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

Bylaw 13 is a recruiting-contact rule, not a friendship ban. It regulates offers, inducements, and transfer discussions, none of which happened here. The NCAA has no legal authority to tell any adult who they can associate with socially outside of work. Punishing Sean Brosnan for private, non-recruiting conversations based on a retroactive “strict liability” theory violates basic due process and exceeds the NCAA’s legitimate regulatory power.

It is easier than that. If the girls really wanted to go to UCLA just for Brosnan, then Brosnan just had to wait a couple weeks til they went in the portal and they would have committed to UCLA anyway without any risk of violations.

Nobody forced Brosnan to be a college coach. He chose to coach in the NCAA and agreed to follow their rules.

Then he flagrantly violated those same rules. No amount of whining in this thread is going to change those facts.

Bylaw 13 is a recruiting rule, not a friendship ban. It regulates offers, inducements, and transfer discussions, none of which the NCAA ever proved happened here. Even the decision admits Brosnan told the dads he wouldn’t discuss transfers. So how exactly is that a recruiting violation? The NCAA basically invented a retroactive “strict liability” theory where any personal contact = guilt, which is not written in the bylaw and has never been enforced that way before. On top of that, they let the same committee members who approved UCLA’s negotiated resolution sit in judgment of Brosnan, which is total due-process malpractice. The NCAA has zero legal authority to punish private, off duty, non recruiting conversations between adults. At the end of the day Brosnan is 100% indecent of wrong doing.

This logic completely collapses on itself. If, as even the NCAA admits, no recruiting or transfer discussion happened, then “he could’ve just waited a few weeks” is irrelevant, because there was nothing to wait for. You don’t violate a recruiting bylaw by not recruiting. Also, saying “no one forced him to be a college coach” is a meaningless dodge. Yes, he agreed to follow NCAA rules, but that only matters if he actually broke one as written, not some made up strict liability version where any personal contact becomes illegal after the fact. You can’t retroactively redefine the rule, admit there was no recruiting, and still claim a “flagrant” violation. That’s not logic, that’s outcome hunting.

Sean you are just repeating yourself from your other anonymous handles.

This is not “something the NCAA admits”.

The NCAA’s own transcripts admit no recruiting ever happened. Both fathers testified that when transfer was even mentioned, Brosnan immediately said he couldn’t talk about anything until the athlete was in the portal ( exactly what the NCAA suggests you say and do) No offers, no inducements, no scholarship at UCLA for either athlete. The NCAA’s entire case is just, “there were phone calls.” That’s it. Calls with longtime family friends where he explicitly refused to recruit. That’s not tampering. That’s compliance. Hence why ESPN called out the NCAA.

The infraction report identified 14 violations of Bylaw 13.1.1.3 over four months - that is ridiculous, especially given the long term friendships.

But, 3 of the violations were clearly recruiting in nature, or at minimum discussed transfer portal logistics, which I believe is reasonable to be prohibited. And, two of these violations involved a parent calling Sean, so I would consider those very minor, but calling a parent even if it is returning a call immediately before they enter the portal is a fairly flagrant even if relative minor violation of the rules.

So, essentially my take is that Sean committed two very minor violations and one relatively minor but clear violation, and when he refused to acknowledge these violations or cooperate with the infractions committee, they proceeded to throw the book at him.

It is ridiculous that Sean was fired/contract was not renewed by UCLA and that the infractions committee found so many violations and issues such harsh punishment. But, as in this case when there was a lot of smoke that seemed to concern other coaches, that is that these two athletes claimed to be interested in other schools but selected don't contact and didn't reach out to any other schools besides UCLA makes it seem that more serious violations likely occurred, including potentially substantive recruiting related discussions.

Some of the relevant details from the report :

Prospect 1 entered the transfer portal on December 12, 2022, and prospect 2 entered on January 2, 2023. Two of Brosnan’s 11 phone calls with prospect 1’s father occurred at 10:25 p.m. and 11:07 p.m. on December 11, 2022, the night before prospect 1 entered the portal. Prospect 1’s father
initiated both calls. Brosnan then initiated a phone call to prospect 1’s father the following day. The call concluded 13 minutes before prospect 1 entered the portal. Prospect 1’s father then called
Brosnan three minutes after prospect 1 entered the portal.

"2. Specifically, Brosnan spoke with
prospect 1’s father on 11 occasions and with prospect 2’s father on three occasions during thistime. Brosnan acknowledged that these contacts occurred. His conduct violated Bylaw 13.1.1.3, which prohibits all contact with student-athletes—and individuals associated with student-
athletes—who are not in the transfer portal."

They found no recruiting, no inducements, no scholarship… but vibes were suspicious, so guilty. 😂😂😂😂😂😂

The only thing the NCAA proved is that he answered phone calls from longtime family friends, calls that the parents initiated, and when transfer came up, he literally said he couldn’t talk until the portal. That is the exact opposite of tampering.

This is not true.

Somehow answering phone calls from longtime family friends is now “tampering. WTF is wrong with the NCAA. This case is a legal nightmare for the NCAA:

This is scary how bad the NCAA look here

The NCAA has always had a "strict liability" enforcement of their rules since the absolute beginning of the NCAA. The rules are to be enforced EXACTLY how they are written.

You are the one redefining the rules. Nowhere in the NCAA bylaws does it say intent matters. Any contact = tampering.

Regardless, the NCAA did prove recruiting happened in two separate ways:

1 - " 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."

2 - "During prospect 2’s separate interview with the enforcement staff—which occurred over one year prior to her father’s interview—she recounted her understanding of this conversation based on what her father told her at the time. According to prospect 2, Brosnan told her father, “[W]e would love to have her, but I can’t talk to her until she’s in the portal.” SAYING "WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE HER" = RECRUITING. THE RECRUIT HERSELF ADMITTED IT.

Shaw a quote from the transcripts whereNCAA admit no recruiting ever happened”.

You can’t.

1. The NCAA admits the calls were non-recruiting
2. The NCAA admits recruiting may not have been discussed at all
3. The NCAA admits at least one alleged recruiting contact could not be proven
4. The NCAA admits Brosnan told fathers he could not discuss transfers

The NCAA admits that Brosnan has multiple phone calls with parents of recruits before they were in the transfer portal.

The NCAA admits the calls were an NCAA violation, regardless of what they spoke about.

The NCAA admits the recruit herself admitted her father spoke to Brosnan about recruiting before she was in the portal.

The NCAA admits Brosnan didn't cooperate for 4 months and likely used that time clearing his phone of all his impermissible communications, which is why they gave him a violation for not cooperating.

There is a reason ESPN wrote an article in favor of Brosnan. They are calling out the corruption.

i'll bet if you went through a couple years of phone records, the amount of phone calls he had with these particular people is a GREAT DEAL HIGHER during the period surrounding the transfer portal, than during all the rest of the time. In fact, if I'm a betting man, I'd put money that he took more calls during those couple months than he did for an entire 2 year period before that.