[TrumpCard]

Mea culpa for misreading the article. I defer to those who have more info on this scandal to say what’s alleged. I don’t think it absolves U$C that they reported the dean who was indicted. When an organization repeatedly chooses leaders who fail basic character tests, there’s something wrong with the organization.

[TrumpCard]

Mea culpa for misreading the article. I defer to those who have more info on this scandal to say what’s alleged. I don’t think it absolves U$C that they reported the dean who was indicted. When an organization repeatedly chooses leaders who fail basic character tests, there’s something wrong with the organization.

[JJJ]

SI on Texas tennis coach. With a Stanford cameo.



*sorry, may be paywalled. I must've just exceeded my monthly free allocation.

The Real Scandal of Varsity Blues

Texas’s former men’s tennis coach says he has paid for his mistakes. What he wants to know is why nobody in charge has.

• Jon Wertheim
  
• 6 hours ago
  

For Michael Center, 2019 was shaping up as a hell of a year. After almost two decades as the coach of the Texas men’s tennis program, Center had assembled a team capable of winning the NCAA title. His two top singles players were blazingly talented, perhaps the strongest recruits he’d ever had. All season, the Longhorns thrashed opponents.

On the third Sunday in May the Longhorns would fulfill their promise, defeating Wake Forest in Orlando to win their first national championship in the program’s 73-year history. Center watched the matches with pride, wearing his trademark burnt-orange T-shirt and a considerable smile.

But as a dogpile ensued on the court, Center was home on the couch, suddenly in tears and unsure how to feel. “It was a dream day,” he recalls, “and it was also one of the most difficult moments of my life.” It didn’t help that ESPN’s broadcasters had referred to Center as “a distraction.” When the team FaceTimed him an hour later, he fumbled through a few words of praise and then cried again.

null



****SNIPPED*****




But it remains an open question: What did admissions, and other administrators, know at each of the eight Varsity Blues schools? Consider Stanford. There, sailing coach John Vandemoer designated two applicants as athlete recruits, without vetting them. In exchange, he received $770,000 from Singer. Neither student matriculated to the school. And Vandemoer kept none of the funds personally, instead investing them in the Stanford sailing program.


Vandemoer recalls that when he mentioned Singer, other members of the athletic department spoke glowingly of him. “He’s a guy you can trust,” Vandemoer remembers Stanford assistant basketball coach Adam Cohen enthusing.

Vandemoer says he handed over a check for $500,000 from Singer’s charity—part of the $770,000—to a fundraising administrator in the athletic department. Pleased by this windfall, she summoned Bernard Muir, Stanford’s AD. According to Vandemoer, when he began to explain that the checks came from Singer, his boss cut him off. “Oh, we know Rick,” said Muir. “We know Rick well.” (A Stanford spokesman tells SI: “Coach Cohen does not recall ever endorsing Singer. . . . Stanford’s athletic director never met or spoke with Singer and had no relationship with him.”)

After being indicted, Vandemoer was fired. He would plead guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy and be sentenced to one day in prison, six months of house arrest, two years of probation and a $10,000 fine. A subsequent external review commissioned by Stanford found no evidence that any other employee of the athletics department had “agreed to support a Singer client in exchange for financial consideration.” It did, however, note that Singer “directly or indirectly approached seven Stanford coaches about potential recruits between 2009 and 2019.”

Vandemoer was floored. “I didn’t buy for a minute that I was the only one who’d been taken in by him,” he says. “Why would Singer keep coming back, year after year, if his efforts weren’t bearing fruit?” He made those points in a book published last fall, Rigged Justice: How the College Admissions Scandal Ruined an Innocent Man’s Life.

“I get asked, ‘Will this be the difference? Will this change these schools?’ ” Vandemoer says, referring to the scandalous publicity around Varsity Blues. “My simple answer is ‘no,’ because the people in charge are the problem.”

Vandemoer has been diagnosed with PTSD and “I still have my moments,” he tells SI, “my nightmares, when the anger, the frustration comes back.” But he’s found catharsis talking about his ordeal. And he is back on the water, coaching kids, ages 10 to 13, in Redwood City, Calif.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/01/20/va...aily-cover

[JJJ]

SI on Texas tennis coach. With a Stanford cameo.



*sorry, may be paywalled. I must've just exceeded my monthly free allocation.

The Real Scandal of Varsity Blues

Texas’s former men’s tennis coach says he has paid for his mistakes. What he wants to know is why nobody in charge has.

• Jon Wertheim
  
• 6 hours ago
  

For Michael Center, 2019 was shaping up as a hell of a year. After almost two decades as the coach of the Texas men’s tennis program, Center had assembled a team capable of winning the NCAA title. His two top singles players were blazingly talented, perhaps the strongest recruits he’d ever had. All season, the Longhorns thrashed opponents.

On the third Sunday in May the Longhorns would fulfill their promise, defeating Wake Forest in Orlando to win their first national championship in the program’s 73-year history. Center watched the matches with pride, wearing his trademark burnt-orange T-shirt and a considerable smile.

But as a dogpile ensued on the court, Center was home on the couch, suddenly in tears and unsure how to feel. “It was a dream day,” he recalls, “and it was also one of the most difficult moments of my life.” It didn’t help that ESPN’s broadcasters had referred to Center as “a distraction.” When the team FaceTimed him an hour later, he fumbled through a few words of praise and then cried again.

null



****SNIPPED*****




But it remains an open question: What did admissions, and other administrators, know at each of the eight Varsity Blues schools? Consider Stanford. There, sailing coach John Vandemoer designated two applicants as athlete recruits, without vetting them. In exchange, he received $770,000 from Singer. Neither student matriculated to the school. And Vandemoer kept none of the funds personally, instead investing them in the Stanford sailing program.


Vandemoer recalls that when he mentioned Singer, other members of the athletic department spoke glowingly of him. “He’s a guy you can trust,” Vandemoer remembers Stanford assistant basketball coach Adam Cohen enthusing.

Vandemoer says he handed over a check for $500,000 from Singer’s charity—part of the $770,000—to a fundraising administrator in the athletic department. Pleased by this windfall, she summoned Bernard Muir, Stanford’s AD. According to Vandemoer, when he began to explain that the checks came from Singer, his boss cut him off. “Oh, we know Rick,” said Muir. “We know Rick well.” (A Stanford spokesman tells SI: “Coach Cohen does not recall ever endorsing Singer. . . . Stanford’s athletic director never met or spoke with Singer and had no relationship with him.”)

After being indicted, Vandemoer was fired. He would plead guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy and be sentenced to one day in prison, six months of house arrest, two years of probation and a $10,000 fine. A subsequent external review commissioned by Stanford found no evidence that any other employee of the athletics department had “agreed to support a Singer client in exchange for financial consideration.” It did, however, note that Singer “directly or indirectly approached seven Stanford coaches about potential recruits between 2009 and 2019.”

Vandemoer was floored. “I didn’t buy for a minute that I was the only one who’d been taken in by him,” he says. “Why would Singer keep coming back, year after year, if his efforts weren’t bearing fruit?” He made those points in a book published last fall, Rigged Justice: How the College Admissions Scandal Ruined an Innocent Man’s Life.

“I get asked, ‘Will this be the difference? Will this change these schools?’ ” Vandemoer says, referring to the scandalous publicity around Varsity Blues. “My simple answer is ‘no,’ because the people in charge are the problem.”

Vandemoer has been diagnosed with PTSD and “I still have my moments,” he tells SI, “my nightmares, when the anger, the frustration comes back.” But he’s found catharsis talking about his ordeal. And he is back on the water, coaching kids, ages 10 to 13, in Redwood City, Calif.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/01/20/va...aily-cover

[M T]

Setting aside the evils of bribery, cheating, tax evasion, etc. that happened in the Varsity Blues cases, is it a bigger or equal problem for the total set of applicants that some are admitted because their admission results in
  (1) a large donation to the school,
or (2) a potentially better sports team.

Consider two cases: 
  (A) the applicant's academic credentials were not good enough to qualify for admission
  (B) the applicant was placed above others with equal academic credentials and was guaranteed admission when most weren't.

2B, and even 2A, seems to be the norm for American schools.  I don't know whether 1A or 1B happens frequently or rarely.
My personal opinion is that unless a colleges professes itself to be a sport academy, that 1 and 2 are pretty much equivalent when viewed from the body of applicants.

(Are there any Div. I sport academies -- where their primary goal is to give their students a career in sports?
I do recognize that many schools offer degrees in Physical Education or the like.)

[M T]

Setting aside the evils of bribery, cheating, tax evasion, etc. that happened in the Varsity Blues cases, is it a bigger or equal problem for the total set of applicants that some are admitted because their admission results in
  (1) a large donation to the school,
or (2) a potentially better sports team.

Consider two cases: 
  (A) the applicant's academic credentials were not good enough to qualify for admission
  (B) the applicant was placed above others with equal academic credentials and was guaranteed admission when most weren't.

2B, and even 2A, seems to be the norm for American schools.  I don't know whether 1A or 1B happens frequently or rarely.
My personal opinion is that unless a colleges professes itself to be a sport academy, that 1 and 2 are pretty much equivalent when viewed from the body of applicants.

(Are there any Div. I sport academies -- where their primary goal is to give their students a career in sports?
I do recognize that many schools offer degrees in Physical Education or the like.)

[BostonCard]

Your premise is predicated on the idea that an admissions department should optimize applicants on the basis of (measurable) academic achievement.  There are two problems with this. The first is that at the top end of the curve, applicants are nearly indistinguishable on that metric. It has often been stated that Stanford could fill its entire class with students who have a 4.0/1600 (or is it 2400 now?). The second is that I don’t think doing so is desirable.  There are certainly other places (eg China and Korea) where admissions to elite schools are based primarily or solely on test scores, and I think that results on enormous unhealthy pressure on high schoolers to cram for the test, and I don’t think it optimizes for long term success, because it devalues other important skills for life.  I think a multi-pronged path to college admissions, which places an academic floor, but otherwise allows prospective students to demonstrate that they have the drive, ambition, and dedication to demonstrate excellence in a chosen field, whether that is athletics, arts, scientific inquiry (such as the science fair), volunteerism, or something else, likely produces a better aggregate collegiate class than one calibrated solely to optimize academic achievement.

BC

[BostonCard]

Your premise is predicated on the idea that an admissions department should optimize applicants on the basis of (measurable) academic achievement.  There are two problems with this. The first is that at the top end of the curve, applicants are nearly indistinguishable on that metric. It has often been stated that Stanford could fill its entire class with students who have a 4.0/1600 (or is it 2400 now?). The second is that I don’t think doing so is desirable.  There are certainly other places (eg China and Korea) where admissions to elite schools are based primarily or solely on test scores, and I think that results on enormous unhealthy pressure on high schoolers to cram for the test, and I don’t think it optimizes for long term success, because it devalues other important skills for life.  I think a multi-pronged path to college admissions, which places an academic floor, but otherwise allows prospective students to demonstrate that they have the drive, ambition, and dedication to demonstrate excellence in a chosen field, whether that is athletics, arts, scientific inquiry (such as the science fair), volunteerism, or something else, likely produces a better aggregate collegiate class than one calibrated solely to optimize academic achievement.

BC

[M T]

Your interpretation of my premise is incorrect.  How a college would rank applicants is mostly immaterial: random numbers or reverse alphabetical order by their names spelled alphabetically or whatever. 

Should money or athletics be valid criteria for bumping another applicant out in order for this one to be admitted.  If acceptance is supposed to be blind to ability to pay, should it also be blind to ability to play?

[M T]

Your interpretation of my premise is incorrect.  How a college would rank applicants is mostly immaterial: random numbers or reverse alphabetical order by their names spelled alphabetically or whatever. 

Should money or athletics be valid criteria for bumping another applicant out in order for this one to be admitted.  If acceptance is supposed to be blind to ability to pay, should it also be blind to ability to play?

[BostonCard]

There are two separate issues.  You can make a case that athletics is part of the ranking scheme.  It does, after all, reflect the personal accomplishments of the applicant.  Money is something different, and in my opinion since it reflects what the applicants parents (or grandparents) have done, should not be material to admissions.  Neither should legacy status.

BC

[BostonCard]

There are two separate issues.  You can make a case that athletics is part of the ranking scheme.  It does, after all, reflect the personal accomplishments of the applicant.  Money is something different, and in my opinion since it reflects what the applicants parents (or grandparents) have done, should not be material to admissions.  Neither should legacy status.

BC

[martyup]

Money is something different, and in my opinion since it reflects what the applicants parents (or grandparents) have done, should not be material to admissions.  Neither should legacy status.

BC

[martyup]

Money is something different, and in my opinion since it reflects what the applicants parents (or grandparents) have done, should not be material to admissions.  Neither should legacy status.

BC

[82lsju]

longest sentence yet

[quote] [John Wilson was] sentenced on Wednesday to 15 months in prison for participating in a vast U.S. college admissions fraud scheme by conspiring to pay bribes to secure spots for his children at top schools.
[/quote]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/16/private-...andal.html

[82lsju]

longest sentence yet

[quote] [John Wilson was] sentenced on Wednesday to 15 months in prison for participating in a vast U.S. college admissions fraud scheme by conspiring to pay bribes to secure spots for his children at top schools.
[/quote]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/16/private-...andal.html

[BostonCard]

Vavic (former long-time USC water polo coach) going to trial.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/last-coach-...lewebshare

BC

[BostonCard]

Vavic (former long-time USC water polo coach) going to trial.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/last-coach-...lewebshare

BC

[Mick]

Vavic (former long-time USC water polo coach) going to trial.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/last-coach-...lewebshare

BC

And this morning he was convicted.  Second trial victory. Five hour deliberations. Pyrotechnics between lawyers in the courtroom, threats of contempt, accusations of bullying. Very entertaining.

https://www.law360.com/articles/1480659

BREAKING: Ex-USC Coach Found Guilty In 2nd 'Varsity Blues' Trial - Law360

[Mick]

Vavic (former long-time USC water polo coach) going to trial.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/last-coach-...lewebshare

BC

And this morning he was convicted.  Second trial victory. Five hour deliberations. Pyrotechnics between lawyers in the courtroom, threats of contempt, accusations of bullying. Very entertaining.

https://www.law360.com/articles/1480659

BREAKING: Ex-USC Coach Found Guilty In 2nd 'Varsity Blues' Trial - Law360

[cardcrimson]

And the test taker going to jail. . . . 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/college-admis...lty-bribes

Vavic, 16 national championships. How many, if any, will be vacated?

[cardcrimson]

And the test taker going to jail. . . . 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/college-admis...lty-bribes

Vavic, 16 national championships. How many, if any, will be vacated?

[Mick]

In the "not so fast" category is a Rule 29 motion for acquittal.  Defense attorney Koren Bell of Larson LLP asked U. S. District Judge Indira Talwani to schedule a briefing on a Rule 29 motion for acquittal

Basically, that's the long-shot request in which the judge sets aside the jury-based verdict of guilty and enters a judgment of acquittal. In this case, the judge may conditionally determine whether a new trial should be considered.

And Coach Vavic's odds are better than most.  Judge Talwani has repeatedly questioned central aspects of the government's case, which led to flaring tempers and heated arguments during the trial. Basically, Talwani instructed the jury that they could find the prosecution's decision to not call Singer to the stand means his testimony might have hurt their case.  Two of the prosecution's team stormed out of the courtroom before Talwani could even stand to walk down the bench.  Also of interest: Talwani split from one of her colleague judges (U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton), when she found  that admissions slots could not be considered "property" for the purpose of fraud statues.  In other words, the judge said that admissions practices at USC should be part of the trial (Vavic's attorneys argued that USC's admissions practices were corrupt by design).

One other odd little item.  Judge Talwani ruled right before the verdict that a profane statement that Vavic allegedly made to a fellow coach to convince him to join Singer's scheme could not be considered for the truth, since the government had failed that Vavic was a member of the conspiracy at the time of the statement -- a statement that the prosecution leaned heavily on during closing arguments.  Potentially, the defense could say that the alleged statement was so prejudicial that it tainted the jury verdict.

The most compelling argument for the defense may be whether USC was victimized in the scheme or whether USC takes money for admissions slots as part of its usual practice.  Separately before and during the trial, Judge Talwani was highly skeptical of the government building its case on Singer's statements given that (a) Singer didn't take the stand and (b) he had a demonstratively tenuous relationship with the truth.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this end up in the First Circuit court.

[Mick]

In the "not so fast" category is a Rule 29 motion for acquittal.  Defense attorney Koren Bell of Larson LLP asked U. S. District Judge Indira Talwani to schedule a briefing on a Rule 29 motion for acquittal

Basically, that's the long-shot request in which the judge sets aside the jury-based verdict of guilty and enters a judgment of acquittal. In this case, the judge may conditionally determine whether a new trial should be considered.

And Coach Vavic's odds are better than most.  Judge Talwani has repeatedly questioned central aspects of the government's case, which led to flaring tempers and heated arguments during the trial. Basically, Talwani instructed the jury that they could find the prosecution's decision to not call Singer to the stand means his testimony might have hurt their case.  Two of the prosecution's team stormed out of the courtroom before Talwani could even stand to walk down the bench.  Also of interest: Talwani split from one of her colleague judges (U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton), when she found  that admissions slots could not be considered "property" for the purpose of fraud statues.  In other words, the judge said that admissions practices at USC should be part of the trial (Vavic's attorneys argued that USC's admissions practices were corrupt by design).

One other odd little item.  Judge Talwani ruled right before the verdict that a profane statement that Vavic allegedly made to a fellow coach to convince him to join Singer's scheme could not be considered for the truth, since the government had failed that Vavic was a member of the conspiracy at the time of the statement -- a statement that the prosecution leaned heavily on during closing arguments.  Potentially, the defense could say that the alleged statement was so prejudicial that it tainted the jury verdict.

The most compelling argument for the defense may be whether USC was victimized in the scheme or whether USC takes money for admissions slots as part of its usual practice.  Separately before and during the trial, Judge Talwani was highly skeptical of the government building its case on Singer's statements given that (a) Singer didn't take the stand and (b) he had a demonstratively tenuous relationship with the truth.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this end up in the First Circuit court.

[BostonCard]

Vavic's attorneys argued that USC's admissions practices were corrupt by design

Shocked to hear this.

BC

[BostonCard]

Vavic's attorneys argued that USC's admissions practices were corrupt by design

Shocked to hear this.

BC

[Mick]

Vavic's attorneys argued that USC's admissions practices were corrupt by design

Shocked to hear this.

BC

Maybe not so much that a defense attorney said this, but the fact that the judge agreed?  That's the shocking part...BTW, the judge went to Cal Berkeley's law school. Her opinion on USC's admission practices might be pretty well informed.

[Mick]

Vavic's attorneys argued that USC's admissions practices were corrupt by design

Shocked to hear this.

BC

Maybe not so much that a defense attorney said this, but the fact that the judge agreed?  That's the shocking part...BTW, the judge went to Cal Berkeley's law school. Her opinion on USC's admission practices might be pretty well informed.

[82lsju]

Palo Alto parents sentenced in college admissions scandal

Gregory and Amy Colburn will spend 2 months in prison and pay $25,000 in fines

https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/04/...ns-scandal

[82lsju]

Palo Alto parents sentenced in college admissions scandal

Gregory and Amy Colburn will spend 2 months in prison and pay $25,000 in fines

https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/04/...ns-scandal

[M T]

Varsity Blues is wrapping up.  The US Attorney's status page can be found here.

There are a number of sentencing hearings over the next few months, including the July sentencing for USC coach Vavic and the August sentencing for Rick Singer.  For Singer, the government is recommending incarceration at the low end of the guidelines sentence range, plus 3 years supervised release, plus fine & forfeiture.  

How much conspiracy will be wrapped into a single short sentence??   It seems that he swept up so many other people into his schemes like a pimp, that a short sentence just seems wrong to me.  I believe that none of the coaches or parents would have done these crimes, except for Singer promoting them.

It appears that the government started off suggesting particular sentences (5 months, etc) in 2019, but now are mostly recommending vague sentences: "Incarceration the the low end of the Guidelines sentencing range" for 9 of the remaining 12 to be sentenced.

Sentences imposed versus sentences recommended were very judge-specific.
Counting only defendants who have been sentence when the government recommended specific sentences:
Judge Gorton sentenced 12 to the term in prison recommended by the government, 6 to shorter sentences, and 1 to a bit longer sentence (6 vs 5 months).
Judge Talwani sentenced all 11 to a shorter term in prison than recommended (none to equal or longer terms).
The other 3 judges sentenced 4 to shorter terms and 1 to the recommended term.

Vavic gets Judge Talwani for sentencing.
Singer gets Judge Zobel whose only prior sentencing in this set of trials was 1 day in prison rather than 13 months in prison.

The longest imposed sentence so far is for 15 months in prison.

---

But the reason I looked at this was because of the latest USC scandals.  It led me to wonder about whether the NCAA would do anything about all this.

If a coach puts money into his own personal account and defrauds the school by saying an applicant is an athlete, is that something the NCAA rules prohibit or should prohibit?   In some sense, it doesn't directly affect the team on the field.   But it surely feels morally wrong and suggests that the school/coach did not properly monitor the team.

If a coach puts such illegally-gotten money into an account that benefits the team, then that seems like it certainly has to be an NCAA violation of some sort.  It does directly affect the team.  (including Stanford sailing)

But will the NCAA again wimp out and say these events are too old and don't affect the current athletes?   I hope not.

According to the indictments, among the "more than two dozen students" whose admission to USC was facilitated are described as allegedly for the football, WBB,  crew, lacrosse, sailing, T&F, MWP, WWP, and WVB teams with more than $1.3M paid to USC accounts.

[M T]

Varsity Blues is wrapping up.  The US Attorney's status page can be found here.

There are a number of sentencing hearings over the next few months, including the July sentencing for USC coach Vavic and the August sentencing for Rick Singer.  For Singer, the government is recommending incarceration at the low end of the guidelines sentence range, plus 3 years supervised release, plus fine & forfeiture.  

How much conspiracy will be wrapped into a single short sentence??   It seems that he swept up so many other people into his schemes like a pimp, that a short sentence just seems wrong to me.  I believe that none of the coaches or parents would have done these crimes, except for Singer promoting them.

It appears that the government started off suggesting particular sentences (5 months, etc) in 2019, but now are mostly recommending vague sentences: "Incarceration the the low end of the Guidelines sentencing range" for 9 of the remaining 12 to be sentenced.

Sentences imposed versus sentences recommended were very judge-specific.
Counting only defendants who have been sentence when the government recommended specific sentences:
Judge Gorton sentenced 12 to the term in prison recommended by the government, 6 to shorter sentences, and 1 to a bit longer sentence (6 vs 5 months).
Judge Talwani sentenced all 11 to a shorter term in prison than recommended (none to equal or longer terms).
The other 3 judges sentenced 4 to shorter terms and 1 to the recommended term.

Vavic gets Judge Talwani for sentencing.
Singer gets Judge Zobel whose only prior sentencing in this set of trials was 1 day in prison rather than 13 months in prison.

The longest imposed sentence so far is for 15 months in prison.

---

But the reason I looked at this was because of the latest USC scandals.  It led me to wonder about whether the NCAA would do anything about all this.

If a coach puts money into his own personal account and defrauds the school by saying an applicant is an athlete, is that something the NCAA rules prohibit or should prohibit?   In some sense, it doesn't directly affect the team on the field.   But it surely feels morally wrong and suggests that the school/coach did not properly monitor the team.

If a coach puts such illegally-gotten money into an account that benefits the team, then that seems like it certainly has to be an NCAA violation of some sort.  It does directly affect the team.  (including Stanford sailing)

But will the NCAA again wimp out and say these events are too old and don't affect the current athletes?   I hope not.

According to the indictments, among the "more than two dozen students" whose admission to USC was facilitated are described as allegedly for the football, WBB,  crew, lacrosse, sailing, T&F, MWP, WWP, and WVB teams with more than $1.3M paid to USC accounts.

[Mick]

Varsity Blues is wrapping up.  The US Attorney's status page can be found here.

There are a number of sentencing hearings over the next few months, including the July sentencing for USC coach Vavic and the August sentencing for Rick Singer.  For Singer, the government is recommending incarceration at the low end of the guidelines sentence range, plus 3 years supervised release, plus fine & forfeiture.  

How much conspiracy will be wrapped into a single short sentence??   It seems that he swept up so many other people into his schemes like a pimp, that a short sentence just seems wrong to me.  I believe that none of the coaches or parents would have done these crimes, except for Singer promoting them.

It appears that the government started off suggesting particular sentences (5 months, etc) in 2019, but now are mostly recommending vague sentences: "Incarceration the the low end of the Guidelines sentencing range" for 9 of the remaining 12 to be sentenced.

Sentences imposed versus sentences recommended were very judge-specific.
Counting only defendants who have been sentence when the government recommended specific sentences:
Judge Gorton sentenced 12 to the term in prison recommended by the government, 6 to shorter sentences, and 1 to a bit longer sentence (6 vs 5 months).
Judge Talwani sentenced all 11 to a shorter term in prison than recommended (none to equal or longer terms).
The other 3 judges sentenced 4 to shorter terms and 1 to the recommended term.

Vavic gets Judge Talwani for sentencing.
Singer gets Judge Zobel whose only prior sentencing in this set of trials was 1 day in prison rather than 13 months in prison.

The longest imposed sentence so far is for 15 months in prison.

Singer's accountant Steven Masera will get no additional prison time for helping Singer launder $21 million in illicit funds.  Judge Talwani handed town a time-served judgment and a $20,000 fine, due to his "minor" role in Singer's admissions & cheating plot.  Masera had pled guilty, cooperated with the government's investigations and was granted limited immunity.  Masera invoked the fifth amendment when the defense tried to get him to take the stand and testify.

Masera's RICO conspiracy sentencing guidelines recommended between 46 and 57 months in prison.  Another Singer employee, Mikaela Sanford is facing a time-served request from prosecutors.  She helped falsify tests and applications and took classes for students.  Supposedly she didn't have "full visibility" into the crime scheme.  She's using a public defender.

He admitted to laundering the cash by invoicing and collecting payment from parents, Masera himself didn't reap windfall profits and didn't participate in any of the cheating schemes.

[Mick]

Varsity Blues is wrapping up.  The US Attorney's status page can be found here.

There are a number of sentencing hearings over the next few months, including the July sentencing for USC coach Vavic and the August sentencing for Rick Singer.  For Singer, the government is recommending incarceration at the low end of the guidelines sentence range, plus 3 years supervised release, plus fine & forfeiture.  

How much conspiracy will be wrapped into a single short sentence??   It seems that he swept up so many other people into his schemes like a pimp, that a short sentence just seems wrong to me.  I believe that none of the coaches or parents would have done these crimes, except for Singer promoting them.

It appears that the government started off suggesting particular sentences (5 months, etc) in 2019, but now are mostly recommending vague sentences: "Incarceration the the low end of the Guidelines sentencing range" for 9 of the remaining 12 to be sentenced.

Sentences imposed versus sentences recommended were very judge-specific.
Counting only defendants who have been sentence when the government recommended specific sentences:
Judge Gorton sentenced 12 to the term in prison recommended by the government, 6 to shorter sentences, and 1 to a bit longer sentence (6 vs 5 months).
Judge Talwani sentenced all 11 to a shorter term in prison than recommended (none to equal or longer terms).
The other 3 judges sentenced 4 to shorter terms and 1 to the recommended term.

Vavic gets Judge Talwani for sentencing.
Singer gets Judge Zobel whose only prior sentencing in this set of trials was 1 day in prison rather than 13 months in prison.

The longest imposed sentence so far is for 15 months in prison.

Singer's accountant Steven Masera will get no additional prison time for helping Singer launder $21 million in illicit funds.  Judge Talwani handed town a time-served judgment and a $20,000 fine, due to his "minor" role in Singer's admissions & cheating plot.  Masera had pled guilty, cooperated with the government's investigations and was granted limited immunity.  Masera invoked the fifth amendment when the defense tried to get him to take the stand and testify.

Masera's RICO conspiracy sentencing guidelines recommended between 46 and 57 months in prison.  Another Singer employee, Mikaela Sanford is facing a time-served request from prosecutors.  She helped falsify tests and applications and took classes for students.  Supposedly she didn't have "full visibility" into the crime scheme.  She's using a public defender.

He admitted to laundering the cash by invoicing and collecting payment from parents, Masera himself didn't reap windfall profits and didn't participate in any of the cheating schemes.

[CTcard]

The most compelling argument for the defense may be whether USC was victimized in the scheme or whether USC takes money for admissions slots as part of its usual practice.  

I wonder if someone could explain the legal theory of why this matters. 

If U$C were simply a business, then it would seem to me that it could sell it's product however it wishes, but it would still be illegal for an employee to take that product and sell it for personal gain without informing the business owner. 

I suppose this has something to do with the idea of admissions spots not being considered property (as mentioned in Mick's post).
Is it that if $C takes payment for its admission slots as a usual practice, then the parents can't know that these particular individuals are authorized to make that exchange?

[CTcard]

The most compelling argument for the defense may be whether USC was victimized in the scheme or whether USC takes money for admissions slots as part of its usual practice.  

I wonder if someone could explain the legal theory of why this matters. 

If U$C were simply a business, then it would seem to me that it could sell it's product however it wishes, but it would still be illegal for an employee to take that product and sell it for personal gain without informing the business owner. 

I suppose this has something to do with the idea of admissions spots not being considered property (as mentioned in Mick's post).
Is it that if $C takes payment for its admission slots as a usual practice, then the parents can't know that these particular individuals are authorized to make that exchange?

[82lsju]

A former Georgetown University tennis coach [Gordon Ernst] was sentenced on Friday to 2-1/2 years in prison for helping children of wealthy parents get into the school in exchange for nearly $3.5 million in bribes as part of a vast college admissions fraud scheme.
...
It was the longest sentence to result to date from the "Operation Varsity Blues" investigation, which exposed how wealthy families went to extremes to secure spots for their children at competitive schools including Stanford, Yale and the University of Southern California.
...
And unlike some of the other coaches charged in the case who were bribed in the form of money for their sports programs, Ernst pocketed almost all of the money for himself, prosecutors said. He used the bribe money to pay for his daughters' expensive private school tuition and buy a home on Cape Cod, Kearney said.
...

Ernst must also serve an additional six months of home confinement upon release and forfeit $3.43 million. His lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government...022-07-01/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gordon-erns...e-scandal/

[82lsju]

A former Georgetown University tennis coach [Gordon Ernst] was sentenced on Friday to 2-1/2 years in prison for helping children of wealthy parents get into the school in exchange for nearly $3.5 million in bribes as part of a vast college admissions fraud scheme.
...
It was the longest sentence to result to date from the "Operation Varsity Blues" investigation, which exposed how wealthy families went to extremes to secure spots for their children at competitive schools including Stanford, Yale and the University of Southern California.
...
And unlike some of the other coaches charged in the case who were bribed in the form of money for their sports programs, Ernst pocketed almost all of the money for himself, prosecutors said. He used the bribe money to pay for his daughters' expensive private school tuition and buy a home on Cape Cod, Kearney said.
...

Ernst must also serve an additional six months of home confinement upon release and forfeit $3.43 million. His lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government...022-07-01/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gordon-erns...e-scandal/

[oldalum]

former USC ass't W soccer coach who created fake athletic profiles, and two parents who were the first in the case to plead guilty, avoid prison time by cooperating with FBI and testifying to help convict others: https://whdh.com/sports/ex-usc-coach-couple-avoid-prison-time-in-varsity-blues-college-scandal/

[oldalum]

former USC ass't W soccer coach who created fake athletic profiles, and two parents who were the first in the case to plead guilty, avoid prison time by cooperating with FBI and testifying to help convict others: https://whdh.com/sports/ex-usc-coach-couple-avoid-prison-time-in-varsity-blues-college-scandal/