I love that Dan Wetzel and ESPN finally called out the NCAA’s hypocrisy. Brosnan literally got hit with a violation for talking to longtime friends about personal, family stuff — and even the NCAA admitted there was no recruiting talk. His only “crime” was refusing to break off friendships because their kids ran at another school. Absolutely insane.
Typing the same stuff a hundred times under a hundred different user names still doesn't make it true.
There is no NCAA hypocrisy here, they applied the same rule the same way they have been for longer than Brosnan has been alive.
He didn't have to break off friendships. Just wait a month until they enter the portal. The frequency of calls immediately prior to the recruit entering the portal is EXTREMELY DAMNING.
1. “They applied the rule the same way they always have.” Completely false. The NCAA admitted in its own ruling that there is no precedent for this interpretation and that no guidance exists on how pre-existing relationships should be treated. They even cited an interpretations committee discussion acknowledging that the strict wording of the rule conflicts with real-world relationships. This isn’t “consistent enforcement” it’s the first time the NCAA has ever treated normal friendships as tampering. 2. “He didn’t have to break off friendships just wait a month.” That’s legally impossible and logically absurd. The NCAA’s ruling explicitly says ANY communication at all with a friend or family friend whose kid is at another school is a violation even if: it’s unrelated to sports it contains no recruiting content the coach says “I can’t talk about transfers” the parent initiates the call the athlete has not communicated with the coach at all That means under this interpretation, every NCAA coach with friends who have kids in college is breaking rules every day. This interpretation contradicts Bylaw 13.02.14 (definition of recruiting) and is exactly why media outlets are calling the rule unworkable. 3. “The timing of calls is extremely damning.” No court in America would accept timing as “credible, persuasive evidence” of recruiting — especially when both fathers testified the calls were not about recruiting and the NCAA admits the calls were “personal in nature.” Timing is suspicion, not evidence. The NCAA’s own bylaw (19.7.3) requires proof, not vibes. And importantly: 9 of the 14 calls were initiated by the PARENTS, not Brosnan. Suspicion evaporates when the other party is the one doing the calling. 4. “Someone admitted there were recruiting conversations.” False again. The athlete’s statement was second-hand memory (“my father told me…”) and the father — the only person who actually spoke to Brosnan — denied that the call contained recruiting. Second-hand hearsay doesn’t meet any evidentiary standard, NCAA or legal. 5. “There is no hypocrisy here.” Actually, the hypocrisy is blatant: The NCAA claims intent doesn’t matter, even though “recruiting” is defined by intent. They punished him for friendship calls while admitting they were not recruiting. UCLA’s negotiated resolution declared him guilty before he even submitted his response. Three of the same panel members who approved UCLA’s deal then ruled on Brosnan’s case. That is exactly the kind of bias and procedural misconduct courts have hammered the NCAA for repeatedly (McNair, Miami, Alston).
The reason ESPN took this on and obviously read the entire case and probably more than the public can see. The NCAA never had any actual evidence of tampering, no recruiting SA conversations, no inducements, no attempts to pull an athlete from another program, so instead of proving anything, they handed UCLA a cheap negotiated resolution that let the school avoid a fight and allowed the NCAA to clear the case quickly. UCLA took the easy way out, accepting minor penalties rather than spending time and money defending what the facts already showed. The problem is that once the NCAA locked in that deal, they’d already labeled Brosnan guilty before he ever submitted his own response. Then they made it worse by putting the same committee members who approved UCLA’s agreement in charge of Brosnan’s individual case, essentially asking them to reverse a judgment they’d already endorsed. It’s a biased, circular process that protected the NCAA’s “fast and efficient” system while leaving Brosnan hanging, punished for a violation the NCAA couldn’t even prove. I hope Brosnan gives it to them with his appeal with all the legal and non legal authority.
Absolutely. ESPN didn’t touch this story because it was “dramatic” they took it on because the record itself makes the NCAA look indefensible. When you strip away the NCAA’s spin, the facts are simple: they had zero evidence of actual tampering under their own bylaws. No recruiting conversations, no inducements, no attempts to pull athletes from another program nothing that meets the definition of “recruiting” in Bylaw 13.02.14 or the evidentiary standard of “credible, persuasive proof” required by Bylaw 19.7.3. Instead of proving anything, the NCAA did what it always does when its case is weak: it pushed UCLA into a cheap negotiated resolution because it protected the NCAA’s “fast-track system” and avoided defending an unprovable allegation. UCLA took the business decision a $5K fine and minor recruiting limits because it was cheaper than fighting, even though the underlying evidence didn’t support a violation. But the fatal problem is that once the NCAA locked in that negotiated resolution, they had already stamped Brosnan as guilty before he ever submitted his own response. And then the NCAA compounded that bias by assigning the exact same COI members who approved UCLA’s resolution to rule on Brosnan’s individual case. Legally, that’s the definition of a structurally biased tribunal: asking a panel to reconsider a conclusion they already endorsed on paper. Courts have hammered the NCAA for this kind of circular, self-protective process in McNair, Miami, and multiple antitrust cases. So yeah this isn’t just unfair, it’s a textbook example of a system that prioritizes speed and optics over evidence and due process. Brosnan’s appeal is exactly where the NCAA’s shortcuts and contradictions finally collide with legal standards they can’t dance around. And based on what’s in the public record and what ESPN clearly saw the NCAA is in a very bad spot once this gets reviewed under actual legal authority instead of the NCAA’s internal echo chamber.
"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."
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...
It’s crazy to think if the NCAA sticks with this then under the NCAA’s newly invented interpretation, any communication with a friend whose kid is enrolled at another NCAA school is treated as “tampering,” even if: the relationship existed for years the conversation is unrelated to recruiting the coach refuses to discuss the transfer the parent initiates the call the athlete has never spoken to the coach no inducements or pressure ever occurred Apply that nationwide and it becomes absolute insanity. Using your example: If ANY NCAA coach talks to Dathan Ritzenhein’s in a normal conversation about life, training, injuries, OAC athletes, whatever then once Ritz’s daughter arrives at NAU, that coach is technically “tampering” by the NCAA’s current logic. Because the NCAA is now claiming all personal contact with a parent = recruiting, even when their own bylaws define recruiting as intent to influence enrollment. That’s how absurd this rule has become. This isn’t about Brosnan anymore, this interpretation nukes the entire coaching profession. It essentially says: If you have friends with kids in college sports, you’re violating NCAA rules simply by staying friends. It’s a standard no coach in America can possibly follow, and that’s exactly why so many people — including ESPN are calling the NCAA out. They’ve created a rule so broad and irrational it criminalizes basic human relationships. And that’s why this case matters far beyond one coach: It exposes a system that’s legally broken, logically impossible, and guaranteed to collapse the moment it’s tested in real court.
I still don't trust Brosnan without having exactlly what was communicated and patterns of communication over a long period of time. if it's in phone calls, only the patterns of communication matter. were these people not talking that much, and then suddenly starting talking daily, weekly or whatever?
The NCAA can’t make up facts. Under Bylaw 19.7.3, they must provide credible proof that recruiting occurred, which they never did. Instead, they punished him simply for communicating with long-time family friends. By their own rules, if no recruiting occurred, there is no violation, and their decision in this case directly contradicts that. The NCAA is got NG against their own bylaws. The NCAA is a kangaroo court
The NCAA isn’t just bending its own rules here it’s inventing a standard that doesn’t exist anywhere in the NCAA Manual, federal law, state law, or basic constitutional principles. Their entire “tampering” case rests on one thing they openly admit: Brosnan spoke to long-time family friends about personal issues. Not recruiting. Not transfers. Not inducements. Personal conversations with people he’s known for years. And the NCAA had the audacity to call that a violation. Under Bylaw 19.7.3, they’re legally required not optional to provide credible, persuasive evidence that recruiting actually occurred. They failed. Completely. So instead of proving actual recruiting, they rewrote the rule on the fly and declared that any communication with a friend whose kid plays a sport is now “tampering.” That interpretation appears nowhere in the rulebook and directly contradicts Bylaw 13.02.14, which defines recruiting based on intent to influence enrollment. Worse, this “no-contact with friends” theory is blatantly illegal outside the NCAA bubble. You cannot, under federal or state law: punish someone for long-standing personal friendships impose a condition of employment requiring them to sever personal relationships criminalize ordinary communication with private citizens fabricate a rule that didn’t exist at the time of the alleged behavior adjudicate a case using a panel that already declared the defendant guilty in a negotiated resolution These are violations of basic due process, freedom of association, fair notice, and administrative impartiality all principles courts have repeatedly used to hammer the NCAA in McNair, Miami, Alston, O’Bannon, Arbuckle, and others. And the NCAA’s own decision makes the fatal admission: The ONLY reason they punished him is because he maintained personal friendships. No recruiting. No pressure. No inducements. No intent. Nothing. That’s not enforcement it’s a kangaroo court manufacturing guilt where no violation exists. If the NCAA thinks it can force every coach in America to sever friendships because someone’s kid competes at another school, they’re not just wrong they’re stepping directly into illegal, indefensible territory that collapses the moment it hits a real courtroom.
When someone like Dan Wetzel (a guy who usually writes about billion-dollar NCAA scandals and federal investigations) decides to cover a cross-country assistant coach, that tells you the NCAA screwed up on a level even casual observers can see. It’s not normal, and it’s not small.
As a college coach, this case genuinely disgusts me. What the NCAA has done here is an insult to every coach in the profession. We’re expected to develop athletes, build real relationships, and operate with integrity, yet the NCAA is now weaponizing normal human relationships and calling long standing friendships “tampering.” That crosses a line. It undermines trust, destroys due process, and sends a message that no coach is safe, no matter how carefully they follow the rules. The NCAA has taken this way too far, and they absolutely deserve to be called out for creating a system where basic human interaction can be twisted into a violation. This doesn’t protect the sport, it hurts it, and it makes every coach wonder who’s next.
Brosnan certainly isn't the only college coach who talks to friends that have kids who run at other colleges. Which means that there are lots of other college coaches technically breaking the NCAA rules.
So why don't those other college coaches get into trouble with the NCAA? It's because those other coaches are smart enough not to recruit their friends' kids.
Brosnan certainly isn't the only college coach who talks to friends that have kids who run at other colleges. Which means that there are lots of other college coaches technically breaking the NCAA rules.
So why don't those other college coaches get into trouble with the NCAA? It's because those other coaches are smart enough not to recruit their friends' kids.
That’s the scary part, the NCAA is so broken it will actually call normal friendships tampering. No recruiting, no intent, no inducements, just talking to people you’ve known for years. If that’s a violation now, every coach in the country is guilty. It shows how far off the rails the NCAA has gone
Typing the same stuff a hundred times under a hundred different user names still doesn't make it true.
There is no NCAA hypocrisy here, they applied the same rule the same way they have been for longer than Brosnan has been alive.
He didn't have to break off friendships. Just wait a month until they enter the portal. The frequency of calls immediately prior to the recruit entering the portal is EXTREMELY DAMNING.
1. “They applied the rule the same way they always have.” Completely false. The NCAA admitted in its own ruling that there is no precedent for this interpretation and that no guidance exists on how pre-existing relationships should be treated. They even cited an interpretations committee discussion acknowledging that the strict wording of the rule conflicts with real-world relationships. This isn’t “consistent enforcement” it’s the first time the NCAA has ever treated normal friendships as tampering. 2. “He didn’t have to break off friendships just wait a month.” That’s legally impossible and logically absurd. The NCAA’s ruling explicitly says ANY communication at all with a friend or family friend whose kid is at another school is a violation even if: it’s unrelated to sports it contains no recruiting content the coach says “I can’t talk about transfers” the parent initiates the call the athlete has not communicated with the coach at all That means under this interpretation, every NCAA coach with friends who have kids in college is breaking rules every day. This interpretation contradicts Bylaw 13.02.14 (definition of recruiting) and is exactly why media outlets are calling the rule unworkable. 3. “The timing of calls is extremely damning.” No court in America would accept timing as “credible, persuasive evidence” of recruiting — especially when both fathers testified the calls were not about recruiting and the NCAA admits the calls were “personal in nature.” Timing is suspicion, not evidence. The NCAA’s own bylaw (19.7.3) requires proof, not vibes. And importantly: 9 of the 14 calls were initiated by the PARENTS, not Brosnan. Suspicion evaporates when the other party is the one doing the calling. 4. “Someone admitted there were recruiting conversations.” False again. The athlete’s statement was second-hand memory (“my father told me…”) and the father — the only person who actually spoke to Brosnan — denied that the call contained recruiting. Second-hand hearsay doesn’t meet any evidentiary standard, NCAA or legal. 5. “There is no hypocrisy here.” Actually, the hypocrisy is blatant: The NCAA claims intent doesn’t matter, even though “recruiting” is defined by intent. They punished him for friendship calls while admitting they were not recruiting. UCLA’s negotiated resolution declared him guilty before he even submitted his response. Three of the same panel members who approved UCLA’s deal then ruled on Brosnan’s case. That is exactly the kind of bias and procedural misconduct courts have hammered the NCAA for repeatedly (McNair, Miami, Alston).
Dalia Frias, was in the top 7 HS XC runners a few years ago, and was one of the top hs miles too. I dont understand why she chose Duke, unless that was her dream college for Academics? She entered the transfer portal in Spring of Freshman year, and posted on her Instagram she was going to UCLA, like 35 minutes from her parents in Manhattan Beach and supposedly where Brosnan was going to coach. Top public academic university, but a bad XC and terrible track team. UCLA is also 80% Chinese nationals! After 1 day, she deleted that post, amd said was going to Oregon- terrible academics, rising girls xc team. Whats the story behind this? Why would you give up Duke for Oregon? She was out for one year with broken feet. So weird. She did well finally at NCAA Championships days ago. Was she illegally recruited by him?
Dalia Frias, was in the top 7 HS XC runners a few years ago, and was one of the top hs miles too. I dont understand why she chose Duke, unless that was her dream college for Academics? She entered the transfer portal in Spring of Freshman year, and posted on her Instagram she was going to UCLA, like 35 minutes from her parents in Manhattan Beach and supposedly where Brosnan was going to coach. Top public academic university, but a bad XC and terrible track team. UCLA is also 80% Chinese nationals! After 1 day, she deleted that post, amd said was going to Oregon- terrible academics, rising girls xc team. Whats the story behind this? Why would you give up Duke for Oregon? She was out for one year with broken feet. So weird. She did well finally at NCAA Championships days ago. Was she illegally recruited by him?
No one was illegally recruited. The NCAA simply could not substantiate a recruiting violation, so they relied on procedural and interpretive overreach that has nothing to do with Dalia or her transfer decisions.
There have always been issues with Brosnan’s judgement. He even brags in several interviews about being reported to CIF 15 times when he was at NP. it’s always the same story. He’s the victim, people are out to get him and are jealous because he’s so good.
Maybe, just maybe he’s not always telling the truth?
Dalia Frias, was in the top 7 HS XC runners a few years ago, and was one of the top hs miles too. I dont understand why she chose Duke, unless that was her dream college for Academics? She entered the transfer portal in Spring of Freshman year, and posted on her Instagram she was going to UCLA, like 35 minutes from her parents in Manhattan Beach and supposedly where Brosnan was going to coach. Top public academic university, but a bad XC and terrible track team. UCLA is also 80% Chinese nationals! After 1 day, she deleted that post, amd said was going to Oregon- terrible academics, rising girls xc team. Whats the story behind this? Why would you give up Duke for Oregon? She was out for one year with broken feet. So weird. She did well finally at NCAA Championships days ago. Was she illegally recruited by him?
Mcdonnell, Frias and Barnett were all friends from competing against each other and going to Brosnan’s meets during COVID. The fact they all made the decision in unison and Brosnan was bragging to people on the team they were coming makes it highly suspicious that it was coordinated and Brosnan was involved.
Actually the full report shows Brosnan clearly broke multiple NCAA rules. Someone else posted it earlier, go read it.
They have a photo of him talking to a recruit at a meet before he was allowed to. And one of the recruits admitted to the NCAA that Brosnan and her father had recruiting conversations. UCLA's own compliance staff reported that Brosnan said he had a conversation with the father before the recruit was in the transfer portal.
Nobody forced Brosnan to become a college coach. If he didn't like the NCAA's rules, he should have stayed at Newbury Park.
Every claim they made is factually wrong or contradicted by the NCAA’s own record 1. “Brosnan had recruiting conversations.” False. The actual evidence (including both fathers’ sworn interviews) shows the opposite: Both fathers explicitly testified Brosnan refused to discuss transfers and told them “I can’t talk about that until she’s in the portal.” The COI even admits the calls were “personal in nature” and did not contain recruiting content. Their entire case is built on a second-hand memory (“she recalled her father telling her…”) not on any statement from the father, the person who actually had the call. That is not “credible, persuasive evidence” under Bylaw 19.7.3. 2. “He broke rules by talking to the dads.” This is the core absurdity: The NCAA admits Brosnan’s calls were friendship-based and non-recruiting and then punished him anyway, claiming any communication equals tampering, even with lifelong friends. That interpretation contradicts the definition of “recruiting” in Bylaw 13.02.14, which requires intent to solicit or influence enrollment. The NCAA never proved that, because it never happened. 3. About the “photo” at the meet That photo proves nothing except that Adams Cooke the former Duke coach took a picture while he stood next to a coach and athlete. The athlete herself admitted he never contacted her again and UCLA reported that no recruitment occurred. That’s why the NCAA classified it as a minor Level III, not tampering. Trying to use a Level III incidental contact as “proof” of a Level II violation is legally meaningless. 4. “UCLA compliance said he admitted something.” UCLA compliance never said he had a recruiting conversation. They only said he asked a general rules question — which he did, because he was trying to follow the rules. And UCLA admitted they never gave him any education on tampering, the transfer portal, or pre-existing relationships. The NCAA’s own decision says UCLA’s lack of education was so severe it required mitigation. 5. The full report actually helps Brosnan The report proves: No recruiting calls. No inducements. No intent to influence enrollment. Lifelong relationships acknowledged by all parties. Both athletes were transferring home for family medical reasons, not because of Brosnan. The NCAA admitted there is zero distinction between friendship and recruiting — a standard that would make almost every college coach guilty. Everything you just claimed is contradicted by the NCAA’s own evidence. The fathers denied recruiting, the NCAA admitted the calls were personal, the “photo” is a Level III technicality, and the only thing Brosnan is guilty of is refusing to abandon longtime friends which is exactly why this case is getting torched in mainstream media and ESPN called out the NCAA.
This is all lies. The people who were caught redhanded are never going to admit it and voluntarily face massive penalties. Their testimony is worthless and carries no weight.
The actual recruit herself admitted that the phone calls were recruiting related - that is the strongest evidence possible and is more than enough for a Level 2 violation.
It wasn't a "lifelong" friendship - they only met a few years prior, already in theirs 40s and 50s. And it's probably not phone calls about health at 10:25pm and 11:07pm in the 2 separate phone calls made the night prior. 2 separate phone calls suggest the father called the daughter in between then call Brosnan back.
There is no such thing as requiring "recruiting intent" for guilty cases. The bylaw is clear that any contact with athletes not in the portal is a violation.
The photo with the recruit is a clear violation. It is a level 3 violation. But it is important because it shows a habit of not understanding the rules or clearly having the willingness to violate the rules for his own advantage. Brosnan never contacted her again because he lost his job days later.
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?
Man, this whole case is straight-up disturbing. Too many lies, too many people spinning garbage, and the NCAA just runs with it like it’s real. That’s the part that blows my mind they didn’t have evidence, so they started stretching stories, twisting friendships into “tampering,” and acting like normal human conversations are violations. When you’ve gotta make stuff up to justify a punishment, that’s not an investigation that’s desperation. And anyone watching this unfold can see it. The whole thing is shady, sloppy, and honestly embarrassing for an organization that already has a reputation for being a mess.
The NCAA destroys due process, it undermines basic fairness, and it shows how far the NCAA is willing to stretch reality just to justify a charge that never should have existed in the first place. And the wildest part is that even ESPN, which rarely touches distance-running stories, felt compelled to call out how broken and biased this process was. When a national outlet has to step in and highlight the corruption, you know the system isn’t just flawed , it’s out of control. The NCAA completely mishandled this case, and the fact that it’s now public is only because they finally pushed it too far for people to ignore.