Prior to this breaking, would you "honestly believe" that this would happen to a top program like this? Sadly, I don't think anything should be cast aside as out of the question. All of it needs closer examination to determine what exactly happened. Surely you will agree that keeping a jersey after the season and being on the website for the entire season with the number means it was her number for that season. Do managers get jerseys with numbers? Do managers make the guidebook/website? We aren't talking trainer or grad coach, but manager. Do managers get a bio on the website; in the guidebook? My recollection from one of the many reports written about this is that her Linked In notification prior to the story breaking did not list manager, it listed player. I agree, now, it doesn't. Certainly enough smoke to warrant a closer look to make sure no fire. All of this is disappointing that doubt exists.
No question it is worth looking into. It smells to high heaven. The only issue is who arranged it. As I mentioned in an earlier post: "[the track and field coach] had approved the admission at the request of a senior athletics official". If she was told to do it by a higher up, like the Track coach, then you cannot fault her. She is taking orders from above. What I find frustrating about this conversation is people thinking she was actually around the program in a player capacity. Who said she kept a jersey? All we have is a photo. Show up. Take a pic. Give back the jersey. Go home. Her name on the website and media guide is a one time thing. Someone published it and it was done. At most she was a manager. Otherwise she was never around at all in any capacity. Yes, managers names are often on websites and in guide books. There have been several articles about the USC crew situation. The 'recruits' just posed as recruits, but never showed up to the team. My understanding from articles is that UCLA had a rule that they had to be on the team for a year. So, that would explain why they were compelled to put her name on the website and in the guide book (to comply with university policy). It is an institutional issue, not a UCLA soccer team issue.
You may be confusing what is an ncaa violation with what is unethical and illegal. First off article 2 of the D1 manual is all about equity ,openness, and fairness to all student athletes not just the ones mommy and daddy can drop a half million on. Whatever the institution does outside of athletics is one thing, but once admissions is under the aegis of special perks for athletes, it comes under the ncaa ethics clause. Included is this clause: “ 2.10 thePrincipleofCompetitiveequity.[*] The structure and programs of the Association and the activities of its members shall promote opportunity for eq- uity in competition to assure that individual student-athletes and institutions will not be prevented unfairly from achieving the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics.“ It would seem that a student who received benefits at the expense of a disadvantaged student, for example, actually would violate that principle if the benefit was unfairly received. It opens the school and the ncaa for prosecution, and to law suits for not adhering to its own bylaws. Also, article 2.4 discusses openness and ethical conduct. in the policy. Whatever UCLA knew about the pay for admission system, they didn’t publish it, so it violates the openness clause. If The institution engaged in unethical conduct, it automatically violated Aticle 2.4 of the D1 manual. Lastly, the Justice department is prosecuting these cases as racketeering, i.e. RICO felonies. Conviction in those cases not only would be a violation by the perps, but would be a violation by the institutional head( president or chancellor) who bears ultimate responsibility for oversight. It’s the same statute used to convict Mafia Dons who kept themselves apart from day to day oversight of their institutions. At that point, any ncaa violation is the least of it, although I have trouble seeing how a RICO felony isn’t an ethics violation. We haven’t even started cases yet which might involve misuse of state funds, which may turn into the most broad issue.
Clive, you have way to much faith in the NCAA. If they can find a way out of dealing with this situation, they will. See the UNC academics scandal whitewash as exhibit 1.
Agreed. An institutional issue. Only referencing the soccer team because it was the soccer team that had been exposed in the investigation. The leaks in the system (collegiate athletics) need to be addressed and fixed.
I don’t have any faith in the NCAA when it comes to powerful P5 schools. I just read the bylaws. But it is against the law for a private business association to violate its bylaws and still receive tax breaks.
So the link to the LA times article from a couple days ago seems to say multiple coaches in multiple teams and AD employees were in on similar scams and they were not isolated events at UCLA. It also appears it was both genders. I doubt there are any enforceable NCAA violations. The NCAA only seems concerned if athletes get benefits beyond those approved. I don't share your optimism that the NCAA will do anything. Schools control their admissions so I'm not sure what law was broken. Donors' kids and athletes get in all the time without being prosecuted; heck there's a special list of donors by name at Harvard. it's unethical but not clearly illegal
Apples and oranges. UCLA is a publicly funded university. This whole thing stinks but the Harvard’s of the world can finagle this because they operate on private funds/endowments
What GS said. Private universities can grant admission to just about any idiot they want. UCLA has a charter as a publicly funded state university. Doubt very much that they adhered to that mandate. Was Snoop Dogg's kid really that good to be admitted to UCLA on a football scholie? I wonder how much Snoop cpntrbuted to the Bruin Fund after getting Snoopy Jr in
I’m not sure where people get the idea I have any optimism about the ncaa enforcing its own bylaws unless the justice department forces them. See post 31 in their thread.
There is no private shield. all universities in this country depend on government grants and tax breaks, and all those depend on equity. Title IX is not just gender.
Will not argue Title IX as my kid along with most other female soccer players have benefited from it but The fact remains most of the high end private universities depend on endowments to fund their programs. My point was purely that UCLA is a public institution funded by taxpayer money not tax breaks
Harvard and other top universities receive 100s of millions of dollars in federal funding each year in addition to federal pell grants; it's unlikely none of the laws that apply to public schools would not apply to other federally funded schools
for those who want to read RICO is the easiest to charge but "goes through a business"; I wonder if UCLA counts as a business for RICO or not? the FBI used rico for things that went through key world foundation and edge consulting. https://dailybruin.com/2019/03/14/q...l-implications-of-college-admissions-scandal/
Some private institutions: Harvard gets $6 Billion from the federal government each year to fund research, or about ten times the money spent on Puerto Rico disaster relief so far. Stanford gets 17% of its income from research grants and 9% for running the National Accelerator lab. im not convinced either institution will want to forgo that income. There is NO immunity from title IX in this country, whether you institution is public or private. And again TITLE IX IS NOT JUST GENDER LAW. It covers all types of equal treatment and opportunity. “Educational programs and activities that receive ED funds must operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. Some key issue areas in which recipients have Title IX obligations are: recruitment, admissions, and counseling; financial assistance; athletics; sex-based harassment; treatment of pregnant and parenting students; ” Note that equity in admissions athletics, counseling, and financial assistance are all cited.
Based upon the most recent L.A. Times article, looks like there may be a larger cultural issue in the UCLA athletic department around doing "favors" for rich donors. Obviously Salcedo benefited personally so his case is different and (illegal). The thing that stinks with Issackson is the jersey, the photo, the profile on their website and in their media guide. She wasn't listed as Manager,. She was listed as a midfielder. Somebody in leadership on that team made all that happen and he/she as well as others had to know that she couldn't play soccer. Listing her as a midfielder when she can't play soccer implies that whomever completed that profile wanted others to believe she was on the team as a player when in fact they knew she couldn't play. This could have come from above as others have suggested however, now that Bruce Issackson and his wife have agreed to cooperate and plead guilty I would imagine somebody is asking them and their daughter who knew what, when, where and how. It will all come out eventually. Whatever "it" is...
The reason they put her as a player, and not manager is because UCLA (and others) wouldn't allow special admission for managers---this is where the fraudulent activity lies as you state above. Great post.
I have a hard time seeing the Athletic Director survive this if the LA Times keeps up its reporting on it. The cultural issue was going on years before. He retained the director of external operations despite full knowledge that he was using the admissions process to raise money from donors. And, here his department is again, with the same corrupt use of the admissions process.
It’s starting to become clear why Cromwell didn’t seem concerned.... The decisions apparently weren’t being made at her pay grade.
These two links are interesting. Coaches implicated in 2014, were only disciplined internally. Track and Field and women's water polo. https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-statement-on-2014-athletics-admissions-compliance-report The LA Times dialed up the heat on the Athletic Director and other administrators: https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-ucla-admissions-guerrero-rebholz-20190413-story.html
This was the point last week I was trying to make last week. There was (and still is) a lot we don't know. The entire situation angers anyone who feels that fighting for a fair playing level to young adults and their honest endeavors is a worthy fight. However, with the today's power of social media and blogging, it's important for people to wait for the chips to fall before casting judgement and sentencing. I'm not a defender of Cromwell or anyone else, just trying to defend respect for Due Process.
The reason why mommy and daddy Isaakson pleaded guilty and cooperate with the Feds is because Lauren Isaakson knew what was going on and would likely face prison time as well. When the Feds made mommy and daddy visualize how their princess would fit in prison life, and the fashion statement she would make wearing an orange jumpsuit emblazoned with "INMATE", they did what they had to do. The L.A. Times have requested UCLA to submit written and electronic correspondence from/to Salcedo, Cromwell, and Walters going back 5 years. UCLA appealed. Judge said UCLA have 90 days to comply - June 30 deadline. Even more from the L.A. Times: These parents could help expose UCLA, USC roles in college admissions scandal Finally, to address the elephant in the room. Is it not odd that Salcedo was paid a huge amount - $100K - when he was not even signing off on the roster. How much was the other guy/gal paid? Who is this other guy/gal who put Lauren Isaakson on the roster?
This right here tells you who on the women’s side is most likely complicit. Either Cromwell or Walters or both. They still could have received direction from above but the e-mails should show that, if true.