Any existing registrations on the voting rosters are grandfathered in.


If any US citizen doesn’t have an ID then they are too stupid to be voting for anything no matter what race they are and where they live.

What does sudden mean to you? We’ve been talking about this bull shit for decades.


----------



## Supermodel56

davin said:


> Were you wearing a white hood when you wrote that? Can't believe I'm reading this BS on a youth soccer board.


You forgot, I ain’t white man... as governor, you’re responsible for allocating resources where you see fit. At the end of the day requiring an ID is the right thing to do - esp with CA’s 2.2 million illegals. Feel free to enforce a set amount of DMV’s per capita but also make sure the costs come out of those communities tax dollars, or let them vote on that - do they want a dmv in their town Or would they rather drive/bus a little further and use those resources on something else, like extra teachers? 

To say that some poor, high crime communities need to drive/bus a couple miles to get an ID is effective voter suppression is ridiculous.  The only reason it became a problem was because liberals knew they couldn’t get enough educated taxpayers to vote for their agenda so they’re strategy was to go into poor uneducated cities and high concentrations of elderly who No idea what’s going on and essentially fill out their ballots for them en masse. And of course these folks are going to vote for things they don’t have to pay for.... why the hell not?

That’s exactly how libs won this last election cycle and in essence on the one hand, it’s a pretty sneaky move, on the other it’s essentially the same as voter suppression against the opposition since you’re over indexing the voter participation rate in those neighborhoods.


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> You forgot, I ain’t white man... as governor, you’re responsible for allocating resources where you see fit. At the end of the day requiring an ID is the right thing to do - esp with CA’s 2.2 million illegals. Feel free to enforce a set amount of DMV’s per capita but also make sure the costs come out of those communities tax dollars, or let them vote on that - do they want a dmv in their town Or would they rather drive/bus a little further and use those resources on something else, like extra teachers?
> 
> To say that some poor, high crime communities need to drive/bus a couple miles to get an ID is effective voter suppression is ridiculous.  The only reason it became a problem was because liberals knew they couldn’t get enough educated taxpayers to vote for their agenda so they’re strategy was to go into poor uneducated cities and high concentrations of elderly who No idea what’s going on and essentially fill out their ballots for them en masse. And of course these folks are going to vote for things they don’t have to pay for.... why the hell not?
> 
> That’s exactly how libs won this last election cycle and in essence on the one hand, it’s a pretty sneaky move, on the other it’s essentially the same as voter suppression against the opposition since you’re over indexing the voter participation rate in those neighborhoods.


Coocoo.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Oh My,


*Biological Male Wins NCAA Women’s Track Championship*
May 28th, 2019
_





Kirby Lee/USA TODAY Sports via Reuters


A biological male who identifies as a transgender woman won an NCAA national championship over Memorial Day weekend.

Franklin Pierce University (FPU) runner CeCe Telfer won the DII women’s 400-meter hurdles on Saturday night, besting the second-place finisher by more than a second.
_


----------



## espola

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-college-admissions-scandal-steven-masera-20190531-story.html

Steven Masera, the California accountant accused of handling the books for a test-fixing and bribery scheme that defrauded some of the country’s top universities, will plead guilty to racketeering conspiracy and has agreed to cooperate with investigators, according to court documents unsealed Friday.

As bookkeeper for William “Rick” Singer’s business and foundation, Masera, 69, billed parents who hired the Newport Beach college consultant to fix their children’s entrance exams and slip them into elite universities with bribes, according to an indictment charging Masera and 11 others in March with racketeering conspiracy.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

espola said:


> https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-college-admissions-scandal-steven-masera-20190531-story.html
> 
> Steven Masera, the California accountant accused of handling the books for a test-fixing and bribery scheme that defrauded some of the country’s top universities, will plead guilty to racketeering conspiracy and has agreed to cooperate with investigators, according to court documents unsealed Friday.
> 
> As bookkeeper for William “Rick” Singer’s business and foundation, Masera, 69, billed parents who hired the Newport Beach college consultant to fix their children’s entrance exams and slip them into elite universities with bribes, according to an indictment charging Masera and 11 others in March with racketeering conspiracy.


Wonder who else is on those books...


----------



## dk_b

Actual photo of bookkeeper before arrest.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

Sheriff Joe said:


> Oh My,
> 
> 
> *Biological Male Wins NCAA Women’s Track Championship*
> May 28th, 2019
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kirby Lee/USA TODAY Sports via Reuters
> 
> 
> A biological male who identifies as a transgender woman won an NCAA national championship over Memorial Day weekend.
> 
> Franklin Pierce University (FPU) runner CeCe Telfer won the DII women’s 400-meter hurdles on Saturday night, besting the second-place finisher by more than a second._



This won't hit the radar of some clowns (on this site) until it affects them directly.


----------



## End of the Line

The Outlaw said:


> This won't hit the radar of some clowns (on this site) until it affects them directly.


This is clearly the end of women's sports.  Pretty soon everyone's going to go through testosterone suppression so they can win DII titles, just like when all those dudes started cutting off their own legs so they could get blade runner prosthetics.


----------



## Justafan

The Outlaw said:


> This won't hit the radar of some clowns (on this site) until it affects them directly.


Boo


----------



## End of the Line

https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2019

This won't hit the radar of some clowns (on this site) until it affects them directly.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

The Outlaw said:


> This won't hit the radar of some clowns (on this site) until it affects them directly.


For sure, especially the title nine crowd.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

Justafan said:


> Boo


Oh, sorry snowflake... didn't realize you were a fan of men with beards and dresses "identifying" with using the little girl's restroom.

If you're born with a dick, you're a man.  If you're born with a vagina, you're a woman.  If you're born with both, you're Jamie Lee Curtis.


----------



## espola

The Outlaw said:


> Oh, sorry snowflake... didn't realize you were a fan of men with beards and dresses "identifying" with using the little girl's restroom.
> 
> If you're born with a dick, you're a man.  If you're born with a vagina, you're a woman.  If you're born with both, you're Jamie Lee Curtis.


Maybe he paid for the privilege --






--about 9:30.


----------



## Real Deal

End of the Line said:


> This is clearly the end of women's sports.  Pretty soon everyone's going to go through testosterone suppression so they can win DII titles, just like when all those dudes started cutting off their own legs so they could get blade runner prosthetics.


it's just another opportunity to start a new league!


----------



## Supermodel56

The Outlaw said:


> Oh, sorry snowflake... didn't realize you were a fan of men with beards and dresses "identifying" with using the little girl's restroom.
> 
> If you're born with a dick, you're a man.  If you're born with a vagina, you're a woman.  If you're born with both, you're Jamie Lee Curtis.


Forget about even the outwardly physical parts...  If you have XX chromosomes, you compete with the females, XY, you compete with males. simple as that. I don't care how you want to dress or what you look like.


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> Forget about even the outwardly physical parts...  If you have XX chromosomes, you compete with the females, XY, you compete with males. simple as that. I don't care how you want to dress or what you look like.


That is not all the possibilities.


----------



## Supermodel56

espola said:


> That is not all the possibilities.


I know, e, but I didn't want to get personal and drag you into this with your extra chromosome and all... or were you missing one? I forget...


----------



## espola

Supermodel56 said:


> I know, e, but I didn't want to get personal and drag you into this with your extra chromosome and all... or were you missing one? I forget...


It looks like you have been triggered.


----------



## End of the Line

Supermodel56 said:


> Forget about even the outwardly physical parts...  If you have XX chromosomes, you compete with the females, XY, you compete with males. simple as that. I don't care how you want to dress or what you look like.


Actually you are wrong.  NCAA rules are quite clear about transgender competition.  Espola is also correct in that you have definitely been triggered. 

What a great country we live in.  Little Sarah can grow up to be Steve if she wants, and vice versa.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

If Sarah wants to be Steve and compete with Cody, David and James, that's cool.  When Steve wants to compete with Julie, Michelle and Peyton, and also wants to use little Brittany's public restroom, it's a problem.


----------



## Supermodel56

The Outlaw said:


> If Sarah wants to be Steve and compete with Cody, David and James, that's cool.  When Steve wants to compete with Julie, Michelle and Peyton, and also wants to use little Brittany's public restroom, it's a problem.


I find it sad that even while the NCAA, psychologists, and experts agree that transgender identification is a psychological condition, since they've yet to figure out how to accommodate them, they've decided to just encourage these delusions (and getting the public to also play along) instead of trying to guide them back towards reality. And of course women end up getting the short end of the stick. 

You're male because you have a Y chromosome, you're female because you don't, not because you feel, act, or dress a certain way. The whole reason they created women's teams/sports is so women could have an opportunity to compete on a level playing field - the Y chromosome promotes different physical development that can be very advantageous in sports - creating an unfair advantage. Allowing genetically biological men to compete in the women's category is extremely unfair to women who've trained their entire lives to be there. Even with hormone therapy - especially if that therapy started AFTER puberty - their bones, frames, muscles, etc... have already developed bigger/stronger/denser, giving clear advantage. 

I get it, we want to be sensitive to these folks - many of whom have been treated terribly by some - which needs to be stopped. But denying reality and their true gender isn't the answer, especially when it comes at the expense of another historically disenfranchised group. It's also extremely dangerous to themselves when they report to medical professionals their identifying gender instead of their real one...


----------



## MR.D

Supermodel56 said:


> I find it sad that even while the NCAA, psychologists, and experts agree that transgender identification is a psychological condition, since they've yet to figure out how to accommodate them, they've decided to just encourage these delusions (and getting the public to also play along) instead of trying to guide them back towards reality. And of course women end up getting the short end of the stick.
> 
> You're male because you have a Y chromosome, you're female because you don't, not because you feel, act, or dress a certain way. The whole reason they created women's teams/sports is so women could have an opportunity to compete on a level playing field - the Y chromosome promotes different physical development that can be very advantageous in sports - creating an unfair advantage. Allowing genetically biological men to compete in the women's category is extremely unfair to women who've trained their entire lives to be there. Even with hormone therapy - especially if that therapy started AFTER puberty - their bones, frames, muscles, etc... have already developed bigger/stronger/denser, giving clear advantage.
> 
> I get it, we want to be sensitive to these folks - many of whom have been treated terribly by some - which needs to be stopped. But denying reality and their true gender isn't the answer, especially when it comes at the expense of another historically disenfranchised group. It's also extremely dangerous to themselves when they report to medical professionals their identifying gender instead of their real one...


I totally agree with this post.  How do you feel about the South African girl - Caster Semenya, who sport is track and field, being forced to take drugs to limit her testosterone levels?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2019/05/01/olympics-7-questions-caster-semenyas-appeal-loss-iaafs-rules/3637922002/


----------



## End of the Line

Supermodel56 said:


> I find it sad that even while the NCAA, psychologists, and experts agree that transgender identification is a psychological condition, since they've yet to figure out how to accommodate them, they've decided to just encourage these delusions (and getting the public to also play along) instead of trying to guide them back towards reality. And of course women end up getting the short end of the stick.
> 
> You're male because you have a Y chromosome, you're female because you don't, not because you feel, act, or dress a certain way. The whole reason they created women's teams/sports is so women could have an opportunity to compete on a level playing field - the Y chromosome promotes different physical development that can be very advantageous in sports - creating an unfair advantage. Allowing genetically biological men to compete in the women's category is extremely unfair to women who've trained their entire lives to be there. Even with hormone therapy - especially if that therapy started AFTER puberty - their bones, frames, muscles, etc... have already developed bigger/stronger/denser, giving clear advantage.
> 
> I get it, we want to be sensitive to these folks - many of whom have been treated terribly by some - which needs to be stopped. But denying reality and their true gender isn't the answer, especially when it comes at the expense of another historically disenfranchised group. It's also extremely dangerous to themselves when they report to medical professionals their identifying gender instead of their real one...


Get used to feeling sad.  NCAA decided trans athletes can participate and that is that.


----------



## End of the Line

MR.D said:


> I totally agree with this post.  How do you feel about the South African girl - Caster Semenya, who sport is track and field, being forced to take drugs to limit her testosterone levels?
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2019/05/01/olympics-7-questions-caster-semenyas-appeal-loss-iaafs-rules/3637922002/


Your information is outdated.


----------



## MR.D

End of the Line said:


> Your information is outdated.


Outdated by what, a month?  So what.  It's still an issue.


----------



## dk_b

Not sure how many of you have been around trans people but to think that some guys are going to front just to (i) compete in sports or (ii) oogle at naked girls and women is unsupported by any data or even by anecdote.  I do think that the sports discussion is a good one and an important one (and a hard one for a lot of progressives who believe in supporting transwomen but who find themselves confronting some limits to that support; it is much easier for people who do not believe there is such a thing as gender dysphoria or who do not believe in supporting the rights of members of the LGBTQ community).  And a good and important discussion could be had without resorting to tropes or insults, even when people disagree.  (that's my belief, anyway)

A few years ago there was hysteria about young (elementary and middle school) transgirls changing in girls' locker rooms and using girls' bathrooms.  There was unsupported fear of boys doing it for kicks.  The reality is that no straight middle school boy is going to go the lengths to publicly live as a girl just to cop a view or compete on a girls' team.  The kids who do live as transgirls are doing much more than playing dress-up or fronting.


----------



## Just A Dad

MR.D said:


> I totally agree with this post.  How do you feel about the South African girl - Caster Semenya, who sport is track and field, being forced to take drugs to limit her testosterone levels?
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2019/05/01/olympics-7-questions-caster-semenyas-appeal-loss-iaafs-rules/3637922002/


USA Today leave out in this article that she does have a Y chromosome
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/


----------



## MR.D

Just A Dad said:


> USA Today leave out in this article that she does have a Y chromosome
> https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/


Interesting article.  Thanks.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

The end of June can't come soon enough...


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Supermodel56 said:


> I find it sad that even while the NCAA, psychologists, and experts agree that transgender identification is a psychological condition, since they've yet to figure out how to accommodate them, they've decided to just encourage these delusions (and getting the public to also play along) instead of trying to guide them back towards reality. And of course women end up getting the short end of the stick.
> 
> You're male because you have a Y chromosome, you're female because you don't, not because you feel, act, or dress a certain way. The whole reason they created women's teams/sports is so women could have an opportunity to compete on a level playing field - the Y chromosome promotes different physical development that can be very advantageous in sports - creating an unfair advantage. Allowing genetically biological men to compete in the women's category is extremely unfair to women who've trained their entire lives to be there. Even with hormone therapy - especially if that therapy started AFTER puberty - their bones, frames, muscles, etc... have already developed bigger/stronger/denser, giving clear advantage.
> 
> I get it, we want to be sensitive to these folks - many of whom have been treated terribly by some - which needs to be stopped. But denying reality and their true gender isn't the answer, especially when it comes at the expense of another historically disenfranchised group. It's also extremely dangerous to themselves when they report to medical professionals their identifying gender instead of their real one...


The baby killing alarmist  feminazis only agree with science when speaking of global warming, global cooling and climate change.


----------



## Justafan

Sheriff Joe said:


> The baby killing alarmist  feminazis only agree with science when speaking of global warming, global cooling and climate change.


Tell that to Outlaw, he’s the idiot who ignored science and said dick = male, no dick = female. According to him Semenya is all female and can compete with females.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Justafan said:


> Tell that to Outlaw, he’s the idiot who ignored science and said dick = male, no dick = female. According to him Semenya is all female and can compete with females.


And what’s wrong with that?


----------



## Ricky Fandango

Justafan said:


> Tell that to Outlaw, he’s the idiot who ignored science and said dick = male, no dick = female. According to him Semenya is all female and can compete with females.


*"born with"


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

Justafan said:


> Tell that to Outlaw, he’s the idiot who ignored science and said dick = male, no dick = female. According to him Semenya is all female and can compete with females.


Oh yeah... I'm an idiot because you found the one freak who plays sports in order to have an unfair advantage.


----------



## Justafan

Ricky Fandango said:


> *"born with"


Semenya born with no dick, so she gets to run with the females right?  You lose.  Get your ass back to the off topic forum.


----------



## espola

The Outlaw said:


> Oh yeah... I'm an idiot because you found the one freak who plays sports in order to have an unfair advantage.


You seem to be disadvantaged in the "writing coherent sentences" skill.


----------



## espola

Justafan said:


> Semenya born with no dick, so she gets to run with the females right?  You lose.  Get your ass back to the off topic forum.


I think there was a time when the East Germans perfected the technique of surgically altering male athletes just enough to pass the Olympic physical examination that athletes claiming to be female might be subjected.  Talk about a life-long commitment to your sport!


----------



## Sheriff Joe

espola said:


> You seem to be disadvantaged in the "writing coherent sentences" skill.


You win, you’re the dick born with no dick.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

Justafan said:


> Semenya born with no dick, so she gets to run with the females right?  You lose.  Get your ass back to the off topic forum.


I think she should, not her choice.
You people love choice and anyone who chooses to pretend to b something they are not shouldn’t be allowed in any competition except hot dog eating contests.


----------



## Supermodel56

Sheriff Joe said:


> I think she should, not her choice.
> You people love choice and anyone who chooses to pretend to b something they are not shouldn’t be allowed in any competition except hot dog eating contests.


She was born with XY so she actually should be categorized as male. I recall from the article she wasn’t born with a penis but actually started growing one as she hit puberty. That Y chromosome doesn’t mess around.

Unless she has tried to switch herself, to be fair, this isn’t her fault. In this case, she was actually born this way - what a tough case - up until puberty she thought of herself as a girl because she didn’t have a penis but then grew one - I mean who would’ve thunk?!?

But again, blood tests should’ve seen the Y chromosome and she should’ve been classified as male from day one instead.


----------



## 3thatplay

I wonder if Caitlyn Jenner in her prime would've benefited from this...


----------



## Ricky Fandango

Justafan said:


> Semenya born with no dick, so she gets to run with the females right?  You lose.  Get your ass back to the off topic forum.


"He hate me"?
Was he born without the beans too, or just sans frank?


----------



## Ricky Fandango

Supermodel56 said:


> She was born with XY so she actually should be categorized as male. I recall from the article she wasn’t born with a penis but actually started growing one as she hit puberty. That Y chromosome doesn’t mess around.
> 
> Unless she has tried to switch herself, to be fair, this isn’t her fault. In this case, she was actually born this way - what a tough case - up until puberty she thought of herself as a girl because she didn’t have a penis but then grew one - I mean who would’ve thunk?!?
> 
> But again, blood tests should’ve seen the Y chromosome and she should’ve been classified as male from day one instead.


This is a very rare case any way you look at it, and the rules of any sport should not be altered to the point of an absolutely absurd contingency.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

espola said:


> You seem to be disadvantaged in the "writing coherent sentences" skill.


Strange... nobody else struggled with comprehension.  "She" possesses a "Y"... so it is not a woman.


----------



## espola

The Outlaw said:


> Strange... nobody else struggled with comprehension.  "She" possesses a "Y"... so it is not a woman.


Nice try, but that's not the part that is incoherent.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

espola said:


> Nice try, but that's not the part that is incoherent.


Exactly... you're the part that's incoherent.


----------



## espola

The Outlaw said:


> Exactly... you're the part that's incoherent.


What part don't you understand?  Perhaps I can guide you through it one word at a time.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

espola said:


> What part don't you understand?  Perhaps I can guide you through it one word at a time.


Everyone else got it but you.

~ Elephant in the room


----------



## espola

The Outlaw said:


> Everyone else got it but you.
> 
> ~ Elephant in the room


Let's see -- you said about me "you're the part that's incoherent."  I then offered to help you since you found me incoherent - "What part don't you understand? Perhaps I can guide you through it one word at a time."  Now you have responded with "Everyone else got it but you."

It appears that not only your writing, but your reading as well, is incoherent.


----------



## SpeedK1llz

Where are those e-mails?


----------



## Dummy

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-20/la-sp-ucla-athlete-recruits-children-coaches-admissions-20190721


----------



## espola

Dummy said:


> https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-20/la-sp-ucla-athlete-recruits-children-coaches-admissions-20190721


I hate to say it, but we have come to the point that (except for the particular names in an instance) this isn't even surprising anymore.


----------



## Soccer43

And it seems no one really cares and nothing is being done to hold people accountable or to change policy or protocol.  I feel for the top gymnasts that had been interested in competing with UCLA but didn’t get a spot on the roster those years.


----------



## espola

Soccer43 said:


> And it seems no one really cares and nothing is being done to hold people accountable or to change policy or protocol.  I feel for the top gymnasts that had been interested in competing with UCLA but didn’t get a spot on the roster those years.


Several coaches and administrators have lost their jobs so far, others (including parents) are facing legal charges, so I wouldn't say nothing has been done.  What I fear, however, is that this only scratches the surface and that there are perhaps 10 times as many cases of abuse more or less identical to those that have been exposed that are sitting like quietly ticking time bombs.  The old days of coaches quietly being let go because they helped one of their athletes write a paper so he could pass a class and stay academically eligible seem like small potatoes now.


----------



## gkrent

Soccer43 said:


> And it seems no one really cares and nothing is being done to hold people accountable or to change policy or protocol.  I feel for the top gymnasts that had been interested in competing with UCLA but didn’t get a spot on the roster those years.


I love how this article addressed the grossness of this "side door".  It just looks bad.


----------



## espola

I'm not sure if this is related to the entrance scam or not - the AD at UNC-Greensboro was fired because he had a gambling habit ($20,000 to $30,000 losses) that included betting on UNCG teams.  Shoved into the news article in an oh-by-the-way fashion is the firing of the just hired men's soccer coach, before his team has played a single NCAA game.  

Meanwhile, men’s soccer coach EJ O’Keeffe, a Greensboro native and university alumnus, resigned this week, just six months after he was hired, amid an ongoing NCAA investigation. Athletics director Kim Record declined to comment on that investigation.

https://www.greensboro.com/sports/college/uncg-gets-three-years-of-ncaa-probation-soccer-investigation-pending/article_6eab650a-af13-11e9-9f1a-2b39036f6c9c.html​


----------



## Soccer43

espola said:


> Several coaches and administrators have lost their jobs so far, others (including parents) are facing legal charges, so I wouldn't say nothing has been done.  What I fear, however, is that this only scratches the surface and that there are perhaps 10 times as many cases of abuse more or less identical to those that have been exposed that are sitting like quietly ticking time bombs.  The old days of coaches quietly being let go because they helped one of their athletes write a paper so he could pass a class and stay academically eligible seem like small potatoes now.


I was talking about anything happening at UCLA-  aside from the Men’s soccer coach getting fired nothing else has happened to any other coach, athletic director or any investigation or policy changes.  It seems as if it is being ignored to see if it will just all drift away


----------



## tenacious

This article is really looking at broader issues of what'd going on at elite universities, then just the admissions scandal.
That said, the subject gets touched on, and is a very different take then I've read before.... 




> https://palladiummag.com/2019/08/05/the-real-problem-at-yale-is-not-free-speech/
> *The Real Problem At Yale Is Not Free Speech *
> 
> hen I saw him, he was outside Payne Whitney. Nothing about the tall, gray façade suggests it is the university gym, unless there is a new trend of contractors housing athletics departments in Gothic cathedrals. You wouldn’t guess by looking at the frosted glass panes and arches that the third floor hosts the world’s largest suspended indoor swimming pool. It is a work of art, like the rest of Yale’s buildings.
> 
> Marcus was smoking by a bench, his face jaundiced from three packs that day. This is atypical for Yale students—most abstain from smoking. There was no reason for him to smoke so much, just as there was no reason for me to ride around campus on a blue Razor scooter. But Yale students tend to have such quirks. His suit-jacket was dusty and smelled of sweat—he didn’t mind lifting weights in a dress shirt and trousers if that meant more time to read Nietzsche alone at the bar.
> 
> When I hugged him, he felt skeletal. I asked if he had eaten today. He assured me that his earthly requirements were limited—no need for anything other than alcohol and cigarettes. “I can buy you a sandwich.” He refused. I insisted. A nice one. Bacon and egg. Or steak and cheese. I was testy now. “GHeav is right there. I’ll be back in six minutes.”
> 
> He turned his face towards me, warm with friendliness—and with one sentence, he changed our relationship forever.
> 
> “You know I’m rich, right?”
> 
> “What?”
> 
> “You know I have a trust fund, right? I can buy my own sandwich if I wanted it.”
> 
> This is the moment when after three years of friendship, Marcus sat down and told me his life story. His cottages in Norway. Sneaking into the family study. Learning about the cost of hardwoods and hearing his boorish, critical father sulk in 5-star hotel rooms.
> 
> Marcus did not act this way out of anxiety, grief, stress, or because he had nobody to tell him his habits will kill him. He lived as a starving writer not out of necessity, but for the aesthetic. Out of some desire to imitate the Bohemian 19th century writers. Out of artistry. Style. Intentional choice.
> 
> In terms of income at Yale, I was in the bottom 2%. And the people to whom I extended my generosity did not need it, whatsoever. This is mildly entertaining, but not the point. This is not a story about me, or about Marcus, or about our amusing adventures at Yale.
> 
> This is a story about an institution and an elite that have lost themselves.
> 
> ***
> 
> The top universities can’t keep out of national news. Just in the past few months, there have been several high-profile stories about Yale and Harvard. Harvard is being sued for discrimination against Asians. Yale is being sued for not admitting women into its fraternities.
> 
> These scandals have been framed as a consequence of the culture wars. Left versus right. Political correctness versus free speech. Empathy and inclusion versus economic realities. Students fighting for social and racial justice against morally bankrupt faculty and administrators. But after attending Yale for some of the larger scandals in recent years, these dichotomies ring hollow.


----------



## outside!

SpeedK1llz said:


> Where are those e-mails?


Bump


----------



## Zerodenero

tenacious said:


> This article is really looking at broader issues of what'd going on at elite universities, then just the admissions scandal.
> That said, the subject gets touched on, and is a very different take then I've read before....


Complex. And based on what I’ve seen/learning, accurate.

Reminds me of a story about  a group of people w/so much myopic pride in their intellectual thought/power that they built a tower to be equivalent to god. That tower crumbled.....The people, and their single language....were disbursed.

There is not a day that goes by that I don’t pray for my kiddo to hold onto the lessons/values she learned while under our roof. She’s going into her 2nd year and has gone/going thru a $hit storm of physical injury (2 concussions) and leadership maylay (FBI scandal), all while being intellectually challenged more than ever. She tells me there are a lot of  kids who are so above the charts, naturally brilliant that it makes her feel well, sorta dumb (in comparison).

And yet, in her brief 3week stint of her being home last month, I specifically asked if she still likes and enjoys her life/experience at Yale?....her response was along the lines of  “without a doubt dad, I love it”.

I’ve forwarded the article to my kiddo & pending  her thoughts/feedback.

Thanks for sharing


----------



## tenacious

Zerodenero said:


> Complex. And based on what I’ve seen/learning, accurate.
> 
> Reminds me of a story about  a group of people w/so much myopic pride in their intellectual thought/power that they built a tower to be equivalent to god. That tower crumbled.....The people, and their single language....were disbursed.
> 
> There is not a day that goes by that I don’t pray for my kiddo to hold onto the lessons/values she learned while under our roof. She’s going into her 2nd year and has gone/going thru a $hit storm of physical injury (2 concussions) and leadership maylay (FBI scandal), all while being intellectually challenged more than ever. She tells me there are a lot of  kids who are so above the charts, naturally brilliant that it makes her feel well, sorta dumb (in comparison).
> 
> And yet, in her brief 3week stint of her being home last month, I specifically asked if she still likes and enjoys her life/experience at Yale?....her response was along the lines of  “without a doubt dad, I love it”.
> 
> I’ve forwarded the article to my kiddo & pending  her thoughts/feedback.
> 
> Thanks for sharing



Cheers mate, and best of luck to your daughter.  I'm sure she's going to do great!


----------



## End of the Line

Zerodenero said:


> Complex. And based on what I’ve seen/learning, accurate.
> 
> Reminds me of a story about  a group of people w/so much myopic pride in their intellectual thought/power that they built a tower to be equivalent to god. That tower crumbled.....The people, and their single language....were disbursed.
> 
> There is not a day that goes by that I don’t pray for my kiddo to hold onto the lessons/values she learned while under our roof. She’s going into her 2nd year and has gone/going thru a $hit storm of physical injury (2 concussions) and leadership maylay (FBI scandal), all while being intellectually challenged more than ever. She tells me there are a lot of  kids who are so above the charts, naturally brilliant that it makes her feel well, sorta dumb (in comparison).
> 
> And yet, in her brief 3week stint of her being home last month, I specifically asked if she still likes and enjoys her life/experience at Yale?....her response was along the lines of  “without a doubt dad, I love it”.
> 
> I’ve forwarded the article to my kiddo & pending  her thoughts/feedback.
> 
> Thanks for sharing


It's hard to pierce the author's bombast (e.g. "[h]e smoked, not out of addiction, but as if a Davidoff was the natural pairing for a stroll through the cherry blossoms, just as you would eat a scone with English breakfast tea"), but I don't think you understand the point of the article. She essentially says the rich ruling class needs to get its s**t together and stop pretending they can't afford a sandwich.  The rich rulers of Yale need to stop letting bourgie administrators get so uppity, and their rich millennial offspring need to stop being so embarrassed about their wealth and power.  Instead of abdicating their responsibilities by engaging in altruistic and idealistic behavior, these rich millennials need to get back to the serious business of ruling over others - responsibly of course.  In short, the rich elites need to stop letting students and  power hungry administrators dictate the narrative. In fact, rabble rousing students should be expelled forthwith. 

I guess you can take the girl out of Russia, but you can't take Russia out of the girl.


----------



## Zerodenero

End of the Line said:


> It's hard to pierce the author's bombast (e.g. "[h]e smoked, not out of addiction, but as if a Davidoff was the natural pairing for a stroll through the cherry blossoms, just as you would eat a scone with English breakfast tea"), but I don't think you understand the point of the article. She essentially says the rich ruling class needs to get its s**t together and stop pretending they can't afford a sandwich.  The rich rulers of Yale need to stop letting bourgie administrators get so uppity, and their rich millennial offspring need to stop being so embarrassed about their wealth and power.  Instead of abdicating their responsibilities by engaging in altruistic and idealistic behavior, these rich millennials need to get back to the serious business of ruling over others - responsibly of course.  In short, the rich elites need to stop letting students and  power hungry administrators dictate the narrative. In fact, rabble rousing students should be expelled forthwith.
> 
> I guess you can take the girl out of Russia, but you can't take Russia out of the girl.


Correction compadre.....I fully understand the point of the article. My comment/response is above/beyond his point and your breakdown.

But hey, what do I know....... I'm just a partially edjumacated, laymen pop who attended the world-renowned, University of Hard Knocks.


----------



## tenacious

End of the Line said:


> It's hard to pierce the author's bombast (e.g. "[h]e smoked, not out of addiction, but as if a Davidoff was the natural pairing for a stroll through the cherry blossoms, just as you would eat a scone with English breakfast tea"), but I don't think you understand the point of the article. She essentially says the rich ruling class needs to get its s**t together and stop pretending they can't afford a sandwich.  The rich rulers of Yale need to stop letting bourgie administrators get so uppity, and their rich millennial offspring need to stop being so embarrassed about their wealth and power.  Instead of abdicating their responsibilities by engaging in altruistic and idealistic behavior, these rich millennials need to get back to the serious business of ruling over others - responsibly of course.  In short, the rich elites need to stop letting students and  power hungry administrators dictate the narrative. In fact, rabble rousing students should be expelled forthwith.
> 
> I guess you can take the girl out of Russia, but you can't take Russia out of the girl.


Fair comments.  Although not sure about the taking a girl out of Russia line?

Guess my thinking is I don't know that she was saying elites "need to" do anything, so much as simply noting that throughout history free loaders tend to piss one's neighbors off.  And rather then running around pretending to be middle class to avoid feelings of responsibility or focusing on meaningless pet causes that are really about making themselves feel good; the elites would be better served by simply behaving benevolently to their fellow citizens.  I.e. organizing marches at Yale isn't going to mean shite to the middle-class and poor people if the unwashed masses end up sending a bunch of socialists to Washington because they begin to believe the system has been corrupted.

Review the rest of the posts in this thread on the college cheating scandal- for an example of how not to do this...


----------



## gkrent

More at UCLA...this situation is particular egregious due to the financial awards given:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-dollar100000-bribe-got-teen-a-ucla-soccer-scholarship-without-even-playing/ar-AAG0TjK


----------



## End of the Line

tenacious said:


> Fair comments.  Although not sure about the taking a girl out of Russia line?
> 
> Guess my thinking is I don't know that she was saying elites "need to" do anything, so much as simply noting that throughout history free loaders tend to piss one's neighbors off.  And rather then running around pretending to be middle class to avoid feelings of responsibility or focusing on meaningless pet causes that are really about making themselves feel good; the elites would be better served by simply behaving benevolently to their fellow citizens.  I.e. organizing marches at Yale isn't going to mean shite to the middle-class and poor people if they end up sending a bunch of socialists to Washington because they begin to believe the system has been corrupted.
> 
> Review the rest of the posts in this thread on the college cheating scandal- for an example of how not to do this...


The author is Russian.  Arguing that rich elites should get back to being more authoritarian (benevolently of course) is a typically Russian point of view.  Those who are trying to equate the nonsense in her article with the college cheating scandal and bible parables are trying way too hard to find connections that don't exist.  The reality is that some rich people use their money to cheat the system.  Some poor cheat the system by parting the rich people from some of their money.  And then everyone misses the point by blaming "the system" instead of the perps, because that's the only way people get to feel sorry for themselves over wrongdoing that has nothing to do with them.

The posts in this thread do not shed light on anything really.  For the most part, they blame the victims of the fraud (the universities) and try to find ways to take it personally with some fake harm to themselves, such as claiming that they're so offended that their tax dollars went to a school that didn't prevent fraud before it happened.  Of course, they ignore that they don't want to pay more tax payer dollars to hire staff to ensure that UCLA is never defrauded by anyone ever for anything.  They also argue that they've been held down by a rigged "system" and their lives ruined by some "institutionalized" fraud, whether it was not getting into UCLA because someone got an athletic admission they didn't deserve, or maybe that is just one example of how they've been screwed in some amorphous way that they can't pin down, but surely there must be some explanation for their failure in life that doesn't involve personal accountability. Then they spout conspiracy theories - mostly about how UCLA is involved in a cover up - because UCLA has the good sense (or gall if you're one of the conspiracy theorists) to not discuss student and personnel matters in press releases.


----------



## Glen

End of the Line said:


> The author is Russian.  Arguing that rich elites should get back to being more authoritarian (benevolently of course) is a typically Russian point of view.  Those who are trying to equate the nonsense in her article with the college cheating scandal and bible parables are trying way too hard to find connections that don't exist.  The reality is that some rich people use their money to cheat the system.  Some poor cheat the system by parting the rich people from some of their money.  And then everyone misses the point by blaming "the system" instead of the perps, because that's the only way people get to feel sorry for themselves over wrongdoing that has nothing to do with them.
> 
> The posts in this thread do not shed light on anything really.  For the most part, they blame the victims of the fraud (the universities) and try to find ways to take it personally with some fake harm to themselves, such as claiming that they're so offended that their tax dollars went to a school that didn't prevent fraud before it happened.  Of course, they ignore that they don't want to pay more tax payer dollars to hire staff to ensure that UCLA is never defrauded by anyone ever for anything.  They also argue that they've been held down by a rigged "system" and their lives ruined by some "institutionalized" fraud, whether it was not getting into UCLA because someone got an athletic admission they didn't deserve, or maybe that is just one example of how they've been screwed in some amorphous way that they can't pin down, but surely there must be some explanation for their failure in life that doesn't involve personal accountability. Then they spout conspiracy theories - mostly about how UCLA is involved in a cover up - because UCLA has the good sense (or gall if you're one of the conspiracy theorists) to not discuss student and personnel matters in press releases.


You are so right.  The public should turn a blind eye to public corruption when individuals cannot identify any direct harm.  Why should anyone care?  I mean seriously, who cares if a public employee or official skims money from the public coffers.  It's not like anyone can directly trace their tax dollars to the scheme.   The same should go for our public educational institutions.  Everyone knows that these institutions don't represent a fair opportunity for economic mobility by virtue of merit.  This faux concern expressed about academic and institutional integrity is cringe-worthy.  Who cares? UCLA has allowed this behavior to go on for years without consequence and no one raised an eyebrow.  Why else would a school have a rowing team other than to admit unqualified students?  At this point, we should know that the system is not rigged, it's just the system.  Save your outrage people!


----------



## tenacious

End of the Line said:


> The author is Russian.  Arguing that rich elites should get back to being more authoritarian (benevolently of course) is a typically Russian point of view.  Those who are trying to equate the nonsense in her article with the college cheating scandal and bible parables are trying way too hard to find connections that don't exist.  The reality is that some rich people use their money to cheat the system.  Some poor cheat the system by parting the rich people from some of their money.  And then everyone misses the point by blaming "the system" instead of the perps, because that's the only way people get to feel sorry for themselves over wrongdoing that has nothing to do with them.
> 
> The posts in this thread do not shed light on anything really.  For the most part, they blame the victims of the fraud (the universities) and try to find ways to take it personally with some fake harm to themselves, such as claiming that they're so offended that their tax dollars went to a school that didn't prevent fraud before it happened.  Of course, they ignore that they don't want to pay more tax payer dollars to hire staff to ensure that UCLA is never defrauded by anyone ever for anything.  They also argue that they've been held down by a rigged "system" and their lives ruined by some "institutionalized" fraud, whether it was not getting into UCLA because someone got an athletic admission they didn't deserve, or maybe that is just one example of how they've been screwed in some amorphous way that they can't pin down, but surely there must be some explanation for their failure in life that doesn't involve personal accountability. Then they spout conspiracy theories - mostly about how UCLA is involved in a cover up - because UCLA has the good sense (or gall if you're one of the conspiracy theorists) to not discuss student and personnel matters in press releases.


Yes, how savvy of UCLA not to discuss how the coach put a player made the women's roster who never played soccer, and whose parents have been charged with bribing her way into the University by the federal government.   lol, although it might be more accurate to frame it like  "UCLA has the good sense to not discuss" federal investigations into their athletics under the advise of council.  But hey, the team might win a national title so I can sure see why they want to turn the blind eye. When does the case go to court again?

As for the rest; Russia, conspiracy theories, etc.  I'll leave it up to individual readers to decide for themselves.
My two cents, time to disband the useless NCAA and demand a shake up in the UCLA athletics department.


----------



## End of the Line

tenacious said:


> Yes, how savvy of UCLA not to discuss how the coach put a player made the women's roster who never played soccer, and whose parents have been charged with bribing her way into the University by the federal government.   lol, although it might be more accurate to frame it like  "UCLA has the good sense to not discuss" federal investigations into their athletics under the advise of council.  But hey, the team might win a national title so I can sure see why they want to turn the blind eye. When does the case go to court again?
> 
> As for the rest; Russia, conspiracy theories, etc.  I'll leave it up to individual readers to decide for themselves.
> My two cents, time to disband the useless NCAA and demand a shake up in the UCLA athletics department.


I know it hurts that the emails you were hoping would support your conspiracy theory don't exist, and there isn't any evidence UCLA knew anything or that Cromwell took money or did anything other than a favor for a colleague, so let me help you out.  Since there isn't any evidence to support anything you're saying, I recommend you next argue that the conspiracy was so conspiratorial, so deep state-ish, so profoundly evil, that all the conspirators knew not to commit anything to writing or, worse, UCLA burned all the computers, phones and servers and is now hiding behind an army of lawyers.  In other words, the mere fact that there is no evidence is actually the best evidence of all.

Or maybe those who deserved to get fired and criminally prosecuted did.  Maybe, just maybe, UCLA responded perfectly to the fraud, including not giving a s**t what 2-3 nobodies at an online youth soccer forum think.  You should be like the dude who's boycotting UCLA over this and sending his daughter to pristine Georgetown, a college funded by the slave trade, run by an organization that still protects child molesters and rapists, and had 12x as many kids admitted as part of the same scandal.  Go Hoyas!


----------



## oh canada

As I called for when this broke, Swann is now out as AD at USC.  'Bout time.  Timing is odd with the Trojans 2-0 on the football field?  Could signal more bad headlines to come soon.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/09/09/usc-lynn-swanns-resignation-means-trojans-hire-real-ad/2269594001/


----------



## espola

oh canada said:


> As I called for when this broke, Swann is now out as AD at USC.  'Bout time.  Timing is odd with the Trojans 2-0 on the football field?  Could signal more bad headlines to come soon.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/09/09/usc-lynn-swanns-resignation-means-trojans-hire-real-ad/2269594001/


From the article --

There’s no doubt USC’s last three athletics directors — Mike Garrett, Pat Haden and Swann — were all successful as alumni, NFL players and in their post-football careers. But none of them would have been hired to lead an athletic department anywhere but their alma maters, and it showed in the impulsive, naïve and disastrous ways they ran USC football into the ground.​
As I told my wife - he either knew what was going on, which would make him complicit, or he didn't, which would make him incompetent.


----------



## sirfootyalot

espola said:


> From the article --
> 
> There’s no doubt USC’s last three athletics directors — Mike Garrett, Pat Haden and Swann — were all successful as alumni, NFL players and in their post-football careers. But none of them would have been hired to lead an athletic department anywhere but their alma maters, and it showed in the impulsive, naïve and disastrous ways they ran USC football into the ground.​
> As I told my wife - he either knew what was going on, which would make him complicit, or he didn't, which would make him incompetent.


Just like how Coach Cromwell is either complicit, or incompetent


----------



## Glen

oh canada said:


> As I called for when this broke, Swann is now out as AD at USC.  'Bout time.  Timing is odd with the Trojans 2-0 on the football field?  Could signal more bad headlines to come soon.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/09/09/usc-lynn-swanns-resignation-means-trojans-hire-real-ad/2269594001/


USC has a new president.  She is in the process of cleaning house.  Almost everyone has been pushed out.  This is just another step.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

espola said:


> From the article --
> 
> There’s no doubt USC’s last three athletics directors — Mike Garrett, Pat Haden and Swann — were all successful as alumni, NFL players and in their post-football careers. But none of them would have been hired to lead an athletic department anywhere but their alma maters, and it showed in the impulsive, naïve and disastrous ways they ran USC football into the ground.​
> As I told my wife - he either knew what was going on, which would make him complicit, or he didn't, which would make him incompetent.


I think it was actually Sam Rothstein that said it... not you.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

End of the Line said:


> I know it hurts that the emails you were hoping would support your conspiracy theory don't exist, and there isn't any evidence UCLA knew anything or that Cromwell took money or did anything other than a favor for a colleague, so let me help you out.  Since there isn't any evidence to support anything you're saying, I recommend you next argue that the conspiracy was so conspiratorial, so deep state-ish, so profoundly evil, that all the conspirators knew not to commit anything to writing or, worse, UCLA burned all the computers, phones and servers and is now hiding behind an army of lawyers.  In other words, the mere fact that there is no evidence is actually the best evidence of all.
> 
> Or maybe those who deserved to get fired and criminally prosecuted did.  Maybe, just maybe, UCLA responded perfectly to the fraud, including not giving a s**t what 2-3 nobodies at an online youth soccer forum think.  You should be like the dude who's boycotting UCLA over this and sending his daughter to pristine Georgetown, a college funded by the slave trade, run by an organization that still protects child molesters and rapists, and had 12x as many kids admitted as part of the same scandal.  Go Hoyas!


Fake News.


----------



## Tyler Durden

Interesting article on entrance into Ivy League Schools for Athletes in Pay to Play Sports

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/harvard-university-and-scandal-sports-recruitment/599248/


----------



## Swoosh

Sentencing next week?


----------



## Zerodenero

Swoosh said:


> Sentencing next week?


Your Honor, I’m innocent. I promise. 

-Honest Engine


----------



## Justafan

Tyler Durden said:


> Interesting article on entrance into Ivy League Schools for Athletes in Pay to Play Sports
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/harvard-university-and-scandal-sports-recruitment/599248/


Totally agree with the article even though it doesn’t cite soccer as a true “rich kid” sport.  Even so, nobody can deny we have a nice little racket going on here.  And yes I am guilty as charged. I am definitely playing the “game” to see if it can help my dd’s get in to their college of choice.  I’m not snitching anytime soon, but we can’t deny that the current system only helps girls who play club, which in turn is not available to a lot of kids.


----------



## Supermodel56

Justafan said:


> Totally agree with the article even though it doesn’t cite soccer as a true “rich kid” sport.  Even so, nobody can deny we have a nice little racket going on here.  And yes I am guilty as charged. I am definitely playing the “game” to see if it can help my dd’s get in to their college of choice.  I’m not snitching anytime soon, but we can’t deny that the current system only helps girls who play club, which in turn is not available to a lot of kids.


Yeah, but do you really think it’s racial? Or just white people are willing to spend the time and money to pursue it? If the argument was there aren’t as many blacks, Hispanics or asians trying out for those sports, would those applicants get preference?


----------



## goldentoe

Supermodel56 said:


> Yeah, but do you really think it’s racial? Or just white people are willing to spend the time and money to pursue it? If the argument was there aren’t as many blacks, Hispanics or asians trying out for those sports, would those applicants get preference?


The article’s from The Atlantic, so it’s basically trash. Race bait is their focus genre.


----------



## Justafan

Supermodel56 said:


> Yeah, but do you really think it’s racial? Or just white people are willing to spend the time and money to pursue it? If the argument was there aren’t as many blacks, Hispanics or asians trying out for those sports, would those applicants get preference?


Who said anything about racial?? It’s about SES and if you have the money for it, you have access to it.  I don’t quite understand your post  (i.e. “getting preference.”).


----------



## Justafan

goldentoe said:


> The article’s from The Atlantic, so it’s basically trash. Race bait is their focus genre.


What’s trash about it? Is what they are saying not true.


----------



## Supermodel56

Justafan said:


> Who said anything about racial?? It’s about SES and if you have the money for it, you have access to it.  I don’t quite understand your post  (i.e. “getting preference.”).


The article keeps referencing “rich white applicants” accusing Harvard of intentionally giving preference by race when it comes to athletics - sounds pretty racial to me.

“Harvard does give preferential treatment to affluent white applicants”


----------



## goldentoe

Justafan said:


> What’s trash about it? Is what they are saying not true.


“While there is nothing morally wrong with enjoying a game of catch in a pool, participation in these activities has come to play a subtle, yet ludicrously powerful, role in the reproduction of elite status in the United States.”  

Cultural bias at it’s finest.  Enjoy....


----------



## Justafan

Supermodel56 said:


> The article keeps referencing “rich white applicants” accusing Harvard of intentionally giving preference by race when it comes to athletics - sounds pretty racial to me.
> 
> “Harvard does give preferential treatment to affluent white applicants”


Read the article, it says legacy and athletics primarily benefit white students.  They provide the stats, so if those stats are valid then it’s just stating facts.  You’re reading way too much into it.


----------



## Justafan

goldentoe said:


> “While there is nothing morally wrong with enjoying a game of catch in a pool, participation in these activities has come to play a subtle, yet ludicrously powerful, role in the reproduction of elite status in the United States.”
> 
> Cultural bias at it’s finest.  Enjoy....


I’ll give you that this paragraph may show some bias (“catch in the pool” “ludicrously powerful”), but I’m focusing on the stats.


----------



## Justus

Justafan said:


> Totally agree with the article even though it doesn’t cite soccer as a true “rich kid” sport.  Even so, nobody can deny we have a nice little racket going on here.  And yes I am guilty as charged. I am definitely playing the “game” to see if it can help my dd’s get in to their college of choice.  I’m not snitching anytime soon, but we can’t deny that the current system only helps girls who play club, which in turn is not available to a lot of kids.


"Being honest with ones self is the beginning of change"  99.5% want one thing, college access.  The 20,000 girls that play in Spain play for other reasons.  This is big time and I mean big time biz in USA.  I'm not sure how many kids get free rides in the DA/ECNL, but I don't think it's as much as I originally thought.  Folks who truly can't afford the tuition, team fees, per diems, fundraising, air travel, car travel, gas, tolls, tires and food get priced out.  Most low to upper middle class families in OC both parents usually have to work or have a single mom or dad trying to pay all the bills.  I have paid all my dues and fees since my baby goat was 7 (Except for half a season back in 2016 and can truly see I paid a little too much and over extended our families budget to help my dd reach her dreams.  Remember, Scholarship does not equal Full Ride


----------



## Soccer43

Very few players get a full ride scholarship whether you are in the DA or other.  Some of those strong DA players get a spot on a team and no money unless through financial aid


----------



## gkrent

Soccer43 said:


> Very few players get a full ride scholarship whether you are in the DA or other.  Some of those strong DA players get a spot on a


pats boys and girls da is fully funded


----------



## Fact

Supermodel56 said:


> The article keeps referencing “rich white applicants” accusing Harvard of intentionally giving preference by race when it comes to athletics - sounds pretty racial to me.
> 
> “Harvard does give preferential treatment to affluent white applicants”


@Justus don’t worry, anytime Supermodel thinks he sees the word “white” it sets a fighting bell off in his head, even when it is imaginary.


----------



## Soccer43

gkrent said:


> pats boys and girls da is fully funded


I was talking about scholarships for college not on youth clubs


----------



## younothat

Well well another twist to this now:









						Former UCLA men's soccer coach fires back | College Soccer
					

Former UCLA head coach Jorge Salcedo is in the news again after his attorney filed a motion with the court last week that shines the light on his former employer.




					www.topdrawersoccer.com
				




"The college admissions scandal (or the Varsity Blues scandal) added a new chapter last week as former UCLA Men’s Soccer head coach Jorge Salcedo’s attorney begin to draw the framework of his argument in the trial and it could spell disaster for his old employer. Salcedo alleges in the motion that UCLA was aware of the admissions scandal in 2014 after a compliance review into the athletics department.

“The charges reflect the government’s fundamental misunderstanding of how UCLA has strategically used its student-athlete admissions process as a vehicle to raise funds to pay for its many expensive and underfunded athletic programs,” Salcedo’s attorneys wrote in the motion. “UCLA’s own internal documents reveal that, for many years, its Athletic Department has facilitated the admission of unqualified applicants—students who do not meet UCLA’s rigorous academic or athletics standards—through the student-athlete admissions process in exchange for huge “donations” by the students’ wealthy parents.”

Salcedo was one of the coaches indicted in March of 2019 as part of the large sweeping admissions scheme that involved numerous universities across the country. He was the only UCLA coach named in the indictment. But he was not the only soccer coach involved. Former USC head coach Ali Khosroshahin pled guilty to his involvement in the admissions scandal in June. His former assistant coach Laura Janke also pled guilty for her involvement.

Salcedo’s motion last week sought pre-trial subpoenas for UCLA and the UC Regents. As he alleges the school’s compliance office investigated the admissions practice of the athletics department five years ago and discovered it was a readily accepted standard for the benefit at higher-ups in the athletics department and university.

“Until this prosecution, UCLA has been able to keep its roster-spot-for-money admissions practice under wraps, hidden from the public. But the practice has been no secret at UCLA. Five years ago, UCLA’s Compliance Office was forced to review the Athletic Department’s admissions and fundraising tactics in response to a parent’s complaint concerning the revocation of her daughter’s admission.”

The motion, which can be read in full, continues to lay out the evidence regarding that internal investigation.

“Having uncovered a mountain of damning evidence, the Compliance Office concluded that UCLA’s use of athletic team roster slots to raise funds violated Policy 2202 of UCLA’s governing body, the University of California Board of Regents (“UC Regents”). Policy 2202, titled “Policy Barring Development Considerations from Influencing Admission Decisions,” prohibits admission decisions based on financial benefits to the University. The Compliance Office, however, was careful to protect top echelon members of the Athletic Department, while heaping all of the blame on the coaches’ shoulders.”

Depending on what the subpoena reveals, this could be a difficult spell for UCLA’s athletic department, which is already in the news for reporting a massive deficit in 2019. "


----------



## Lambchop

Supermodel56 said:


> Yeah, but do you really think it’s racial? Or just white people are willing to spend the time and money to pursue it? If the argument was there aren’t as many blacks, Hispanics or asians trying out for those sports, would those applicants get preference?


Also, you still need to perform in the classroom bottom line.  Students need to take AP classes, Honor classes and score high on the ACT/SAT and be a good athlete.  Sure there will always be a few who get in with a lower SAT/ACT score.  The private schools look at everything.  Just like in the "real" world sometimes it's who you know that get's you the job. Getting in is just the beginning at any school, if you don't perform, it won't do you any good.


----------



## espola

Lambchop said:


> Also, you still need to perform in the classroom bottom line.  Students need to take AP classes, Honor classes and score high on the ACT/SAT and be a good athlete.  Sure there will always be a few who get in with a lower SAT/ACT score.  The private schools look at everything.  Just like in the "real" world sometimes it's who you know that get's you the job. Getting in is just the beginning at any school, if you don't perform, it won't do you any good.


My daughter was a calculus tutor for some student-athletes at her school.  She expressed dismay that some of her tutees got into school on early admission while she had to process through the waitlist.


----------



## Simisoccerfan

espola said:


> My daughter was a calculus tutor for some student-athletes at her school.  She expressed dismay that some of her tutees got into school on early admission while she had to process through the waitlist.


That is because the athletes are bringing a skill/talent that other don't have and the University wants.


----------



## oh canada

younothat said:


> Well well another twist to this now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former UCLA men's soccer coach fires back | College Soccer
> 
> 
> Former UCLA head coach Jorge Salcedo is in the news again after his attorney filed a motion with the court last week that shines the light on his former employer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.topdrawersoccer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The college admissions scandal (or the Varsity Blues scandal) added a new chapter last week as former UCLA Men’s Soccer head coach Jorge Salcedo’s attorney begin to draw the framework of his argument in the trial and it could spell disaster for his old employer. Salcedo alleges in the motion that UCLA was aware of the admissions scandal in 2014 after a compliance review into the athletics department.
> 
> “The charges reflect the government’s fundamental misunderstanding of how UCLA has strategically used its student-athlete admissions process as a vehicle to raise funds to pay for its many expensive and underfunded athletic programs,” Salcedo’s attorneys wrote in the motion. “UCLA’s own internal documents reveal that, for many years, its Athletic Department has facilitated the admission of unqualified applicants—students who do not meet UCLA’s rigorous academic or athletics standards—through the student-athlete admissions process in exchange for huge “donations” by the students’ wealthy parents.”
> 
> Salcedo was one of the coaches indicted in March of 2019 as part of the large sweeping admissions scheme that involved numerous universities across the country. He was the only UCLA coach named in the indictment. But he was not the only soccer coach involved. Former USC head coach Ali Khosroshahin pled guilty to his involvement in the admissions scandal in June. His former assistant coach Laura Janke also pled guilty for her involvement.
> 
> Salcedo’s motion last week sought pre-trial subpoenas for UCLA and the UC Regents. As he alleges the school’s compliance office investigated the admissions practice of the athletics department five years ago and discovered it was a readily accepted standard for the benefit at higher-ups in the athletics department and university.
> 
> “Until this prosecution, UCLA has been able to keep its roster-spot-for-money admissions practice under wraps, hidden from the public. But the practice has been no secret at UCLA. Five years ago, UCLA’s Compliance Office was forced to review the Athletic Department’s admissions and fundraising tactics in response to a parent’s complaint concerning the revocation of her daughter’s admission.”
> 
> The motion, which can be read in full, continues to lay out the evidence regarding that internal investigation.
> 
> “Having uncovered a mountain of damning evidence, the Compliance Office concluded that UCLA’s use of athletic team roster slots to raise funds violated Policy 2202 of UCLA’s governing body, the University of California Board of Regents (“UC Regents”). Policy 2202, titled “Policy Barring Development Considerations from Influencing Admission Decisions,” prohibits admission decisions based on financial benefits to the University. The Compliance Office, however, was careful to protect top echelon members of the Athletic Department, while heaping all of the blame on the coaches’ shoulders.”
> 
> Depending on what the subpoena reveals, this could be a difficult spell for UCLA’s athletic department, which is already in the news for reporting a massive deficit in 2019. "


thanks for posting...after reading this excerpt below, i'm thinking that's also why we haven't heard anything more from the LA Times public records request issued last summer:

_Mr. Salcedo served public records requests on both UCLA and UC Regents to no avail. Determined to prevent public disclosure of this blockbuster evidence, UCLA has stonewalled the defense, producing minimal documents and interposing a litany of objections. It has even tried to hide behind the government’s “ongoing criminal investigation” as an excuse for non-production. _

And, never knew this was a thing..."GPA Boosters"...if Salcedo's lawyers get the docs they want, this could be a real sh*t show for UCLA:

_UCLA has struggled with low APRs and risks being banned from post-season competition. UCLA’s May 2019 APR report, which includes data for academic years 2014 through 2018, reveals low multi-year APRs for several sports, including men’s basketball, football, and men’s soccer (Exs. 5, 6).4 Once again, UCLA has been able to resort to its student-athlete admissions practice to address this vital issue. The Athletic Department has admitted non-athletes whose academic performances helped raise their teams’ GPAs. Often known as GPA boosters, these students typically fill spots from the bottom of the roster and are from affluent families who donate to UCLA’s athletic programs. While these students generally do not meet UCLA’s academic admissions standards, their scholastic skills tend to be much higher than those of recruited athletes. _


----------



## Zerodenero

oh canada said:


> thanks for posting...after reading this excerpt below, i'm thinking that's also why we haven't heard anything more from the LA Times public records request issued last summer:
> 
> _Mr. Salcedo served public records requests on both UCLA and UC Regents to no avail. Determined to prevent public disclosure of this blockbuster evidence, UCLA has stonewalled the defense, producing minimal documents and interposing a litany of objections. It has even tried to hide behind the government’s “ongoing criminal investigation” as an excuse for non-production. _
> 
> And, never knew this was a thing..."GPA Boosters"...if Salcedo's lawyers get the docs they want, this could be a real sh*t show for UCLA:
> 
> _UCLA has struggled with low APRs and risks being banned from post-season competition. UCLA’s May 2019 APR report, which includes data for academic years 2014 through 2018, reveals low multi-year APRs for several sports, including men’s basketball, football, and men’s soccer (Exs. 5, 6).4 Once again, UCLA has been able to resort to its student-athlete admissions practice to address this vital issue. The Athletic Department has admitted non-athletes whose academic performances helped raise their teams’ GPAs. Often known as GPA boosters, these students typically fill spots from the bottom of the roster and are from affluent families who donate to UCLA’s athletic programs. While these students generally do not meet UCLA’s academic admissions standards, their scholastic skills tend to be much higher than those of recruited athletes. _


OCan- without digging in too deep into the supplemental intel re ucla ....how different is the above from ivys using the academic index to round out their annual incoming recruits?


----------



## espola

Zerodenero said:


> OCan- without digging in too deep into the supplemental intel re ucla ....how different is the above from ivys using the academic index to round out their annual incoming recruits?


Ivys are private (except for part of Cornell).


----------



## oh canada

Zerodenero said:


> OCan- without digging in too deep into the supplemental intel re ucla ....how different is the above from ivys using the academic index to round out their annual incoming recruits?


Not much different...though my guess, and purely a guess, would be that the GPA's at Ivy's don't have to be pulled up by "Boosters" as far as those at UCLA.


----------



## Ansu Fati

oh canada said:


> thanks for posting...after reading this excerpt below, i'm thinking that's also why we haven't heard anything more from the LA Times public records request issued last summer:
> 
> _Mr. Salcedo served public records requests on both UCLA and UC Regents to no avail. Determined to prevent public disclosure of this blockbuster evidence, UCLA has stonewalled the defense, producing minimal documents and interposing a litany of objections. It has even tried to hide behind the government’s “ongoing criminal investigation” as an excuse for non-production. _
> 
> And, never knew this was a thing..."GPA Boosters"...if Salcedo's lawyers get the docs they want, this could be a real sh*t show for UCLA:
> 
> _UCLA has struggled with low APRs and risks being banned from post-season competition. UCLA’s May 2019 APR report, which includes data for academic years 2014 through 2018, reveals low multi-year APRs for several sports, including men’s basketball, football, and men’s soccer (Exs. 5, 6).4 Once again, UCLA has been able to resort to its student-athlete admissions practice to address this vital issue. The Athletic Department has admitted *non-athletes* whose academic performances helped raise their teams’ GPAs. Often known as GPA boosters, these students typically fill spots from the bottom of the roster and are from affluent families who donate to UCLA’s athletic programs. While these students generally do not meet UCLA’s academic admissions standards, their scholastic skills tend to be much higher than those of recruited athletes. _


"non-athletes"- I assume this is not a typo, and is what it sounds like? 

If this is taken at face value, then wouldn't that be different than Ivy programs use of AI? For the Ivys, I'm assuming the recruits brought in to round out the class are still "athletes" with a legitimate athletic resume.


----------



## espola

Ansu Fati said:


> "non-athletes"- I assume this is not a typo, and is what it sounds like?
> 
> If this is taken at face value, then wouldn't that be different than Ivy programs use of AI? For the Ivys, I'm assuming the recruits brought in to round out the class are still "athletes" with a legitimate athletic resume.


The title of this thread includes the word "Yale" - that's an Ivy.

In the cases that have become public, the non-athletes were disguised as crew coxswain or a soccer team manager - and some just had no athletic disguise whatsoever.

I think I have stated before that the ideal recruit for a college coach is a player with credible club or high school team experience, grades and test scores that meet the minimum admission requirements (even if not competitive with the best applicants), and parents who want no athletic department money (and a record or promise of big contributions helps even more).  Just guessing here - there are some players who get admissions help from a coach who see only rare appearances on the field, but who don't cost the program anything and help on the income side for the college.


----------



## Ansu Fati

espola said:


> The title of this thread includes the word "Yale" - that's an Ivy.
> 
> In the cases that have become public, the non-athletes were disguised as crew coxswain or a soccer team manager - and some just had no athletic disguise whatsoever.


Thanks for the clarification. I am well aware of the title of the thread and allegations involved in the Varsity Blues scandal. Just to recap, this was an operation run by Singer who helped nonathlete kids of rich parents gain admissions to elite universities (public and private) in part by bribing coaches, who would abuse the recruiting-admissions process and pretend these kids were recruits. Presumably without the universities knowledge (hence the schools were also "victims").

What Salcedo's lawyers raise are allegations that UCLA was also *actively engaging* in practices that abused the recruiting-admissions process by admitting "GPA boosters"- nonathletes from rich families that would raising the APR of a program in return for booster donations. If true, I am sure this is not only happening at UCLA.

@Zerodenero posed the question- how different is that from Ivys using AI to round out their recruiting classes? I assume the Ivys are recruiting athletes who have a legitimate athletic resume and meet minimum academic requirements for recruits that may be less competitive than the general pool but are still high and would raise the team AI to meet Ivy requirements. If this is correct, than it would seem to me that this technically different than the Salcedo allegations- Ivys are working within, rather than abusing recruiting-admissions process.



espola said:


> I think I have stated before that the ideal recruit for a college coach is a player with credible club or high school team experience, grades and test scores that meet the minimum admission requirements (even if not competitive with the best applicants), and parents who want no athletic department money (and a record or promise of big contributions helps even more).  Just guessing here - there are some players who get admissions help from a coach who see only rare appearances on the field, but who don't cost the program anything and help on the income side for the college.


Now what I really wonder- is this just a slippery slope? I too imagine a situation where a program recruits an athlete who in reality will see very little time on the field, in return for a boost in the team academic performance to balance the blue chip recruits who aren't as strong academically. Parents are wealthy (alums) who wont cost the school a dime, and may even pledge to give a healthy sum to the school/booster. Kid isn't really gonna play, but gets an elite university degree, maybe with the help of the almighty $.


----------



## espola

Salcedo pleads guilty --









						Former UCLA soccer coach to plead guilty in admissions scam | WTOP
					

The former University of California at Los Angeles men's soccer coach will plead guilty to taking $200,000 in bribes as part of the college admissions cheating scheme, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.




					wtop.com
				




---and --- sortakarma ---


----------



## Ellejustus

espola said:


> Salcedo pleads guilty --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former UCLA soccer coach to plead guilty in admissions scam | WTOP
> 
> 
> The former University of California at Los Angeles men's soccer coach will plead guilty to taking $200,000 in bribes as part of the college admissions cheating scheme, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wtop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---and --- sortakarma ---


Very interesting plea.  I wonder why?  Cut a deal?  Like I said everyone, more news is coming.


----------



## messy

Ellejustus said:


> Very interesting plea.  I wonder why?  Cut a deal?  Like I said everyone, more news is coming.


Nothing good for him about that plea.


----------



## MacDre

messy said:


> Nothing good for him about that plea.


The thing most don’t realize is that Federal prosecutors count in multiples of 10 (ie 10 yrs per charge) and win approximately 90% of the time.  Once a person is formally charged with a Federal crime most don’t want to fight even if they are innocent because the consequences of losing are too severe.  
He probably settled to avoid a potential 10-20 year prison bid and he had to rat out his friends.  All money ain’t good money!


----------



## oh canada

So if Salcedo pleads guilty for taking $$ and the parents of the faux female soccer player plead guilty for paying $$, how does Cromwell not get wrapped into this?  Maybe there's no evidence of $$ into her pocket for a criminal charge?  But wouldn't the university have athlete policy at least?  Refresh my memory but wasn't this girl listed on the soccer roster, in photos, etc.?


----------



## Ellejustus

Like I said everyone, more news in pay to play is coming.  Wee, wee, wee all the way home and tell that stupid dad to shut up.  New soccer is coming so please be patient everyone.


----------



## outside!

oh canada said:


> So if Salcedo pleads guilty for taking $$ and the parents of the faux female soccer player plead guilty for paying $$, how does Cromwell not get wrapped into this?  Maybe there's no evidence of $$ into her pocket for a criminal charge?  But wouldn't the university have athlete policy at least?  Refresh my memory but wasn't this girl listed on the soccer roster, in photos, etc.?








						Lauren Isackson - Women's Soccer - UCLA
					

Lauren Isackson (41) Midfielder  - High School/Club Honorable mention All-WBAL selection in 2014 … Team captain for Woodside Soccer Club from 2012-16 … Selected




					uclabruins.com


----------



## Ellejustus

oh canada said:


> So if Salcedo pleads guilty for taking $$ and the parents of the faux female soccer player plead guilty for paying $$, how does Cromwell not get wrapped into this?  Maybe there's no evidence of $$ into her pocket for a criminal charge?  But wouldn't the university have athlete policy at least?  Refresh my memory but wasn't this girl listed on the soccer roster, in photos, etc.?


It just slipped on by and she made the team and got a roster spot.  My goat had her little chance but blew it.  Damm!!!!  Isackson was tougher and a better goat and was the Unicorn they were looking for.  I knew something was up.


----------



## oh canada

outside! said:


> Lauren Isackson - Women's Soccer - UCLA
> 
> 
> Lauren Isackson (41) Midfielder  - High School/Club Honorable mention All-WBAL selection in 2014 … Team captain for Woodside Soccer Club from 2012-16 … Selected
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uclabruins.com


per LA Times_..."students admitted through UCLA’s process for athletes are required to be “athletically qualified” and play on the team for at least the first year in school"_

  "_One of the students, Lauren Isackson, who had not played competitive soccer in high school, was listed on the 2017 women’s soccer roster. She never played in a game. " _


----------



## messy

MacDre said:


> The thing most don’t realize is that Federal prosecutors count in multiples of 10 (ie 10 yrs per charge) and win approximately 90% of the time.  Once a person is formally charged with a Federal crime most don’t want to fight even if they are innocent because the consequences of losing are too severe.
> He probably settled to avoid a potential 10-20 year prison bid and he had to rat out his friends.  All money ain’t good money!


Nobody within 100 miles of this thing is getting close to 10 years. His sentence will be as bad as it could be.


----------



## espola

MacDre said:


> The thing most don’t realize is that Federal prosecutors count in multiples of 10 (ie 10 yrs per charge) and win approximately 90% of the time.  Once a person is formally charged with a Federal crime most don’t want to fight even if they are innocent because the consequences of losing are too severe.
> He probably settled to avoid a potential 10-20 year prison bid and he had to rat out his friends.  All money ain’t good money!


Nonsense.


----------



## EOTL

espola said:


> Salcedo pleads guilty --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former UCLA soccer coach to plead guilty in admissions scam | WTOP
> 
> 
> The former University of California at Los Angeles men's soccer coach will plead guilty to taking $200,000 in bribes as part of the college admissions cheating scheme, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wtop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---and --- sortakarma ---


Thanks a lot for reminding the conspiracy theorists and winding them up again. I wonder if they’re ready to apologize for being so mean after I told them Cromwell wouldn’t get fired, they would never hear a word from UCLA about her, and the scandal would have no meaningful impact on the women’s program or recruiting. Man was I prescient yet again. 

How is the argument working out that, as taxpayers, they’re entitled to know what happened?  And if Cromwell’s emails and texts were so awful and implicated her, why hasn’t the LA Times mentioned it although it’s had them for more than six months? Do you think the conspiracy runs so far and deep that it includes the Times reporters, and that no one can ever touch the all powerful women’s soccer coach? I bet Gavin Newsom himself is pulling the strings. Still so many questions after all this time, and no answers other than Cromwell had no involvement with Singer, did not take any bribes and did nothing more than a favor for a colleague, like pretty much all D1 coaches.


----------



## Swoosh

EOTL said:


> Thanks a lot for reminding the conspiracy theorists and winding them up again. I wonder if they’re ready to apologize for being so mean after I told them Cromwell wouldn’t get fired, they would never hear a word from UCLA about her, and the scandal would have no meaningful impact on the women’s program or recruiting. Man was I prescient yet again.
> 
> How is the argument working out that, as taxpayers, they’re entitled to know what happened?  And if Cromwell’s emails and texts were so awful and implicated her, why hasn’t the LA Times mentioned it although it’s had them for more than six months? Do you think the conspiracy runs so far and deep that it includes the Times reporters, and that no one can ever touch the all powerful women’s soccer coach? I bet Gavin Newsom himself is pulling the strings. Still so many questions after all this time, and no answers other than Cromwell had no involvement with Singer, did not take any bribes and did nothing more than a favor for a colleague, like pretty much all D1 coaches.


A favor for a colleague is exactly right.  There are favors that are easy, honest, and good deeds.  I'm not sure this particular favor falls under that category.


----------



## Ellejustus

Swoosh said:


> A favor for a colleague is exactly right.  There are favors that are easy, honest, and good deeds.  I'm not sure this particular favor falls under that category.


Especially if the original favor was being asked by Mr Singer (Rick).


----------



## Soccer4evr

A "favor" and you don't ask why you're putting a player on your roster who has no soccer experience? Hmmmm....


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

Soccer4evr said:


> A "favor" and you don't ask why you're putting a player on your roster who has no soccer experience? Hmmmm....


Exactly... she and the program seem far too high profile to stick a neck out for nothing.  Those are premium roster spots for women's soccer and the exposure of having a player, that didn't even play, seems much too high.  Everyone on that roster needed about 15 minutes at practice to know something is up.  I don't buy that.  Maybe they just kept their mouths shut but why would Cromwell put herself in harm's way for nothing?


----------



## Ellejustus

Soccer4evr said:


> A "favor" and you don't ask why you're putting a player on your roster who has no soccer experience? Hmmmm....


Everyone who knew me or my dd back in 2017 & 2018 knew what we were about.  I told the higher up and coach at her previous club one big "No" for college when they asked her to send 20 emails out when she was in 8th grade.  We did not send at that time because I felt she was too young and I was after the pros for her at that time.  Remember my story I told 100s of times here?  No need to bring up that past, right?  However, i did say if one school had some interest I would be interested in hearing what they have to say.  How does one communicate to a coach who can;t talk to me or my dd unless the kid makes the first move.  What kind of speed dating was going on back then?  Rules were changing and my dd and her old team just got done winning the National Championship on August 3rd of 2017.  On September 6th, The List came out and my dd was not on.  Talk about eating some more humble pie for my dd.  She looked at the list and circled two games, Legends and Earthquakes.  Why?  Because most of the girls who were picked were from both of those two teams ironically.  She and her team spanked Legends FC 5-0.  She scored in the first few minutes and then assisted quickly after that.  They had 5 National Team Members.  Next, San Jose Earthquakes come to Del Mar with all their goats.  She had the game of her life and scored two goals against the #1 team, the Earthquakes back in late 2017. We won 2-0  I have the video too. I also got one of the biggest compliments ever by her coach at the time. Top head technical recruiter was their too  At this time, none of the top 04 goats had verbally committed yet. I was told this game was big time and my dd played the game of her life. 7 future YNT members, 5 UCLA commits, 1 North Carolina Commit and I'm not sure about all the others. Deza was there coaching too and it was one for bragging rights I was told. Nocal vs Socal dominance. I think my dd caught one of the UCLA commits napping and scored early in that game too   Anyway, my ego is getting big again and I will just chill and see how this all unfolds.  Crazy stuff @Giesbock that has happen to my family with soccer bro.  I hated having to come on here and rant and ask a few questions about what the hell was going on the last three years.  I don;t want to judge but the big missing puzzle piece that has been in my mind has been found.  Lot's of birds are now singing.  Let's see where the truth finds us.

P.S.  Compare Isackson stats and bio to my kid at the same time.  All around 2017 too.  Crazy and actually sad


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

Ellejustus said:


> Everyone who knew me or my dd back in 2017 & 2018 knew what we were about.  I told the higher up and coach at her previous club one big "No" for college when they asked her to send 20 emails out when she was in 8th grade.  We did not send at that time because I felt she was too young and I was after the pros for her at that time.  Remember my story I told 100s of times here?  No need to bring up that past, right?  However, i did say if one school had some interest I would be interested in hearing what they have to say.  How does one communicate to a coach who can;t talk to me or my dd unless the kid makes the first move.  What kind of speed dating was going on back then?  Rules were changing and my dd and her old team just got done winning the National Championship on August 3rd of 2017.  On September 6th, The List came out and my dd was not on.  Talk about eating some more humble pie for my dd.  She looked at the list and circled two games, Legends and Earthquakes.  Why?  Because most of the girls who were picked were from both of those two teams ironically.  She and her team spanked Legends FC 5-0.  She scored in the first few minutes and then assisted quickly after that.  They had 5 National Team Members.  Next, San Jose Earthquakes come to Del Mar with all their goats.  She had the game of her life and scored two goals against the #1 team, the Earthquakes back in late 2017. We won 2-0  I have the video too. I also got one of the biggest compliments ever by her coach at the time. Top head technical recruiter was their too  At this time, none of the top 04 goats had verbally committed yet. I was told this game was big time and my dd played the game of her life. 7 future YNT members, 5 UCLA commits, 1 North Carolina Commit and I'm not sure about all the others. Deza was there coaching too and it was one for bragging rights I was told. Nocal vs Socal dominance. I think my dd caught one of the UCLA commits napping and scored early in that game too   Anyway, my ego is getting big again and I will just chill and see how this all unfolds.  Crazy stuff @Giesbock that has happen to my family with soccer bro.  I hated having to come on here and rant and ask a few questions about what the hell was going on the last three years.  I don;t want to judge but the big missing puzzle piece that has been in my mind has been found.  Lot's of birds are now singing.  Let's see where the truth finds us.
> 
> P.S.  Compare Isackson stats and bio to my kid at the same time.  All around 2017 too.  Crazy and actually sad


Spicoli, didn't you promise to stop doing this?


----------



## timbuck

The Outlaw said:


> Exactly... she and the program seem far too high profile to stick a neck out for nothing.  Those are premium roster spots for women's soccer and the exposure of having a player, that didn't even play, seems much too high.  Everyone on that roster needed about 15 minutes at practice to know something is up.  I don't buy that.  Maybe they just kept their mouths shut but why would Cromwell put herself in harm's way for nothing?


Do soccer programs have a limit on rosters?  Can they field a practice squad?

A bit different - But some college basketball programs will have a kid on a roster that has no business playing Division 1 basketball.  Maybe their dad is friends with the coach or someone else within the program. But these players at least attend all practices and games.


----------



## Ellejustus

timbuck said:


> Do soccer programs have a limit on rosters?  Can they field a practice squad?
> 
> A bit different - But some college basketball programs will have a kid on a roster that has no business playing Division 1 basketball.  Maybe their dad is friends with the coach or someone else within the program. But these players at least attend all practices and games.


John Wooden's grandson played there, that is 100% ok.


----------



## Copa9

Ansu Fati said:


> "non-athletes"- I assume this is not a typo, and is what it sounds like?
> 
> If this is taken at face value, then wouldn't that be different than Ivy programs use of AI? For the Ivys, I'm assuming the recruits brought in to round out the class are still "athletes" with a legitimate athletic resume.
> [/QUOTE





timbuck said:


> Do soccer programs have a limit on rosters?  Can they field a practice squad?
> 
> A bit different - But some college basketball programs will have a kid on a roster that has no business playing Division 1 basketball.  Maybe their dad is friends with the coach or someone else within the program. But these players at least attend all practices and games.


Schools use bench players to raise their APR because the players they recruit frequently don't have the grades that would have gotten them admitted to the school.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

I find it really hard to believe UCLA can't find really good players with really high grade point averages.  We aren't talking about Cal State _________ here.  Are we to believe they don't turn away hundreds of terrific players, with a 3.75 or higher, every single year?  And it's not like we're asking someone to pay $70k for a year of tuition, either.  UCLA is affordable by relative standards.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED*

timbuck said:


> Do soccer programs have a limit on rosters?  Can they field a practice squad?
> 
> A bit different - But some college basketball programs will have a kid on a roster that has no business playing Division 1 basketball.  Maybe their dad is friends with the coach or someone else within the program. But these players at least attend all practices and games.


I guess, ultimately, it's Amanda's choice to take whomever she wants... but she clearly knew what she was doing and it's hard for me to imagine her risking the bad publicity as a favor to him.


----------



## dad4

EOTL said:


> Thanks a lot for reminding the conspiracy theorists and winding them up again. I wonder if they’re ready to apologize for being so mean after I told them Cromwell wouldn’t get fired, they would never hear a word from UCLA about her, and the scandal would have no meaningful impact on the women’s program or recruiting. Man was I prescient yet again.
> 
> How is the argument working out that, as taxpayers, they’re entitled to know what happened?  And if Cromwell’s emails and texts were so awful and implicated her, why hasn’t the LA Times mentioned it although it’s had them for more than six months? Do you think the conspiracy runs so far and deep that it includes the Times reporters, and that no one can ever touch the all powerful women’s soccer coach? I bet Gavin Newsom himself is pulling the strings. Still so many questions after all this time, and no answers other than Cromwell had no involvement with Singer, did not take any bribes and did nothing more than a favor for a colleague, like pretty much all D1 coaches.


Your argument is that because Salcedo is guilty therefore Cromwell must be innocent?

Dang!  That is a some seriously weak logic.

Using that kind of reasoning, I hope you aren’t too hungry because I had pancakes for breakfast this morning.


----------



## EOTL

dad4 said:


> Your argument is that because Salcedo is guilty therefore Cromwell must be innocent?
> 
> Dang!  That is a some seriously weak logic.
> 
> Using that kind of reasoning, I hope you aren’t too hungry because I had pancakes for breakfast this morning.


Ha ha. My reasoning is that Salcedo taking a bribe doesn’t mean Cromwell did. My reasoning is that no evidence has been identified that justifies firing Cromwell. My reasoning is that the LA Times has had Cromwell’s emails and texts for more than six months and considered it a waste of ink to write about them. My reasoning is that if you believe a conspiracy that ElleJustus believes, then you are equally loony tunes. 

Man, it must be frustrating that ya’ll were wrong about GDA, ACLs, the WNT, and now UCLA. It’s almost like anything that can be put into an acronym is something you will get wrong.


----------



## goldentoe

Did anyone in here watch “The Scheme” on HBO sports?  Remember FBI and the US Attorney from the Southern District of NY was hell bent on locking up NCAA basketball coaches?  Sean Miller, Rick Pitino, and Will Wade were all gonna be indicted.  The SDNY had “their playbook of corruption“ and was gonna lock ‘me up. And then..... poof, the story vanished. The feds never successfully got money into the hands of the coaches.

Only those who touched money in the Singer scheme were indicted, so Cromwell probably got a scare, but no charges.


----------



## Ellejustus

EOTL said:


> Ha ha. My reasoning is that Salcedo taking a bribe doesn’t mean Cromwell did. My reasoning is that no evidence has been identified that justifies firing Cromwell. My reasoning is that the LA Times has had Cromwell’s emails and texts for more than six months and considered it a waste of ink to write about them. My reasoning is that if you believe a conspiracy that ElleJustus believes, then you are equally loony tunes.
> 
> Man, it must be frustrating that ya’ll were wrong about GDA, ACLs, the WNT, and now UCLA. It’s almost like anything that can be put into an acronym is something you will get wrong.


I do need soccer advice Coach.  I have a very dear friend in south oc looking to hook up with the #1 girls team in OC for 2007 age female goat.  Coach, this one is way faster than my goat and is 100% not a one trick pony.  She has the skills and the parents with a lot of money too.  Looking for the right fit.  I know Blues has many changes coming and all the other clubs do too.  Where should I tell him to check out?  Oh ya, they have a neighbor with 2008 goat too.


----------



## dad4

EOTL said:


> Ha ha. My reasoning is that Salcedo taking a bribe doesn’t mean Cromwell did. My reasoning is that no evidence has been identified that justifies firing Cromwell. My reasoning is that the LA Times has had Cromwell’s emails and texts for more than six months and considered it a waste of ink to write about them. My reasoning is that if you believe a conspiracy that ElleJustus believes, then you are equally loony tunes.
> 
> Man, it must be frustrating that ya’ll were wrong about GDA, ACLs, the WNT, and now UCLA. It’s almost like anything that can be put into an acronym is something you will get wrong.


Where did I draw any conclusion about UCLA?  

I just noticed that your conclusion was completely unfounded.  Someone posted an article about Salcedo and you posted that it proves Cromwell is innocent.  Then you talked about how amazingly right you are.

As I said, that is some impressively bad reasoning.


----------



## EOTL

goldentoe said:


> Did anyone in here watch “The Scheme” on HBO sports?  Remember FBI and the US Attorney from the Southern District of NY was hell bent on locking up NCAA basketball coaches?  Sean Miller, Rick Pitino, and Will Wade were all gonna be indicted.  The SDNY had “their playbook of corruption“ and was gonna lock ‘me up. And then..... poof, the story vanished. The feds never successfully got money into the hands of the coaches.
> 
> Only those who touched money in the Singer scheme were indicted, so Cromwell probably got a scare, but no charges.


UCLA does not make employment decisions based on whether you were not indicted. The LA Times does not publish articles only when people are indicted. She probably did not get a scare because she probably did nothing to merit one.


----------



## EOTL

Ellejustus said:


> I do need soccer advice Coach.  I have a very dear friend in south oc looking to hook up with the #1 girls team in OC for 2007 age female goat.  Coach, this one is way faster than my goat and is 100% not a one trick pony.  She has the skills and the parents with a lot of money too.  Looking for the right fit.  I know Blues has many changes coming and all the other clubs do too.  Where should I tell him to check out?  Oh ya, they have a neighbor with 2008 goat too.


Trying to chase the best team inevitably leads to disappointment. They should look for the club that best provides what they’re looking for. For many of the same reasons ECNL has no interest in “the best team”, neither should a parent.


----------



## Ellejustus

EOTL said:


> Trying to chase the best team inevitably leads to disappointment. They should look for the club that best provides what they’re looking for. For many of the same reasons ECNL has no interest in “the best team”, neither should a parent.


Great response.  What coach in OC for 07 and 08 would you recommend?  Great family and excellent grades.  Wants the best coach and I have no clue.  You seem to know all about the clubs.  PM your #1 and I'll let him.  He's also looking for a private trainer on the side.  Lastly Coach, I have zero theories any more.


----------



## EOTL

dad4 said:


> Where did I draw any conclusion about UCLA?
> 
> I just noticed that your conclusion was completely unfounded.  Someone posted an article about Salcedo and you posted that it proves Cromwell is innocent.  Then you talked about how amazingly right you are.
> 
> As I said, that is some impressively bad reasoning.


Innocent of what? No one has provided any evidence that she did anything to deserve getting fired. No one has even provided any evidence that Cromwell knew or did any specific thing. It’s not my job to prove a negative. It’s my job to keep conspiracy theorists like you wound up.


----------



## Ellejustus

@EOTL Me and the team have been working hard with all this extra time on our hands.  Shaggy and Scooby have been killing it.  Velma has brought her top game and Daphne has been wonderful.  The one I give all the credit is little Scrappy doo.  Thanks again for helping us navigate all this through the hardest damm time any of us have had to experience.  I'm not talking about soccer either.


----------



## full90

I believe UCLA did whatever they could to protect Amanda. Dan knew he was resigning (or this hastened it) and maybe tried to take all the brunt with him. 
She knowingly added a player on her roster who did not deserve to even be a practice player or grade booster player. That’s a fact. Maybe she was asked to or pressured to or told that this family would contribute to the new stadium or provide oak lockers in the new locker room. But she added the kid.


----------



## dad4

EOTL said:


> Innocent of what? No one has provided any evidence that she did anything to deserve getting fired. No one has even provided any evidence that Cromwell knew or did any specific thing. It’s not my job to prove a negative. It’s my job to keep conspiracy theorists like you wound up.


What?  Where did I accuse Cromwell of anything?  I don’t have a dog in that hunt.  I have no opinion on whether Cromwell committed any infraction, felony, misdemeanor, or high crime.

I just pointed out that EOTL’s logic was really, really, really bad.  that’s all.   ( still is, btw.)


----------



## EOTL

full90 said:


> I believe UCLA did whatever they could to protect Amanda. Dan knew he was resigning (or this hastened it) and maybe tried to take all the brunt with him.
> She knowingly added a player on her roster who did not deserve to even be a practice player or grade booster player. That’s a fact. Maybe she was asked to or pressured to or told that this family would contribute to the new stadium or provide oak lockers in the new locker room. But she added the kid.


Yes, maybe Dan Guerrero took one for the (women’s soccer) team, but not the men’s. That makes so much sense. It’s definitely been his m.o. 

Cool if Isacksen’s family donated money to the school. Good for taxpayers saving money in cool stuff that was paid for by private donation instead of taxpayer dollars. Good for students who benefit from the donations. Everybody wins except for @ElleJustus’ kid, whose spot as a practice cone was pulled out from under her.


----------



## dk_b

EOTL said:


> Cool if Isacksen’s family donated money to the school. Good for taxpayers saving money in cool stuff that was paid for by private donation instead of taxpayer dollars. Good for students who benefit from the donations. Everybody wins . . .


Genuinely curious about how far this goes.  I mean, are you saying that if a wealthy parent at State College X bribes Coach Y and also makes a sizable donation, that justifies Coach Y using her or his preferred admissions slots for the kid of the wealthy parent?  W/o the bribe, you seem to feel like it's clearly ok - not just "no harm no foul" but, in fact, it's a benefit to the school and student body at large and it really does not cost the program much b/c this player will be the 28th person on the roster.  The donation justifies an odd student here or there who is admitted outside of normal channels (what Singer called a side door, I think).  But does it change if it also involves direct payment to a coach or other individual who can earmark an otherwise undeserving student? ("undeserving" in the sense that an athletic slot is being used for a non-athlete or athlete that is clearly not the caliber of the squad at State College X)?  That is, is what makes UCLA's situation OK to you (as you seem to be indicating) that the coach of the squad impacted received (presumably) nothing in return? Or is whether or not she received anything irrelevant so long as there was SOME direct donation to the school?

Based on the facts that are public, I can understand both sides though I find it hard to imagine that most schools would be OK with this sort of arrangement as a favor and I find it hard to imagine that it was not done w/full visibility by the coaching staff.


----------



## EOTL

dk_b said:


> Genuinely curious about how far this goes.  I mean, are you saying that if a wealthy parent at State College X bribes Coach Y and also makes a sizable donation, that justifies Coach Y using her or his preferred admissions slots for the kid of the wealthy parent?  W/o the bribe, you seem to feel like it's clearly ok - not just "no harm no foul" but, in fact, it's a benefit to the school and student body at large and it really does not cost the program much b/c this player will be the 28th person on the roster.  The donation justifies an odd student here or there who is admitted outside of normal channels (what Singer called a side door, I think).  But does it change if it also involves direct payment to a coach or other individual who can earmark an otherwise undeserving student? ("undeserving" in the sense that an athletic slot is being used for a non-athlete or athlete that is clearly not the caliber of the squad at State College X)?  That is, is what makes UCLA's situation OK to you (as you seem to be indicating) that the coach of the squad impacted received (presumably) nothing in return? Or is whether or not she received anything irrelevant so long as there was SOME direct donation to the school?
> 
> Based on the facts that are public, I can understand both sides though I find it hard to imagine that most schools would be OK with this sort of arrangement as a favor and I find it hard to imagine that it was not done w/full visibility by the coaching staff.


If UCLA was ok with coaches making offers that took fundraising into consideration, or boosting team gpa, or recruiting only forwards and no defenders, whatever. If UCLA was not ok with it and Cromwell received a personal bribe to do something that was contrary to UCLA’s interests, well that is a crime against UCLA and the taxpayers. That did not happen obviously.

I personally know someone who was admitted to UCLA solely because a sibling was a baller. Who cares?


----------



## dk_b

EOTL said:


> If UCLA was ok with coaches making offers that took fundraising into consideration, or boosting team gpa, or recruiting only forwards and no defenders, whatever. If UCLA was not ok with it and Cromwell received a personal bribe to do something that was contrary to UCLA’s interests, well that is a crime against UCLA and the taxpayers. That did not happen obviously.
> 
> I personally know someone who was admitted to UCLA solely because a sibling was a baller. Who cares?


I hope you are right that Cromwell did not receive a personal benefit beyond the satisfaction of doing a favor for a friend (even if some would call it morally questionable at best - if it wasn’t, why go to such charade and dishonesty in having her appear on the roster?). But I find it interesting that you can with such certainty that “that did not happen obviously” unless you are privy to the case being closed not just for lack of evidence but because the evidence clearly exonerates her. And if you are privy, I can’t imagine anyone from UCLA would be too delighted in you posting on a bulletin board, even anonymously.


----------



## EOTL

dk_b said:


> I hope you are right that Cromwell did not receive a personal benefit beyond the satisfaction of doing a favor for a friend (even if some would call it morally questionable at best - if it wasn’t, why go to such charade and dishonesty in having her appear on the roster?). But I find it interesting that you can with such certainty that “that did not happen obviously” unless you are privy to the case being closed not just for lack of evidence but because the evidence clearly exonerates her. And if you are privy, I can’t imagine anyone from UCLA would be too delighted in you posting on a bulletin board, even anonymously.


It is patently obvious. Singer would have implicated her. So would Salcedo. The LA Times would not have found something in the texts and emails and reported on it. UCLA would have also found it and fired her. She did not get fired because she did not deserve to get fired. Duh.


----------



## dk_b

EOTL said:


> It is patently obvious. Singer would have implicated her. So would Salcedo. The LA Times would not have found something in the texts and emails and reported on it. UCLA would have also found it and fired her. She did not get fired because she did not deserve to get fired. Duh.


as I said, unless you are privy to the inside discussions, you can speculate (we all do that) but concluding all of this with certainty is just not possible. Your conclusion that she did not get fired because she did not deserve to get fired may be correct but how they got there is and likely will remain a black box. To drop in a “duh” is juvenile and to say it is “patently obvious” is silly. Again, unless you are an insider (well, the “duh” would still be juvenile).

We have no idea what the LA Times’ FOIA request yielded. We don’t know what labor and employment protections may govern this situation (likely more complex than at, say, USC since UCLA is a California entity and not private). We have no idea what negotiations may still be going on. And we don’t know if AC herself may have been a cooperating witness in exchange for immunity. We don’t know anything other than the fact that the player was on the roster, that she had no business being on the roster from a soccer standpoint and yet there were a lot of unusual steps in listing her. And we know that AC kept her job, is a good coach and had a solid run last year and continues to recruit excellent talent so her run will prob continue year after year.  And unless and until she or UCLA or someone else wants to offer a comprehensive explanation, her situation will remain cloudy to some. Maybe even many.  But patently obvious?  Or duh?  Come on.


----------



## espola

EOTL said:


> It is patently obvious. Singer would have implicated her. So would Salcedo. The LA Times would not have found something in the texts and emails and reported on it. UCLA would have also found it and fired her. She did not get fired because she did not deserve to get fired. Duh.


Has she made a public statement anywhere that she didn't know what was going on and just did a favor for a friend?  She might have, but I don't recall having seen it.


----------



## EOTL

dk_b said:


> as I said, unless you are privy to the inside discussions, you can speculate (we all do that) but concluding all of this with certainty is just not possible. Your conclusion that she did not get fired because she did not deserve to get fired may be correct but how they got there is and likely will remain a black box. To drop in a “duh” is juvenile and to say it is “patently obvious” is silly. Again, unless you are an insider (well, the “duh” would still be juvenile).
> 
> We have no idea what the LA Times’ FOIA request yielded. We don’t know what labor and employment protections may govern this situation (likely more complex than at, say, USC since UCLA is a California entity and not private). We have no idea what negotiations may still be going on. And we don’t know if AC herself may have been a cooperating witness in exchange for immunity. We don’t know anything other than the fact that the player was on the roster, that she had no business being on the roster from a soccer standpoint and yet there were a lot of unusual steps in listing her. And we know that AC kept her job, is a good coach and had a solid run last year and continues to recruit excellent talent so her run will prob continue year after year.  And unless and until she or UCLA or someone else wants to offer a comprehensive explanation, her situation will remain cloudy to some. Maybe even many.  But patently obvious?  Or duh?  Come on.


Sure.  Maybe she was the only one Singer didn’t rat out because Cromwell only uses the lesbian thing as a cover to hide that they’re secret lovers. Maybe the LA Times is holding the story back because it’s much bigger than just Cromwell, and they’re about to shine the spotlight on Gavin Newsom’s direct order to put Isacksen on the team as part of a plot to gain the presidency using the Isacksen’s wealth and power. Maybe UCLA failed to read any of the emails that implicated Cromwell before they sent them to the LA Times and therefore failed to realize that she received millions in bribe money. Or maybe a FISA court has issued secret gag orders on everyone as part of the government’s ongoing investigation into foreign spies that have infiltrated the youth soccer system, Isacksen of course being one of them. Duh. 

Get over it. This is dead in the water, just like GDA.


----------



## EOTL

espola said:


> Has she made a public statement anywhere that she didn't know what was going on and just did a favor for a friend?  She might have, but I don't recall having seen it.


Why on earth would she do that? There are maybe three people in the world who care, and they’re just whackadoo conspiracy theorists who hang out on some youth soccer website for conspiracy theorists. It’s like 4Chan only worse.


----------



## espola

EOTL said:


> Why on earth would she do that? There are maybe three people in the world who care, and they’re just whackadoo conspiracy theorists who hang out on some youth soccer website for conspiracy theorists. It’s like 4Chan only worse.


It's not hard to think of a reason why she would not do that.


----------



## dk_b

EOTL said:


> Sure.  Maybe she was the only one Singer didn’t rat out because Cromwell only uses the lesbian thing as a cover to hide that they’re secret lovers. Maybe the LA Times is holding the story back because it’s much bigger than just Cromwell, and they’re about to shine the spotlight on Gavin Newsom’s direct order to put Isacksen on the team as part of a plot to gain the presidency using the Isacksen’s wealth and power. Maybe UCLA failed to read any of the emails that implicated Cromwell before they sent them to the LA Times and therefore failed to realize that she received millions in bribe money. Or maybe a FISA court has issued secret gag orders on everyone as part of the government’s ongoing investigation into foreign spies that have infiltrated the youth soccer system, Isacksen of course being one of them. Duh.
> 
> Get over it. This is dead in the water, just like GDA.


get over what exactly? And what does GDA have to do with it? Have I advocated for GDA? Is that supposed to slay like your “duh”? You are clearly taking this personally and all I’ve said is that none of us really knows. We speculate based on what’s out there and what’s not. But we don’t know and we can’t know. And if you read what I have written, I don’t take issue with your points only your certainty based on those points. But you really have that “duh” down now. That shows power and great intelligence. You have me positively cowering in the corner. And I’m sure others are a bit intimidated as well.

I’ve never internetted well because I’d rather not call people names or say someone’s points or conclusions are stupid and I’d rather simply discuss points of disagreement instead of trying to ridicule. I also try not to speak (or write) in black and white unless I know something as a fact. The analysis is the fun part - and your analysis makes a lot of sense to me. But it does not resolve a key point - the lengths to which UCLA soccer went to mislead re the presence of a player on the roster. If it is no big deal, why the deception (and there is no question there was deception)? We know AC still has her job (I’m glad) but we don’t know why she emerged publicly unscathed. Again, it’s not knowable.

But a socially distant toast to your certainty, your patent obviousness and your use of “duh”. It will be an enjoyable nightcap. Cheers!


----------



## MacDre

dk_b said:


> get over what exactly? And what does GDA have to do with it? Have I advocated for GDA? Is that supposed to slay like your “duh”? You are clearly taking this personally and all I’ve said is that none of us really knows. We speculate based on what’s out there and what’s not. But we don’t know and we can’t know. And if you read what I have written, I don’t take issue with your points only your certainty based on those points. But you really have that “duh” down now. That shows power and great intelligence. You have me positively cowering in the corner. And I’m sure others are a bit intimidated as well.
> 
> I’ve never internetted well because I’d rather not call people names or say someone’s points or conclusions are stupid and I’d rather simply discuss points of disagreement instead of trying to ridicule. I also try not to speak (or write) in black and white unless I know something as a fact. The analysis is the fun part - and your analysis makes a lot of sense to me. But it does not resolve a key point - the lengths to which UCLA soccer went to mislead re the presence of a player on the roster. If it is no big deal, why the deception (and there is no question there was deception)? We know AC still has her job (I’m glad) but we don’t know why she emerged publicly unscathed. Again, it’s not knowable.
> 
> But a socially distant toast to your certainty, your patent obviousness and your use of “duh”. It will be an enjoyable nightcap. Cheers!


Interesting debate.  I do not think there’s a lack of evidence in this case.  In fact, I think there is strong circumstantial evidence that Cromwell is a reliable source cooperating with the government to avoid prosecution.  As I’m sure you know dk_b circumstantial evidence can be and is as reliable as direct evidence in a court of law.  So, I respectfully submit that the fact that Cromwell knowingly had that kid on the roster is more than enough evidence to send Cromwell to “club fed” for a very long time on a CONSPIRACY charge.  Ladies and gents can someone tell me why Cromwell hasn’t been charged with conspiracy?  I’d bet a kidney it’s because she’s a rat... a nasty rodent!


----------



## espola

MacDre said:


> Interesting debate.  I do not think there’s a lack of evidence in this case.  In fact, I think there is strong circumstantial evidence that Cromwell is a reliable source cooperating with the government to avoid prosecution.  As I’m sure you know dk_b circumstantial evidence can be and is as reliable as direct evidence in a court of law.  So, I respectfully submit that the fact that Cromwell knowingly had that kid on the roster is more than enough evidence to send Cromwell to “club fed” for a very long time on a CONSPIRACY charge.  Ladies and gents can someone tell me why Cromwell hasn’t been charged with conspiracy?  I’d bet a kidney it’s because she’s a rat... a nasty rodent!


I wouldn't consider her a rat if the feds came to her and said "This is what we know.  Now tell us about your involvement" and she just told them the truth, and the truth is that she was just doing a favor for a friend and the college and knew nothing about the big money because she didn't get any of it.  

Unless, of course, she was fully in on the conspiracy and knew what was happening all long, and is trying to keep her role hidden.


----------



## gotothebushes

MacDre said:


> Interesting debate.  I do not think there’s a lack of evidence in this case.  In fact, I think there is strong circumstantial evidence that Cromwell is a reliable source cooperating with the government to avoid prosecution.  As I’m sure you know dk_b circumstantial evidence can be and is as reliable as direct evidence in a court of law.  So, I respectfully submit that the fact that Cromwell knowingly had that kid on the roster is more than enough evidence to send Cromwell to “club fed” for a very long time on a CONSPIRACY charge.  Ladies and gents can someone tell me why Cromwell hasn’t been charged with conspiracy?  I’d bet a kidney it’s because she’s a rat... a nasty rodent!


If you watched the documentary on HBO called "The Scheme".  A FBI investigation into a basketball corruption scandal led to the arrest of executives at Adidas and assistant coaches at major college programs. FBI wanted Christian Dawkins to rat on getting NCAA Rick Pitino. 

The UCLA's case, the FBI wanted Salecedo and they pressured Cromwell for information. That's the way the FBI works and Cromwell gave the FBI what they needed to build a stronger case.


----------



## dad4

gotothebushes said:


> If you watched the documentary on HBO called "The Scheme".  A FBI investigation into a basketball corruption scandal led to the arrest of executives at Adidas and assistant coaches at major college programs. FBI wanted Christian Dawkins to rat on getting NCAA Rick Pitino.
> 
> The UCLA's case, the FBI wanted Salecedo and they pressured Cromwell for information. That's the way the FBI works and Cromwell gave the FBI what they needed to build a stronger case.


Makes more sense than a P5 coach wasting a slot as a favor.


----------



## Copa9

dk_b said:


> Genuinely curious about how far this goes.  I mean, are you saying that if a wealthy parent at State College X bribes Coach Y and also makes a sizable donation, that justifies Coach Y using her or his preferred admissions slots for the kid of the wealthy parent?  W/o the bribe, you seem to feel like it's clearly ok - not just "no harm no foul" but, in fact, it's a benefit to the school and student body at large and it really does not cost the program much b/c this player will be the 28th person on the roster.  The donation justifies an odd student here or there who is admitted outside of normal channels (what Singer called a side door, I think).  But does it change if it also involves direct payment to a coach or other individual who can earmark an otherwise undeserving student? ("undeserving" in the sense that an athletic slot is being used for a non-athlete or athlete that is clearly not the caliber of the squad at State College X)?  That is, is what makes UCLA's situation OK to you (as you seem to be indicating) that the coach of the squad impacted received (presumably) nothing in return? Or is whether or not she received anything irrelevant so long as there was SOME direct donation to the school?
> 
> Based on the facts that are public, I can understand both sides though I find it hard to imagine that most schools would be OK with this sort of arrangement as a favor and I find it hard to imagine that it was not done w/full visibility by the coaching staff.


Remember, the top college coaches spend hours and hours scouting recruits.  They study videos, check their transcripts, attend showcases, sit around a table and debate which player will fill their needs on the field.  Anyone who says they don't know who is on their roster is lying, period.  If you believe they don't know, by the way it is their job to know, I have a diamond mine I would like to sell you really cheap and you don't even have to check it out.


----------



## EOTL

dk_b said:


> get over what exactly? And what does GDA have to do with it? Have I advocated for GDA? Is that supposed to slay like your “duh”? You are clearly taking this personally and all I’ve said is that none of us really knows. We speculate based on what’s out there and what’s not. But we don’t know and we can’t know. And if you read what I have written, I don’t take issue with your points only your certainty based on those points. But you really have that “duh” down now. That shows power and great intelligence. You have me positively cowering in the corner. And I’m sure others are a bit intimidated as well.
> 
> I’ve never internetted well because I’d rather not call people names or say someone’s points or conclusions are stupid and I’d rather simply discuss points of disagreement instead of trying to ridicule. I also try not to speak (or write) in black and white unless I know something as a fact. The analysis is the fun part - and your analysis makes a lot of sense to me. But it does not resolve a key point - the lengths to which UCLA soccer went to mislead re the presence of a player on the roster. If it is no big deal, why the deception (and there is no question there was deception)? We know AC still has her job (I’m glad) but we don’t know why she emerged publicly unscathed. Again, it’s not knowable.
> 
> But a socially distant toast to your certainty, your patent obviousness and your use of “duh”. It will be an enjoyable nightcap. Cheers!


Gosh, maybe you are right. Maybe a youth soccer forum in which anonymous people regularly assert conspiracy theories and make defamatory accusations about a college soccer coach should be taken more seriously. Maybe all of you deserve more respect for the important speculative speculation that you speculate about.

I’m sorry it isn’t any fun that UCLA investigated all of this and determined she did nothing to merit termination. That the LA Times did not find her correspondence to be newsworthy. That Singer didn’t implicate her although his cooperation agreement required him to do so. That the Isacksens also didn’t implicate her although their full cooperation was a condition of their plea agreement. That your “taxpayer status” doesn’t give you any right to any information from UCLA. 

It is certainly more fun to accuse her of taking bribes and conspiring with UCLA to help her beat the rap with the feds by, among other things: (1) implementing a cone of silence; (2) fighting the LA Times FIOA request and then destroying documents implicating her; (3) Dan Guerrero taking the fall to protect Cromwell (did I get that right @full90?); (4) the Isacksen’s secret grandma Annenberg (who knew?) donating 10s of millions of dollars when Isacksen was in middle school to build the soccer stadium in exchange for admission just in case the hundred million she gave to USC wasn’t enough to get her in there. I’m not kidding about that last one. @Soccer43 actually speculated that all by himself. 

So what ever happened with that class action lawsuits that you speculated ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers would file against schools for denying kids roster spots in exchange for coaches taking bribes?


----------



## EOTL

gotothebushes said:


> If you watched the documentary on HBO called "The Scheme".  A FBI investigation into a basketball corruption scandal led to the arrest of executives at Adidas and assistant coaches at major college programs. FBI wanted Christian Dawkins to rat on getting NCAA Rick Pitino.
> 
> The UCLA's case, the FBI wanted Salecedo and they pressured Cromwell for information. That's the way the FBI works and Cromwell gave the FBI what they needed to build a stronger case.


Yes this makes a lot of sense. I do have some questions though. If Christian Dawkins still went to prison and still lost his job, how on earth did Cromwell manage to avoid that herself? Do you think maybe it was because she didn’t do anything that was either criminal or deserved getting fired? And how on earth did the feds manage to convince the state of California to not do anything when fed immunity deals have no effect on state law crimes or employment? I’m so confused.


----------



## dad4

EOTL said:


> Gosh, maybe you are right. Maybe a youth soccer forum in which anonymous people regularly assert conspiracy theories and make defamatory accusations about a college soccer coach should be taken more seriously. Maybe all of you deserve more respect for the important speculative speculation that you speculate about.
> 
> I’m sorry it isn’t any fun that UCLA investigated all of this and determined she did nothing to merit termination. That the LA Times did not find her correspondence to be newsworthy. That Singer didn’t implicate her although his cooperation agreement required him to do so. That the Isacksens also didn’t implicate her although their full cooperation was a condition of their plea agreement. That your “taxpayer status” doesn’t give you any right to any information from UCLA.
> 
> It is certainly more fun to accuse her of taking bribes and conspiring with UCLA to help her beat the rap with the feds by, among other things: (1) implementing a cone of silence; (2) fighting the LA Times FIOA request and then destroying documents implicating her; (3) Dan Guerrero taking the fall to protect Cromwell (did I get that right @full90?); (4) the Isacksen’s secret grandma Annenberg (who knew?) donating 10s of millions of dollars when Isacksen was in middle school to build the soccer stadium in exchange for admission just in case the hundred million she gave to USC wasn’t enough to get her in there. I’m not kidding about that last one. @Soccer43 actually speculated that all by himself.
> 
> So what ever happened with that class action lawsuits that you speculated ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers would file against schools for denying kids roster spots in exchange for coaches taking bribes?


UCLA investigated and that proves something?   Are you telling me you’ve never heard of a big university deciding to ignore problems when the coach is winning?  

Don’t post trash like that.  Think, man.


----------



## MacDre

EOTL said:


> Yes this makes a lot of sense. I do have some questions though. If Christian Dawkins still went to prison and still lost his job, how on earth did Cromwell manage to avoid that herself? Do you think maybe it was because she didn’t do anything that was either criminal or deserved getting fired? And how on earth did the feds manage to convince the state of California to not do anything when fed immunity deals have no effect on state law crimes or employment? I’m so confused.


Because it was a Federal investigation and not a joint task force with State law enforcement.


----------



## dk_b

Copa9 said:


> Remember, the top college coaches spend hours and hours scouting recruits.  They study videos, check their transcripts, attend showcases, sit around a table and debate which player will fill their needs on the field.  Anyone who says they don't know who is on their roster is lying, period.  If you believe they don't know, by the way it is their job to know, I have a diamond mine I would like to sell you really cheap and you don't even have to check it out.


you’re asking those rhetorically, right? Because I agree with you. And that’s what I meant by the deception in rostering this player.


----------



## espola

EOTL said:


> Gosh, maybe you are right. Maybe a youth soccer forum in which anonymous people regularly assert conspiracy theories and make defamatory accusations about a college soccer coach should be taken more seriously. Maybe all of you deserve more respect for the important speculative speculation that you speculate about.
> 
> I’m sorry it isn’t any fun that UCLA investigated all of this and determined she did nothing to merit termination. That the LA Times did not find her correspondence to be newsworthy. That Singer didn’t implicate her although his cooperation agreement required him to do so. That the Isacksens also didn’t implicate her although their full cooperation was a condition of their plea agreement. That your “taxpayer status” doesn’t give you any right to any information from UCLA.
> 
> It is certainly more fun to accuse her of taking bribes and conspiring with UCLA to help her beat the rap with the feds by, among other things: (1) implementing a cone of silence; (2) fighting the LA Times FIOA request and then destroying documents implicating her; (3) Dan Guerrero taking the fall to protect Cromwell (did I get that right @full90?); (4) the Isacksen’s secret grandma Annenberg (who knew?) donating 10s of millions of dollars when Isacksen was in middle school to build the soccer stadium in exchange for admission just in case the hundred million she gave to USC wasn’t enough to get her in there. I’m not kidding about that last one. @Soccer43 actually speculated that all by himself.
> 
> So what ever happened with that class action lawsuits that you speculated ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers would file against schools for denying kids roster spots in exchange for coaches taking bribes?


Has UCLA made any statement about any investigation they may have done on their own?

(I apologize for my ignorance if this is already common knowledge - when issues like this stretch out love months it is hard for me to remember all the details)


----------



## dk_b

EOTL said:


> Gosh, maybe you are right. Maybe a youth soccer forum in which anonymous people regularly assert conspiracy theories and make defamatory accusations about a college soccer coach should be taken more seriously. Maybe all of you deserve more respect for the important speculative speculation that you speculate about.
> 
> I’m sorry it isn’t any fun that UCLA investigated all of this and determined she did nothing to merit termination. That the LA Times did not find her correspondence to be newsworthy. That Singer didn’t implicate her although his cooperation agreement required him to do so. That the Isacksens also didn’t implicate her although their full cooperation was a condition of their plea agreement. That your “taxpayer status” doesn’t give you any right to any information from UCLA.
> 
> It is certainly more fun to accuse her of taking bribes and conspiring with UCLA to help her beat the rap with the feds by, among other things: (1) implementing a cone of silence; (2) fighting the LA Times FIOA request and then destroying documents implicating her; (3) Dan Guerrero taking the fall to protect Cromwell (did I get that right @full90?); (4) the Isacksen’s secret grandma Annenberg (who knew?) donating 10s of millions of dollars when Isacksen was in middle school to build the soccer stadium in exchange for admission just in case the hundred million she gave to USC wasn’t enough to get her in there. I’m not kidding about that last one. @Soccer43 actually speculated that all by himself.
> 
> So what ever happened with that class action lawsuits that you speculated ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers would file against schools for denying kids roster spots in exchange for coaches taking bribes?


You may be confusing me with someone else.  I have no idea.  But the only thing I am questioning is the degree of certainty you have.  Evidently you are in the know but b/c I have not seen other sourcing, I will only speak for myself - I'm an outsider so I have no idea.  I have no idea what the FOIA request yielded (you may be right that it was nothing incriminating).  I have no idea what negotiations may have occurred between the Feds and Singer or between AC and the Feds or between the Feds and Salcedo (but you may be right that it was nothing to implicate AC).  I have no idea that the Isacksons implicated or did not implicate AC (you may be right that they certainly didn't).  You may be right about all of it.  But your conclusions based on the absence of information is simply speculation - even speculation with a logical thread is speculation.  You don't want to address the clear deception re listing the player on the roster (her soccer credentials were complete bullshit but maybe that's just a laughable oversight and maybe my use of "deception" is unfair b/c it was simply an innocent favor. I can't say "you may be right" here b/c you have not addressed this point). I have not accused AC of taking bribes - and I am hopeful she did not - nor did I accuse her of conspiring with UCLA.  If you are going to use hyperbole in a response to me, your point is more interesting and certainly more valid if you can show where I have done that.

In the end, I will 100% support your argument and stand right behind the certainty if you can show the proof beyond your logical speculation.

And I certainly don't remember ever speculating about ECNL/GDA players filing class actions. Way back in the early thread, we may have discussed what possible "damage" someone could claim but b/c it is very difficult to show that any one player was denied a highly coveted spot, I cannot imagine that such a suit would succeed. So while I don't remember, it is certainly possible. I doesn't sound like me to say "ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers" but I could just be foggy at my age. But I will play with the line: "what ever happened?" Here's my speculation: if a group of families or even taxpayers sought advice from a plaintiffs' lawyer, they were probably told that the likelihood of success is small and the cost of mounting such a case may be quite large. And for what end? What is the relief for the class that, in a given year, the 28th player would have been someone else? So, what happened? It probably fizzled.


----------



## EOTL

MacDre said:


> Because it was a Federal investigation and not a joint task force with State law enforcement.


I see. Cromwell admitted committing a bunch of crimes to the feds, but the feds hushed it up so the state would never find out and then use it to terminate Cromwell’s employment and charge her under state laws. So the feds were part of the conspiracy too, eh? Along with the LA Times killing the story?  This really does go to the highest levels.


----------



## EOTL

dk_b said:


> You may be confusing me with someone else.  I have no idea.  But the only thing I am questioning is the degree of certainty you have.  Evidently you are in the know but b/c I have not seen other sourcing, I will only speak for myself - I'm an outsider so I have no idea.  I have no idea what the FOIA request yielded (you may be right that it was nothing incriminating).  I have no idea what negotiations may have occurred between the Feds and Singer or between AC and the Feds or between the Feds and Salcedo (but you may be right that it was nothing to implicate AC).  I have no idea that the Isacksons implicated or did not implicate AC (you may be right that they certainly didn't).  You may be right about all of it.  But your conclusions based on the absence of information is simply speculation - even speculation with a logical thread is speculation.  You don't want to address the clear deception re listing the player on the roster (her soccer credentials were complete bullshit but maybe that's just a laughable oversight and maybe my use of "deception" is unfair b/c it was simply an innocent favor. I can't say "you may be right" here b/c you have not addressed this point). I have not accused AC of taking bribes - and I am hopeful she did not - nor did I accuse her of conspiring with UCLA.  If you are going to use hyperbole in a response to me, your point is more interesting and certainly more valid if you can show where I have done that.
> 
> In the end, I will 100% support your argument and stand right behind the certainty if you can show the proof beyond your logical speculation.
> 
> And I certainly don't remember ever speculating about ECNL/GDA players filing class actions. Way back in the early thread, we may have discussed what possible "damage" someone could claim but b/c it is very difficult to show that any one player was denied a highly coveted spot, I cannot imagine that such a suit would succeed. So while I don't remember, it is certainly possible. I doesn't sound like me to say "ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers" but I could just be foggy at my age. But I will play with the line: "what ever happened?" Here's my speculation: if a group of families or even taxpayers sought advice from a plaintiffs' lawyer, they were probably told that the likelihood of success is small and the cost of mounting such a case may be quite large. And for what end? What is the relief for the class that, in a given year, the 28th player would have been someone else? So, what happened? It probably fizzled.


Things do tend to fizzle when they have no basis. That is probably the real lesson to be learned. 

I do like your argument that I should stop speculating that the stuff about which you speculated is just speculative, so you can carry on with more speculation.


----------



## dk_b

EOTL said:


> Things do tend to fizzle when they have no basis. That is probably the real lesson to be learned.
> 
> I do like your argument that I should stop speculating that the stuff about which you speculated is just speculative, so you can carry on with more speculation.


Um . . . you don't see the difference, do you?  That you are stating your points as FACT - "patently obvious", etc.  I'm saying you MAY BE RIGHT (maybe you missed that part but I really do mean that YOU MAY BE RIGHT) but unless you're an insider you can't know, just like none of us knows.  I am saying we all speculate.  I am not criticizing speculation - hey, I have called your thought thread LOGICAL - but I'm calling it speculation.  You have framed your conclusions as OBVIOUS fact. 

But riddle me this: is it plausible that the coaching staff had zero idea or thought "no harm, no foul" about a fake profile for a player on the roster? I mean, that DID happen though we don't know what led to it or who knew about it. But you don't seem to want to touch that one part.

I hope your beliefs turn out to be 100% accurate on this one.


----------



## EOTL

dk_b said:


> Um . . . you don't see the difference, do you?  That you are stating your points as FACT - "patently obvious", etc.  I'm saying you MAY BE RIGHT (maybe you missed that part but I really do mean that YOU MAY BE RIGHT) but unless you're an insider you can't know, just like none of us knows.  I am saying we all speculate.  I am not criticizing speculation - hey, I have called your thought thread LOGICAL - but I'm calling it speculation.  You have framed your conclusions as OBVIOUS fact.
> 
> But riddle me this: is it plausible that the coaching staff had zero idea or thought "no harm, no foul" about a fake profile for a player on the roster? I mean, that DID happen though we don't know what led to it or who knew about it. But you don't seem to want to touch that one part.
> 
> I hope your beliefs turn out to be 100% accurate on this one.


Whoa. All caps. The sure sign of a conspiracy theorist.


----------



## dad4

EOTL said:


> Whoa. All caps. The sure sign of a conspiracy theorist.


 He used all caps because you were repeatedly and deliberately misrepresenting what he said.

It's obnoxious.  Stop.


----------



## goldentoe

EOTL said:


> Cool if Isacksen’s family donated money to the school. Good for taxpayers saving money in cool stuff that was paid for by private donation instead of taxpayer dollars. Good for students who benefit from the donations. Everybody wins except for @ElleJustus’ kid, whose spot as a practice cone was pulled out from under her.


Umm, that’s not what happened. They gave the money to Singer who then bribed the old USC womens’s coach to bribe the UCLA men’s coach to find a way to get Lauren admitted. Somehow she magically ends up on the soccer roster and the Isackson’s 600k bribe is complete. Cromwell never touched the money so was in the clear.
this story is old so the Details are a bit fuzzy, but this is how I remember it.


----------



## Ellejustus

Good to compare stats to see what it took to make a big time D1 roster for girls soccer the old way.  My oldest bro went to UCLA ((water polo stud)) when the Legend from Westwood was roaming the campus.  He has been disappointed with a few things to be honest.  He knows about his little niece and he's not all too happy with how some who can pay to get a spot and those who are dam good with no money are turned away in 8th grade by some club docs and coaches before they actually speak to these coaches. That was the old days btw. I had three Docs back in 2018 & 2019 trying to find out where my goat wanted to play college ball.  I said, "not now, she's too young, back off Jack!!!"  "But, but all the scholarship money will be all gone" they would say.  I finally sat down to get the low down by two of them. What a joke to me and my dd.  Nothing special at all!!!   Dudes both ask us in different ways but with the same message, "where do you want to go to college?" ((8th grader)) and before a word comes out of her mouth both say, "And please don;t say UCLA" I was shocked!!! They both said everybody wants that school and if your not on the YNT List and have zero money to pay, forget about it pal. Plus, those players are so good she might not play until her Sr year, if that.  I said, "Oh really," "then why did you tell me this and that about my goat. I was not so happy with that response.  We got up and left and said it's too early for all this sh*t.  He did say maybe 100% here or there and if she's willing to live in the snow and play back East, Cali kids can get most of it paid in full.  

Tale of the Stats
Player A ((Parents are super rich))
*High School/Club*
Honorable mention All-WBAL selection in 2014 … Team captain for Woodside Soccer Club from 2012-16 … Selected Team MVP in 2015.

*Personal*
Full name is LA … Born in Hillsborough, Calif. … Parents are Bxxxx and xxxina ..ackson … *Lists becoming the champion of her hoseback riding division two years in a row as her greatest athletic thrill *… Psychology major.


Player B ((Parents have no money to pay))
*High School/Club*
Co-Offensive Player of the Year Sunset League 2020.  OC Strikers Player-Forward and plays wherever coach needs her. ECNL Conference Player Selection 2020 ((half of season only because of Corona)).  Skipped 2018-2019 season for the most part.

Soccer Achievements- Cal South State Cup Champ 2015.  Far West Regional Champs with Surf FC 2017.  Leading scorer at FWR, miracle goal and scored 5 goals in Semis finals 2017.  US Youth Naty in 2017 and scored first goal.  Beat #1 GDA Team 04 Earthquakes 2-0 and scored both goals. Helped her HS make playoffs after losing top YNT player to injury before 2020 season.  No one gave us a chance to make CIF but we did.  As her daddy, I think that was her greatest soccer accomplishment by far 

*Personal*
Full name is A Elle E....Born in Riverside, Calif....  Parents have been struggling to make ends meat and have zero money and live check to check when they come. * List becoming a US Youth Soccer Champion in 2017 as her greatest athletic thrill*...Undecided what she wants to do with her life but for sure wants to educate herself more and also have fun with her friends and play soccer and hopefully win a college cup some day.


----------



## EOTL

goldentoe said:


> Umm, that’s not what happened. They gave the money to Singer who then bribed the old USC womens’s coach to bribe the UCLA men’s coach to find a way to get Lauren admitted. Somehow she magically ends up on the soccer roster and the Isackson’s 600k bribe is complete. Cromwell never touched the money so was in the clear.
> this story is old so the Details are a bit fuzzy, but this is how I remember it.


Be careful what you say. Some people here get very upset when you don’t accuse Cromwell of being part of a CONSPIRACY that included not only  Singer BUT ALSO Dan Guerrero and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT itself. 

It makes no SENSE that Cromwell didn’t do anything to merit termination because HOW CAN YOU HAVE A CONSPIRACY if she actually got fired, and then what would we have to SPECULATE about?  In other words, the FACT that SHE did NOT get FIRED is PROOF that SHE deserved TO get FIRED.


----------



## EOTL

Ellejustus said:


> My oldest bro went to UCLA ((water polo stud)) when the Legend from Westwood was roaming the campus.  He has been disappointed with a few things to be honest.  He knows about his little niece and he's not all too happy with how some who can pay to get a spot and those who are dam good with no money are turned away in 8th grade by some club docs and coaches before they actually speak to these coaches.


So, wait a second, SoCal Blues are part of the Singer conspiracy too?  Singer bribed Salcedo, Salcedo paid Cromwell, Cromwell paid Blues to steer clear of your kid because she feared Blues might make her so great UCLA would have to give her an offer without bribery? And the feds covered it all up by making secret cooperation agreements and plea deals with Singer, Salcedo, the Isacksens and the Blues staff? And the LA Times buried the story, probably because the Isacksens are so connected?


----------



## EOTL

dad4 said:


> He used all caps because you were repeatedly and deliberately misrepresenting what he said.
> 
> It's obnoxious.  Stop.


I haven’t said a single thing that one of you conspiracy theorists hasn’t already suggested, although I do admit making the occasional embellishment for the purpose of mocking the ridiculousness of your “theories” and to help you the rest of the way down the rabbit hole.


----------



## dad4

EOTL said:


> Be careful what you say. Some people here get very upset when you don’t accuse Cromwell of being part of a CONSPIRACY that included not only  Singer BUT ALSO Dan Guerrero and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT itself.
> 
> It makes no SENSE that Cromwell didn’t do anything to merit termination because HOW CAN YOU HAVE A CONSPIRACY if she actually got fired, and then what would we have to SPECULATE about?  In other words, the FACT that SHE did NOT get FIRED is PROOF that SHE deserved TO get FIRED.


“the fact that she did not get fired is proof that she did not deserve to get fired”?

This is the same argument you gave earlier, just repackaged and in caps.

It still stinks as an argument.  There are dozens of examples of schools that protected a problematic coach while he/she was winning.


----------



## Ellejustus

EOTL said:


> So, wait a second, SoCal Blues are part of the Singer conspiracy too?  Singer bribed Salcedo, Salcedo paid Cromwell, Cromwell paid Blues to steer clear of your kid because she feared Blues might make her so great UCLA would have to give her an offer without bribery? And the feds covered it all up by making secret cooperation agreements and plea deals with Singer, Salcedo, the Isacksens and the Blues staff? And the LA Times buried the story, probably because the Isacksens are so connected?


First of all, please don;t even try to figure out the scoop, Jackson.  Buzz off.  My dd wanted to play on the National Team in the Olympics, remember? It goes like this I was told.  Make YNT at 13 or 14, hopefully Top D1 school and then the pros then get big call up for first cap at 23?  My hope and hers was an interest from my favorite school ((not hers yet but she does like to please her old man)) and still fav school when she's JR. At 13, we were going for the YNT, then college as Jr and then the pros after degree, that's what I was told was the process.  This has nothing to do with the club you are talking about.  These Docs were actually being very honest with me and as I look back on all this I appreciate it more today.  No Doc said anything bad or wrong with me.  They just gave me the low down and I was upset with the system and the recruiting process.  Not one Doc or D1 coach approached me or my dd because we didn;t email them.  No email, no talk on the phone I was told and that was 100% true.  It was just understood that it was impossible to go to that school in the old system.  All this Singer stuff is interesting and how someone made those rosters though.


----------



## EOTL

dad4 said:


> “the fact that she did not get fired is proof that she did not deserve to get fired”?
> 
> This is the same argument you gave earlier, just repackaged and in caps.
> 
> It still stinks as an argument.  There are dozens of examples of schools that protected a problematic coach while he/she was winning.


Learn to read and then try again. I admit that all caps makes it a little harder, but that was actually the point, specifically that nut job conspiracy theorists use all caps, and both the theories they espouse and the manner in which they do so is completely incomprehensible. 

In short, I was summarizing ya’lls assumption that there must be a conspiracy because she didn’t get fired. Because you just can’t believe the incredibly obvious, which is that UCLA would have fired her if she had done something that deserved to get fired.


----------



## EOTL

Ellejustus said:


> First of all, please don;t even try to figure out the scoop, Jackson.  Buzz off.  My dd wanted to play on the National Team in the Olympics, remember? It goes like this I was told.  Make YNT at 13 or 14, hopefully Top D1 school and then the pros then get big call up for first cap at 23?  My hope and hers was an interest from my favorite school ((not hers yet but she does like to please her old man)) and still fav school when she's JR. At 13, we were going for the YNT, then college then the pros, that's what I was told was the process.  This has nothing to do with the club you are talking about.  These Docs were actually being very honest with me and as I look back on all this I appreciate it more today.  No Doc said anything bad or wrong with me.  They just gave me the low down and I was upset with the system and the recruiting process.  Not one Doc or D1 coach approached for anything.  It was just understood that it was impossible to go tot hat school.  All this Singer stuff is interesting and how someone made that roster.  I have no idea dude.


How funny would it be if I had a kid who was a regular on the YNT? I bet that would really get under some people’s skin, eh?


----------



## dk_b

EOTL said:


> How funny would it be if I had a kid who was a regular on the YNT? I bet that would really get under some people’s skin, eh?


Why?  I mean, you are clearly showing a propensity to reading meanings that don't exist into what people are writing but why would it get under anyone's skin?  Why wouldn't that be a great thing, a great accomplishment for your child?  Why wouldn't people understand that you would (naturally) have pride in that achievement and sustained level of play?  I know those kids sacrifice to attend camps, compete with the YNTs and maintain their schoolwork.  Under my skin?  Not even close.  I'd be standing and applauding.


----------



## espola

goldentoe said:


> Umm, that’s not what happened. They gave the money to Singer who then bribed the old USC womens’s coach to bribe the UCLA men’s coach to find a way to get Lauren admitted. Somehow she magically ends up on the soccer roster and the Isackson’s 600k bribe is complete. Cromwell never touched the money so was in the clear.
> this story is old so the Details are a bit fuzzy, but this is how I remember it.


The fuzzy details include how the UCLA men's coach convinced the UCLA women's coach to go along with the scheme.


----------



## dk_b

EOTL said:


> I haven’t said a single thing that one of you conspiracy theorists hasn’t already suggested, although I do admit making the occasional embellishment for the purpose of mocking the ridiculousness of your “theories” and to help you the rest of the way down the rabbit hole.


I'm not seeing any conspiracy.  For my part, it looks something like this:

EOTL: this is how things went down. It's obvious. Duh.

DK: it may have gone down that way. Nobody really knows what happened other than the insiders.  And, for emphasis, YOU MAY BE RIGHT.

EOTL:  ah ha!  Conspiracy theorist!  You use all caps!

DK:  I'm confused.  What conspiracy? I said you may be right. I said none of us knows what happened. I said again that you may be right.  I did ask about the confounding fact of listing the player on the roster, a fact that you don't seem to want to address.  It is a fact - it happened - but how it happened is mere speculation by anyone. I'm not engaging in speculation on that b/c I just don't know.

I will say that this statement you made, "*UCLA would have fired her if she had done something that deserved to get fired*" is often far, far from being correct.  There are many reasons why an employer, especially a public employer or any employer that is subject to strict oversight (an employer of unionized workers, for example), does not fire an employee it wishes to fire and believes deserves to be fired.  I'm sure there are enough lawyers on this bulletin board who can give you example after example of employees that clients wish to fire but, for whatever reason, are never fired. 

I would put this next part in all caps for emphasis but b/c I'm wounded at the accusation of being a conspiracy theorist I will only say (and hope that you actually read my words) that I do hope that that is not the case with AC and I do hope that you are correct that she was not fired b/c they determined she did nothing wrong.


----------



## full90

I can see salcedo asking Cromwell to admit and roster the girl as a favor. Maybe there was something in it for the w soccer program which isn’t illegal. Unethical yes. 
maybe there was something in it for Cromwell. That would be illegal. Maybe she turned it down. Or took it and got off by giving dirt on salcedo. That’s what no one knows and is fuzzy. The rest are proven facts.

but she vouched for the kid and rostered her as a player. It’s unethical. If an administrator asked her to do it or pressured her then I’d cut her some slack but we don’t know that. W

we know Cromwell admitted and rostered a kid who didn’t deserve it. Arrested or not, fired or not, it’s unethical. She’s a good coach and the school and players like her and has had success at all her stops. Does that outweigh what she did? Apparently so.


----------



## espola

full90 said:


> I can see salcedo asking Cromwell to admit and roster the girl as a favor. Maybe there was something in it for the w soccer program which isn’t illegal. Unethical yes.
> maybe there was something in it for Cromwell. That would be illegal. Maybe she turned it down. Or took it and got off by giving dirt on salcedo. That’s what no one knows and is fuzzy. The rest are proven facts.
> 
> but she vouched for the kid and rostered her as a player. It’s unethical. If an administrator asked her to do it or pressured her then I’d cut her some slack but we don’t know that. W
> 
> we know Cromwell admitted and rostered a kid who didn’t deserve it. Arrested or not, fired or not, it’s unethical. She’s a good coach and the school and players like her and has had success at all her stops. Does that outweigh what she did? Apparently so.


In my experience, every college soccer team has a few walkons that try to make the roster even though they were not recruited.  Some of them make it, most of them don't, or they are relegated to a roster spot that only allows them to practice with the team and sit on the bench in home non-conference games., never actually getting into a game. She could have been lost in the group of those non-playing players.


----------



## full90

There’s no such designation on the official ncaa roster. If a coach wants to tell someone they aren’t ever going to play and can come sit on the bench for home games they are official rostered players. She was on the official ncaa roster for UCLA. UCLA soccer got her into school, set up her rooming as an athlete (she roomed with another w soccer player). She didn’t simply decide to try out after a long club career and getting admitted to UCLA on her own. Amanda signed for her as a special admit for w soccer and rostered her on the team.


----------



## EOTL

It’s been a couple days now that Salcedo pled out. Any updates on Cromwell? Is she the only one who has a secret deal with the feds that lets her completely off the hook?  Or do you think they’re holding out on an announcement until she helps them bring down the hammer on the IT guy who put Isacksen’s photo on the website?

I do have a question for the conspiracy theorists though. When you all say “time will tell”, how much time are you talking about?  How long until we should probably conclude that the most logical conclusion - that she she did not deserve to get fired - is provably the right one? Or do we get to keep making up crazier stuff forever?  I feel like I’m getting the hang of these conspiracy theories but I don’t want to break your rules.


----------



## dad4

EOTL said:


> It’s been a couple days now that Salcedo pled out. Any updates on Cromwell? Is she the only one who has a secret deal with the feds that lets her completely off the hook?  Or do you think they’re holding out on an announcement until she helps them bring down the hammer on the IT guy who put Isacksen’s photo on the website?
> 
> I do have a question for the conspiracy theorists though. When you all say “time will tell”, how much time are you talking about?  How long until we should probably conclude that the most logical conclusion - that she she did not deserve to get fired - is provably the right one? Or do we get to keep making up crazier stuff forever?  I feel like I’m getting the hang of these conspiracy theories but I don’t want to break your rules.


Not watching it that closely.  Nor do I think I get to find out.  

Maybe she cut a deal.  Maybe there is a lack of evidence.   Maybe there is nothing worthy of the prosecutor's time.  Maybe the announcement comes next week.  

All I can say is I don't know, and I don't get to know.

(Just don't give me some bogus argument about how you "PROVED" it.  )


----------



## EOTL

dad4 said:


> Not watching it that closely.  Nor do I think I get to find out.
> 
> Maybe she cut a deal.  Maybe there is a lack of evidence.   Maybe there is nothing worthy of the prosecutor's time.  Maybe the announcement comes next week.
> 
> All I can say is I don't know, and I don't get to know.
> 
> (Just don't give me some bogus argument about how you "PROVED" it.  )


Sorry about the typo. I meant “probably”, but neither facts nor rational thought seem to matter much here, so whatever.


----------



## dk_b

EOTL said:


> Sorry about the typo. I meant “probably”, but neither facts nor rational thought seem to matter much here, so whatever.


You are probably right but there is a big chasm between "probably" and "certainly" unless/until all information is disclosed.  But as @dad4 says, we don't know and we don't get to know.  And I'll add, unless they choose to share.  Here's the difference between us on this: I'm comfortable that a very logical conclusion may be there wasn't enough for the feds to prosecute and for ucla to fire.  That may even be the most logical. But I know a little bit about how criminal investigations/prosecutions work and I know a fair amount more about employment hiring and firing decisions so I do know that feds may choose not to prosecute for various reasons independent of absolute guilt or innocence and I know a lot of employers that choose not to fire despite knowing that an employee has committed infractions.  But - and please read this carefully - I don't know what happened, don't necessarily think that that happened and don't want any of that to have happened.  But I'm not a child so I know that I want is not always the way things are and I also know that, even if it turns out I'm correct, it's never a good approach to be so certain about things when I don't have full and complete knowledge.

And still you don't address the pink elephant in the corner.  How does a player get listed on the roster with a fake profile?


----------



## Ellejustus

dk_b said:


> You are probably right but there is a big chasm between "probably" and "certainly" unless/until all information is disclosed.  But as @dad4 says, we don't know and we don't get to know.  And I'll add, unless they choose to share.  Here's the difference between us on this: I'm comfortable that a very logical conclusion may be there wasn't enough for the feds to prosecute and for ucla to fire.  That may even be the most logical. But I know a little bit about how criminal investigations/prosecutions work and I know a fair amount more about employment hiring and firing decisions so I do know that feds may choose not to prosecute for various reasons independent of absolute guilt or innocence and I know a lot of employers that choose not to fire despite knowing that an employee has committed infractions.  But - and please read this carefully - I don't know what happened, don't necessarily think that that happened and don't want any of that to have happened.  But I'm not a child so I know that I want is not always the way things are and I also know that, even if it turns out I'm correct, it's never a good approach to be so certain about things when I don't have full and complete knowledge.
> 
> And still you don't address the pink elephant in the corner.  How does a player get listed on the roster with a fake profile?


Excellent points sir.  I watched Smokey and The Bandit and Cledus was just a real nice guy and had bandits back and keeping them Smokeys off his ass.  Carrie was my first actress I liked as a kid.  I'm just only curious how the pink Ele in the corner.


----------



## EOTL

dk_b said:


> You are probably right but there is a big chasm between "probably" and "certainly" unless/until all information is disclosed.  But as @dad4 says, we don't know and we don't get to know.  And I'll add, unless they choose to share.  Here's the difference between us on this: I'm comfortable that a very logical conclusion may be there wasn't enough for the feds to prosecute and for ucla to fire.  That may even be the most logical. But I know a little bit about how criminal investigations/prosecutions work and I know a fair amount more about employment hiring and firing decisions so I do know that feds may choose not to prosecute for various reasons independent of absolute guilt or innocence and I know a lot of employers that choose not to fire despite knowing that an employee has committed infractions.  But - and please read this carefully - I don't know what happened, don't necessarily think that that happened and don't want any of that to have happened.  But I'm not a child so I know that I want is not always the way things are and I also know that, even if it turns out I'm correct, it's never a good approach to be so certain about things when I don't have full and complete knowledge.
> 
> And still you don't address the pink elephant in the corner.  How does a player get listed on the roster with a fake profile?


UCLA does not get to “choose to share”. California law is very specific with respect to what a school may and may not discuss with respect to both student and employee investigations. I went over this a year ago when “taxpayers” first started clambering that they employ Cromwell and were therefore entitled to know what is going on. I can also tell with absolute certainty that you know enough about criminal prosecutions and employment decisions to be embarrassing yourself without knowing it. A few more episodes of the Office and Law and Order might be in order.

I don’t need to know how she got listed on the website, because I know the reason was insufficient to justify Cromwell’s termination. It was sufficient to justify Salcedo’s though. I know that because that is what happened. Regardless, I already told you why it happened. Just because you don’t like the answer, it is not my problem.


----------



## dk_b

EOTL said:


> I can also tell with absolute certainty that you know enough about criminal prosecutions and employment decisions to be embarrassing yourself without knowing it. A few more episodes of the Office and Law and Order might be in order.


Winner!  You got it, EOTL.  You know everything about me and these two sentences show it.

(also, lawyers are taught to read carefully. All those cases they have to read in law school, right? I know you know b/c you are clearly an attorney. But you may have missed the part when I have said - a few times but buried in some of the comments - that I'd like your version to be right. So even though you have already told me why it happened - and, I know. I should accept it as conclusive fact. I mean, you did use "duh" twice and that's usually reserved for really important, mic-dropping points - and even though I have told you I hope you are right, somehow you are concluding that I don't like the answer. I like the answer. I really like the answer. But L&O is on - it's always on, I think - so I'm dropping this for a while to continue my legal training)


----------



## goldentoe

EOTL said:


> Be careful what you say. Some people here get very upset when you don’t accuse Cromwell of being part of a CONSPIRACY that included not only  Singer BUT ALSO Dan Guerrero and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT itself.
> 
> It makes no SENSE that Cromwell didn’t do anything to merit termination because HOW CAN YOU HAVE A CONSPIRACY if she actually got fired, and then what would we have to SPECULATE about?  In other words, the FACT that SHE did NOT get FIRED is PROOF that SHE deserved TO get FIRED.


LOL, being a dirt bag is not a crime. Wire Fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy to defraud the US are.


----------



## Ellejustus

dk_b said:


> Winner!  You got it, EOTL.  You know everything about me and these two sentences show it.
> 
> (also, lawyers are taught to read carefully. All those cases they have to read in law school, right? I know you know b/c you are clearly an attorney. But you may have missed the part when I have said - a few times but buried in some of the comments - that I'd like your version to be right. So even though you have already told me why it happened - and, I know. I should accept it as conclusive fact. I mean, you did use "duh" twice and that's usually reserved for really important, mic-dropping points - and even though I have told you I hope you are right, somehow you are concluding that I don't like the answer. I like the answer. I really like the answer. But L&O is on - it's always on, I think - so I'm dropping this for a while to continue my legal training)


I think coach dad is attorney snowman......  That's a 10/4 good buddy.  Good job   I never watched law & order.  Hey coach dad, why do you even care about all this?  Most of us are just asking a elephant in the room question.  Peak a boo......lol!


----------



## EOTL

Ellejustus said:


> I think coach dad is attorney snowman......  That's a 10/4 good buddy.  Good job   I never watched law & order.  Hey coach dad, why do you even care about all this?  Most of us are just asking a elephant in the room question.  Peak a boo......lol!


Why do I care?  Just make up a conspiracy theory. That’s the game we’re playing right?


----------



## espola

EOTL said:


> Why do I care?  Just make up a conspiracy theory. That’s the game we’re playing right?


That's the game the idiots are playing.  Some of us are genuinely interested in what happened.


----------



## outside!

oh canada said:


> per LA Times_..."students admitted through UCLA’s process for athletes are required to be “athletically qualified” and play on the team for at least the first year in school"_
> 
> "_One of the students, Lauren Isackson, who had not played competitive soccer in high school, was listed on the 2017 women’s soccer roster. She never played in a game. " _


We know that Ms. Isackson was placed on the roster. We know she was not "athletically qualified". If the LA Times is correct, this is one known case of a requirement being broken.

Did Ms Isackson play on the team for at least the first year in school? If not, this would be another case of a requirement being broken.

I did notice that Ms. Isackson was not included in the team photograph. Does anyone know if she ever participated in practice?


----------



## oh canada

"Full House" going to the Big House...maybe Mossimo will design Covid masks for fellow inmates?






						Actress Lori Loughlin, husband to plead guilty to U.S. college admissions scam
					

USA-EDUCATION/CHEATING (UPDATE 1, PIX):UPDATE 1-Actress Lori Loughlin, husband to plead guilty to U.S. college admissions scam




					news.trust.org


----------



## Ellejustus

oh canada said:


> "Full House" going to the Big House...maybe Mossimo will design Covid masks for fellow inmates?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actress Lori Loughlin, husband to plead guilty to U.S. college admissions scam
> 
> 
> USA-EDUCATION/CHEATING (UPDATE 1, PIX):UPDATE 1-Actress Lori Loughlin, husband to plead guilty to U.S. college admissions scam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.trust.org


Yikes!!!  Do you think they got all the cheaters in this scandal?  

"By Friday, *24 of the 36 parents charged *will have pleaded guilty, including "Desperate Housewives" star Felicity Huffman, who received a 14-day prison sentence."


----------



## younothat

Ellejustus said:


> Yikes!!!  Do you think they got all the cheaters in this scandal?
> 
> "By Friday, *24 of the 36 parents charged *will have pleaded guilty, including "Desperate Housewives" star Felicity Huffman, who received a 14-day prison sentence."


No sure more cheaters didn't get caught and I still heard coaching saying minimum NCCA GPA and requirements are all that's need for us to get you in our program.

Not a bad deal for them but now they are convicts, has cost her family millions I would think.

Giannulli’s agreement states he will serve five months in prison, pay a $250,000 fine and have two years of supervised release with 250 hours of community service.

Both agreements are subject to the court’s approval.








						Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli to plead guilty in college admissions scandal
					

In a major turn of events, the "Fuller House" actress has flipped to a guilty plea in the college admissions scandal.




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## espola

younothat said:


> No sure more cheaters didn't get caught and I still heard coaching saying minimum NCCA GPA and requirements are all that's need for us to get you in our program.
> 
> Not a bad deal for them but now they are convicts, has cost her family millions I would think.
> 
> Giannulli’s agreement states he will serve five months in prison, pay a $250,000 fine and have two years of supervised release with 250 hours of community service.
> 
> Both agreements are subject to the court’s approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli to plead guilty in college admissions scandal
> 
> 
> In a major turn of events, the "Fuller House" actress has flipped to a guilty plea in the college admissions scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.yahoo.com


In October 2019, the USC Registrar confirmed that Olivia and her sister were no longer enrolled at the university, but, due to student privacy laws, the university did not confirm if the sisters were expelled.  <Wikipedia>


----------



## lafalafa

Well this story just keeps going 

Ex-USC soccer coach tells of faking athletic credentials









						Ex-USC soccer coach tells of faking athletic credentials
					

A former assistant soccer coach at the University of Southern California testified Monday that she regularly created fake athletic profiles with exaggerated accomplishments and images she found on Google to help get unqualified students admitted




					abcnews.go.com


----------



## GT45

lafalafa said:


> Well this story just keeps going
> 
> Ex-USC soccer coach tells of faking athletic credentials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-USC soccer coach tells of faking athletic credentials
> 
> 
> A former assistant soccer coach at the University of Southern California testified Monday that she regularly created fake athletic profiles with exaggerated accomplishments and images she found on Google to help get unqualified students admitted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com


I hope these people who are going to trial get put away for awhile. Those who pled guilty got off pretty easy. They are all so obviously guilty, yet their arrogance has them taking it to trial.


----------



## crush

lafalafa said:


> Well this story just keeps going
> 
> Ex-USC soccer coach tells of faking athletic credentials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-USC soccer coach tells of faking athletic credentials
> 
> 
> A former assistant soccer coach at the University of Southern California testified Monday that she regularly created fake athletic profiles with exaggerated accomplishments and images she found on Google to help get unqualified students admitted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com


I read somewhere that coaches got together and split the $50,000 cash among themselves.  Another ex-sailing coach said he can;t have all top A+ sailors on the team because they all can;t start.  We all know if A+ player is not on the boat they will get all pissed.  So you look for C+ sailors who dont give a shit if they sail that day or not.  They need to make mama & papa happy by attending Big U.  This Rick guy made the cash calls and was the deal maker.  This really helps me get a better understanding on how this game works behind the scenes.  My mother would be so sad to hear this kind of news from her school


----------



## Mystery Train

lafalafa said:


> Well this story just keeps going
> 
> Ex-USC soccer coach tells of faking athletic credentials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-USC soccer coach tells of faking athletic credentials
> 
> 
> A former assistant soccer coach at the University of Southern California testified Monday that she regularly created fake athletic profiles with exaggerated accomplishments and images she found on Google to help get unqualified students admitted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com


My kid got some training from this coach way back in the ulittles days.   In the right moment, the lure of hard cash can make fools of any of us.


----------



## lafalafa

Mystery Train said:


> My kid got some training from this coach way back in the ulittles days.   In the right moment, the lure of hard cash can make fools of any of us.


The UCLA men's coach that was busted was actually scheduled to observe and talk with my son and his team the day his involvement became public.   Been there previously and was ramping up his recruitment efforts.


----------



## lafalafa

crush said:


> I read somewhere that coaches got together and split the $50,000 cash among themselves.  Another ex-sailing coach said he can;t have all top A+ sailors on the team because they all can;t start.  We all know if A+ player is not on the boat they will get all pissed.  So you look for C+ sailors who dont give a shit if they sail that day or not.  They need to make mama & papa happy by attending Big U.  This Rick guy made the cash calls and was the deal maker.  This really helps me get a better understanding on how this game works behind the scenes.  My mother would be so sad to hear this kind of news from her school


There where/is millions involved and some of them ended up was houses, toys, and vacations that normal college coaches or admins couldn't afford that the govt later proclaimed as illicit.

This scandal did lift the the veil on some of the potential back doors to get in and most university tighten up the pass the potential unqualified students through with lesser educational or qualifications deal some coaches became accustomed to.


----------



## crush

lafalafa said:


> There where/is millions involved and some of them ended up was houses, toys, and vacations that normal college coaches or admins couldn't afford that the govt later proclaimed as illicit.
> 
> This scandal did lift the the veil on some of the potential back doors to get in and most university tighten up the pass the potential unqualified students through with lesser educational or qualifications deal some coaches became accustomed to.


I get it man.  I've learned a lot over the years with girls soccer.


----------



## timbuck

lafalafa said:


> Well this story just keeps going
> 
> Ex-USC soccer coach tells of faking athletic credentials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-USC soccer coach tells of faking athletic credentials
> 
> 
> A former assistant soccer coach at the University of Southern California testified Monday that she regularly created fake athletic profiles with exaggerated accomplishments and images she found on Google to help get unqualified students admitted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com


Wow.  
I didn't come from a privileged background.  My parents put me through college with any money they could scrape together (neither of them were college educated).  
How in the hell if you come from a super wealthy family-  Do you not have the grades to get into a place like USC?  (Harvard or other Ivy's -  I can understand).  If you, as a parent, who works a ton of hours and makes enough money to pay several hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars to get your get into a back door at "good" school-  You have failed as a parent.  Send your little shit head to community college and teach them a lesson.

For those of us (most of us, I hope) that did it the right way-  Congrats.  You are a better person for it.


----------



## lafalafa

timbuck said:


> Wow.
> I didn't come from a privileged background.  My parents put me through college with any money they could scrape together (neither of them were college educated).
> How in the hell if you come from a super wealthy family-  Do you not have the grades to get into a place like USC?  (Harvard or other Ivy's -  I can understand).  If you, as a parent, who works a ton of hours and makes enough money to pay several hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars to get your get into a back door at "good" school-  You have failed as a parent.  Send your little shit head to community college and teach them a lesson.
> 
> For those of us (most of us, I hope) that did it the right way-  Congrats.  You are a better person for it.


Silver spoons, laziness and privilege that's how. When you never had to work hard you don't.

Brother and I where first in the family to graduate college and we didn't have any help, we saved, worked 20-40hr+ every semester and did all the side hustles we could find.  

We worked for a property management firm and did maintenance and repairs in exchange for apartment near campus.  Bought a couple used beat motorcycles and restored them so we had transportation.   We thought the kids in the dorms and frats where living the life, rooms and meals provided for them.   Booze no problem, they had plenty,  parties back than ever weekend.  We made our own meals and learned how to shop for fresh food and cook.  Both our spouses probably cook less than we do even today.

Anyway, as parent I wanted to make sure my kids earned what they achieved by themselves, worked hard, and found the value of a dollar. We never did the allowance bit, one they where old enough to do laundry that became there responsible in middle school.  Cooking and cleaning was similar although I did pay for them to attend cooking classes, seminars and some books, supplies, and stuff.

6 college grads later, 2 doctors, a PhD, and junior heath student, freshman in progress and things have turned out pretty good for us but even so all 7 of our kids between the two of us have good jobs and work including the two still in college.  Can't wait to see what the future brings.


----------



## Mossberg

Maybe I've missed something but I still don't understand how the UCLA women's soccer coach got off and didn't find herself in a pot of hot water.


----------



## lafalafa

Mossberg said:


> Maybe I've missed something but I still don't understand how the UCLA women's soccer coach got off and didn't find herself in a pot of hot water.


Plead ignorance, blamed the men's coach for setting her up or something like that. 

She claimed she didn't have any "direct" involvement in the ghost player(s) that end up on her preseason roster or something alone those lines.


----------



## crush

lafalafa said:


> Silver spoons, laziness and privilege that's how. When you never had to work hard you don't.
> 
> Brother and I where first in the family to graduate college and we didn't have any help, we saved, worked 20-40hr+ every semester and did all the side hustles we could find.
> 
> We worked for a property management firm and did maintenance and repairs in exchange for apartment near campus.  Bought a couple used beat motorcycles and restored them so we had transportation.   We thought the kids in the dorms and frats where living the life, rooms and meals provided for them.   Booze no problem, they had plenty,  parties back than ever weekend.  We made our own meals and learned how to shop for fresh food and cook.  Both our spouses probably cook less than we do even today.
> 
> Anyway, as parent I wanted to make sure my kids earned what they achieved by themselves, worked hard, and found the value of a dollar. We never did the allowance bit, one they where old enough to do laundry that became there responsible in middle school.  Cooking and cleaning was similar although I did pay for them to attend cooking classes, seminars and some books, supplies, and stuff.
> 
> 6 college grads later, 2 doctors, a PhD, and junior heath student, freshman in progress and things have turned out pretty good for us but even so all 7 of our kids between the two of us have good jobs and work including the two still in college.  Can't wait to see what the future brings.


Amazing parenting bro and i mean that 100%.  Great job   I had a best friend in college that did a Newspaper route for the OC Register all four years.  The guys called him, "paper boy."  No days off either.  Dude got up at 3am every morning, even if he was up late doing homework or just hanging with the fellas.  He always got up and I thought he was nuts.


----------



## crush

Mossberg said:


> Maybe I've missed something but I still don't understand how the UCLA women's soccer coach got off and didn't find herself in a pot of hot water.


My adopted mom's first blood son went to UCLA and was All American.  My mom went to USC as did her hubby.  All they did was fight over who is best.  Every single year.  I wonder what she would say today?  He hubby was a top lawyer who would never, ever tolerant this kind of "pay to be on the team BS" all so one can brag about kid their being a stud student/athlete at big time U.  Paying for a spot sounds not right. However, I see if it's out in the open it could help pay for the sports teams that don't make money at the ticket booth.  I said this before.  Have 20 A+ players on the roster and then have 20 C+ and B+ who pay for a spot on practice squad.  $50,000 for each spot.  Have the D1 team of players and the coaches share in the loot.  The girls are busting their tails off and sacrifice their time and their bodies and cash is King and sharing is the Queen.  Put the cash in the pot and share is my motto and do it out in the open.  The sailing coach thought this was how the schools raised money.  This is not what sports are about, right?


----------



## Carlsbad7

crush said:


> My adopted mom's first blood son went to UCLA and was All American.  My mom went to USC as did her hubby.  All they did was fight over who is best.  Every single year.  I wonder what she would say today?  He hubby was a top lawyer who would never, ever tolerant this kind of "pay to be on the team BS" all so one can brag about kid their being a stud student/athlete at big time U.  Paying for a spot sounds not right. However, I see if it's out in the open it could help pay for the sports teams that don't make money at the ticket booth.  I said this before.  Have 20 A+ players on the roster and then have 20 C+ and B+ who pay for a spot on practice squad.  $50,000 for each spot.  Have the D1 team of players and the coaches share in the loot.  The girls are busting their tails off and sacrifice their time and their bodies and cash is King and sharing is the Queen.  Put the cash in the pot and share is my motto and do it out in the open.  The sailing coach thought this was how the schools raised money.  This is not what sports are about, right?


Sounds great. Now make that an official program + watch how many real A+ players will jump at the chance to play for USC (or whoever) at all levels.

No matter how you try to justify the scam for every undeserving player that gets a position theres another player that if forced to play in a JC that could have been at USC.


----------



## outside!

lafalafa said:


> Plead ignorance, blamed the men's coach for setting her up or something like that.
> 
> She claimed she didn't have any "direct" involvement in the ghost player(s) that end up on her preseason roster or something alone those lines.


Yet the player was even on the website roster as a midfielder. Someone suggested UCLA should have been required to play her as a midfielder at least 50% of every game. I think that would have been a good lesson for everyone involved.


----------



## warrior49

outside! said:


> Yet the player was even on the website roster as a midfielder. Someone suggested UCLA should have been required to play her as a midfielder at least 50% of every game. I think that would have been a good lesson for everyone involved.


The "player" was in the team picture, listed on the team roster, yet somehow AC has no culpability. I'm still trying to figure out how that works.


----------



## lafalafa

warrior49 said:


> The "player" was in the team picture, listed on the team roster, yet somehow AC has no culpability. I'm still trying to figure out how that works.


Claimed she wasn't compensated or took any money so looking the other way apparently is ok with UCLA.

Ethnics well in college sports those boundaries seem to differ depending on how well teams/programs are doing or something?


----------



## outside!

warrior49 said:


> The "player" was in the team picture, listed on the team roster, yet somehow AC has no culpability. I'm still trying to figure out how that works.


I wonder if she got issued the team swag (practice jerseys, warm ups, etc.) that the other players got or was everyone in on the scam?


----------



## lafalafa

outside! said:


> I wonder if she got issued the team swag (practice jerseys, warm ups, etc.) that the other players got or was everyone in on the scam?


She had the uniform and swag to be in the pictures but you don't keep the uniform. They give them to the players cleaned before each game. 

Not sure if the other players ever saw her at practice so that might have have been surprising for them to see her at the photos.

Our daughter was considering UCLA just before this and had a official visit.  The time demands and sacrifices the players where making after spending some time with them made her pause and reevaluate that's for sure.


----------



## Mystery Train

Mossberg said:


> Maybe I've missed something but I still don't understand how the UCLA women's soccer coach got off and didn't find herself in a pot of hot water.


My cynical answer is:  Three Pac 12 championships, 3 Cup finals appearances, and a national championship will exempt you from being held to the same level of responsibility as random assistant coaches, part-timers, or crew and sailing coaches.  You know that if she had a poor record, she'd have been fired for lack of oversight.  Not saying it's right or wrong, just true.


----------



## GT45

The men's coach at UCLA was behind that female non-player being on the women's teams roster. Cromwell was a much newer employee at the university at the time. Whose to say she was not pressured into this by superiors? I have no inside knowledge at all. But that is a plausible scenario. If her superior told her this was going to happen (she would be getting a manager who will be rostered in exchange for a donation to the univeristy), she is not culpible, in my opinion. She is taking orders.


----------



## espola

GT45 said:


> The men's coach at UCLA was behind that female non-player being on the women's teams roster. Cromwell was a much newer employee at the university at the time. Whose to say she was not pressured into this by superiors? I have no inside knowledge at all. But that is a plausible scenario. If her superior told her this was going to happen (she would be getting a manager who will be rostered in exchange for a donation to the univeristy), she is not culpible, in my opinion. She is taking orders.


That's exactly where ethics begins.


----------



## GT45

espola said:


> That's exactly where ethics begins.


It depends how it was spun to her. She may have just been told that there was a sizeable donation to the university and she was being a team player. If she knew nothing about the bribe the men's coach took, it comes off as weird that they want me to roster her, but it is not illegal. If you expect a newer coach at UCLA to blow the whistle on her boss and risk her prestigious coaching job over it (which would have likely happened), good luck finding that person.


----------



## espola

GT45 said:


> It depends how it was spun to her. She may have just been told that there was a sizeable donation to the university and she was being a team player. If she knew nothing about the bribe the men's coach took, it comes off as weird that they want me to roster her, but it is not illegal. If you expect a newer coach at UCLA to blow the whistle on her boss and risk her prestigious coaching job over it (which would have likely happened), good luck finding that person.


That's exactly where ethics begins.


----------



## Sike

timbuck said:


> How in the hell if you come from a super wealthy family-  Do you not have the grades to get into a place like USC?  (Harvard or other Ivy's -  I can understand).


USC and UCLA are not easy to get into.  About a 10% overall acceptance rate, and kids with GPA's well above 4.0 and high test scores consistently get denied.  I am not suggesting it is Ivy league level, but (if you don't have a hook) you generally need to be at the top of your class now to get into either school.


----------



## GT45

espola said:


> That's exactly where ethics begins.


You ignored what I said, smart guy. There was potentially nothing illegal (just strange) about the plausible scenario I presented. That would not be about a lack of ethics.  How many football coaches (or any sport) let the guy join their roster even though he will never see the field ... perhaps because he is a kid with connections? It happens all the time.


----------



## espola

GT45 said:


> You ignored what I said, smart guy. There was potentially nothing illegal (just strange) about the plausible scenario I presented. That would not be about a lack of ethics.  How many football coaches (or any sport) let the guy join their roster even though he will never see the field ... perhaps because he is a kid with connections? It happens all the time.


Legal and ethical are not the same thing.


----------



## lafalafa

espola said:


> Legal and ethical are not the same thing.


Feds didn't find a financial trail or transaction to her so she was not charged.

They had the goods, paper trail, finances on the men's coach and some speculation he was a scapegoat

Obviously they had been acquaintances since they both had been at UCLA several years when this broke.

Head coaches are responsible for their programs and it's not like the other teams coach can put players on your roster or make personnel decisions for you.   SHe either did some favors, turned a blind eye or let him and/or assistants do things without her knowledge or approval which did raise questions about ethic's and controls in place.

UCLA did their own investigation and decided to retain her.


----------



## espola

lafalafa said:


> Feds didn't find a financial trail or transaction to her so she was not charged.
> 
> They had the goods, paper trail, finances on the men's coach and some speculation he was a scapegoat
> 
> Obviously they had been acquaintances since they both had been at UCLA several years when this broke.
> 
> Head coaches are responsible for their programs and it's not like the other teams coach can put players on your roster or make personnel decisions for you.   SHe either did some favors, turned a blind eye or let him and/or assistants do things without her knowledge or approval which did raise questions about ethic's and controls in place.
> 
> UCLA did their own investigation and decided to retain her.


If they had fired her for doing what the athletic and admissions departments asked, that would have been a juicy lawsuit.  It seems to me that if she had refused to go along with the charade they couldn't have fired her then either without some damage or scandal.  She went along to try to keep things quiet, which is her ethical shortcoming.


----------



## Soccer43

Seems she may have a few ethical shortcomings as she is in a relationship with one of her former players


----------



## GT45

lafalafa said:


> Feds didn't find a financial trail or transaction to her so she was not charged.
> 
> They had the goods, paper trail, finances on the men's coach and some speculation he was a scapegoat
> 
> Obviously they had been acquaintances since they both had been at UCLA several years when this broke.
> 
> Head coaches are responsible for their programs and it's not like the other teams coach can put players on your roster or make personnel decisions for you.   SHe either did some favors, turned a blind eye or let him and/or assistants do things without her knowledge or approval which did raise questions about ethic's and controls in place.
> 
> UCLA did their own investigation and decided to retain her.


You are assuming the men's coach coerced her into this. What if it was the AD or her direct supervisor who asked this of her? That is what I was proposing.

As for the difference between legal and ethical, is it unethical for a football coach to let the guy he knows will never play - but is the son of a booster, or his next door neighbor - be on the roster. It happends all the time, and that question was ignored.  It is the same thing Cromwell did.


----------



## GT45

I doubt that the men's coach was simply a scapegoat. He pocketed the cash, and from reports, he had a direct relationship with the former USC women's coach. He deserved what he got. I would think he would have implicated someone else in a plea deal if you could have. This wasn't a toothless NCAA investigation, it was the Feds.


----------



## espola

GT45 said:


> You are assuming the men's coach coerced her into this. What if it was the AD or her direct supervisor who asked this of her? That is what I was proposing.
> 
> As for the difference between legal and ethical, is it unethical for a football coach to let the guy he knows will never play - but is the son of a booster, or his next door neighbor - be on the roster. It happends all the time, and that question was ignored.  It is the same thing Cromwell did.


Does the football coach accept such a person if he has no skill or history in the game?  Even Rudy at Notre Dame had played the game before.


----------



## lafalafa

GT45 said:


> I doubt that the men's coach was simply a scapegoat. He pocketed the cash, and from reports, he had a direct relationship with the former USC women's coach. He deserved what he got. I would think he would have implicated someone else in a plea deal if you could have. This wasn't a toothless NCAA investigation, it was the Feds.


He was the fall guy for AC

"Isackson did not play competitive soccer before matriculating at UCLA, prosecutors say, and yet for an entire season she was listed as a midfielder on the roster of a team that finished the 2017 season as runner-up to national champion Stanford. Her profile on a Pac-12 website says she made no appearances and played no minutes during the season"

When she was admitted as a recruited soccer player in June 2016, a UCLA student-athlete admissions committee required she play on the team for at least one year, the indictment says.

Salcedo sent the girl’s transcript and test scores to an unnamed UCLA women’s soccer coach, according to the indictment. About a month later, the “UCLA Student-Athlete Admissions Committee” approved Isackson for admittance as a recruited non-scholarship athlete, the indictment says.









						No soccer experience, but she still got a spot on elite UCLA team in college admissions scandal
					

Lauren Isackson’s athletic credentials were dwarfed by those of her teammates.




					www.latimes.com
				




The unnamed womens soccer coach is AC's responsibility and they recommend she be admitted, she did not play one year as required but was listed on the roster for the entire season. 

Tamberg blamed Jorge Salcedo, UCLA’s men’s soccer coach, for allegedly submitting a “falsified soccer profile”.   If that's not scapegoating don't know what is?


----------



## watfly

We're going through the college process with my Senior daughter, not a soccer player, and if I had an extra $200,000 laying around I might consider the back door approach.  Seriously though the whole college process has become such a contrived process, particularly in California.  Kudos to any kid that can get into a top notch school without any outside professional consulting on essays and tests.   My daughter has a 4.6/4.0 with a heavy load of AP and honors classes with a decent extracurricular resume; however, she hasn't cured cancer, founded a woke startup or grown up in a grass hut raised by hyenas.  It's highly unlikely she will get into Berkeley, UCLA or even UCSB.

I don't condone anything that the Operation Varsity Blues parents did but our University admissions system is FUBAR'ed.  And don't get me started on the cost of a college education.

At the end of the day, I'm a firm believer that it doesn't matter where you go to school, other than maybe your first job.  It's just frustrating to see your child work so hard and get great results in their classes, yet have that be not enough.


----------



## Mystery Train

watfly said:


> We're going through the college process with my Senior daughter, not a soccer player, and if I had an extra $200,000 laying around I might consider the back door approach.  Seriously though the whole college process has become such a contrived process, particularly in California.  Kudos to any kid that can get into a top notch school without any outside professional consulting on essays and tests.   My daughter has a 4.6/4.0 with a heavy load of AP and honors classes with a decent extracurricular resume; however, she hasn't cured cancer, founded a woke startup or grown up in a grass hut raised by hyenas.  It's highly unlikely she will get into Berkeley, UCLA or even UCSB.
> 
> I don't condone anything that the Operation Varsity Blues parents did but our University admissions system is FUBAR'ed.  And don't get me started on the cost of a college education.
> 
> At the end of the day, I'm a firm believer that it doesn't matter where you go to school, other than maybe your first job.  It's just frustrating to see your child work so hard and get great results in their classes, yet have that be not enough.


This.  All day.  

Where you got your undergraduate degree means next to nothing when it comes to achieving success in life, personally and professionally.  I worked at a kid's after school program when I got out of college and we hired a guy who had just got his bachelor's from Yale, and then canned him in less than a month because he was completely useless.  The only thing he accomplished in his incredibly brief time there was to ensure nobody missed that he'd gone to Yale.   Years later I was at an electrical engineering firm where we had technicians with 2-year degrees from ITT who ran circles around a guy with an engineering degree from Cambridge.  Ancedotes, yes.  But the point is, (and all of you should know this from observing the youth club soccer scene) fancy names and branding can't hide lack of talent, grit, determination, and productivity.  Ultimately, if you have those qualities, you're going to win, in spite of the fact that lots of people without those things are going to have head-starts because of money, luck, location, or birthright.  

The "advantages" of going to these prestigious schools are real, but they are also wildly overvalued.  Who is smarter?  The kid who gets all their general ed credits out of the way at the local CC, saving their money and working, transfers to SC (the transfer success rate is FAR greater than the freshman acceptance rate) and graduates without debt, or the kid who gets private tutors and academic coaches, rich parents to grease the wheels, and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars (legitimately or otherwise) to get that same degree to hang on the wall?


----------



## Messi>CR7

watfly said:


> We're going through the college process with my Senior daughter, not a soccer player, and if I had an extra $200,000 laying around I might consider the back door approach.  Seriously though the whole college process has become such a contrived process, particularly in California.  Kudos to any kid that can get into a top notch school without any outside professional consulting on essays and tests.   My daughter has a 4.6/4.0 with a heavy load of AP and honors classes with a decent extracurricular resume; however, she hasn't cured cancer, founded a woke startup or grown up in a grass hut raised by hyenas.  It's highly unlikely she will get into Berkeley, UCLA or even UCSB.
> 
> I don't condone anything that the Operation Varsity Blues parents did but our University admissions system is FUBAR'ed.  And don't get me started on the cost of a college education.
> 
> At the end of the day, I'm a firm believer that it doesn't matter where you go to school, other than maybe your first job.  It's just frustrating to see your child work so hard and get great results in their classes, yet have that be not enough.


Is she trying to get into computer or electrical engineering?  4.6 is certainly higher than the average profile of an incoming freshman at UCSB.


----------



## crush

watfly said:


> We're going through the college process with my Senior daughter, not a soccer player, and if I had an extra $200,000 laying around I might consider the back door approach.  Seriously though the whole college process has become such a contrived process, particularly in California.  Kudos to any kid that can get into a top notch school without any outside professional consulting on essays and tests.   My daughter has a 4.6/4.0 with a heavy load of AP and honors classes with a decent extracurricular resume; however, she hasn't cured cancer, founded a woke startup or grown up in a grass hut raised by hyenas.  It's highly unlikely she will get into Berkeley, UCLA or even UCSB.
> 
> I don't condone anything that the Operation Varsity Blues parents did but our University admissions system is FUBAR'ed.  And don't get me started on the cost of a college education.
> 
> At the end of the day, I'm a firm believer that it doesn't matter where you go to school, other than maybe your first job.  It's just frustrating to see your child work so hard and get great results in their classes, yet have that be not enough.


Can I buy .3 from your dd 4.6?  $10,000 for every point?  4.6 is insane and super impressive.  My dd is following an old teamate who starts for a P5 program.  She just shared her schedule for this week and it made my dd see the truth.  This girl had 4.7 and a half full ride for grades and half in soccer.


----------



## watfly

Messi>CR7 said:


> Is she trying to get into computer or electrical engineering?  4.6 is certainly higher than the average profile of an incoming freshman at UCSB.


No.   Hopefully your right although she isn't dying to go to UCSB.  I just have to laugh because when I was going to college UCSB was the fall back, party school.  Its now rated 28th by US News and World Report.


----------



## lafalafa

watfly said:


> We're going through the college process with my Senior daughter, not a soccer player, and if I had an extra $200,000 laying around I might consider the back door approach.  Seriously though the whole college process has become such a contrived process, particularly in California.  Kudos to any kid that can get into a top notch school without any outside professional consulting on essays and tests.   My daughter has a 4.6/4.0 with a heavy load of AP and honors classes with a decent extracurricular resume; however, she hasn't cured cancer, founded a woke startup or grown up in a grass hut raised by hyenas.  It's highly unlikely she will get into Berkeley, UCLA or even UCSB.
> 
> I don't condone anything that the Operation Varsity Blues parents did but our University admissions system is FUBAR'ed.  And don't get me started on the cost of a college education.
> 
> At the end of the day, I'm a firm believer that it doesn't matter where you go to school, other than maybe your first job.  It's just frustrating to see your child work so hard and get great results in their classes, yet have that be not enough.


Yeah for regular non Athletics definitely more difficult to get in. 

At UCLA for Athletics you can have a 3.5 and get in even if you don't meet all the NCAA requirements, with the Auto Covid-19 waviers for 21-23 applicants that only need 13 of the required 16 core classes classes with a 2.8gpa to get NCCA qualified.

 At UCSB even easier coaches pre-read his qualifications and they asigneed a athletic advisor to him to help with the process.   Ultimately decided to go elsewhere due to campus life, coaching staff, and the desire to have more opportunities for minutes as a freshman or sophomore, and a better less tempting housing environment. 

Guess we where fortunate that all our students were very good writers with good gpa's and scores that where only about average but they where accepted to all the university they really wanted to attend and just had to narrow down the choices and pick one. Early applications help, admission and qualifications sent help.   My students did all the work and I wasn't involved much besides some questions about paperwork.  Didn't seem any different vs anything else govt ran  to them and I didn't hear too many rumblings.

Where you go can matter from a network,  connections, facilities, or professors standpoint. USC has some great alumni,  donors, facilities and programs for certain majors that would be difficult to match with industry experience compared to some places.  Without FA most people just can't afford to attend but if you do like our neighborhood does can be great.

Specialized field but she already got a good internship her freshman year and now is working part time in her chosen field of study.

Hope things work out for your daughter and she can always transfer in later which can be easier for admissions.

Changing your life and going away to college is big step and it's not easy finding the right match,  2 out of the 3bof ours took much longer to decide vs what they thought originally but where happy on the end the went over everything including multiple on site history before making the decisions.  We didn't even know until it was already done,. Oh by the way I accepted and will be attending xyz during a causal conversation or dinner can come as a surprise.


----------



## Emma

watfly said:


> No.   Hopefully your right although she isn't dying to go to UCSB.  I just have to laugh because when I was going to college UCSB was the fall back, party school.  Its now rated 28th by US News and World Report.


Would you rather visit her at UCSB or LA/Berkeley?  A weekend getaway to Santa Barbara while getting credit for being loving parents.  Might want to persuade her a little to picking the correct school since undergrad isn't THAT important.


----------



## watfly

Emma said:


> Would you rather visit her at UCSB or LA/Berkeley?  A weekend getaway to Santa Barbara while getting credit for being loving parents.  Might want to persuade her a little to picking the correct school since undergrad isn't THAT important.


She wants to be on the dance/pom team and on the field on gameday Saturday's, which she can't do at UCSB.


----------



## Messi>CR7

watfly said:


> No.   Hopefully your right although she isn't dying to go to UCSB.  I just have to laugh because when I was going to college UCSB was the fall back, party school.  Its now rated 28th by US News and World Report.











						Forbes America’s Top Colleges List 2022
					

Our annual review of America’s best colleges spotlights schools that deliver a top-notch education for an affordable price, funnel graduates into high-paying careers and propel students to become successful entrepreneurs and influential leaders in their fields. Whether a school is in the Top 10...




					www.forbes.com
				



FWIW, your local UCSD is #15 in the latest Forbes ranking ahead of Georgetown, Brown, and John Hopkins among others.  Forbes changed the ranking methodology this year.  Instead of identifying the strongest academic schools, they added more emphasis on return on investment, how quickly the debt is paid off after graduation, etc.  Many public schools improved in rankings while private schools dropped as a result.

Applying to these prestige but expensive schools is somewhat like club soccer.  Do everything you can to get on the best team possible and worry about the ROI later.


----------



## Woodwork

Messi>CR7 said:


> Forbes America’s Top Colleges List 2022
> 
> 
> Our annual review of America’s best colleges spotlights schools that deliver a top-notch education for an affordable price, funnel graduates into high-paying careers and propel students to become successful entrepreneurs and influential leaders in their fields. Whether a school is in the Top 10...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, your local UCSD is #15 in the latest Forbes ranking ahead of Georgetown, Brown, and John Hopkins among others.  Forbes changed the ranking methodology this year.  Instead of identifying the strongest academic schools, they added more emphasis on return on investment, how quickly the debt is paid off after graduation, etc.  Many public schools improved in rankings while private schools dropped as a result.
> 
> Applying to these prestige but expensive schools is somewhat like club soccer.  Do everything you can to get on the best team possible and worry about the ROI later.


That ranking is hot garbage on its face.  But if you don't like it then wait 'til next year when they change the formula again to generate buzz.


----------



## lafalafa

Woodwork said:


> That ranking is hot garbage on its face.  But if you don't like it then wait 'til next year when they change the formula again to generate buzz.


Dependent on what your field of study might be or the Colleges of study.  Campus, environment and fellow students also make a significant difference. 

If you're into technology, engineering or socal issues maybe Berkeley is your cup of tea?  

Liberal arts outside the city maybe Wellesley College if the easy coast is your thing? 

ranking are like opinions everybody has something different they look at.


----------



## Woodwork

lafalafa said:


> Dependent on what your field of study might be or the Colleges of study.  Campus, environment and fellow students also make a significant difference.
> 
> If you're into technology, engineering or socal issues maybe Berkeley is your cup of tea?
> 
> Liberal arts outside the city maybe Wellesley College if the easy coast is your thing?
> 
> ranking are like opinions everybody has something different they look at.


I agree. With that in mind, we know exactly how much schools cost and we can decide if that is important to us individually.   But, to say Berkeley is the best school in the nation because it provides ONLY CALIFORNIANS severely discounted tuition is idiotic.  This is the ranking I would create for my kid, but it isn't worth anything for my brother's kid out of state.

There was a school a while back that created its own ranking that said the number of books in the library and number of chairs in the library was an important factor.  Guess which school was number 1 on that ranking.


----------



## crush

Varsity Blues’ mastermind & middleman Rick Singer made $28 million in scam, auditor says.  TGIFF and this business model of helping a rich buddy or neighbor get their dd or ds into Big U and tell everyone their kids great success of playing a sport they never played before, is going to finally end.  I'm truly sad for all the hard working soccer players over the years ((torn ACLs, concussions, broken legs, broken nose, broken wrist) and let's also not forget all the mental abuse "some" girls have taken from asshole men who should NEVER be coaching females.  I think some of these so called men have issues with women from their youth.  I'm pissed because some girls got left out of the opportunities because someone else got the spot because dad or mom have some connections and some extra money to buy the spot.  This runs very deep my friends.  Clean up with bleach takes time.


----------



## supercell

crush said:


> Varsity Blues’ mastermind & middleman Rick Singer made $28 million in scam, auditor says.  TGIFF and this business model of helping a rich buddy or neighbor get their dd or ds into Big U and tell everyone their kids great success of playing a sport they never played before, is going to finally end.  I'm truly sad for all the hard working soccer players over the years ((torn ACLs, concussions, broken legs, broken nose, broken wrist) and let's also not forget all the mental abuse "some" girls have taken from asshole men who should NEVER be coaching females.  I think some of these so called men have issues with women from their youth.  I'm pissed because some girls got left out of the opportunities because someone else got the spot because dad or mom have some connections and some extra money to buy the spot.  This runs very deep my friends.  Clean up with bleach takes time.


Well lets not get too crazy. Most of those varsity blues players never even saw the practice venue, and were listed at the back end of an overly large roster. Its not like those programs were gonna take on players legitimately for those spots.


----------



## crush

supercell said:


> Well lets not get too crazy. Most of those varsity blues players never even saw the practice venue, and were listed at the back end of an overly large roster. Its not like those programs were gonna take on players legitimately for those spots.


super cell, good morning.  You know what dude, this whole thing and I mean the whole thing is a pile of something.  TGIFF and the LIGHT is shinning through the cheating and the mental abuse these girls have been going through.  Look at the Pro League and the news about how some men coaches have been treating the females.  The girls are starting to feel strong to speak up and this is just the begginning.  My dd friend posted the other day she 1 hour of free time of playing big time P5 and she chooses to take a nap.  2022 is the year of the woman.  Let's not sweep this under the rug either bro.  Let's pull that rug out and let's take a look at ALL of it and get all the mold and cockroaches out and then lay new carpet for everyone to have EQUAL ACCESS based on MERIT not how much money your willing to pay for a spot.  Again, maybe they should just sell the spot to help raise money.  Just be honest about it.


----------



## crush




----------



## Emma

watfly said:


> She wants to be on the dance/pom team and on the field on gameday Saturday's, which she can't do at UCSB.


Maybe she can be a trailblazer at UCSB and get a dance/pom team out on game days.  Doesn't have to be American Football, why not do it for a girl's soccer or something else.


----------



## espola

Emma said:


> Maybe she can be a trailblazer at UCSB and get a dance/pom team out on game days.  Doesn't have to be American Football, why not do it for a girl's soccer or something else.


Don't they already perform at basketball games?


----------



## GT45

lafalafa said:


> He was the fall guy for AC
> 
> "Isackson did not play competitive soccer before matriculating at UCLA, prosecutors say, and yet for an entire season she was listed as a midfielder on the roster of a team that finished the 2017 season as runner-up to national champion Stanford. Her profile on a Pac-12 website says she made no appearances and played no minutes during the season"
> 
> When she was admitted as a recruited soccer player in June 2016, a UCLA student-athlete admissions committee required she play on the team for at least one year, the indictment says.
> 
> Salcedo sent the girl’s transcript and test scores to an unnamed UCLA women’s soccer coach, according to the indictment. About a month later, the “UCLA Student-Athlete Admissions Committee” approved Isackson for admittance as a recruited non-scholarship athlete, the indictment says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No soccer experience, but she still got a spot on elite UCLA team in college admissions scandal
> 
> 
> Lauren Isackson’s athletic credentials were dwarfed by those of her teammates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unnamed womens soccer coach is AC's responsibility and they recommend she be admitted, she did not play one year as required but was listed on the roster for the entire season.
> 
> Tamberg blamed Jorge Salcedo, UCLA’s men’s soccer coach, for allegedly submitting a “falsified soccer profile”.   If that's not scapegoating don't know what is?


Wait what? Salcedo arranged for the fake profile and took the bribe money. How is he a scapegoat. He set this whole charade in motion, and he committed a crime. I do not know the women's coach's involvment, but to say Salcedo is a scapegoat when he is the one who set it in motion and benefitted from it, is absurd. What did the women's coach or program gain here? Looks more like they did Salcedo a favor (likely not knowing he was being paid handsomely for it).

_Jorge Salcedo, the former UCLA soccer coach charged with endorsing the fraudulent admission of two students for $200,000 in bribes_


----------



## lafalafa

GT45 said:


> Wait what? Salcedo arranged for the fake profile and took the bribe money. How is he a scapegoat. He set this whole charade in motion, and he committed a crime. I do not know the women's coach's involvment, but to say Salcedo is a scapegoat when he is the one who set it in motion and benefitted from it, is absurd. What did the women's coach or program gain here? Looks more like they did Salcedo a favor (likely not knowing he was being paid handsomely for it).
> 
> _Jorge Salcedo, the former UCLA soccer coach charged with endorsing the fraudulent admission of two students for $200,000 in bribes_


Yeah your vainly attempting to put all the blame on JS which everyone knows is not the case.

Yes he was part of the scheme and was convicted but that doesn't excuse the women's program or the the head coach for what they permitted to happen, you can't blame or scape goat somebody else for what you  allowed to happen and approved a ghost player that never saw the field for 1 year.


----------



## lafalafa

GT45 said:


> Wait what? Salcedo arranged for the fake profile and took the bribe money. How is he a scapegoat. He set this whole charade in motion, and he committed a crime. I do not know the women's coach's involvment, but to say Salcedo is a scapegoat when he is the one who set it in motion and benefitted from it, is absurd. What did the women's coach or program gain here? Looks more like they did Salcedo a favor (likely not knowing he was being paid handsomely for it).
> 
> _Jorge Salcedo, the former UCLA soccer coach charged with endorsing the fraudulent admission of two students for $200,000 in bribes_


"UCLA’s own internal documents reveal that, for many years, its Athletic Department has facilitated the admission of unqualified applicants — students who do not meet UCLA’s rigorous academic or athletics standards — through the student-athlete admissions process in exchange for huge ‘donations’ by the students’ wealthy parents,” the motion said.









						Ex-coach charged in admissions scandal accuses UCLA of admitting unqualified athletes
					

Ex-UCLA soccer coach Jorge Salcedo, charged in the college admissions scandal, accused the school of using athlete admissions “as a vehicle to raise funds.”




					www.latimes.com
				




Do you have any idea what it takes to get a player NCCA approved, put on a roster, given a uniform, appear in the team photos,. About 50 different things, waviers, sign-offs, compliance review all of which have to happen with the approval of the head coach and others.

Don't be navie in thinking creating a fake programs that is vastly underwhelming compared to any other UCLA player is anything but 1 step in 50 that's required to roster a player.  Any body that read that profile knew it didn't qualify that player to be on the UCLA squad, doesn't take much too due diligence to figure that out which obviously didn't happen not to mention all the other things this player was approved for by the women's coaching staff and head coach.

Nothing excuses what JC did but at least he admitted what he did was wrong and accepted punishment for taking the bribes due to what he called being in debt from a 2m house that he couldn't afford.


----------



## crush

lafalafa said:


> "UCLA’s own internal documents reveal that, for many years, its Athletic Department has facilitated the admission of unqualified applicants — students who do not meet UCLA’s rigorous academic or athletics standards — through the student-athlete admissions process in exchange for huge ‘donations’ by the students’ wealthy parents,” the motion said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-coach charged in admissions scandal accuses UCLA of admitting unqualified athletes
> 
> 
> Ex-UCLA soccer coach Jorge Salcedo, charged in the college admissions scandal, accused the school of using athlete admissions “as a vehicle to raise funds.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what it takes to get a player NCCA approved, put on a roster, given a uniform, appear in the team photos,. About 50 different things, waviers, sign-offs, compliance review all of which have to happen with the approval of the head coach and others.
> 
> Don't be navie in thinking creating a fake programs that is vastly underwhelming compared to any other UCLA player is anything but 1 step in 50 that's required to roster a player.  Any body that read that profile knew it didn't qualify that player to be on the UCLA squad, doesn't take much too due diligence to figure that out which obviously didn't happen or not to mention all the other things this player was approved for by the women's coaching staff and head coach.
> 
> Nothing excuses what JC did but at least he admitted what he did was wrong and accepted punishment for taking the bribes due to what he called being in debt from a 2m house that he couldn't afford.


This is deep stuff man.  I tell everyone I know to confess if a confession is warranted.  You will feel so much better and only then can true healing take place.  I do appreciate JC for coming clean and shedding light on all this.  Mr. Wilson still thinks his boy was a stud water polo player at SC and is on trial as we speak.


----------



## GT45

Yes, I am aware of what it takes for a freshman to be eligible to compete. But, there is zero indication that she was truly rostered beyond showing up on the media guide and website. She never entered a game. I highly doubt they even ran her through compliance. Only the SID would have had to list her on those two sites. You act like she played a game for christ sake.

I am not excusing the women's staff. But I am also not judging them for what we do not know.

What we do know is that Salcedo took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. So he is a scumbag and a criminal. I really doubt that UCLA is covering up crimes from the Fed's for their womens soccer coach. Use a bit of common sense here.


----------



## GT45

Oh and part of a plea deal is usually giving up goods on others to lessen your sentence. Are you saying that Salcedo fell on a sword for the women's staff or admin, and did not try to lessen his sentence? He is a husband and father. If he had the goods, he would have given them up.


----------



## lafalafa

GT45 said:


> Oh and part of a plea deal is usually giving up goods on others to lessen your sentence. Are you saying that Salcedo fell on a sword for the women's staff or admin, and did not try to lessen his sentence? He is a husband and father. If he had the goods, he would have given them up.


You might want to research a bit more before you continue your speculation.









						Investigations of College Admissions and Testing Bribery Scheme
					






					www.justice.gov
				




No he was one part of a much wider problem,  he admitted to his crime and pleaded guilty.

His lawyers filed that motion separately that details the systemstic problems as described in the LA times regarding UCLA.

He was a convenient scapegoat for the 50 other things that went down to place that player on the women's roster.   One of these days your figure out that one wrong doesn't justify the other 50 things that where done, approved, and perpetuated by the women's program for a year supporting a fake ghost player.


----------



## lafalafa

GT45 said:


> Yes, I am aware of what it takes for a freshman to be eligible to compete. But, there is zero indication that she was truly rostered beyond showing up on the media guide and website. She never entered a game. I highly doubt they even ran her through compliance. Only the SID would have had to list her on those two sites. You act like she played a game for christ sake.
> 
> I am not excusing the women's staff. But I am also not judging them for what we do not know.
> 
> What we do know is that Salcedo took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. So he is a scumbag and a criminal. I really doubt that UCLA is covering up crimes from the Fed's for their womens soccer coach. Use a bit of common sense here.


Your obviously haven't been following through with any sense.  The condition of that players accepted was that she remained on the roster for one year.   They claimed she was just a practice player.    

Any player that practices had to be cleared and approved by the NCAA and about 50 others things must be done, approved, waivers signed, etc.  All this was done by the women's program, she was given a uniform, appeared in the team photos, etc. This went on for a year before the charade was exposed by the LA times. 

What JS did is a seperate issue and your continuing confusing and justifying his one action for the other 50 done and perpetuated by the women's program. 

Highly doubt your speculation will change the facts of what happen.


----------



## GT45

I have paid a lot of attention to this. There is zero indication she ever practiced. UCLA's internal policies are not the same as the NCAA. So UCLA can say she has to remain on the roster for a year, UCLA SID is told to put her on the roster on the website and media guide, but she is never submitted through compliance. It is not hard to see that this is a plausible scenario.

Criminals who accept bribes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars are not scapegoats. They are felons, prisoners.

A scapegoat is "a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency." He was blamed and pled guilty to his own wrongdoings. That is not a scapegoat.

As for the women's program, you are convicting them without knowledge. Are you aware of any conversations they may have had with their boss on this issue? Were they instructed to do this? Unlike you, I do not judge unless I know. I know the men's coach is guilty because he admitted to it.

He deflects and says UCLA has systematic issues, but he put $200,000 in his own damn pocket! Maybe UCLA unethically admits rich folks who donate to the school, but this is on him. He cashed bribery checks for personal gain.


----------



## lafalafa

GT45 said:


> I have paid a lot of attention to this. There is zero indication she ever practiced. UCLA's internal policies are not the same as the NCAA. So UCLA can say she has to remain on the roster for a year, UCLA SID is told to put her on the roster on the website and media guide, but she is never submitted through compliance. It is not hard to see that this is a plausible scenario.
> 
> Criminals who accept bribes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars are not scapegoats. They are felons, prisoners.
> 
> A scapegoat is "a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency." He was blamed and pled guilty to his own wrongdoings. That is not a scapegoat.
> 
> As for the women's program, you are convicting them without knowledge. Are you aware of any conversations they may have had with their boss on this issue? Were they instructed to do this? Unlike you, I do not judge unless I know. I know the men's coach is guilty because he admitted to it.
> 
> He deflects and says UCLA has systematic issues, but he put $200,000 in his own damn pocket! Maybe UCLA unethically admits rich folks who donate to the school, but this is on him. He cashed bribery checks for personal gain.


Again your speculating but the LA times and the women's program already are on record saying she was on the roster, practiced, received her jersey, was in the team pictures, those are the facts any no matter how much you want to paint a different picture the facts don't back up your speculation. There are players quoted that in fact this player did attend practice several times. 

Simple you have zero facts and have presented nothing to back up any of your speculation. 

Yeah your right the women's program in not guilty of anything but perpetuating a fraudulent player for year, gave her a jesery, put her on the roster and knew she had to remain there for year to be accepted.  Those things are well documented. 

You like most deflectors just keep using JS as a scapegoat and just keep beating that drum.  Making up stuff doesn't make them pausable.


----------



## GT45

Please share where the "women's program already are on record saying she practiced and received a jersey." Also, show me the team photo she was in.

I have given you facts: The men's coach admitted he committed a crime. You made some things up (see my first sentence in this post) to support your assertions. Also, waiting on you to respond to whether or not they were directed to do this by their superiors? I suppose you do not know the answer though.

JS is a convicted felon serving time in prison for his crimes.


----------



## lafalafa

GT45 said:


> Please share where the "women's program already are on record saying she practiced and received a jersey." Also, show me the team photo she was in.
> 
> I have given you facts: The men's coach admitted he committed a crime. You made some things up (see my first sentence in this post) to support your assertions. Also, waiting on you to respond to whether or not they were directed to do this by their superiors? I suppose you do not know the answer though.
> 
> JS is a convicted felon serving time in prison for his crimes.


All ready been posted, reference the la times articles already linked in this post

Not going to rehash stuff that you didn't pay attention to.. you can search them if you want the truth but you had your mind made up before hand that the women's program was just doing some "favors". Yes the did and that's the problem.

JS took bribes in order to get LI on the women's soccer team roster.  If she wasn't put on the roster she wouldn't have been accepted and her parents wouldn't have paid.  She earned college credit for being in soccer for a year.    The women's program was a enabler and did about 50 different things to make that happen including approvals, giving her a  uniform,  in the team photo, etc.  That information remained on line even after the fact until the LA times exposed the charade and UCLA decided they better update that information. 

Not going to speculate about some conversation that some people involved may or may not have had.  There was a number of people involved besides JS and at least 3 from the women's staff that allowed this to happen for a year.


----------



## lafalafa

Just in case your memory continues to be selective read through the thread and pay closer attention.  From post #40

These are the facts:

.. the players transcripts & test scores where forwarded to a UCLA women's soccer coach.

In 2016 player was accepted.    on the condition she would participate on the women's team as a student athlete for a minimum of one year...



			https://www.socalsoccer.com/attachments/upload_2019-3-12_16-57-47-jpeg.4198/
		


I could go on and on but no need to the documentation, articles, and shows the facts that the women's program was in on the charade from the beginning.


----------



## lafalafa

Somebody just send this and yes they did run this player through compliance. 

The NCAA compliance officer at the time was reluctant to approve because she wasn't sure the student ever played soccer according to NBC news. With that profile it's fairly obviously it was fake and there no validation available or reference backing it up in media or records so she accepted a "backstory" from staff instead.  Not to mention that profile might get a player into a junior college but not even a stiff at anywhere close to D1 and pales in comparison to any other player they had. 






						Lauren Isackson - Women's Soccer - UCLA
					

Lauren Isackson (41) Midfielder  - High School/Club Honorable mention All-WBAL selection in 2014 … Team captain for Woodside Soccer Club from 2012-16 … Selected




					uclabruins.com


----------



## crush

lafalafa said:


> Somebody just send this and yes they did run this player through compliance.
> 
> The NCAA compliance officer at the time was reluctant to approve because she wasn't sure the student ever played soccer according to NBC news. With that profile it's fairly obviously it was fake and there no validation available or reference backing it up in media or records so she accepted a "backstory" from staff instead.  Not to mention that profile might get a player into a junior college but not even a stiff at anywhere close to D1 and pales in comparison to any other player they had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lauren Isackson - Women's Soccer - UCLA
> 
> 
> Lauren Isackson (41) Midfielder  - High School/Club Honorable mention All-WBAL selection in 2014 … Team captain for Woodside Soccer Club from 2012-16 … Selected
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uclabruins.com


What does All-WBAL mean?  I woukd think it would have said,  "MVP of the WBAL League" not honorable mention of the WBAL.


----------



## lafalafa

crush said:


> What does All-WBAL mean?  I woukd think it would have said,  "MVP of the WBAL League" not honorable mention of the WBAL.


Some made up stuff that's so obviously fake that anybody that took some time to research would question like the NCAA compliance officer did at UCLA.

There where around 6 categorizes of people that participated enabling all the stuff to happen and go on for a while.   Ring leader (s), entitled wealthy parents, corrupt bribable coaches and some that didn't necessarily take bribes or $ but where enablers, did favors, or just went along with the charade that includes athletic department staff staff such as coaches, trainers, admins.

At least with JS he's taken responsibility for his transgressions, admitted he made a series of poor decisions, payed his fines, doing the time.  Others not so much but case is still on going









						Lauren Isackson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
					

Lauren Isackson was admitted to UCLA as a soccer recruit in 2016 even through she never played. Isackson's parents paid a $250,000 bribe in the form of Facebook stock to get her in.




					heavy.com


----------



## espola

There are lots of little things you can find if you know where to look, not at the level of bribery to gain admission, but little ethical lapses even so.  Coaches' biographies are often sanitized to remove any negative notes.  Players sometimes claim honors they didn't really earn.  Third-parties interfere with transfers, making deals in the shadows to get around NCAA regulations.  

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


----------



## GT45

Dude get over it. Cromwell is still employed at UCLA. TS is a convicted felon. But, according to you TS, the Feds, UCLA, its administrators are all covering up for her. The power that woman possesses!

Sure.


----------



## lafalafa

Well I guess the politicians and More college admins  wanted to get in on the ACT

"Mark Ridley-Thomas is accused of of conspiring with the then dean of USC’s School of Social Work, to steer county money to the school in return for admitting his son  into graduate school with a full-tuition scholarship and a paid professorship"









						L.A. Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas and ex-USC dean indicted on bribery charges
					

A former USC dean is charged with paying off Mark Ridley-Thomas in exchange for millions of dollars in L.A. County contracts with the university.




					www.latimes.com
				







GT45 said:


> Dude get over it. Cromwell is still employed at UCLA. TS is a convicted felon. But, according to you TS, the Feds, UCLA, its administrators are all covering up for her. The power that woman possesses!
> 
> Sure.


There covering up for themselves as documented, your just too dense or gullible to put 2+2 together. Your wild speculation excuses about what they actually did was proven wrong ever time you posted and this one is no different.

Ethics be damn we will just abuse the system to do favors like you said, at least you got that right while adding zero new content or evidence to the conversation.


----------



## GoldenGate

lafalafa said:


> Ethics be damn we will just abuse the system to do favors like you said, at least you got that right while adding zero new content or evidence to the conversation.


Wait one second.  He and others have pointed out that no one, not the LA Times, the feds, the NCAA, UCLA or the UC system has found anything Cromwell did wrong.  Yet here you are demanding that he provide evidence to refute a conspiracy theory for which you can provide absolutely zero evidence that Cromwell did something unethical, and you can't even articulate what the conspiracy was.  If there's anyone who should STFU because they don't have any proof of anything, it's you. Seriously, you're claiming someone is wrong to speculate about your speculation?

We all know  Isacksen wasn't good enough to actually play. But we all also know that players end up on D1 teams all the time that had no business being there for lots of reasons. Ever heard of Snoop's kid? P Diddy's? Kory Alford? USC even made an offer to a 7 year old because they thought it might help land Marvin Bagley. Kids end up on rosters all the time who everyone knows will never play but the expectation is they'll be a good example and help when they can or can help recruit kids who can actually play.  Is any of it illegal? No.  Violate NCAA policies? No. Violate school policies? I guess that depends on the school and what happened. 

You have zero information explaining what Cromwell's reason was for allowing it to happen.  If she let her on the team because Salcedo told her it might help him recruit someone else, great, good for her being a team player.  If she let her on the team because she wanted a practice player who would happily pick up cones (or serve as one) and carry water without causing trouble, and relied on Salcedo's recommendation, also great. Honestly, if you asked 100 D1 coaches whether they would rather fill a final roster spot with a practice player who accepts from the start that they will never, ever play but will gladly help out however possible, or a kid with unrealistic expectations and a dad like crush who will do nothing but cause trouble for the program over lack of playing time, anti-vax demands and hating kneelers, all 100 are going with Isaksen.


----------



## lafalafa

GoldenGate said:


> Wait one second.  He and others have pointed out that no one, not the LA Times, the feds, the NCAA, UCLA or the UC system has found anything Cromwell did wrong.  Yet here you are demanding that he provide evidence to refute a conspiracy theory for which you can provide absolutely zero evidence that Cromwell did something unethical, and you can't even articulate what the conspiracy was.  If there's anyone who should STFU because they don't have any proof of anything, it's you. Seriously, you're claiming someone is wrong to speculate about your speculation?
> 
> We all know  Isacksen wasn't good enough to actually play. But we all also know that players end up on D1 teams all the time that had no business being there for lots of reasons. Ever heard of Snoop's kid? P Diddy's? Kory Alford? USC even made an offer to a 7 year old because they thought it might help land Marvin Bagley. Kids end up on rosters all the time who everyone knows will never play but the expectation is they'll be a good example and help when they can or can help recruit kids who can actually play.  Is any of it illegal? No.  Violate NCAA policies? No. Violate school policies? I guess that depends on the school and what happened.
> 
> You have zero information explaining what Cromwell's reason was for allowing it to happen.  If she let her on the team because Salcedo told her it might help him recruit someone else, great, good for her being a team player.  If she let her on the team because she wanted a practice player who would happily pick up cones (or serve as one) and carry water without causing trouble, and relied on Salcedo's recommendation, also great. Honestly, if you asked 100 D1 coaches whether they would rather fill a final roster spot with a practice player who accepts from the start that they will never, ever play but will gladly help out however possible, or a kid with unrealistic expectations and a dad like crush who will do nothing but cause trouble for the program over lack of playing time, anti-vax demands and hating kneelers, all 100 are going with Isaksen.


Thanks for proving my points appreciate that.

Her's was the only name on the indictment see post 70 besides JC that indicated she participated in the charade from the get go. Call that a team player all you want but that's type of unethical team player anybody needs.

A simple no would have suffice but she didn't do that obviously so you can troll on with your fake alias name all you want.


----------



## GoldenGate

lafalafa said:


> Thanks for proving my points appreciate that.
> 
> Her's was the only name on the indictment see post 70 besides JC that indicated she participated in the charade from the get go. Call that a team player all you want but that's type of unethical team player anybody needs.
> 
> A simple no would have suffice but she didn't do that obviously so you can troll on with your fake alias name all you want.


Cromwell was being the team player by taking her on, not Isaksen, idiot.  There is no evidence that Cromwell did anything unethical.  None.  Carry on with your conspiracy theories about the election being stolen, vaccines containing microchips and UCLA, the UC system, the LA Times and the feds all covering up criminal behavior by the coach of a program that loses almost three times as much as it generates in revenue.


----------



## lafalafa

GoldenGate said:


> Cromwell was being the team player by taking her on, not Isaksen, idiot.  There is no evidence that Cromwell did anything unethical.  None.  Carry on with your conspiracy theories about the election being stolen, vaccines containing microchips and UCLA, the UC system, the LA Times and the feds all covering up criminal behavior by the coach of a program that loses almost three times as much as it generates in revenue.


Troll on.  You're the biggest waste of space and time on this board.

At least GT is a mostly positive contributor, we may have a difference of opinion but that fine with me.

Nothing unethical about a fake player that was ran through compliance, received college credit,  on a roster for two years as a "practice player" or manager depending on which spokesperson went on record stating multiple times.

No conspiracy theories needed there was a bunch of enablers as documented.  Systematic problem that's apparently still on going as MRT and a Dean at USC where charged this week.


----------



## espola

GoldenGate said:


> Wait one second.  He and others have pointed out that no one, not the LA Times, the feds, the NCAA, UCLA or the UC system has found anything Cromwell did wrong.  Yet here you are demanding that he provide evidence to refute a conspiracy theory for which you can provide absolutely zero evidence that Cromwell did something unethical, and you can't even articulate what the conspiracy was.  If there's anyone who should STFU because they don't have any proof of anything, it's you. Seriously, you're claiming someone is wrong to speculate about your speculation?
> 
> We all know  Isacksen wasn't good enough to actually play. But we all also know that players end up on D1 teams all the time that had no business being there for lots of reasons. Ever heard of Snoop's kid? P Diddy's? Kory Alford? USC even made an offer to a 7 year old because they thought it might help land Marvin Bagley. Kids end up on rosters all the time who everyone knows will never play but the expectation is they'll be a good example and help when they can or can help recruit kids who can actually play.  Is any of it illegal? No.  Violate NCAA policies? No. Violate school policies? I guess that depends on the school and what happened.
> 
> You have zero information explaining what Cromwell's reason was for allowing it to happen.  If she let her on the team because Salcedo told her it might help him recruit someone else, great, good for her being a team player.  If she let her on the team because she wanted a practice player who would happily pick up cones (or serve as one) and carry water without causing trouble, and relied on Salcedo's recommendation, also great. Honestly, if you asked 100 D1 coaches whether they would rather fill a final roster spot with a practice player who accepts from the start that they will never, ever play but will gladly help out however possible, or a kid with unrealistic expectations and a dad like crush who will do nothing but cause trouble for the program over lack of playing time, anti-vax demands and hating kneelers, all 100 are going with Isaksen.


The issue as I saw it was that the coach had a limited number of passes she could hand out to allow players to skip past the usual entrance requirements, and she stood aside while one was sold to a non-player, even if she didn't get any of the money.


----------



## MacDre

lafalafa said:


> Troll on.  You're the biggest waste of space and time on this board.
> 
> At least GT is a mostly positive contributor, we may have a difference of opinion but that fine with me.
> 
> Nothing unethical about a fake player that was ran through compliance, received college credit,  on a roster for two years as a "practice player" or manager depending on which spokesperson went on record stating multiple times.
> 
> No conspiracy theories needed there was a bunch of enablers as documented.  Systematic problem that's apparently still on going as MRT and a Dean at USC where charged this week.


I kinda get what you are saying but there is a lack of evidence.

I know a lot from personal experience that the Feds love to play a dirty little game called CONSPIRACY.  I am shocked that Cromwell did not go down with JS on a conspiracy charge.

From my personal experience, when someone doesn’t go down it’s because they are a snitch/reliable source working for the government.  I think it’s plausible that the initial snitch had limited information and Cromwell was the weak leak in the chain and when pressed she got diarrhea about the mouth.


----------



## younothat

lafalafa said:


> Well I guess the politicians and More college admins  wanted to get in on the ACT
> 
> "Mark Ridley-Thomas is accused of of conspiring with the then dean of USC’s School of Social Work, to steer county money to the school in return for admitting his son  into graduate school with a full-tuition scholarship and a paid professorship"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.A. Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas and ex-USC dean indicted on bribery charges
> 
> 
> A former USC dean is charged with paying off Mark Ridley-Thomas in exchange for millions of dollars in L.A. County contracts with the university.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com


Don't know if this is surprising or we've just become dull to this kind of graft going on?

Where are the check and balances for these "special" acceptances via college officials or through these back room deals?

Compliance people, committees, auditors or what?   Do you just need a dean, coach, or committee approval to get admitted? .  Regular students perhaps but athlete needs much more.  Once there attending college that's a whole different ball game.

As far as this case, feds only interested in federal charges like conspiracy or bribery so they was nothing done at the state local levels besides people resigning or being fired from jobs.   Both USC and UCLA had coaches who fell under this category,  I thought one from the UCLA women's program staff resigned or something like that or where they both from USC?


----------



## watfly

MacDre said:


> I kinda get what you are saying but there is a lack of evidence.
> 
> I know a lot from personal experience that the Feds love to play a dirty little game called CONSPIRACY.  I am shocked that Cromwell did not go down with JS on a conspiracy charge.
> 
> From my personal experience, when someone doesn’t go down it’s because they are a snitch/reliable source working for the government.  I think it’s plausible that the initial snitch had limited information and Cromwell was the weak leak in the chain and when pressed she got diarrhea about the mouth.


It wouldn't surprise me if this was the case.  It just doesn't past the smell test that she was left unscathed both by the authorities and the school.  Maybe she made a convincing case for "plausible deniability".


----------



## GoldenGate

MacDre said:


> I kinda get what you are saying but there is a lack of evidence.
> 
> I know a lot from personal experience that the Feds love to play a dirty little game called CONSPIRACY.  I am shocked that Cromwell did not go down with JS on a conspiracy charge.
> 
> From my personal experience, when someone doesn’t go down it’s because they are a snitch/reliable source working for the government.  I think it’s plausible that the initial snitch had limited information and Cromwell was the weak leak in the chain and when pressed she got diarrhea about the mouth.


I like it.  How about maybe she was a super secret assassin for the CIA under deep cover as a UCLA soccer coach, and we need her to keep her job  for the sake of national security?

Or maybe UCLA is worried that firing her might violate due process and constitute bad PR by virtue of the fact that it secured the confession through waterboarding?

I know, she leveraged her great power as the SoCal youth mafia boss and used her capos, the SoCal DOCs, to leave a horse head at the foot of the UCLA chancellor's bed while he was sleeping?

FFS, all of these are more plausible than that the feds pressured UCLA to let her keep her job despite her criminal conspiring because she's a snitch. Singer was THE snitch and got prison time. The Isaksens were also snitches as part of their plea deal and also got prison time.  What is your theory about why the Singers and the Isaksens got prison despite their snitching, while the great and powerful lesbian soccer coach of Westwood is the only person who manages to play the federal government, the state of California, and some of the richest people in America for fools, so that she's the only conspiratorial coach to walk away scot free not only without an indictment but with her job?  ,The feds nailed more than 10 other college coaches with indictments despite their cooperation, plus every single person involved besides Cromwell? Perhaps she was the criminal mastermind behind the whole thing, and always one step ahead of the feds?  Or maybe the feds and UCLA were worried that Cromwell would use her vast wealth and power to beat the rap and then bring the State of CA to its knees if they dared take action against her?


----------



## MacDre

GoldenGate said:


> I like it.  How about maybe she was a super secret assassin for the CIA under deep cover as a UCLA soccer coach, and we need her to keep her job  for the sake of national security?
> 
> Or maybe UCLA is worried that firing her might violate due process and constitute bad PR by virtue of the fact that it secured the confession through waterboarding?
> 
> I know, she leveraged her great power as the SoCal youth mafia boss and used her capos, the SoCal DOCs, to leave a horse head at the foot of the UCLA chancellor's bed while he was sleeping?
> 
> FFS, all of these are more plausible than that the feds pressured UCLA to let her keep her job despite her criminal conspiring because she's a snitch. Singer was THE snitch and got prison time. The Isaksens were also snitches as part of their plea deal and also got prison time.  What is your theory about why the Singers and the Isaksens got prison despite their snitching, while the great and powerful lesbian soccer coach of Westwood is the only person who manages to play the federal government, the state of California, and some of the richest people in America for fools, so that she's the only conspiratorial coach to walk away scot free not only without an indictment but with her job?  ,The feds nailed more than 10 other college coaches with indictments despite their cooperation, plus every single person involved besides Cromwell? Perhaps she was the criminal mastermind behind the whole thing, and always one step ahead of the feds?  Or maybe the feds and UCLA were worried that Cromwell would use her vast wealth and power to beat the rap and then bring the State of CA to its knees if they dared take action against her?


Good stuff.  I like it all.  But, what are your thoughts as to why there was no conspiracy charge against Cromwell?


----------



## GoldenGate

younothat said:


> Don't know if this is surprising or we've just become dull to this kind of graft going on?
> 
> Where are the check and balances for these "special" acceptances via college officials or through these back room deals?
> 
> Compliance people, committees, auditors or what?   Do you just need a dean, coach, or committee approval to get admitted? .  Regular students perhaps but athlete needs much more.  Once there attending college that's a whole different ball game.
> 
> As far as this case, feds only interested in federal charges like conspiracy or bribery so they was nothing done at the state local levels besides people resigning or being fired from jobs.   Both USC and UCLA had coaches who fell under this category,  I thought one from the UCLA women's program staff resigned or something like that or where they both from USC?


Dull to this graft?  WTF are you talking about?  Every single person - other than Cromwell if you believe in conspiracy theories - was convicted and did time. The LA Times was all over this including in court to obtain all the emails and texts - which showed nothing bad about Cromwell btw.  This board alone has 57 pages worth of babbling conspiracy theory nonsense. The truth is people still don't like graft, unless it's the one guy of course, and then it's great but not as great as grabbin' chicks by the pussy and screwing hookers while the wife is preggers.

The check and balance for the Varsity Blues fraud was prison, job loss, and getting raked over the coals pretty much every day by the press. Pretty much how it has always been and should be in a country that doesn't cut off hands for theft.

By the way, now is probably a good time to refresh everyone's memories about the nature of the crime, which was conspiracy to defraud the colleges.  People seem to forget - or refuse to acknowledge - that the colleges were the victims.  The idea that UCLA would continue to employ someone who screwed it for their own personal financial gain (and just because she turned snitch) is laughable.  Do you remember that mega class action that was filed by "students" against all the schools as a result of this lawsuit and which got all that attention?  Do you know what happened to it?  The court dismissed it because it was absolute b.s., but nobody knows that or cares because all they care about is the b.s. which makes for much more fun conspiracy theories than the actual truth.  Most of the people here are so stupid and self-pitying that they think they're the victim.  The truth is their kid did not lose a spot to UCLA because of this, no one's did.  The only victim at UCLA was UCLA.


----------



## GoldenGate

MacDre said:


> Good stuff.  I like it all.  But, what are your thoughts as to why there was no conspiracy charge against Cromwell?


Because she did not conspire.  It's pretty simple.


----------



## younothat

GoldenGate said:


> Dull to this graft?  WTF are you talking about?  Every single person - other than Cromwell if you believe in conspiracy theories - was convicted and did time. The LA Times was all over this including in court to obtain all the emails and texts - which showed nothing bad about Cromwell btw.  This board alone has 57 pages worth of babbling conspiracy theory nonsense. The truth is people still don't like graft, unless it's the one guy of course, and then it's great but not as great as grabbin' chicks by the pussy and screwing hookers while the wife is preggers.
> 
> The check and balance for the Varsity Blues fraud was prison, job loss, and getting raked over the coals pretty much every day by the press. Pretty much how it has always been and should be in a country that doesn't cut off hands for theft.
> 
> By the way, now is probably a good time to refresh everyone's memories about the nature of the crime, which was conspiracy to defraud the colleges.  People seem to forget - or refuse to acknowledge - that the colleges were the victims.  The idea that UCLA would continue to employ someone who screwed it for their own personal financial gain (and just because she turned snitch) is laughable.  Do you remember that mega class action that was filed by "students" against all the schools as a result of this lawsuit and which got all that attention?  Do you know what happened to it?  The court dismissed it because it was absolute b.s., but nobody knows that or cares because all they care about is the b.s. which makes for much more fun conspiracy theories than the actual truth.  Most of the people here are so stupid and self-pitying that they think they're the victim.  The truth is their kid did not lose a spot to UCLA because of this, no one's did.  The only victim at UCLA was UCLA.


This referring to ridley thomas and the USC dean like quoted in that post

The rest of the garbage you posted is in your head or something.  Did you have blinkers on, is somebody riding you like a horses ass or something or just stuck in your own fantasy world? 









						L.A. Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas and ex-USC dean indicted on bribery charges
					

A former USC dean is charged with paying off Mark Ridley-Thomas in exchange for millions of dollars in L.A. County contracts with the university.




					www.latimes.com


----------



## GoldenGate

watfly said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if this was the case.  It just doesn't past the smell test that she was left unscathed both by the authorities and the school.  Maybe she made a convincing case for "plausible deniability".


I've always said that if it weren't for Cromwell's snitching, the feds never would have learned about Singer ALTHOUGH SINGER HAD ALREADY PLED OUT AND IMPLICATED EVERYONE SIX MONTHS EARLIER.

I do also see how the feds might get Singer to implicate everyone, sign off on a plea deal and then, right before they spring the indictments on everyone, they decide they could use just a little more info on Salcedo, so they go to Cromwell and tell her that they'll let her off the hook for her crime if she rats out someone who they already have nailed based on both Singer's testimony and the financial transaction docs.  I mean who cares that bringing her in might backfire and she might alert Salcedo and the Isaksens. I mean, we know Salcedo is the ring leader and easily the most important piece of the entire house of cards.  

And so then UCLA tells Cromwell how appreciative they are that she defrauded the school but ratted everyone out under threat of criminal prosecution, that's just the type of person they want leading their young students into adulthood, so they go out and destroy all the emails and text messages before the LA Times can get their hands on them so she can keep coaching. Totally approved by UCLA's general counsel, the UC system's general counsel, and all the outside legal counsel, none of whom worries for a second that maybe letting a criminal who defrauded the school continue teaching students is a bad idea, especially given how important she is coaching a team that loses almost three times as much money as it makes.


----------



## GoldenGate

younothat said:


> This referring to ridley thomas and the USC dean like quoted in that post
> 
> The rest of the garbage you posted is in your head or something.  Did you have blinkers on, is somebody riding you like a horses ass or something or just stuck in your own fantasy world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.A. Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas and ex-USC dean indicted on bribery charges
> 
> 
> A former USC dean is charged with paying off Mark Ridley-Thomas in exchange for millions of dollars in L.A. County contracts with the university.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com


Uh, this is a thread about Varsity Blues and Cromwell conspiracy theories.


----------



## lafalafa

GoldenGate said:


> Uh, this is a thread about Varsity Blues and Cromwell conspiracy theories.


No it's about the college entry scams just like the title says.

Yale, USC, UCLA, etc.  They all willing participated, accepted the students and keep them after for years at some places.   Playing them as victim(s) might  just be about the wildest conspiracy theory of them all.


----------



## MacDre

GoldenGate said:


> Because she did not conspire.  It's pretty simple.


GTFOH!  I have childhood friends and relatives that I will not give my phone number or save their number in my contacts because I’m scared of a conspiracy charge; yes, I know folks currently in club fed because they were connected by phone records.

I’m not as familiar with the facts here as you and lafalafa but I’ve seen several innocent folks go down on conspiracy charges and they are damn near impossible to defend against!!  Cromwell talking to JS, team pictures, uniform, compliance review definitely enough for a least 10 years in club fed unless one is a snitch.

. https://www.bajokalaw.com/conspiracy/2020/7/24/the-four-elements-required-for-criminal-conspiracy-charge


----------



## MacDre

GoldenGate said:


> Because she did not conspire.  It's pretty simple.


GTFOH!  I have childhood friends and relatives that I will not give my phone number or save their number in my contacts because I’m scared of a conspiracy charge; yes, I know folks currently in club fed because they were connected by phone records.

I’m not as familiar with the facts here as you and lafalafa but I’ve seen several innocent folks go down on conspiracy charges and they are damn near impossible to defend against!!  Cromwell talking to JS, team pictures, uniform, compliance review definitely enough for a least 10 years in club fed unless one is a snitch.

. https://www.bajokalaw.com/conspiracy/2020/7/24/the-four-elements-required-for-criminal-conspiracy-charge


----------



## lafalafa

Donna Heinel, ex-senior associate athletic director for USC, will plead guilty Friday to honest services wire fraud after allegedly arranging for more than 24 students to get into the college, Reuters reported.








						USC official accused of taking bribes to plead guilty in ‘Varsity Blues’ scandal
					

Donna Heinel, ex-senior associate athletic director for USC, will plead guilty to honest services wire fraud after allegedly arranging for more than 24 students to get into the college.




					nypost.com
				




The systematic problems apparently still exist and there are not enough check and balances.  Of course there are more people involved who didn't take money but still willingly participated in the scams that are still around.

*The Latest, Part I*
Ridley-Thomas was arraigned Wednesday afternoon and pleaded not guilty. The 35-page indictment alleges that he worked with then-USC School of Social Work dean Marilyn Louise Flynn on a scheme to admit the councilman’s son, former state assemblyman Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, into the graduate school and provide him with a scholarship and a paid professorship. The insinuation is that a soft landing was arranged after the younger Ridley-Thomas resigned his seat. In return, the elder Ridley-Thomas, then a member of the powerful County Board of Supervisors, allegedly steered millions of dollars in county contracts to the school.
A trial date has been set for December 14. Expect delays.


			https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/the-takeaways-from-mark-ridley-thomas-indictment-and-suspension/


----------



## Carlsbad7

24 students × $20,000 per bribe (which is likely low) = $480,000

And this is on top of his regular USC coaches salary. (Which is almost guaranteed to be over 100k)

Bribes or "Donations" if they go to the school are one in the same. However a small percentage of donations will likely make it back to the players, fields, or coaching programs.


----------



## GoldenGate

Carlsbad7 said:


> 24 students × $20,000 per bribe (which is likely low) = $480,000
> 
> And this is on top of his regular USC coaches salary. (Which is almost guaranteed to be over 100k)
> 
> Bribes or "Donations" if they go to the school are one in the same. However a small percentage of donations will likely make it back to the players, fields, or coaching programs.


Huh? A bribe to a coach is very different than a donation to a school.  There is nothing unlawful about USC admitting a student because a parent donated millions.  Honestly, there isn't even anything wrong with that either since USC gets to decide who gets to go to school there, and the money is likely to benefit other students.  Plus, no one gets denied admission because they created an additional spot for a student whose parents dropped $10 million.  A bribe to a coach who keeps the money and dupes the school into admitting the student on false pretenses, on the other hand, is a crime as it should be.


----------



## Carlsbad7

GoldenGate said:


> Huh? A bribe to a coach is very different than a donation to a school.  There is nothing unlawful about USC admitting a student because a parent donated millions.  Honestly, there isn't even anything wrong with that either since USC gets to decide who gets to go to school there, and the money is likely to benefit other students.  Plus, no one gets denied admission because they created an additional spot for a student whose parents dropped $10 million.  A bribe to a coach who keeps the money and dupes the school into admitting the student on false pretenses, on the other hand, is a crime as it should be.


Bribes, one and the same.

In both cases a student was accepted into the school because a large amout of $$$ changed hands. 

Also in both cases a deserving student was bumped out of line by another with $$$.


----------



## crush

Carlsbad7 said:


> Bribes, one and the same.
> 
> In both cases a student was accepted into the school because a large amout of $$$ changed hands.
> 
> Also in both cases a deserving student was bumped out of line by another with $$$.


Pay to enter!!!


----------



## lafalafa

crush said:


> Pay to enter!!!


Where all paying or subsiding universities in CA through our federal, state, and local assessments,  taxes, etc.

Favorable admission terms for people with more $ or connections could be viewed as economic discrimination with moral and ethical ramifications.    Buying priority or a faster pass might work for Disneyland but not really a fair or equitable approach to higher education opportunities.


----------



## crush

How to pay to play at the next level by crush:  First, make sure you have enough money to participant.  Then you must "Pay to Play" soccer in this country, especially after High School.  Pay for private coaching.  Pay for tutors so be best student.  Pay for travel ball.  Work hard at your sport. Work super hard at School. Education is like a religion for most in this country so they have private school for that as well for those with lot's of cash.  Work all the angles and make sure you know the, "whose who" of "you know who" (("Middleman Rick" or someone else with ties and keys to the kingdom)) can make it happen and unlock doors that most us will never have keys to.  Once at the door, get the cash out to take it to the next level.  That's the key from what I have learned.  What a mess and so unfair to the real student/athlete.  I will end with this:  My good pal dd got a full ride to a big time P5 school.  Played soccer since she was 5.  Her ride was 100% academic and has no plans to tryout for the soccer team because she wants to be a doctor.  4.7 GPA gets your full ride at most places.


----------



## MacDre

toucan said:


> I was a public defender when I first started practicing law.  I know quite a bit about how prosecution decisions are made.  In a high profile case like this, there is no way on Earth that prosecutors would not have charged Cromwell if they they thought they had a  winnable case against her.  None. Accordingly, I conclude that she is factually innocent.
> 
> 1.  Prosecutors did not need Cromwell as a primary witness.  The evidence needed to show the fraud was easily acquired.  There were many witnesses.  There were bank and brokerage records.  There was provable evidence that the player did not have a true soccer provenance.  This was a slam dunk.  Cromwell was probably a minor witness whose testimony might have been useful, but not necessary.  Therefore, there was no need to offer Cromwell a plea, because she had no real leverage.
> 
> 2.  What crime, anyway?  Is there any evidence that she took money?  Is there any evidence that she doctored paperwork?  Is there any evidence that she made a false representation?  I have not seen anything like this.  What I hear is that she turned a blind eye, and did not do any investigation of her own.  That is not a prosecutable crime.
> 
> 3.  The idea that Cromwell got a secret plea deal is astonishingly ignorant.  If a plea deal of this type *were* offered, then it had to be in writing, and there has to be a public record of it.  Pleas are part of the court record.  If there is no court record, then there is no plea.  It is true that there can be "no prosecution" agreements, but these are written, and usually available by request.  (For example, in Los Angeles County, you can get them from the City Attorney.)  Otherwise, they are available through a FOIA request.  If Cromwell had a "no prosecution" agreement, we would know it.
> 
> 4.  In high profile cases, just as a matter of practice, *nobody* is let off the hook.  If anybody did anything wrong that rose to the level of a crime, that person would have been prosecuted.
> 
> The people on this board who claim that Cromwell was somehow given preferential treatment, or was let off the hook, are just talking out of their ass.  They probably base their opinions on a deep study of television drama.  In the real world of criminal law, Cromwell would have been prosecuted if there were (1) legally tenable grounds to do so; and (2) a realistic possibility of obtaining a conviction.


You are making some very strong statements while avoiding the issue of CONSPIRACY.  Generally speaking Counselor, how hard is it for a prosecutor to prove up a conspiracy charge?  In your professional opinion, do you think there was enough evidence for a prosecutor to substantiate a conspiracy charge here?  If not, why not?

FYI, I don’t know Cromwell or have anything against her.  From what I’ve heard and seen, she’s a very likable and respectable person.  I’m just “turning stone’s” and something seems off to me.


----------



## crush




----------



## lafalafa

toucan said:


> I was a public defender when I first started practicing law.  I know quite a bit about how prosecution decisions are made.  In a high profile case like this, there is no way on Earth that prosecutors would not have charged Cromwell if they they thought they had a  winnable case against her.  None. Accordingly, I conclude that she is factually innocent.
> 
> 1.  Prosecutors did not need Cromwell as a primary witness.  The evidence needed to show the fraud was easily acquired.  There were many witnesses.  There were bank and brokerage records.  There was provable evidence that the player did not have a true soccer provenance.  This was a slam dunk.  Cromwell was probably a minor witness whose testimony might have been useful, but not necessary.  Therefore, there was no need to offer Cromwell a plea, because she had no real leverage.
> 
> 2.  What crime, anyway?  Is there any evidence that she took money?  Is there any evidence that she doctored paperwork?  Is there any evidence that she made a false representation?  I have not seen anything like this.  What I hear is that she turned a blind eye, and did not do any investigation of her own.  That is not a prosecutable crime.
> 
> 3.  The idea that Cromwell got a secret plea deal is astonishingly ignorant.  If a plea deal of this type *were* offered, then it had to be in writing, and there has to be a public record of it.  Pleas are part of the court record.  If there is no court record, then there is no plea.  It is true that there can be "no prosecution" agreements, but these are written, and usually available by request.  (For example, in Los Angeles County, you can get them from the City Attorney.)  Otherwise, they are available through a FOIA request.  If Cromwell had a "no prosecution" agreement, we would know it.
> 
> 4.  In high profile cases, just as a matter of practice, *nobody* is let off the hook.  If anybody did anything wrong that rose to the level of a crime, that person would have been prosecuted.
> 
> The people on this board who claim that Cromwell was somehow given preferential treatment, or was let off the hook, are just talking out of their ass.  They probably base their opinions on a deep study of television drama.  In the real world of criminal law, Cromwell would have been prosecuted if there were (1) legally tenable grounds to do so; and (2) a realistic possibility of obtaining a conviction.


Well that's sounds like your own conspiracy version but a large part of the conversation is about ethic's, morals, equal admission opportunities, and preferential treatment. 

When one considers the 50+ different actions done over many  years supporting a student athlete the was brought in and stayed for many quarters under false pretenses,  crime or not doesn't make it excusable for those that enabled, participated, turned a blind eye or whatever the case was.


----------



## lafalafa

toucan said:


> Talk about moving the goalposts.  First you wanted Cromwell to be prosecuted.  Now chastened, you want to condemn her for her ethics and morals. The applicant you champion is an unidentifiable person who did not get into UCLA as an undergraduate, and whose life is supposedly ruined because she had to attend UC Irvine instead.  UCLA has 31,500 undergraduate students.  You crusade for the 31,501st.  [Insert long yawn here.]
> 
> Why not spend your outsized righteousness on something more important.  Bitch about the governments in Africa whose moral turpitude causes millions of deaths from starvation and poor medical infrastructure.  Whinge about Ibn Saud Mohammed in Saudi Arabia, who has dissidents killed.  Strike at corrupt officials in Mexico.  Pursue oil polluters, people who destroy our aquifers, or those who chop down the rain forests.
> 
> Going after a single soccer coach - who has not committed a single documented act of misfeasance - makes us all roll our eyes.   You make Javert look like a slacker.


Nope that's your imaginary goal post.  She was named in the federal briefs in post #90 as having participated in 2017 as one of the first two individuals from UCLA.

Systematic problems is what it is and still going on, guess you missed by latest two posts about USC.

AC is but one small bit player, you care more about ignoring what went down vs doing anything so these types of things don't continue.

Have no idea about the rest of your PC rants about other countries and tangents,  never was about a single coach but your too focused on some legal fantasies and can't see the wood for the trees.


----------



## lafalafa

toucan said:


> I read post #90, and her name is not there.  Let me know if there is another post I should read.
> 
> But the important thing is that Cromwell was not indicted.  You ought not accuse people of crimes unless you have proof they committed them.


I guess you need to do more research, read through the posts.

You made a bunch of excuses defending somebody that I did not accuse of commiting a crime.  You should be more careful.. kettle

The topic this week was about USC and the two articles I posted about that.  Your guilty or some other kind of conscious popped up with the AC stuff out of nowhere and some other weird stuff about foreign countries.


----------



## crush

I have a solution that can fix all the confusion and misperception one could conclude in their brain based on what they see and read about regarding all this sandal stuff and the likes of this middleman "Rick" and those like him.  Be HOT is my advice!!!  Honest, Open & Transparent, duh!!!  Lot's of local kids dream of balling at SC or UCLA and why shouldn;t they.  We're all watching how the Unicorns and the others make it.  What sacrifice did these players and parents make to make the grade at Big U?  You know, how they get into the school for sport.  Inquiring minds would like to know because we all have kids playing sport at highest level in club.  It amazes me how freaking defensive people get when you start asking a few questions.   I have a solution.

Crush's Solution:  100%, everyone just needs to be transparent and honest about every roster spot and why that spot is given.  Not rocket science. Fake bio and fake the rest is where many like Lafalala and crush take issue, because we have personal experience in this arena.  Why not just be honest and have a few players on the team with rich parents that pay $100,000+ each to be on the team.  That makes so much sense and will help pay for the program along the way.  Or, let's say a rich dad pays $1,000,000 for a building.  I would think it would be fair to offer this rich person's kids admittance to the school and ifd kid wants to be on the team, why not.  It plays to pay


----------



## Carlsbad7

crush said:


> I have a solution that can fix all the confusion and misperception one could conclude in their brain based on what they see and read about regarding all this sandal stuff and the likes of this middleman "Rick" and those like him.  Be HOT is my advice!!!  Honest, Open & Transparent, duh!!!  Lot's of local kids dream of balling at SC or UCLA and why shouldn;t they.  We're all watching how the Unicorns and the others make it.  What sacrifice did these players and parents make to make the grade at Big U?  You know, how they get into the school for sport.  Inquiring minds would like to know because we all have kids playing sport at highest level in club.  It amazes me how freaking defensive people get when you start asking a few questions.   I have a solution.
> 
> Crush's Solution:  100%, everyone just needs to be transparent and honest about every roster spot and why that spot is given.  Not rocket science. Fake bio and fake the rest is where many like Lafalala and crush take issue, because we have personal experience in this arena.  Why not just be honest and have a few players on the team with rich parents that pay $100,000+ each to be on the team.  That makes so much sense and will help pay for the program along the way.  Or, let's say a rich dad pays $1,000,000 for a building.  I would think it would be fair to offer this rich person's kids admittance to the school and ifd kid wants to be on the team, why not.  It plays to pay


Hahaha... You think you're the only ones with experience in corruption and $$$ changing hands for advantage in the soccer world.

I expected this kind of thing in college. I didnt expect it at the youth club level. When people said "pay to play" I expected expensive to be the primary way it manifested. What I didnt expect + makes complete sense now is that once ethics are thrown out the window all types of corruption can occur.

Want your kid to play on a certain team. Start doing privates at $100 per hour with the coach.

Issues with play time? Start going to every group training (outside of regular practice) the coach offers. 

Club doesn't allow coaches to do privates with their players? Find out who the coach buddies with and throw money at that coach. (While your coach does the same for his players)

Bla bla bla... Gets old


----------



## crush

Carlsbad7 said:


> Hahaha... You think you're the only ones with experience in corruption and $$$ changing hands for advantage in the soccer world.
> 
> I expected this kind of thing in college. I didnt expect it at the youth club level. When people said "pay to play" I expected expensive to be the primary way it manifested. What I didnt expect + makes complete sense now is that once ethics are thrown out the window all types of corruption can occur.
> 
> Want your kid to play on a certain team. Start doing privates at $100 per hour with the coach.
> 
> Issues with play time? Start going to every group training (outside of regular practice) the coach offers.
> 
> Club doesn't allow coaches to do privates with their players? Find out who the coach buddies with and throw money at that coach. (While your coach does the same for his players)
> 
> Bla bla bla... Gets old


Hey now, I never said I was or Lalala were the only one's with some grips and rants.  Did you have to deal with a Golden Gate type for two years?  How about a Doc that just lied all the time?  I forgot about the "pay for privates for play time" model.  Yes, I know all about the Docs that pulled that crap. I saw it unfold before me eyes.  True story form the past:  One day this dads kid was bench player.  After signing up for "extra, extra" one on one private development training by the Guru ((Coach and doc too)) himself, dd became full time starter all the time because of the paid development.  Plus Doc's connections to the next level makes this model one way to make it.  Their are so many slices to this pie that I'm sure others have stories of their slice of the soccer pie.  Look man, the assholes will now come after me and tell me it's all my fault for not STFU when told and all the other threats I've gotten over the years for asking a question or two.


----------



## lafalafa

toucan said:


> I'm not going to read over 1000 posts hoping to find the one you want to cite.  If you don't want to tell me which one it is, well, there is an obvious conclusion.


The obvious conclusion is you want to ignore the many articles, facts, already posted and I'm not going rehash them for you.  I could point out about a dozen of them exactly but you already made up your mind that some people who willing participated in a charade for many years did nothing wrong.  

You know that's not the case and so does everyone else,  the Sargent Shultz "idiot" defense is assuming but the most obviously conclusion is one can't act alone to perpetuate 50+ different things including running players through compliance that took place over multiple years. 

Denial of responsibility, facts, accountability for a program doesn't change the fact that people in charge let that happen for a extended period of time.

Systemic problems continue unless there is change,. USC being the latest.  Dean's who give out  unchecked admission waivers.


----------



## crush

lafalafa said:


> The obvious conclusion is you want to ignore the many articles, facts, already posted and I'm not going rehash them for you.  I could point out about a dozen of them exactly but you already made up your mind that some people who willing participated in a charade for many years did nothing wrong.
> 
> You know that's not the case and so does everyone else,  the Sargent Shultz "idiot" defense is assuming but the most obviously conclusion is one can't act alone to perpetuate 50+ different things including running players through compliance that took place over multiple years.
> 
> Denial of responsibility, facts, accountability for a program doesn't change the fact that people in charge let that happen for a extended period of time.
> 
> Systemic problems continue unless there is change,. USC being the latest.  Dean's who give out  unchecked admission waivers.


The problem with some people is they dont care about others and want things to be swept under the rug and go back to normal.  Some rich folk people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars all so they can and their kid can look good on Instagram and Meta. I just want fair access and fair play for all children.  If that's too much to ask for, can they at least tell us that things are not equal and you better know some folks and you better build some close relationships with the right folks and make sure you got cash at the door to play along.  That kind of honesty will give the rest of us and our kids time to reevaluate this soccer and college process.  It's not a true contest when others have access to the team because of their relationships and money and not soccer abilities.  I mean at least this is all embarrassing for all these smart cats to pull stunts like this.


----------



## lafalafa

crush said:


> The problem with some people is they dont care about others and want things to be swept under the rug and go back to normal.  Some rich folk people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars all so they can and their kid can look good on Instagram and Meta. I just want fair access and fair play for all children.  If that's too much to ask for, can they at least tell us that things are not equal and you better know some folks and you better build some close relationships with the right folks and make sure you got cash at the door to play along.  That kind of honesty will give the rest of us and our kids time to reevaluate this soccer and college process.  It's not a true contest when others have access to the team because of their relationships and money and not soccer abilities.  I mean at least this is all embarrassing for all these smart cats to pull stunts like this.


All three of our young adults are attending or graduated from their university of choices and where treated fairly and admitted on their own merit.  I'm proud of them for that, as a parent they did it all themselves and have earned exactly what they have from their own work and efforts.

We never even spoke or correspondent with any of the athletic recruiters, coaches, people, or anybody for that matter, our students did all that.

Surprising earlier his year coaches promised admission "help" and told our youngest even though he wasn't interested or needed that.  Only wanted to attend a university that accepted him first before committing to Athletics.    The NCAA requirements are much less vs what Universities require in many cases.   Football players with GPA 2.x's are getting in while some mid 3.x soccer player are not for the ones without the "helpers"

Not just about Bribes either, systematic problems exist.









						Op-Ed: As a USC professor, I can't stay quiet about the administration's toxic culture
					

The latest scandal, with allegations of rape at the Sigma Nu fraternity house, arises after apparently willful ignorance by a new regime of campus leaders.




					www.latimes.com
				




its the sweep it under the rug culture.

".  administration actually appeared not to want to know the truth.

When they don't have a choice there is a investigation and some panel or committee says they're going to be some changes but nothing really changes

"Meanwhile, a new administration took over...but they kept up the pattern of secrecy and denial in handling fallout from a series of cases: the involvement of several officials in an admissions cheating scam, the School of Social Work dean indicted for allegedly paying bribes to secure millions of dollars in Los Angeles County contracts, and a Student Health Center doctor accused of assaulting young men. In each case, the fallout and costs will affect the ... faculty, staff and students for decades to come"

This is the reality and it goes on, hopefully for future generations we can do better and clean up the systematic problems.   I have no bone to pick with anybody just want to see our young adults thrive and become the leaders of tomorrow.


----------



## GoldenGate

toucan said:


> I was a public defender when I first started practicing law.  I know quite a bit about how prosecution decisions are made.  In a high profile case like this, there is no way on Earth that prosecutors would not have charged Cromwell if they they thought they had a  winnable case against her.  None. Accordingly, I conclude that she is factually innocent.
> 
> 1.  Prosecutors did not need Cromwell as a primary witness.  The evidence needed to show the fraud was easily acquired.  There were many witnesses.  There were bank and brokerage records.  There was provable evidence that the player did not have a true soccer provenance.  This was a slam dunk.  Cromwell was probably a minor witness whose testimony might have been useful, but not necessary.  Therefore, there was no need to offer Cromwell a plea, because she had no real leverage.
> 
> 2.  What crime, anyway?  Is there any evidence that she took money?  Is there any evidence that she doctored paperwork?  Is there any evidence that she made a false representation?  I have not seen anything like this.  What I hear is that she turned a blind eye, and did not do any investigation of her own.  That is not a prosecutable crime.
> 
> 3.  The idea that Cromwell got a secret plea deal is astonishingly ignorant.  If a plea deal of this type *were* offered, then it had to be in writing, and there has to be a public record of it.  Pleas are part of the court record.  If there is no court record, then there is no plea.  It is true that there can be "no prosecution" agreements, but these are written, and usually available by request.  (For example, in Los Angeles County, you can get them from the City Attorney.)  Otherwise, they are available through a FOIA request.  If Cromwell had a "no prosecution" agreement, we would know it.
> 
> 4.  In high profile cases, just as a matter of practice, *nobody* is let off the hook.  If anybody did anything wrong that rose to the level of a crime, that person would have been prosecuted.
> 
> The people on this board who claim that Cromwell was somehow given preferential treatment, or was let off the hook, are just talking out of their ass.  They probably base their opinions on a deep study of television drama.  In the real world of criminal law, Cromwell would have been prosecuted if there were (1) legally tenable grounds to do so; and (2) a realistic possibility of obtaining a conviction.


Thank goodness there is another person with some brains here.


----------



## outside!

GoldenGate said:


> Thank goodness there is another person with some brains here.


Just because the prosecutors did not think they had a winnable case here does not mean there was no wrong doing. It simply means they could not find enough evidence that would stand up in court.

My personnel opinion is that she looked the other way while all of this happened. Not very ethical, but not against the law.


----------



## younothat

outside! said:


> Just because the prosecutors did not think they had a winnable case here does not mean there was no wrong doing. It simply means they could not find enough evidence that would stand up in court.
> 
> My personnel opinion is that she looked the other way while all of this happened. Not very ethical, but not against the law.


Yup exactingly my thoughts as well.   

I'm a UCLA supporter so I was disappointed in the whole situation.   No statement or anything by the people in charge about doing better in the future or preventing these kinds of things from happen.  Stonewalling is not a good approach to me for a public university.


----------



## lafalafa

Ex-USC dentistry professor gets six weeks prison in U.S. college admissions scandal








						Ex-USC dentistry professor gets six weeks prison in U.S. college admissions scandal
					

A former University of Southern California associate professor of dentistry was sentenced on Wednesday to six weeks in prison for filing a false tax return related to the sprawling U.S. college admissions fraud scheme.  Homayoun Zadeh, 60, had been charged by federal prosecutors in Boston with...




					news.yahoo.com
				




Some accountability for those who cheated or double cheated in this case with a tax deduction. Talk about trying to game the system.


----------



## crush

I just read where a dad pleaded guilty for paying the middle man dude $75,000 to get his connection to switch a few answers on the "*S*mart* A*ss *T*est." for his boy.  I think it was the math part, go figure....lol.  Today, a mom got sentenced for paying the middle man $250,000 for one kid as a Pole Vaulter and another kid as a Tennis star for another $250,000.  $500K to get her kids on the team or just to get in the darn school?  We have to fix this. This is an easy fix too.  Just be HOT folks and we can work all this out fairly.  Both kids did not play either sport by the way which really is lame, moo!!!


----------



## crush

I just read where a dad pleaded guilty for paying the middle man dude $75,000 to get his connection to switch a few answers on the "*S*mart* A*ss *T*est" for his boy.  I think it was the math part, go figure....lol.  Today, a mom got sentenced for paying the middle man $250,000 for one kid as a Pole Vaulter and another kid as a Tennis star for another $250,000.  $500K to get her kids on the team or just to get in the darn school?  We have to fix this. This is an easy fix too.  Just be HOT folks and we can work all this out fairly.  Both kids did not play either sport by the way which really is lame, moo!!!


----------



## gotothebushes

crush said:


> I just read where a dad pleaded guilty for paying the middle man dude $75,000 to get his connection to switch a few answers on the "*S*mart* A*ss *T*est." for his boy.  I think it was the math part, go figure....lol.  Today, a mom got sentenced for paying the middle man $250,000 for one kid as a Pole Vaulter and another kid as a Tennis star for another $250,000.  $500K to get her kids on the team or just to get in the darn school?  We have to fix this. This is an easy fix too.  Just be HOT folks and we can work all this out fairly.  Both kids did not play either sport by the way which really is lame, moo!!!


Where is this article?


----------



## crush

gotothebushes said:


> Where is this article?


OC Register for the $75K.  I can't remember for the rich mom and the $500,000.  Maybe ESPN bro.


----------



## espola

Since the athletic department in the affected schools gets to admit persons who would not otherwise be competitive for admission, perhaps a fitting punishment (adjustment?) would be to require that those schools set up programs where otherwise-unqualified applicants will be able to bypass the usual admissions process simply by the demand of a committee of academic department heads.


----------



## timbuck

espola said:


> Since the athletic department in the affected schools gets to admit persons who would not otherwise be competitive for admission, perhaps a fitting punishment (adjustment?) would be to require that those schools set up programs where otherwise-unqualified applicants will be able to bypass the usual admissions process simply by the demand of a committee of academic department heads.


These schools should not be able to offer scholarships until students that have already been admitted attend an open tryout in front of the coaches.


----------

