More jail sentences in the Varsity Blues scandal

[Corraleno]

Two more parents were sentenced last week. These are the sentences so far:

Agustin Huneeus: 5 months in prison + $100K fine for paying $50K to cheat on the SAT and another $250K to get his daughter into USC. The daughter's admission was rescinded before she started.

Stephen Seprevivo: 4 months in prison + $100K fine for paying $400K to get his son into Georgetown as a tennis recruit. The son was expelled and has filed suit against Georgetown, claiming it was their responsibility to vet his application better, so they have no right to kick him out.

Devin Sloane: 4 months in prison + $95K fine for paying $250K to get his son into USC as a water polo player. The son fully participated in the scheme, posing for photos in a pool wearing water polo gear his father bought. One story I read said that he'd been expelled, but most stories just say USC has frozen all the students' accounts (meaning they can't enroll in classes, withdraw, or transfer) until the investigation is complete.

Gordon Kaplan: 1 month in prison + $50K fine for paying $75K to boost his daughter's ACT score from 22 to 32. His daughter is still in HS.

Felicity Huffman: 14 days in prison + $30K fine for paying $15K to boost her daughter's SAT scores from ~1000 to 1420. Her daughter graduated from HS in June and the College Board recently gave permission for her to retake the SAT this fall.

 

So far judge Indira Talwani seems pretty consistent in her sentencing, with 1 month or less for SAT/ACT cheating, 4 months for bribing coaches, and 4+1 for committing both crimes. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Gianullis, who now have additional charges as well as having paid bribes for 2 kids. 

[sassenach]

17 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Two more parents were sentenced last week. These are the sentences so far:

Agustin Huneeus: 5 months in prison + $100K fine for paying $50K to cheat on the SAT and another $250K to get his daughter into USC. The daughter's admission was rescinded before she started.

Stephen Seprevivo: 4 months in prison + $100K fine for paying $400K to get his son into Georgetown as a tennis recruit. The son was expelled and has filed suit against Georgetown, claiming it was their responsibility to vet his application better, so they have no right to kick him out.

Devin Sloane: 4 months in prison + $95K fine for paying $250K to get his son into USC as a water polo player. The son fully participated in the scheme, posing for photos in a pool wearing water polo gear his father bought. One story I read said that he'd been expelled, but most stories just say USC has frozen all the students' accounts (meaning they can't enroll in classes, withdraw, or transfer) until the investigation is complete.

Gordon Kaplan: 1 month in prison + $50K fine for paying $75K to boost his daughter's ACT score from 22 to 32. His daughter is still in HS.

Felicity Huffman: 14 days in prison + $30K fine for paying $15K to boost her daughter's SAT scores from ~1000 to 1420. Her daughter graduated from HS in June and the College Board recently gave permission for her to retake the SAT this fall.

 

So far judge Indira Talwani seems pretty consistent in her sentencing, with 1 month or less for SAT/ACT cheating, 4 months for bribing coaches, and 4+1 for committing both crimes. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Gianullis, who now have additional charges as well as having paid bribes for 2 kids. 

Do you know if this same judge is the one dealing with Lori whatshername?

[sassenach]

Huneeus is from my county. The private school his kid went to is 45k per year. My son’s bf goes there and I’ll just say that no one has been surprised that the school has been caught up in this. I think there are 2 other families also involved. 

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, sassenach said:

Do you know if this same judge is the one dealing with Lori whatshername?

Yes, she's the judge for all the Varsity Blues cases.

[sassenach]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Yes, she's the judge for all the Varsity Blues cases.

I would be pooping my pants if I was Aunt Becky. 

[rjand6more]

These are all people who pled guilty?  Is that right?

Lori Loughlin pled NOT guilty.  I wonder if that matters in sentencing?

[Lawyer&Mom]

3 minutes ago, rjand6more said:

These are all people who pled guilty?  Is that right?

Lori Loughlin pled NOT guilty.  I wonder if that matters in sentencing?

 

It absolutely matters.  The courts want people who know they are guilty to plead and save everyone time, money and hassle.  How much it will matter, I don’t know.

[Corraleno]

 

1 minute ago, rjand6more said:

These are all people who pled guilty?  Is that right?

Lori Loughlin pled NOT guilty.  I wonder if that matters in sentencing?

Yes, it definitely matters in sentencing, the whole point of offering plea deals is to get people to plead guilty in return for a much reduced sentence. All the Varsity Blues defendants who rejected plea deals have been hit with additional charges. If Huneeus's sentence is any indication, the judge could give them 8 months just for the bribery charges for the two girls, and then there would be more time for the money laundering on top of that, plus the judge could increase all that for failing to show remorse and plead guilty.

[Chris in VA]

What is Lori Laughlin's deal, anyway? I mean, what possible defense could be offered? 

[unsinkable]

22 hours ago, rjand6more said:

These are all people who pled guilty?  Is that right?

Lori Loughlin pled NOT guilty.  I wonder if that matters in sentencing?

I am wondering if I am missing something.

Loughlin pled not guilty...So she will have a trial, right? 

So are you asking IF she ultimately has a trial (doesn't change her plea) and IF/WHEN she has been found guilty, will it matter that she plead "not gulity" and went to trial?

We still have a 6th Amendment, right?

[unsinkable]

Maybe people don't "care" what happens to the Varsity Blues defendants but read up on the trial penalty phenomenon.

https://www.nacdl.org/Document/TrialPenaltySixthAmendmentRighttoTrialNearExtinct

There are many other takes on it.

[Lanny]

15 hours ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

 I’m rich so I’m above the law?

I don’t know. I can’t imagine any defense is going to persuade this judge at this point.  They should have taken the plea deal.

 

I didn't know who Felicity or Lori were until the scandal broke. My wife realized a week or so ago that William H. Macy is the DH of Felicity and she likes him, when he is in movies she is watching.

Felicity had class, except at the very end with those Sentencing letters. Lori has never had class, since the scandal broke, IMO.  I read, many months ago, that if the Feds indict someone there is an extremely high probability they have enough evidence to send them to the slammer for a long time. With the technology today, they have Wiretaps, etc., and probably a profuse amount of details, about each of the Defendants and the crimes they are charged with. Including that Rick Singer is cooperating with the Prosecution so that he will get a lighter sentence.

The boy at Georgetown has "Chutzpah" and I do not mean that in an approving way. That is clean language for what I think of him suing the school for not applying due diligence to his application. In my memory, at the School Fair we (DW, DD and me) attended in Bogota, early in May 2018, Georgetown was one of the 4 schools who sent reps there.

IMO, Lori and her DH have an imbecile for an Attorney, and/or their Attorney has 2 imbeciles for clients. Time will tell, when they go to trial, if they had some valid reason(s) to plead Not Guilty. If they are found guilty, that's when them pleading "Not Guilty" is probably going to have been a horrible mistake for them, when they are sentenced.   They are Innocent until   proven guilty, but apparently smart criminals plead Guilty and get a much shorter sentence. We will see whether or not they are smart, as their cases progress through the court.

[PrincessMommy]

Is it possible that Lori and her husband (whatever their names are) can have a trial by jury?  If so, she may be hoping for a sympathy acquittal... cry on the stand, etc. etc. and thinking jurors are easily swayed and manipulated. 

[Scarlett]

My understanding is that Lori and her husband's defense is that they didn't know it was illegal.

[catz]

13 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

My understanding is that Lori and her husband's defense is that they didn't know it was illegal.

That’s great.   Good luck with that Aunt Becky.  😂

[mathnerd]

1 hour ago, Lanny said:

 

The boy at Georgetown has "Chutzpah" and I do not mean that in an approving way. That is clean language for what I think of him suing the school for not applying due diligence to his application. In my memory, at the School Fair we (DW, DD and me) attended in Bogota, early in May 2018, Georgetown was one of the 4 schools who sent reps there.

 

@LannyI personally think that the universities involved are getting away far too easily in this scandal when it is their corrupt system (lack of due diligence in checking if a recruited athlete was actually contributing to the college sport or not over the long term) that encouraged this scandal of unqualified kids posing as athletes and stealing seats from more deserving students. I think that a few of these lawsuits (I would like to see some against USC as well) would drive the fear into these institutions who don't seem to be accountable to anyone and hopefully make them implement systems to check if recruited athletes are who they claim to be.

That kid has a good point and I hope that the school answers to the judge in court if this case comes up. I find it highly unlikely that there was not even a single whisper in these universities about these coaches with multimillion dollar properties and private jet travel. People in power have known and looked the other way, for sure.

[gstharr]

3 hours ago, unsinkable said:

I am wondering if I am missing something.

Loughlin pled not guilty...So she will have a trial, right? 

So are you asking IF she ultimately has a trial (doesn't change her plea) and IF/WHEN she has been found guilty, will it matter that she plead "not gulity" and went to trial?

We still have a 6th Amendment, right?

Matters a lot in federal court. Early acceptance of responsibility , and cooperation, are big factors in downward sentencing departures. I am fascinated to see her defense play out. If Gordon Caplan, former of-chairman of one of the world's largest law firms , could not find a defense for his $75,000 test taking payment, I can't imagine the defense for her/their $500,000 payments.

 

[unsinkable]

10 minutes ago, gstharr said:

Matters a lot in federal court. Early acceptance of responsibility , and cooperation, are big factors in downward sentencing departures. I am fascinated to see her defense play out. If Gordon Caplan, former of-chairman of one of the world's largest law firms , could not find a defense for his $75,000 test taking payment, I can't imagine the defense for her/their $500,000 payments.

 

You're basically giving a "defense" of the trial penalty.

But apply the idea to poor defendants who see no way out other than pleading guilty to a crime they didn't commit bc they cannot risk a trial compared to the "deal" being dangled in front of them.

[Lanny]

33 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

@LannyI personally think that the universities involved are getting away far too easily in this scandal when it is their corrupt system (lack of due diligence in checking if a recruited athlete was actually contributing to the college sport or not over the long term) that encouraged this scandal of unqualified kids posing as athletes and stealing seats from more deserving students. I think that a few of these lawsuits (I would like to see some against USC as well) would drive the fear into these institutions who don't seem to be accountable to anyone and hopefully make them implement systems to check if recruited athletes are who they claim to be.

That kid has a good point and I hope that the school answers to the judge in court if this case comes up. I find it highly unlikely that there was not even a single whisper in these universities about these coaches with multimillion dollar properties and private jet travel. People in power have known and looked the other way, for sure.

 

With regard to the Athletic aspects of this scandal. One of my cousins has a grandchild who is on a Crew team for a very very major university. That's one of the sports involved in this scandal. I agree that there should be due diligence regarding Athletes, especially if they are getting scholarships. My understanding is that Athletic scholarships are hard to get and are normally not for a "Full Ride".

The University of Texas, one of the schools involved, apparently had no systems in place to prevent what happened. They thought everyone would be honest and it didn't work out that way.  I am sure they have put systems into place to try to prevent this from happening in the future.

Someone upthread noted that her son has a friend who goes to a Private school in Northern California where it costs about $45 K per year to attend and that they suspect a couple of other families in that school are also involved (or will be) in this scandal. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, mathnerd said:

I personally think that the universities involved are getting away far too easily in this scandal when it is their corrupt system (lack of due diligence in checking if a recruited athlete was actually contributing to the college sport or not over the long term) that encouraged this scandal of unqualified kids posing as athletes and stealing seats from more deserving students. I think that a few of these lawsuits (I would like to see some against USC as well) would drive the fear into these institutions who don't seem to be accountable to anyone and hopefully make them implement systems to check if recruited athletes are who they claim to be.

That kid has a good point and I hope that the school answers to the judge in court if this case comes up. I find it highly unlikely that there was not even a single whisper in these universities about these coaches with multimillion dollar properties and private jet travel. People in power have known and looked the other way, for sure.

I'm not sure what you think the college administration could have done in these cases. Coaches get a certain number of admissions slots they can use to admit recruited athletes, and there's really no way for admissions to comb through team rosters and competition results for every one of the hundreds of recruited athletes at a given school, any more than they generally check up on any other activities. They don't generally go through the activities list for nonathletes, either, checking if they really did that many hours of volunteer work or won that honor or whatever. They just rely on the info they get from schools, counselors, and recommenders. For athletes they rely on the coach to have fully vetted the athlete, because most coaches would never damage their own team and risk their career by taking bribes.

Singer's operation included adding fake athletic activities to the students' Common App, rewriting essays to focus on sports, and creating very professional looking athletic resumes, all of which made the student seem like a talented athlete that the coach wanted to recruit for the team. The only school that involved more than one coach was USC, where the Senior Associate Athletic Director was the one running the scam, and she was a member of the athletic admissions committee. Yale had no reason to suspect that their well-respected soccer coach had sold 2-3 recruiting slots in the course of his career, nor would Stanford suspect their sailing coach sold 2 or 3 slots, the UCLA soccer coach sold 1 slot, etc. It's not uncommon for a recruited athlete to be injured over the summer, or just decide not to compete after all, so if one recruited athlete every couple of years doesn't join the team, that would not raise any red flags. The vast majority of the students involved in Varsity Blues were admitted to USC, where the scam included multiple coaches as well as an Athletic Director. I do think USC should be subject to serious sanctions by NCAA, but I don't think the general admissions department, or other administrators who had no way of knowing what was happening in the athletic department, should be blamed.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Corraleno

[Lanny]

I just read this article about Lori (on 08OCT2019) and what sentence she might receive. That's all speculation until the Judge actually sentences her.  IMO 6+ months would be appropriate for her and her DH, based on their behavior since the scandal broke last March and on the sentences some of the other defendants who've already been sentenced, have received. So far, I believe 5 months was the longest sentence for someone who pleaded "Guilty" early on in the process.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lori-loughlin-felicity-huffman-college-admissions-scandal-sentencing

 

[Bambam]

On 10/7/2019 at 3:46 PM, mathnerd said:

@LannyI personally think that the universities involved are getting away far too easily in this scandal when it is their corrupt system (lack of due diligence in checking if a recruited athlete was actually contributing to the college sport or not over the long term) that encouraged this scandal of unqualified kids posing as athletes and stealing seats from more deserving students. I think that a few of these lawsuits (I would like to see some against USC as well) would drive the fear into these institutions who don't seem to be accountable to anyone and hopefully make them implement systems to check if recruited athletes are who they claim to be.

That kid has a good point and I hope that the school answers to the judge in court if this case comes up. I find it highly unlikely that there was not even a single whisper in these universities about these coaches with multimillion dollar properties and private jet travel. People in power have known and looked the other way, for sure.

You know, I don't understand this. I think it is entirely reasonable to assume on a college application that you are supposed to enter true and valid information. College applications are *not* an opportunity for you to exercise your creative writing abilities. This is obviously supposed to be factual not fiction! 

If your premise is the recipient is responsible to verify the accuracy of all submitted info, what are the implications of that? First a massive amount of work and time would be required to verify *ALL* college applications. The amount of manpower and time would be mind-boggling. Second - if this idea were to extend to all areas - that basically one has no responsibility to be honest in their dealings - it is the receiver's responsibility to verify everything - why that would end up in chaos. You purchase a meal from a drive-thru restaurant. Do they have a responsibility to serve you exactly what you ordered and in a fashion that is actually edible? What if they decide they want to serve horsemeat vs. hamburger? Do you have a responsibility to get to a lab and verify that it is actually hamburger? Do you have a responsibility to do some sort of check to verify it hasn't set out for 24 hours before they handed it to you? 

No, I think the responsibility is solely on the young man to only submit honest information. He lied. Knowingly. 

[mathnerd]

2 hours ago, Bambam said:

You know, I don't understand this. I think it is entirely reasonable to assume on a college application that you are supposed to enter true and valid information. College applications are *not* an opportunity for you to exercise your creative writing abilities. This is obviously supposed to be factual not fiction! 

If your premise is the recipient is responsible to verify the accuracy of all submitted info, what are the implications of that? First a massive amount of work and time would be required to verify *ALL* college applications. The amount of manpower and time would be mind-boggling. Second - if this idea were to extend to all areas - that basically one has no responsibility to be honest in their dealings - it is the receiver's responsibility to verify everything - why that would end up in chaos. You purchase a meal from a drive-thru restaurant. Do they have a responsibility to serve you exactly what you ordered and in a fashion that is actually edible? What if they decide they want to serve horsemeat vs. hamburger? Do you have a responsibility to get to a lab and verify that it is actually hamburger? Do you have a responsibility to do some sort of check to verify it hasn't set out for 24 hours before they handed it to you? 

No, I think the responsibility is solely on the young man to only submit honest information. He lied. Knowingly. 

The fact that the boy lied (or cheated) knowingly is an entirely different matter from the fact that the university has corrupt people on its payroll and it is culpable for it. The university is accountable because it knowingly states that it upholds fair admissions policies and many deserving candidates got rejected in the same year that the kid whose father paid $400K got him in. Asian-Americans are suing universities for unfair admissions processes and the favoring of an ineligible candidate because money was involved (even through the backdoor) is also an unfair admissions process.

If you further extend this concept for explanation: suppose one of the corrupt (or bad) coaches at Georgetown or another elite university sexually harassed a student or racially discriminated them, then, the student can sue the university because it is responsible for employing the person who committed the crime. In the same way, if a student was affected because the employee of the university took a bribe, then, the student can air his grievances to a Judge in a court of law and the Judge will decide what the outcome is. The fact that the same student cheated can also go to court, but as a different lawsuit in front of a different judge and is not related to the university's shortcomings.

(I am also of the opinion that Singer's racket is just the tip of the iceberg and that there are hundreds of corrupt consultants who have been bribing sports coaches in many universities for a long time and that those universities have been turning a blind eye towards them. Because of the massive amounts of publicity involved, the IRS and FBI will get around to digging into the non-profits of many consultants/coaches involved sooner or later and we will see more such scandals coming out eventually. If you ask why I am so sure of this, all I can say is that in my county, there are enclaves where the billionaires/millionaires from abroad end up when their kids are teens and hire specialist college consultants who promise them elite college seats and apparently, they "package" the kids and deliver the seats. And apparently, it costs a certain number of millions to get it done. All of this is rumor until the FBI unearths something or if the universities themselves try to clean house.)

[Sneezyone]

39 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

The fact that the boy lied (or cheated) knowingly is an entirely different matter from the fact that the university has corrupt people on its payroll and it is culpable for it. The university is accountable because it knowingly states that it upholds fair admissions policies and many deserving candidates got rejected in the same year that the kid whose father paid $400K got him in. Asian-Americans are suing universities for unfair admissions processes and the favoring of an ineligible candidate because money was involved (even through the backdoor) is also an unfair admissions process.

If you further extend this concept for explanation: suppose one of the corrupt (or bad) coaches at Georgetown or another elite university sexually harassed a student or racially discriminated them, then, the student can sue the university because it is responsible for employing the person who committed the crime. In the same way, if a student was affected because the employee of the university took a bribe, then, the student can air his grievances to a Judge in a court of law and the Judge will decide what the outcome is. The fact that the same student cheated can also go to court, but as a different lawsuit in front of a different judge and is not related to the university's shortcomings.

 

That analogy doesn't hold water. Yes, the university is responsible for its employee but that doesn't negate the student's obligation to truthfully represent their credentials to the school. In your analogy, the student who was sexually harassed DID NOTHING WRONG. In this instance, the student materially misrepresented his/herself to gain admission. Yes, the university could be sued by *denied* students for being wrongfully excluded based on the behavior of its employees but it could not be sued by *this* student who was complicit in the fraud perpetrated against the university because he/she is not a victim of the fraud. He/she is perpetrator.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

22 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

The fact that the boy lied (or cheated) knowingly is an entirely different matter from the fact that the university has corrupt people on its payroll and it is culpable for it. The university is accountable because it knowingly states that it upholds fair admissions policies and many deserving candidates got rejected in the same year that the kid whose father paid $400K got him in. Asian-Americans are suing universities for unfair admissions processes and the favoring of an ineligible candidate because money was involved (even through the backdoor) is also an unfair admissions process.

If you further extend this concept for explanation: suppose one of the corrupt (or bad) coaches at Georgetown or another elite university sexually harassed a student or racially discriminated them, then, the student can sue the university because it is responsible for employing the person who committed the crime. In the same way, if a student was affected because the employee of the university took a bribe, then, the student can air his grievances to a Judge in a court of law and the Judge will decide what the outcome is. The fact that the same student cheated can also go to court, but as a different lawsuit in front of a different judge and is not related to the university's shortcomings.

The problem with this reasoning is that the school itself is a victim of the corrupt coach, not a co-conspirator. That is exactly what the criminal charges in these cases (conspiracy to commit honest services fraud) are about: the parents and the coaches conspired to deprive the universities of the "honest services" of the coaches, who had an obligation to recruit genuine athletes and build the best possible teams for the schools. 

With the exception of USC, this case involves one coach and a very small number of athletes at each school. Just taking Yale as an example, there are more than 30 teams and more than 800 athletes at Yale — if one player on one of those teams doesn't play that year because they were "injured" over the summer, that's not even going to raise red flags within the athletic department, let alone with admissions or higher administrative officials. 

I believe some of the schools have implemented a policy going forward that any recruited athlete who doesn't join the team as a freshman will be subject to additional scrutiny. But there can still be cases where the student does play the sport but is really mediocre, so he or she can join the team but sit on the bench, and those cases will be very difficult to catch. But I imagine that seeing the penalties being handed out in these cases, and knowing that there will be extra scrutiny going forward, any other coaches who are currently involved in this may think twice.

[Guest]

There also are cases where a recruited athlete could legitimately have an injury during the summer. At the time college teams and recruiters for cheer were doing tryouts and building their squad, DD would have been fine last season (and indeed, did try out for and was placed on a full travel team for this season). By August, she could barely walk, and had she been on a school or college team, would have been sidelined for this season, but, at least for the college her team coach is the coach for as well, probably wouldn't have been dropped from the roster this season, particularly for an athlete receiving no money to participate.  They take more athletes than will actually hit the mat for competition anyway, and one reason is that injuries are common, and by the time DD was cleared to return, someone else might well be out. If a student's athletic profile was faked, how much harder to fake documentation of an injury and a student's decision to leave the team vs ride the bench?

[Corraleno]

5 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

There also are cases where a recruited athlete could legitimately have an injury during the summer. At the time college teams and recruiters for cheer were doing tryouts and building their squad, DD would have been fine last season (and indeed, did try out for and was placed on a full travel team for this season). By August, she could barely walk, and had she been on a school or college team, would have been sidelined for this season, but, at least for the college her team coach is the coach for as well, probably wouldn't have been dropped from the roster this season, particularly for an athlete receiving no money to participate.  They take more athletes than will actually hit the mat for competition anyway, and one reason is that injuries are common, and by the time DD was cleared to return, someone else might well be out. If a student's athletic profile was faked, how much harder to fake documentation of an injury and a student's decision to leave the team vs ride the bench?

Yes, exactly — Singer had a psychologist on his payroll who handed out fake disability diagnoses so students would qualify for double time, it would be just as easy to get a sports doctor on board who would provide fake diagnoses. Not to mention the fact that even legitimate recruited athletes without scholarships have no legal or contractual obligation to compete in the sport. So even if a recruit wasn't injured, they could just say they decided not to compete after all, and although that would certainly be unethical it would not be illegal.

[MysteryJen]

And since the Ivy League doesn't give athletic scholarships, people not finishing their first season is not unusual.

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, MysteryJen said:

And since the Ivy League doesn't give athletic scholarships, people not finishing their first season is not unusual.

 I've seen multiple instances in DS's sport where top kids who were recruited by Ivies or other elite private schools quit after the first year, and in some cases barely even competed the first year. It's actually not that uncommon, especially in niche sports, to use athletics as an "in" and then quit.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

On 10/7/2019 at 6:18 PM, Corraleno said:

The vast majority of the students involved in Varsity Blues were admitted to USC, where the scam included multiple coaches as well as an Athletic Director. I do think USC should be subject to serious sanctions by NCAA, but I don't think the general admissions department, or other administrators who had no way of knowing what was happening in the athletic department, should be blamed.

I will be interested to see if the NCAA gets involved.  It didn't give USC a competitive advantage (seems to be the opposite) so I am not sure this will be a priority with everything else they have going on.

[alewife]

1 hour ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

I will be interested to see if the NCAA gets involved.  It didn't give USC a competitive advantage (seems to be the opposite) so I am not sure this will be a priority with everything else they have going on.

I doubt that the Varsity Blues Scandal is even on the NCAA's radar, especially now that California's Fair Pay to Play bill was recently signed into law.  (It is about time.  Hopefully other states will quickly enact similar laws.)

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, alewife said:

I doubt that the Varsity Blues Scandal is even on the NCAA's radar, especially now that California's Fair Pay to Play bill was recently signed into law.  (It is about time.  Hopefully other states will quickly enact similar laws.)

The CA law doesn't take effect until 2023 and even then it will only have an impact if NCAA changes the rules. As long as those rules are in effect, any NCAA athlete who violates them will be ineligible to compete, and so will the teams if they allow it. The idea that CA schools will leave the NCAA over this is crazy, they will lose a huge amount of money and have no one to play since other NCAA teams won't play them. And if NCAA does change the rules, watch what happens to team morale when the star quarterback and receiver are driving Ferraris and making millions while the linemen who protect them get squat. The superstars who will get the endorsements certainly contribute to the success of the team, but so do all the other guys, and even the superstars wouldn't be signing any endorsement contracts if they were playing for East Podunk State instead of Alabama or Clemson or OSU, so they owe their success to the school as much as the school owes their success to the stars.

I would be all in favor of some kind of bonus or revenue sharing for everyone on teams that make the playoffs or a bowl game or whatever, but allowing individual players to sign endorsement contracts, with no restrictions, is going to have really negative consequences that people are not seeing. Its not just about Nike and Addidas endorsements, you will have situations where one college is offering a top recruit a $200K/yr contract to do billboards for Booster Bob's Cadillac, and another is offering $150K and all the steak he can eat from Alumni Al's Steakhouse, etc. etc. Colleges with wealthy alumni and boosters will be allowed to buy players outright.

[alewife]

22 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The CA law doesn't take effect until 2023 and even then it will only have an impact if NCAA changes the rules. As long as those rules are in effect, any NCAA athlete who violates them will be ineligible to compete, and so will the teams if they allow it. The idea that CA schools will leave the NCAA over this is crazy, they will lose a huge amount of money and have no one to play since other NCAA teams won't play them. And if NCAA does change the rules, watch what happens to team morale when the star quarterback and receiver are driving Ferraris and making millions while the linemen who protect them get squat. The superstars who will get the endorsements certainly contribute to the success of the team, but so do all the other guys, and even the superstars wouldn't be signing any endorsement contracts if they were playing for East Podunk State instead of Alabama or Clemson or OSU, so they owe their success to the school as much as the school owes their success to the stars.

I would be all in favor of some kind of bonus or revenue sharing for everyone on teams that make the playoffs or a bowl game or whatever, but allowing individual players to sign endorsement contracts, with no restrictions, is going to have really negative consequences that people are not seeing. Its not just about Nike and Addidas endorsements, you will have situations where one college is offering a top recruit a $200K/yr contract to do billboards for Booster Bob's Cadillac, and another is offering $150K and all the steak he can eat from Alumni Al's Steakhouse, etc. etc. Colleges with wealthy alumni and boosters will be allowed to buy players outright.

At least this move forces the NCAA's hand.  I have read reports that college sports generated over 14 billion dollars last year, with March Madness alone generating $900 million last year for the NCAA.  It is ridiculous, imo, that the athletes don't get a share of this profit.  (I don't buy into the NCAA claims that these student athletes are getting a college degree in exchange for their play because most of them are not)  

At least now the NCAA is saying that "changes are needed".  Changes have been needed for decades.  It is unfortunate that the state and federal governments needed to get involved in order for these kids to be treated fairly... 

[Corraleno]

6 hours ago, alewife said:

At least this move forces the NCAA's hand.  I have read reports that college sports generated over 14 billion dollars last year, with March Madness alone generating $900 million last year for the NCAA.  It is ridiculous, imo, that the athletes don't get a share of this profit.  (I don't buy into the NCAA claims that these student athletes are getting a college degree in exchange for their play because most of them are not)  

At least now the NCAA is saying that "changes are needed".  Changes have been needed for decades.  It is unfortunate that the state and federal governments needed to get involved in order for these kids to be treated fairly... 

The bolded is untrue — the vast majority of college athletes do get degrees. The overall graduation rate for Division 1 NCAA athletes is 88%, including 79% of black athletes. Even in the big money sports, 79% of FBS football players and 85% of basketball players graduate. Since only 2% of college football players go pro and 79% get degrees, it seems like the degree is a much more valuable investment.

Division 1 football and basketball, which are the only sports that actually generate more money than they cost, provide full cost of attendance to all team members except nonrecruited walk-ons. That covers all tuition, fees, books, room, board, supplemental food, and a stipend for living expenses of up to $5000/yr. At Ohio State, for example, a full athletic ride for an OOS player is worth $200,000 over 4 years, and if they don't get a degree within 4 years they get free tuition until they complete it. They can even come back years later and complete their degree for free. They get unlimited free tutoring, free academic coaching, free printing, a free iPad Pro, thousands of dollars in free clothing (not just uniforms, they get tons of Nike-branded shorts, shirts, hoodies, jackets, hats, sneakers, luggage, etc.), and tons of other resources.

The vast majority of the 14 billion NCAA takes in is returned to college and university athletic programs, where it benefits all athletes, not just a handful of superstars in football and basketball. The CA bill will benefit about 0.01% of college athletes — exactly the same athletes that are most likely to have pro careers — and will have no benefit for the other 99.99% of college athletes who work just as hard and get nothing.

I think a better solution to the problem would be to remove the restrictions on college athletes going pro — if they'd rather have a salary than a college degree, they should be able to register directly for the NFL and NBA drafts, instead of being required to play college ball for 1 yr (basketball) or 3 yrs (football) first. NCAA could also implement some kind of revenue sharing for all athletes on the teams that make it to the basketball playoffs or the bowl games, since those are the games that generate the most revenue. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Corraleno

[ChocolateReignRemix]

5 hours ago, alewife said:

At least this move forces the NCAA's hand.  I have read reports that college sports generated over 14 billion dollars last year, with March Madness alone generating $900 million last year for the NCAA.  It is ridiculous, imo, that the athletes don't get a share of this profit.  (I don't buy into the NCAA claims that these student athletes are getting a college degree in exchange for their play because most of them are not)  

At least now the NCAA is saying that "changes are needed".  Changes have been needed for decades.  It is unfortunate that the state and federal governments needed to get involved in order for these kids to be treated fairly... 

 

The money does go back to the schools, and it is pumped back into athletics. And they certainly get an opportunity for a free college education (and most NCAA athletes do get a degree). 

The reality is you will now have boosters targeting 17 year olds for "endorsement" contracts and I don't believe the end result will benefit the average athlete.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Felicity Huffman's out! 11 days served. 

I am glad.  I just don't see her as that horrible of a person.  

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Most people in prison aren’t horrible people, but they did commit crimes that had so coated consequences.  Wanting someone to serve a solid sentence in proportion to the crime doesn’t mean you think they’re scum 🤔

Well, I guess I do think it was enough.  A fine, probation and community service for a non violent crime does not make me unhappy.  But attitude does matter.  I know some people think she is one big faker, but at least she has enough sense to behave appropriately.  As opposed to the other actress and husband whose name escape me.  You know, Aunt Becky.  LOL

[Scarlett]

21 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I saw earlier this week that they threw additional charges at Aunt Becky. Bribery I think? 

I saw that too .  I was trying to figure out if she’s done something additional since she was arrested or if they are trying to strong-arm her into pleading guilty . 

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I saw that too .  I was trying to figure out if she’s done something additional since she was arrested or if they are trying to strong-arm her into pleading guilty . 

They warned all 14 of the people who didn’t plead guilty initially that this additional charge would be brought. 11 then accepted a plea deal later and avoided the extra charge. 4, including Loughlin, did not. And were charged exactly as they were told would be charged. They are gambling on a trial. Might work for them but very likely won’t. 

[Lanny]

I read a few days ago that Lori and her DH were going to the court, because after all of these months, they seem to realize, belatedly, that having the same Attorney(s) represent both of  them was not a good idea. Probably not a good idea for either of them.  They may be contemplating changing their Pleas from "Not Guilty" to "Guilty" at this time, because if they do go to trial, and there is a Jury, there's no telling what their sentences might be, if they are found "Guilty".  Possibly years, not months, in the slammer?