Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Women's College' started by Glove Stinks, Mar 12, 2019.
Seriously??? She rostered a kid that never laced up cleats to practice. Cmon man
I'm inclined to agree that we posters should not be imposing sentences until we know all the facts. I think UCLA's overall silence on this to date means that there's an investigation underway -- at least into the soccer case and possibly into whether there are other similar cases in which undeserving applicants displaced deserving applicants. Who knows how far this kind of corruption of the process went at UCLA, if it went further at all? We eventually should hear the details of what happened and what the "sentence" from the school will be for those involved. If UCLA never reveals the details and what the sanctions will be, that will be the time for further outrage. Until then, I say let's wait to see.
And, who knows how far this kind of stuff went at other schools. Maybe we've seen it all, and maybe we've seen just the tip of an iceberg.
So she isn’t guilty because she was probably engaged in a different corrupt practice of gaming team GPA?
Make sense, because Jill’s APR were pretty bad some years. I see Cromwell’s is way up.
The problem with your assumption that she is an academic add, is that she didn't have the academics to get in to UCLA in the first place.
Everything you're saying might be true at, like, UNC Asheville. Not at a top-five elite program with plenty of funding.
A kid who doesn't play soccer is ZERO use as a practice player. Worse than that - she's a liability. She can't go on the field, ever. She'll either hurt herself, hurt someone else, or drag down the level. It's laughable that such a kid would be of any value whatsoever to UCLA. There are no 'legacy' kids or 'daughter of the baseball coach' who can't play soccer getting into actual practices at Stanford or FSU or UNC.
I agree that we don't know if Amanda knew that Salcedo was benefitting illegally. However, if you want to believe that she didn't know the kid couldn't play a lick of soccer when she added her to the roster, you are welcome to believe that. I don't. Even her fake resume has her a million miles from being a UCLA player.
I also didn't declare her 'guilty'; I said this was all fishy. It is. She might be 'guilty' of nothing more than doing a favor for a coach she shares a facility with. We don't know. But until we do..it's fishy.
If we're dividing ourselves into two camps - reserve judgment vs rush-to-judgment - count me in the latter.
NO coach, certainly not one at a top 10 team, is taking a player on resume alone. Hell, I know for a fact UCLA staff are out watching club practices around California as well as all over the country, they go overseas to see foreign players all the time. There's more culpability here.
Yeah schools aren't using an athletic spot to academically admitting kids to boost the team GPA. That's ridiculous. They can hold an open tryout and do that. Or they might admit a kid who they know isn't a star but who still has some ability. No school is admitting a NON athlete to roster them for GPA purposes.
And there is zero chance Amanda took someones word for it that her soccer resume was good enough. That's asinine to think that.
I am not rushing to judgement but I know how athletic departments are run and she knew she was admitting a non athlete (whether as a favor or with a kickback or whatever) and rostered the girl..the head coach has to sign off on that. That to me is fraud. Using an athletic admit slot for a non athlete. What else is it if not fraud?
do we really know this ?
"We know that it's not uncommon for coaches to add a player to the roster whom they know is not up to par with the level of play that would be necessary for the athlete to ever see any playtime. These kids are usually seen as valuable to the team because of the benefit their GPA will bring to the team's overall GPA average. These are players that do not receive Athletic scholarship money, often never see any play time, but are good kids and even better students"
I think it is uncommon
Keep in mind that to becounted towards the team APR a player has to be receiving athletic scholarship money.
It’s not just a case of sticking anybody on the roster.
State funds were used, if that were the purpose.
You are assuming she was on scholarship Clive. Never has that been stated or even implied in articles about her situation. I am surprised at how many adults on here are so quick to condemn someone without facts. Yes, it looks bad. But why not wait until more information comes out. No one seems to have a problem with the USC crew coach remaining employed, despite being caught on a wire tap himself, stating that he would do a quid pro quo.
I didn't take Clive's most recent post as assuming she was on scholarship. I took it as saying that if the motivation were to help with the team's APR, she would have had to have been on scholarship. In fact, I took Clive as implying that the motivation probably wasn't to help with the team's APR since it's unlikely she would have been on scholarship.
CPT has it.
I’m not assuming anything. I was addressing the claim by HeadSpun that putting a player on the team just to raise APR is common and legitimate. It’s not.
I’m saying that IF the excuse was that it was a student put on the team to raise the APR it used state money to game the APR system. That’s a fraud on the taxpayers. It’s certainly more complex that simple rostering paperwork.
It’s not any better than the reason that HeadSpun was attempting to explain away.
Im guessing you’re not a college coach. Never would a coach take someone onto a roster without knowing their backstory. So you would know they don’t have any playing experience whatsoever. In that case you wouldn’t take them onto a DI roster you would find a walk on who has soccer experience and a great GPA.
I bet if you look at the UCLA roster since Cromwell has been there every other kid on the team has played soccer at a decent level. This outlier is so outlandish it wreaks of corruption.
Of course it was corruption. That is why Salcedo was indicted and charged. Everyone knows it was wrong. The question is, how many people were involved.
She was "on the roster" in name only, likely to mask her role to the admissions office. Nothing more. By all indications she was used in a managerial role. One UCLA soccer players parent commented that they never heard of her. So she obviously wasn't on the practice field or team bench. Her linkedin profile says she was the manager of the soccer team.
The more you talk, the more you make the point stronger for her guilt.
the only way out of it for Amanda is:
an administrator made her do it. not made like "I will kill you if you don't," but like "hey this would help our department a great deal." Amanda can argue she was following orders and didn't think it was a big deal. I honestly don't think most coaches would bend to an admin asking this (as it could cost them their MF job!) but maybe the culture there is different.
ucla comes out and says "we have analyzed our admissions policy and will be redoubling our efforts to maintain the integrity of our process. She has apologized, will lose a w soccer admit slot for 4 years and is suspended without pay for 5 conference games." or whatever.
but the silence is deafening. and the releases from ucla thus far have been shallow and seem like they have no clue of the gravity of how bad this looks. read the room ucla people.
also...irrespective of what UCLA does or the FBI does...will the NCAA come in on this? I mean this is pretty much a textbook definition of "lack of institutional control." Or if they didn't break any NCAA rules does the NCAA not have any jurisdiction?
I do not implicate anyone besides Salcedo. I do not know if the women's soccer staff was pressured or flat out told to carry this player by a superior. That is the possibility that some people seem to be ignoring here. I have no dog in this fight, but I continue to chuckle at all of the males ready to take Cromwell to task, yet ignore the male USC crew coach who was caught on wire tap. Sexism at its finest, eh?
In this particular UCLA case (assuming only Salcedo and not the school received money), I suspect that the NCAA will say that UCLA received no competitive advantage so it is not within their purview. The cases where the institution received money to support athletic programs as part of the bribe, however, would be hard for the NCAA to whitewash.
from the L.A. Times:
UCLA knew of a cash-for-admissions deal, years before the scandal
Seems like the Times uncovered rampant athletic/admissions fraud at UCLA. Replace "T&F player" with "soccer player" you have Lauren Isaakson.
Looks like Cromwell will skate just like the UCLA softball coaches during the Tanya Harding episode. UCLA softball 20 yrs ago won a national title [since revoked] using an Aussie ringer - Tanya Harding - who pitched for UCLA for 8 weeks and left after winning the title. Didn't even bother to take final exams. That was the last straw for the title losers - Arizona - and they sicced the NCAA on UCLA.
The ringer and 2 other softball players used soccer scholarships, an NCAA violation. UCLA had women's administrator Judith Holland fall on her sword. Soccer coach Joy Fawcett left the program after the season. Assistant coach Ratcliffe went to coach St. Mary's. Softball coaches skated through the whole scandal. Cromwell will escape this one as well.
Not at all. If the coach was male instead of Cromwell this discussion would be the same. This is a soccer board we are discussing a soccer coach. Could Cromwell have been pressured into doing this? Perhaps. Have any UCLA admins been implicated in the FBI investigation? I’m sure if Cromwell was pressured by someone they would have been given a court date by now.
"[the track and field coach] had approved the admission at the request of a senior athletics official"
I agree and am not saying anything either, but it gives you pause.
Funds were used to give this kid a uniform; for meals; to travel (hotel/air/bus - she is at the Duke vs. UCLA cup game); cleats; swag; priority class picks; mandatory study hall per NCAA; website photos; guide book inclusion; film review; slushies after training; nutrition bars; school team branded swag (with a uniform number); meals/travel expense; schoolwork assistance/tutor (if used); swag (college cup swag/hardware); school banquet swag; all of this. Funds were used. While maybe not a scholarship, it's not a freebee to be on this team or any team either. Head scratcher for sure.
Where do you get this information from? There is zero evidence that she traveled, received a uniform, swag, etc. Just because she took a photo in a jersey doesn't mean she was allowed to keep the jersey. As I mentioned previously, a parent of a player on the team had never heard of her. So that implies that she was nowhere to be found on the team bench or practice field. Her own linkedin profile said she was a manager for the team. So at least, assuming she isn't lying on that public profile, too, they made her work.
guide book inclusion; film review; slushies after training; nutrition bars; school team branded swag
Do you honestly believe she sat in on film review and received training nutrition? Seriously? She was not an athlete on the team. She was a manager (at most).
Lucky for UCLA 1) their men's basketball team is such a mess that no one cares about college women's soccer 2) apparently buying off admissions slots for kids as athletes that never play is NOT an NCAA violation. Certainly someone at UCLA has asked AC what happened, at it appears that multiple teams did this. Unethical but not illegal I guess.