What are the salaries of college soccer head and assistant coaches?

[Unregistered]

I'm reading that there are others coming out as well, including a girl that was on the 2017 (nat'l finalist team) of UCLA women's soccer. Google Bruce and Davina Isackson; both have been charged in this scandal.

https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=5425 - no ECNL, DA experience. very plain vanilla experience. Some schools don't list all accomplishments, but UCLA certainly does.

Plenty of schools will have vanilla experience players, especially outside the top programs. Once in awhile those may be favors for alumni or wealthy donors but still pretty rare. When it does happen most will be just a favor, not an outright bribe. Also plenty of coaches backfill the roster with really smart kids to help the team GPA and be practice cones for the starters.

USC, UCLA and Berkley are so hot for CA residents it's ridiculous. For these parents a UC Irvine wasn't good enough.

[Unregistered]

Of course being unethical isn't worth it, but what about increasing the salaries? Some of these salaries are laughable.

That wasn’t the question the poster asked. They asked if coaching salaries should increase in light of the recent bribery scandal because most coaches work hard to prevent universities from have to deal with similar issues. Again, ethics and hard work are (or should) a given when you’re hired. It’s not like your employer gives you a raise for baseline behavior like showing up for work and not being a pain.

As other posters have noted, salaries are market based and depends on the level of the program and the school’s budget. Most coaching jobs are short-term, especially assistant jobs. You learn the job and, hopefully, move up. You’ve got to pay your dues and show results to get better pay. You are always free to negotiate, but you have to show real value to the program (not like “Hey, I didn’t take a bribe or recruit fake athletes.”).

[Unregistered]

At least one per school, yes. Between $2k-$8k depending on the team and school. Rare to find full time assistants in DIII unless they are privates with money (Babson, Brandeis, etc).

many use GA students too.

[Unregistered]

That wasn’t the question the poster asked. They asked if coaching salaries should increase in light of the recent bribery scandal because most coaches work hard to prevent universities from have to deal with similar issues. Again, ethics and hard work are (or should) a given when you’re hired. It’s not like your employer gives you a raise for baseline behavior like showing up for work and not being a pain.

As other posters have noted, salaries are market based and depends on the level of the program and the school’s budget. Most coaching jobs are short-term, especially assistant jobs. You learn the job and, hopefully, move up. You’ve got to pay your dues and show results to get better pay. You are always free to negotiate, but you have to show real value to the program (not like “Hey, I didn’t take a bribe or recruit fake athletes.”).

A lot of head coaches have camps to supplement their income (not the ID camps for recruiting but youth camps, most times with coach's name affixed to it rather than the school). If a team is successful then more youth players want to come to the camps. Then there's obviously club gigs as well if a coach has time for it.

[Unregistered]

Plenty of schools will have vanilla experience players, especially outside the top programs. Once in awhile those may be favors for alumni or wealthy donors but still pretty rare. When it does happen most will be just a favor, not an outright bribe. Also plenty of coaches backfill the roster with really smart kids to help the team GPA and be practice cones for the starters.

USC, UCLA and Berkley are so hot for CA residents it's ridiculous. For these parents a UC Irvine wasn't good enough.

So UCLA women's soccer is not with clean hands either. This was a $250,000 payment (parents were in the indictment making the payment to get daughter into UCLA) and a roster/website spot. This is paying for a spot. She doesn't have stats at all.

[Unregistered]

So UCLA women's soccer is not with clean hands either. This was a $250,000 payment (parents were in the indictment making the payment to get daughter into UCLA) and a roster/website spot. This is paying for a spot. She doesn't have stats at all.

https://dailybruin.com/2019/03/12/me...ribery-scheme/
Unlike the other imposters, this girl was actually on the team having no prior soccer career.

"Bruce and Davina Isackson, parents of a former UCLA women’s soccer student-athlete, were charged Tuesday with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, according to a charging document released from District of Massachusetts Attorney’s Office.

Their older daughter was on the team in 2017 but did not play in any games and did not play competitive soccer in high school. She was not on the 2018 women’s soccer roster, but served as the women soccer’s team manager from 2016-2018, according to her LinkedIn page. She is also listed as a practice player in the UCLA women’s soccer media guide from 2017.
"
This is someone actually paying for a spot (most did not take spots), but this one did and they were national finalists too. (2017) Did this non-athlete get recognized with the team? She was in the media guide as recent as last season (2018). What is the NCAA going to do about this? Buying a spot - a real spot.

[Unregistered]

UCLA WSOC HC should be held accountable too. It's her team. Maybe they have to walk-back the 2017 accomplishments and 2018.

[Unregistered]

I totally understand where the last few posts are coming from. This whole thing is terrible and kids legitimately have been denied spots because a bunch of rich people can't deal with their kids just being average and going to Average U. But some coaches/programs do take athletes that might not have the same credentials that are still bribe and influence free. The coach maybe sees something in them, or they need their GPA. There still can be the alumni kid thing too but still with no bribe involved. Beyond the top programs, there are plenty of rosters that aren't completely filled with highly credentialed players. It grows exponentially as you go down in program quality. I hate to see every seemingly unqualified player thrown under the bus when in fact their position was given legitimately. We don't know, we're not the coaches. These will be players that aren't getting athletic money either - it doesn't really cost the coach anything for those players and they have latitude on how many they can carry.

[Unregistered]

I totally understand where the last few posts are coming from. This whole thing is terrible and kids legitimately have been denied spots because a bunch of rich people can't deal with their kids just being average and going to Average U. But some coaches/programs do take athletes that might not have the same credentials that are still bribe and influence free. The coach maybe sees something in them, or they need their GPA. There still can be the alumni kid thing too but still with no bribe involved. Beyond the top programs, there are plenty of rosters that aren't completely filled with highly credentialed players. It grows exponentially as you go down in program quality. I hate to see every seemingly unqualified player thrown under the bus when in fact their position was given legitimately. We don't know, we're not the coaches. These will be players that aren't getting athletic money either - it doesn't really cost the coach anything for those players and they have latitude on how many they can carry.

There was a bribe with this. $250,000. The parents were charged and the guy's UCLA soccer coach was fired as a result. But HE doesn't put players on the women's soccer team. This is the UCLA paper itself talking about it. It was a bribe to get this kid in and ON the team. Isackson's are scheduled to appear in MA court in next week or so.

They sent another kid to USC the same way, but was not on the crew team. Just posed as a player. The UCLA kid was on the roster. https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=5425

The UCLA paper coverage: https://dailybruin.com/2019/03/12/me...ribery-scheme/

..."Bruce and Davina Isackson, parents of a former UCLA women’s soccer student-athlete, were charged Tuesday with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, according to a charging document released from District of Massachusetts Attorney’s Office."

[Unregistered]

There was a bribe with this. $250,000. The parents were charged and the guy's UCLA soccer coach was fired as a result. But HE doesn't put players on the women's soccer team. This is the UCLA paper itself talking about it. It was a bribe to get this kid in and ON the team. Isackson's are scheduled to appear in MA court in next week or so.

They sent another kid to USC the same way, but was not on the crew team. Just posed as a player. The UCLA kid was on the roster. https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=5425

The UCLA paper coverage: https://dailybruin.com/2019/03/12/me...ribery-scheme/

..."Bruce and Davina Isackson, parents of a former UCLA women’s soccer student-athlete, were charged Tuesday with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, according to a charging document released from District of Massachusetts Attorney’s Office."

Yep, the dad wanted a confirmation in writing that the $250,000 + Facebook stock would be returned if she was not admitted into UCLA. Ballsey. So on the women's soccer team, in a spot for several years, in the media guide and UCLA Headcoach is not accountable in some way? ***? How many other times did this happen?

......"Records state that Bruce Isackson asked Singer to confirm in writing the $250,000 would be returned if his daughter did not receive final admission to UCLA. Singer said he would return the money. Later that month, Davina and Bruce Isackson donated 2,150 shares of Facebook stock to KWF as a purported charitable contribution, records showed. Masera and Singer sent the parents an acknowledgment of $251,159 for their contribution."

[Unregistered]

There was a bribe with this. $250,000. The parents were charged and the guy's UCLA soccer coach was fired as a result. But HE doesn't put players on the women's soccer team. This is the UCLA paper itself talking about it. It was a bribe to get this kid in and ON the team. Isackson's are scheduled to appear in MA court in next week or so.

They sent another kid to USC the same way, but was not on the crew team. Just posed as a player. The UCLA kid was on the roster. https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=5425

The UCLA paper coverage: https://dailybruin.com/2019/03/12/me...ribery-scheme/

..."Bruce and Davina Isackson, parents of a former UCLA women’s soccer student-athlete, were charged Tuesday with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, according to a charging document released from District of Massachusetts Attorney’s Office."

These parents are being charged with paying $250,000 to UCLA soccer to get their daughter on the team (and she was placed on the team, and on the website, and in the guidebook and attended practices, and given a spot) without every playing competitive soccer in high school. This is pay to play or get a spot, literally. How is the NCAA okay with this?

Attend the hearing if you wish:

Bruce ISACKSON

19-mj-06087-MPK
Conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud Initial appearance in federal court in Boston is set for 3/29/19 at 3:00 pm before Judge M. Page Kelley. Northern District of California

Davina ISACKSON

19-mj-06087-MPK
Conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud Initial appearance in federal court in Boston is set for 3/29/19 at 3:00 pm before Judge M. Page Kelley. Northern District of California

[Unregistered]

3/29 is going to be quite busy in Boston. All of those recently charged are scheduled for a hearing. I wonder who will out-bid the other for their uber rides....I'll give you $10,000 to get me to Logan. Making it rain; making it rain WallStreet style.

[Unregistered]

I totally understand where the last few posts are coming from. This whole thing is terrible and kids legitimately have been denied spots because a bunch of rich people can't deal with their kids just being average and going to Average U. But some coaches/programs do take athletes that might not have the same credentials that are still bribe and influence free. The coach maybe sees something in them, or they need their GPA. There still can be the alumni kid thing too but still with no bribe involved. Beyond the top programs, there are plenty of rosters that aren't completely filled with highly credentialed players. It grows exponentially as you go down in program quality. I hate to see every seemingly unqualified player thrown under the bus when in fact their position was given legitimately. We don't know, we're not the coaches. These will be players that aren't getting athletic money either - it doesn't really cost the coach anything for those players and they have latitude on how many they can carry.

If there is no bribe and the unqualified player has sufficient SAT scores and GPA to come in like a regular student, then why are they on the team? It seems extreme to stick unathletic bookworms onto team rosters to increase the average team GPA. While not every player is a stud, there is high demand by many good players for the limited number of college roster spots.

[Unregistered]

Pretty much. It's so all over the board depending on the level of program, the school, how much they care (or don't) about soccer, low level assistant vs being the head coach's right hand man.

Put it this way - there's a reason plenty of college coaches coach club teams, run camps and clinics etc.

'All over the board' but way less, on average, compared to the major sports.

Wait....are we talking 'with' or 'without' bribes?

[Unregistered]

If there is no bribe and the unqualified player has sufficient SAT scores and GPA to come in like a regular student, then why are they on the team? It seems extreme to stick unathletic bookworms onto team rosters to increase the average team GPA. While not every player is a stud, there is high demand by many good players for the limited number of college roster spots.

That's because there WAS a bribe. The parents are appearing in court in MASS on 3/29 to answer to it ($250,000 and facebook stock; UCLA men's coach on leave pending the outcome but HE didn't put this kid on the women's soccer roster. AC did.).

What is happening with the women's soccer coach? Anything? How many other times did this happen? Pay for a spot to up the GPA but no intention of ever putting the kid on the field to play a game. And accepting a bribe for it. It's one thing to allow a kid on the roster, but taking money directly is against the regulations, compliance and the law.

Remember, this UCLA girl played NO competitive soccer in high school (not high school or club). All of it was false. The student-athlete had to lie to NCAA clearinghouse too it would seem read the article in the UCLA paper. How doesn't this have penalties for the women's soccer team?