Yale women’s soccer involved in admission fraud

Discussion in 'Women's College' started by Glove Stinks, Mar 12, 2019.

  1. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #76 Cliveworshipper, Mar 20, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019

    Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein to FOLLOW THE MONEY.

    There is no indication in the indictments she got any. Prosecutors are probably wondering why she would do anyhing illegal for no money and coming up empty.
     
  2. Collegewhispers

    Oct 27, 2011
    Club:
    Columbus Crew

    Maybe she didn’t take any money but she must have known and used a spot to get this person into the college. I haven’t spoken to one coach about this yet who would have just taken a totally random person and used an admissions spot to get them in.
     
  3. chch

    chch Member

    Aug 31, 2014
    amazing that up til a few years ago giving a student athlete a bagel with peanut butter off meal was an impermissible benefit but the NCAA seems totally unconcerned at coaches taking hundreds of 1000s of dollars illegally, or using roster spots for kids with no intention of playing (UCLA WSoc) or funneling money outside of the University directly to the water polo program at USC. What if Nike wanted to directly sponsor a team (e.g. Duke basketball) with more money to stay at fancier hotels etc. and not sponsor the University. (e.g. USC water polo). I can't wait for the day when college athletes are free agents and can go where they get paid the most. NCAA should disappear
     
  4. WACySOCCERWORLD

    Jan 28, 2014
  5. ytrs

    ytrs Member

    Jan 24, 2018
    There is a difference in how the Ivy League schools have 'admissions spots' and the majority of other schools. Ivy League schools are given X number of supported admissions. So if they waste one of those on a non-athlete they are hurting their program.

    In UCLA's or USC's case, this is not taking an athletic spot from someone else. Whoever they recruit and want on their team gets supported in their admissions process. They are not restricted to a certain number. Did this hurt some other student from getting in? Probably. But, it did not hurt the soccer program. It is possible that this person was never around the program at all (despite her saying she was the student manager). Or she was simply introduced as a student manager from day one. They just slid her name on the roster for admissions appearances, it seems.

    I do not know what happened there. But from my perspective, it looks like Ali and Salcedo arranged this. Salcedo then went to a women's soccer coach and asked them to help him get a 'friend's daughter' admitted. Women's soccer likely had no idea that this was a pay for scheme. Was it right on women's soccer's part? No. But you can see how (if my assumption is correct) that they may have - a first blush - thought they were just helping out a colleague (Salcedo). We do not know the perceived power structure there either. Salcedo had been there a lot longer than the current women's staff.
     
  6. chch

    chch Member

    Aug 31, 2014
    seems like helping out a colleague get someone into admissions based on fraud is a big problem. So WSOC is telling admissions this is going to be someone on our team with no intention of that happening is a big deal. the fact that it doesn't hurt the team does not make it less of an ethical violation. Maybe the fact that no one cares about WSOC in college will help the coach survive. UCLA is much more interested in who the men's BBall coach will be.
     
  7. 6peternorth9

    6peternorth9 Member

    Nov 15, 2012
    Club:
    Southampton FC
    I am baffled people can be this naive. Either that or you’re connected to them
     
  8. ytrs

    ytrs Member

    Jan 24, 2018
    I am baffled that you could not comprehend my post. I am not connected to them or UCLA. I am an outside observer, like most here. But, I understand how college athletic admissions work generally. And, I can see that no one from women's soccer has been indicted (at least as of now). So at this point it is hard to accuse them of fraud. If what I assume happened, then yes, I said it was not right. But, they did not appear to take a bribe, like the other coaches. I am just less inclined to judge people when I do not know the facts. Power structures do exist in any employment situation. Did UCLA have an administrator like USC's that instructed the women's soccer coach to do this? Who knows? Until more comes out, it is hard to judge who is at fault, since no one was named besides the students, and those indicted.
     
  9. chch

    chch Member

    Aug 31, 2014
    UCLA Wsoc is lucky that the AD has one year left and will not return. He probably doesn't want to fire a successful coach; True no FBI indictment has happened so I guess like the Addidas basketball scandal the NCAA is really proven to be toothless if the FBI doesn't indict people. Also, since this is women's soccer after all, folks at UCLA probably could care less about ethical lapses in WSoc. I'd imagine tax payers in California are probably not as happy that a spot for a qualified kid (of 100,000 applicants) was denied through this though.
     
  10. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    A person who is leaving would be the perfect person to fire the coach.
     
    WACySOCCERWORLD repped this.
  11. chch

    chch Member

    Aug 31, 2014
    the AD is hugely unpopular miffing multiple hires on football and men's basketball, including a $12 million payout. I'm sure the fact that WSoc is one of UCLA's most successful programs and the AD is retiring gives him zero motivation to fire one of his few successful hires. He also gave alford a 1 year extension when it was clear he wasn't working out either. He fired howland after going 25-10 and winning the Pac12. I guess the AD is crazy enough who knows.
    https://www.ocregister.com/2018/12/...hoop-coach-and-maybe-someone-new-to-find-him/
     
  12. Collegewhispers

    Oct 27, 2011
    Club:
    Columbus Crew

    So Salcedo walks into Cromwell’s office and says something like this:

    S- “Hey Coach, I got a kid for you that you should take.”

    C- “Oh yeah? We are competing for a national title every year so will she help us?”

    S- “She’s a good kid that played in high school and I think she would be a good fit for you. She played at such and such high school here is her profile.”

    C- “Oh amazing! I will absolutely take a player that I know nothing about, with this minimal soccer background, to play with national team level athletes and will use an admissions spot and roster spot for her. Of course!”

    So Cromwell isn’t corrupt she’s just an idiot.
     
    appwrangler and 6peternorth9 repped this.
  13. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    “It’s for a donor. I’ll give you two admissions spots next year.”
     
    ytrs repped this.
  14. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
  15. L'orange

    L'orange Member+

    Ajax
    Netherlands
    Jul 20, 2017
    One assumes that Salcedo simply asked Cromwell to do him a solid and put an individual on the roster for a year as a practice player or trainer or somesuch. He must have told her that the young woman wasn't really a soccer player but that she was the daughter of a major donor or somesuch and it would be really helpful to the university or soccer programs if Cromwell could just keep her listed on the roster for a year--and she doesn't need to actually practice unless you need somebody to help with cones or whatever. Cromwell deferred to the older, veteran men's coach, assuming, probably, that he was just doing a favor for a donor. One assumes that Salcedo offered Cromwell no money, and almost certainly didn't tell Cromwell there was money involved--and Cromwell can be thankful for that.
     
    McSkillz and ytrs repped this.
  16. Glove Stinks

    Glove Stinks Member

    Jan 20, 2014
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    It cant be looked past that this kid was rostered. What do the kids who are busting their ass everyday think of this. "Wow...there is a girl on our team who has never been to practice while we are grinding out at 530 am" Favor or not, this is a hot mess
     
  17. ytrs

    ytrs Member

    Jan 24, 2018
    The girl was never going to play on the team. Which part of that are you missing? It had no effect on the program. And, if she was a student manager, than Cromwell and the program got some use out of her. None of these fraudulent admissions kids practiced or played for any of these teams.
     
  18. ytrs

    ytrs Member

    Jan 24, 2018
    The USD coach was named today. It was the former men's basketball coach.
     
  19. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    Lamont Smith is a piece of work. Forced to resign today by UTEP, he was made to resign by USD after a domestic violence charge.
     
  20. Lord Kril

    Lord Kril Member

    Pittsburgh Riverhounds
    Jul 3, 2018
    If this harebrained version is remotely true then this tells you everything you need to know about the chances of UCLA winning another national championship.
     
  21. WACySOCCERWORLD

    Jan 28, 2014
    Rosters have to be submitted to the school's NCAA Compliance Officer who in turn submits the roster to the NCAA. It's a signed document and binding! Managers (or cone movers) do not count. So....no way the women's coach didn't know what was going on. I can't wait until the NCAA jumps in on all this mess...notice you haven't heard a peep out of them....YET
     
  22. Lord Kril

    Lord Kril Member

    Pittsburgh Riverhounds
    Jul 3, 2018
    Let me get this straight--a female coach added a player to circumvent title 9 IX rules.
     
  23. ytrs

    ytrs Member

    Jan 24, 2018
    You assume it was a female coach. It could just as easily have been the male assistant who is no longer at UCLA. I am certainly not accusing him. None of us know is my point. And your other point above is moot. This added person on the roster had zero effect on the performance of the team. They did not practice or compete. They just got their name on a roster on the internet. UCLA's roster is plenty large. They did not need to add a player for Title IX reasons.
     
  24. 6peternorth9

    6peternorth9 Member

    Nov 15, 2012
    Club:
    Southampton FC
    So you don’t think it’s an issue that Cromwell would just add anyone and everyone on the team? They didn’t “just got their name on a roster on the internet”. It does not work that way if you know anything about how the admissions process works.
    Let’s say she just did a favor to Salcedo by adding this random kid on the team, which is no criminal act, but man some standard and respect she has for her program and players.
     
  25. ytrs

    ytrs Member

    Jan 24, 2018
    I said above that it is absolutely wrong. But what we do not know is the power structure in the department. Did Salcedo have perceived power over her? Was an admin involved who directed her to do it? She may be guilty as sin. We just do not know yet. I suspect it will come out eventually.
     

Share This Page