College Entrance Scam includes former Yale Women's Soccer Coach

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/colleg...c-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]

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]

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]

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]

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.