ESPN writes article on Brosnan NCAA case - is the NCAA infaction system too speedy to be fair?

NCAA Needs a reform wrote:

The NCAA’s public infractions release leaves out so many critical facts that it reads more like a defensive press statement than an honest summary, and that’s why they keep getting crushed in court. They intentionally leave out the core facts, the very ones that undermine their ruling including:
Brosnan told both fathers he could not talk about transferring until their daughters entered the portal, and both fathers testified to this under oath.
The NCAA admitted there was no recruiting language, no inducement, no pre student athlete contact and no attempt to influence enrollment at any time.
Under Bylaw 19.7.3, the NCAA must provide credible, persuasive evidence and they provided zero.
Their tampering theory contradicts Bylaw 13.02.14, which requires recruiting intent, something they never proved.
The NCAA extracted 8,000 files from Brosnan’s phone before giving him any chance to review or withhold protected data.
UCLA’s negotiated deal pre decided Brosnan’s guilt before he even submitted his response, creating a built-in conflict of interest that the NCAA never disclosed publicly.
When you put the missing facts back into the picture, the NCAA’s narrative falls apart just like it has in the McNair case, the Miami fiasco, Alston, O’Bannon, and Penn State. The Brosnan case is simply the newest example of the NCAA burying the evidence that contradicts its own storyline. There is definitely a reason for ESPN picked up on this case.

NCAA Needs a reform wrote:

The NCAA’s public infractions release leaves out so many critical facts that it reads more like a defensive press statement than an honest summary, and that’s why they keep getting crushed in court. They intentionally leave out the core facts, the very ones that undermine their ruling including:
Brosnan told both fathers he could not talk about transferring until their daughters entered the portal, and both fathers testified to this under oath.
The NCAA admitted there was no recruiting language, no inducement, no pre student athlete contact and no attempt to influence enrollment at any time.
Under Bylaw 19.7.3, the NCAA must provide credible, persuasive evidence and they provided zero.
Their tampering theory contradicts Bylaw 13.02.14, which requires recruiting intent, something they never proved.
The NCAA extracted 8,000 files from Brosnan’s phone before giving him any chance to review or withhold protected data.
UCLA’s negotiated deal pre decided Brosnan’s guilt before he even submitted his response, creating a built-in conflict of interest that the NCAA never disclosed publicly.
When you put the missing facts back into the picture, the NCAA’s narrative falls apart just like it has in the McNair case, the Miami fiasco, Alston, O’Bannon, and Penn State. The Brosnan case is simply the newest example of the NCAA burying the evidence that contradicts its own storyline. There is definitely a reason for ESPN picked up on this case.

Jack Ruby wrote:

NCAA Needs a reform wrote:

The NCAA’s public infractions release leaves out so many critical facts that it reads more like a defensive press statement than an honest summary, and that’s why they keep getting crushed in court. They intentionally leave out the core facts, the very ones that undermine their ruling including:
Brosnan told both fathers he could not talk about transferring until their daughters entered the portal, and both fathers testified to this under oath.
The NCAA admitted there was no recruiting language, no inducement, no pre student athlete contact and no attempt to influence enrollment at any time.
Under Bylaw 19.7.3, the NCAA must provide credible, persuasive evidence and they provided zero.
Their tampering theory contradicts Bylaw 13.02.14, which requires recruiting intent, something they never proved.
The NCAA extracted 8,000 files from Brosnan’s phone before giving him any chance to review or withhold protected data.
UCLA’s negotiated deal pre decided Brosnan’s guilt before he even submitted his response, creating a built-in conflict of interest that the NCAA never disclosed publicly.
When you put the missing facts back into the picture, the NCAA’s narrative falls apart just like it has in the McNair case, the Miami fiasco, Alston, O’Bannon, and Penn State. The Brosnan case is simply the newest example of the NCAA burying the evidence that contradicts its own storyline. There is definitely a reason for ESPN picked up on this case.

There was PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE of Brosnan talking to a recruit in person at a meet before the first allowable day.

From the report:

In an interview with UCLA and the enforcement staff, prospect 3 reported that Brosnan was
speaking to her high school coach when she approached after one of her races. She stated that the ensuing interaction with Brosnan lasted between five to ten minutes. Prospect 3 said she did not remember most of the conversation, but she recalled Brosnan telling her “good job” and saying he wanted to get her number to get in contact with her. She also recalled that Brosnan spoke about the UCLA track team and their relay performance.
Although Brosnan stated that he did not recall the encounter, he acknowledged that a photograph in the case record showed him standing with prospect 3 and her high school coach at the meet in Oregon. He claimed, however, that he was not recruiting prospect 3 and did not intentionally seek her out at the meet. Rather, he intended only to speak with prospect 3’s high school coach, who Brosnan had competed against at the college level and considered a casual friend. Brosnan did not indicate that he took steps to immediately terminate the interaction after prospect 3 approached.

A lawyer but love Track & Field wrote:

Hobbling wrote:

So if any collegiate coach talks to Ritz senior for the next 4-5 years, possibly about their own athletes joining OAC, that's an NCAA violation?

Not based in the US so may be missing something but that seems insane...

Let’s get a little crazier. Under the NCAA’s logic in the Brosnan case, if you’re a college coach and you talk to Ritz about anything once his daughter is officially at NAU, that’s a violation. Doesn’t matter if you’ve known him for 20 years, coached with him, trained with him, or are literally family friends, the NCAA is saying the relationship must be cut off the second his kid enrolls. Mind-blowing, right? But that’s exactly how corrupt and absurd the NCAA’s interpretation was in Brosnan’s case. They punished him for personal conversations with parents he’d been close with for years, admitted there was no recruiting, then claimed any communication = tampering. If that standard were real, 90% the NCAA would be in violation tomorrow

A lawyer but love Track & Field wrote:

I dont want my name here25 wrote:

Let me quote the article to help you guys out:

"The bylaw does not make a distinction between recruiting contact and non-recruiting contact," the COI wrote in its judgement. "Nor does it create any exceptions for preexisting relationships." It further noted that even if communication was personal in nature, "those relationships provided an advantage that other compliant coaches ... did not possess."

Now Brosnan himself said he was talking to these parents but it was personal in nature, THAT DOESN'T MATTER. According to what's said in this article, that's a violation.

I’m an actual lawyer, so stay with me. This argument collapses the moment you actually read the NCAA’s rulebook instead of just repeating a line from the COI’s PR statement. The COI can claim “the bylaw doesn’t distinguish,” but the NCAA’s own bylaws absolutely do and they require proof the NCAA never had.
Let’s be precise:
1. NCAA Bylaw 13.02.14 defines “recruiting” by intent to influence enrollment.
If there is no recruiting intent, no recruiting conversation, and no inducement, then under the NCAA’s own definition, no recruiting violation exists.
The NCAA itself admitted these calls were personal and non-recruiting.
You cannot have “tampering” without recruiting.
That’s not opinion , that’s the bylaw!

2. Bylaw 19.7.3 requires “credible, persuasive evidence” of a recruiting attempt.
The NCAA had zero evidence of any recruiting talk and not a single message, not a hint of solicitation.
They simply skipped the evidentiary requirement and declared guilt anyway.
That is a violation of their own due-process standard.

3. The NCAA cannot override its own definitions just because it’s convenient.
The COI invented a new interpretation “any contact = tampering” that does not appear anywhere in the bylaws.
A private association cannot enforce rules that do not exist or reinterpret them after the fact. Courts have ruled this repeatedly.

4. Forcing a coach to sever personal friendships is not enforceable under law.
The NCAA cannot tell a coach that he must end lifelong friendships simply because those friends have children at other schools.
That violates basic principles of lawful association and would never survive a real legal challenge.

5. The NCAA’s own Transfer Working Group admitted the rule was never intended to apply to non-recruiting conversations.
That’s from the NCAA’s own meeting minutes the COI simply ignored it because it didn’t support their conclusion.

BOTTOM LINE:
The COI’s line in the article is not the bylaw, it’s their excuse for ignoring the bylaw.
Under the NCAA’s actual rules:
Recruiting requires intent.
They proved none.
Therefore no violation exists.
The only thing the NCAA proved is that they’re willing to ignore their own rulebook when the outcome is pre-decided.

A lawyer but love Track & Field wrote:

Hobbling wrote:

So if any collegiate coach talks to Ritz senior for the next 4-5 years, possibly about their own athletes joining OAC, that's an NCAA violation?

Not based in the US so may be missing something but that seems insane...

Let’s get a little crazier. Under the NCAA’s logic in the Brosnan case, if you’re a college coach and you talk to Ritz about anything once his daughter is officially at NAU, that’s a violation. Doesn’t matter if you’ve known him for 20 years, coached with him, trained with him, or are literally family friends, the NCAA is saying the relationship must be cut off the second his kid enrolls. Mind-blowing, right? But that’s exactly how corrupt and absurd the NCAA’s interpretation was in Brosnan’s case. They punished him for personal conversations with parents he’d been close with for years, admitted there was no recruiting, then claimed any communication = tampering. If that standard were real, 90% the NCAA would be in violation tomorrow

wejo wrote:

1) Dan Wetzel is one of the most prominent NCAA writes in the country. Him writing on this is a big deal. I was shocked to see it was him who wrote this.

2) The NCAA system where a school can take a small nothing penalty and then a coach is really damaged doesn't seem like the right system. Can Brosnan coach in the NCAA now?

3) If the NCAA rule is "you can't talk to anyone no matter what, even if you had an existing relationship" seems absurd. If Brosnan has to cut off contact with friends or can't event tell them "hey you need to talk to me about transferring once she's in the portal " the rule isn't a good one.

The article says this: "Brosnan coached both Samantha McDonnell and her older brother at Newberry Park and had become close friends with their parents, particularly father Todd. The dads hung out together, surfed together and often texted and talked on the phone. The families even shared holidays."

4) But big picture if : a) there was a preexisting relationship b) the parents did confirm Brosnan said he couldn't talk to them about coming unless they were in the portal and c) the athletes came to UCLA and didn't get any scholarship then this whole thing seems nuts to me.

What am I missing?

NCAA f@cked up wrote:

A lawyer but love Track & Field wrote:

Let’s get a little crazier. Under the NCAA’s logic in the Brosnan case, if you’re a college coach and you talk to Ritz about anything once his daughter is officially at NAU, that’s a violation. Doesn’t matter if you’ve known him for 20 years, coached with him, trained with him, or are literally family friends, the NCAA is saying the relationship must be cut off the second his kid enrolls. Mind-blowing, right? But that’s exactly how corrupt and absurd the NCAA’s interpretation was in Brosnan’s case. They punished him for personal conversations with parents he’d been close with for years, admitted there was no recruiting, then claimed any communication = tampering. If that standard were real, 90% the NCAA would be in violation tomorrow

the NCAA’s logic in the Brosnan case, every coach I know suddenly becomes “off-limits” because my son runs for a different school. So now decades long friendships are violations? Come on. No court in the country is going to let the NCAA pretend that normal human relationships equal tampering. This interpretation is so far outside their own bylaws and basic law that it would get shredded in about five minutes.

Jack Ruby wrote:

A lawyer but love Track & Field wrote:

I’m an actual lawyer, so stay with me. This argument collapses the moment you actually read the NCAA’s rulebook instead of just repeating a line from the COI’s PR statement. The COI can claim “the bylaw doesn’t distinguish,” but the NCAA’s own bylaws absolutely do and they require proof the NCAA never had.
Let’s be precise:
1. NCAA Bylaw 13.02.14 defines “recruiting” by intent to influence enrollment.
If there is no recruiting intent, no recruiting conversation, and no inducement, then under the NCAA’s own definition, no recruiting violation exists.
The NCAA itself admitted these calls were personal and non-recruiting.
You cannot have “tampering” without recruiting.
That’s not opinion , that’s the bylaw!

2. Bylaw 19.7.3 requires “credible, persuasive evidence” of a recruiting attempt.
The NCAA had zero evidence of any recruiting talk and not a single message, not a hint of solicitation.
They simply skipped the evidentiary requirement and declared guilt anyway.
That is a violation of their own due-process standard.

3. The NCAA cannot override its own definitions just because it’s convenient.
The COI invented a new interpretation “any contact = tampering” that does not appear anywhere in the bylaws.
A private association cannot enforce rules that do not exist or reinterpret them after the fact. Courts have ruled this repeatedly.

4. Forcing a coach to sever personal friendships is not enforceable under law.
The NCAA cannot tell a coach that he must end lifelong friendships simply because those friends have children at other schools.
That violates basic principles of lawful association and would never survive a real legal challenge.

5. The NCAA’s own Transfer Working Group admitted the rule was never intended to apply to non-recruiting conversations.
That’s from the NCAA’s own meeting minutes the COI simply ignored it because it didn’t support their conclusion.

BOTTOM LINE:
The COI’s line in the article is not the bylaw, it’s their excuse for ignoring the bylaw.
Under the NCAA’s actual rules:
Recruiting requires intent.
They proved none.
Therefore no violation exists.
The only thing the NCAA proved is that they’re willing to ignore their own rulebook when the outcome is pre-decided.

The NCAA never admitted the calls were personal. In fact, the NCAA provides EVIDENCE that the calls were highly likely regarding recruiting.

From a footnote in the report:

Although a tampering violation occurred regardless of the content of Brosnan’s communications with the two fathers, the timing of the phone calls strongly suggests a recruiting nexus. As it relates to prospect 1’s father specifically, multiple calls occurred in
the hours immediately before prospect 1 entered the transfer portal. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the conversations, at least in part, involved recruiting communication.

Reported by his own compliance staff:

According to the associate director of compliance and recruiting (associate compliance director), the issue of preexisting relationships eventually arose in November 2022, when the cross country transfer window opened and Brosnan approached the compliance office with questions about prospects 1 and 2 potentially transferring to UCLA. The associate compliance director stated that Brosnan told the compliance staff that one of the prospects’ fathers reached out to Brosnan’s wife—who coached at Brosnan’s former high school—about transfer opportunities. The associate compliance director discerned that neither prospect was in the transfer portal. She and the compliance director then explained to Brosnan that he could not talk to the two prospects until they were in the portal, and they could not use Brosnan’s wife as a conduit to communicate with the family. At the infractions hearing, Brosnan denied approaching the compliance staff with questions regarding the potential transfer of prospects 1 and 2.

In short - just because you disagree with the rules, you do not have permission to break them at will. Brosnan agreed to the rules that have been in existence for DECADES and then refused to play by those rules.

Jack Ruby wrote:

The NCAA rulebook does not require "intent" in this case. The NCAA explicitly prohibits ALL CONTACT with members of opposing teams until they are in the portal.

Here is the rule:

An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall not communicate or make contact with the student-athlete of another NCAA Division I
institution, or any individual associated with the student-athlete (e.g., family member scholastic or nonscholastic coach, advisor), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process. Before making contact, directly or indirectly, with a student-athlete of an NCAA Division II or Division III institution, or an
NAIA four-year collegiate institution, an athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall comply with the rule of the applicable division or the NAIA rule for making contact with a student-athlete.

Also - the timing of the phone calls is 100% enough evidence.

wejo wrote:

Jack Ruby wrote:

The NCAA never admitted the calls were personal. In fact, the NCAA provides EVIDENCE that the calls were highly likely regarding recruiting.

From a footnote in the report:

Although a tampering violation occurred regardless of the content of Brosnan’s communications with the two fathers, the timing of the phone calls strongly suggests a recruiting nexus. As it relates to prospect 1’s father specifically, multiple calls occurred in
the hours immediately before prospect 1 entered the transfer portal. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the conversations, at least in part, involved recruiting communication.

Reported by his own compliance staff:

According to the associate director of compliance and recruiting (associate compliance director), the issue of preexisting relationships eventually arose in November 2022, when the cross country transfer window opened and Brosnan approached the compliance office with questions about prospects 1 and 2 potentially transferring to UCLA. The associate compliance director stated that Brosnan told the compliance staff that one of the prospects’ fathers reached out to Brosnan’s wife—who coached at Brosnan’s former high school—about transfer opportunities. The associate compliance director discerned that neither prospect was in the transfer portal. She and the compliance director then explained to Brosnan that he could not talk to the two prospects until they were in the portal, and they could not use Brosnan’s wife as a conduit to communicate with the family. At the infractions hearing, Brosnan denied approaching the compliance staff with questions regarding the potential transfer of prospects 1 and 2.

In short - just because you disagree with the rules, you do not have permission to break them at will. Brosnan agreed to the rules that have been in existence for DECADES and then refused to play by those rules.

Look I easily could see these calls being about recruiting. But he didn't even offer them a scholarship. So who cares from an athletic perspective? i'd like to know who reported him.

iInitially, I was thinking these phone calls had to be about recruiting. But it seems likely it could be from the dad's perspective making sure his kid will get into UCLA.

Look at it like this: your kid is on scholarship somewhere else, I assume. The second they enter the transfer portal, the school can revoke their scholarship at the end of the semester. Right? Isn't that correct?

So you want to go to somewhere else. Now if you have the resources, you could pay for UCLA, but your kid still has to get into school there. That's not easy to do, so you do need the coaches' support. I assume tons of marginal athletes or athletes in marginal sports put out feelers beforehand because if you formally enter the portal your current school can pull your scholarship (can they actually make you leave the school? presumably not, but I'd love to know what most coaches do with athlete in the portal in track)

But in this case, it says the dad called Sean twice the night before. Sean's not offering a scholarship; Sean says, "Hey, is she in the portal yet?" "No." "Let's talk tomorrow when she is." The next day, Sean calls back: "Is she in the portal?" No, and then she enters to portals. Everything goes as it goes.

Is that an NCAA violation? It shouldn't be, especially if you had a personal relationship with the person.