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

Fall sprints needed wrote:

benicetoothers wrote:

Ok, I read the sympathetic ESPN article that Sean Brosnan, or one of his friends, convinced Dan Wetzel to write and this thread with too many posts from Sean, or one of his friends, as well as the NCAA infractions committee report.

I also read the bios of the seven NCAA infractions committee members that signed the report and thought they were reasonable individuals to assess whether violations have occurred, much more so than me or Rojo, and also far better suited than ESPN/Dan Wetzel.

The report was agreed to by Tricia Turley Brandenburg, Jody Conradt, Stephen Madva, chief hearing officer, Roderick Perry, Jill Redmond, James Stapleton, and Steven Waterfield.

ESPN's two main points of criticism seemed to be 1) procedurally the UCLA admitting guilt before Sean Brosnan makes it difficult for Sean to prove his innocence, and also 2) the rule that Sean was found to have violated is rather ridiculous.

I agree that the rule Sean was found to have violated is rather ridiculous, but it is also absolutely clear that he violated the rule, pissed off other coaches including by the flagrant way the transfer rules were violated (the NCAA transfer rules actually seem reasonable, and to me they seem to have been clearly violated, although the specific rule regarding contact is somewhat ridiculous).

ESPN's point about the procedural unfairness is also absolutely true. It is unfair that Sean has to fight for his innocence after UCLA admitted. Guilt. But, the problem is that the committee decided that there were clear violations of the rules. In other words he was not innocent.

Also, by refusing to cooperate with the infractions committee for four months, maybe his lawyer convinced him this was a good idea but, as detailed in the infractions report it did not help him and actually hurt his case.

Procedurally, it is also disappointing that there does not seem to be public reporting on how the Committee voted. My understanding is that these internal votes are private which is frankly ridiculous. If even one of the seven committee members determined Sean was innocent that would be helpful to know, but it seems probable after reading the report that the findings of violations was unanimous.

If Sean has cooperated with the committee and acknowledged his violations he would still have been sanctioned but I think it is likely that he would be coaching again in NCAA.

Even though Sean and his book seem rather egotistical, especially in discounting his great luck in having incredibly talented families go to his high school, I still think he has the potential to be a reasonable college coach if he just learns some humility.

Also, I want to echo the comments that the moderators on this site are absurdly biased in favor of Sean, as I have had several comments on earlier threads deleted for no reason other that the fact that they were mildly critical of Sean and his actions.

Sean, please work on learning to be nice to other coaches and people, a bit of humility might be helpful as well. You might find that even some of the haters like me actually do want you to succeed. Even though I am not convinced that you actually have the Midas touch and benefitted from luck with your absolutely incredible high school success, clearly you were at minimum a very good high school coach with the potential to excel in coaching at the collegiate or perhaps even professional level.

You can’t admit the rule is ridiculous, admit the process was unfair, admit Sean explicitly refused to talk transfers until the portal—and still claim the violation was “clear.” That’s logically impossible. Bylaw 13.1.1.3 governs recruiting activity, not lifelong friendships, and the NCAA never published any rule banning non-recruiting personal contact. Brosnan did exactly what compliance requires: he drew the line and refused to talk recruiting pre-portal. The NCAA then retroactively redefined the rule, punished him anyway, used a procedurally poisoned accelerated process after UCLA admitted guilt first, hid behind secret committee voting, and even tried to spin routine legal advice about phone privacy as “non cooperation.” You don’t have to like the guy to see this was outcome-driven enforcement dressed up as due process.

Fall sprints needed wrote:

benicetoothers wrote:

Ok, I read the sympathetic ESPN article that Sean Brosnan, or one of his friends, convinced Dan Wetzel to write and this thread with too many posts from Sean, or one of his friends, as well as the NCAA infractions committee report.

I also read the bios of the seven NCAA infractions committee members that signed the report and thought they were reasonable individuals to assess whether violations have occurred, much more so than me or Rojo, and also far better suited than ESPN/Dan Wetzel.

The report was agreed to by Tricia Turley Brandenburg, Jody Conradt, Stephen Madva, chief hearing officer, Roderick Perry, Jill Redmond, James Stapleton, and Steven Waterfield.

ESPN's two main points of criticism seemed to be 1) procedurally the UCLA admitting guilt before Sean Brosnan makes it difficult for Sean to prove his innocence, and also 2) the rule that Sean was found to have violated is rather ridiculous.

I agree that the rule Sean was found to have violated is rather ridiculous, but it is also absolutely clear that he violated the rule, pissed off other coaches including by the flagrant way the transfer rules were violated (the NCAA transfer rules actually seem reasonable, and to me they seem to have been clearly violated, although the specific rule regarding contact is somewhat ridiculous).

ESPN's point about the procedural unfairness is also absolutely true. It is unfair that Sean has to fight for his innocence after UCLA admitted. Guilt. But, the problem is that the committee decided that there were clear violations of the rules. In other words he was not innocent.

Also, by refusing to cooperate with the infractions committee for four months, maybe his lawyer convinced him this was a good idea but, as detailed in the infractions report it did not help him and actually hurt his case.

Procedurally, it is also disappointing that there does not seem to be public reporting on how the Committee voted. My understanding is that these internal votes are private which is frankly ridiculous. If even one of the seven committee members determined Sean was innocent that would be helpful to know, but it seems probable after reading the report that the findings of violations was unanimous.

If Sean has cooperated with the committee and acknowledged his violations he would still have been sanctioned but I think it is likely that he would be coaching again in NCAA.

Even though Sean and his book seem rather egotistical, especially in discounting his great luck in having incredibly talented families go to his high school, I still think he has the potential to be a reasonable college coach if he just learns some humility.

Also, I want to echo the comments that the moderators on this site are absurdly biased in favor of Sean, as I have had several comments on earlier threads deleted for no reason other that the fact that they were mildly critical of Sean and his actions.

Sean, please work on learning to be nice to other coaches and people, a bit of humility might be helpful as well. You might find that even some of the haters like me actually do want you to succeed. Even though I am not convinced that you actually have the Midas touch and benefitted from luck with your absolutely incredible high school success, clearly you were at minimum a very good high school coach with the potential to excel in coaching at the collegiate or perhaps even professional level.

and even tried to spin routine legal advice about phone privacy as “non cooperation.” You don’t have to like the guy to see this was outcome-driven enforcement dressed up as due process.

not controversial wrote:

Fall sprints needed wrote:

You can’t admit the rule is ridiculous, admit the process was unfair, admit Sean explicitly refused to talk transfers until the portal—and still claim the violation was “clear.” That’s logically impossible. Bylaw 13.1.1.3 governs recruiting activity, not lifelong friendships, and the NCAA never published any rule banning non-recruiting personal contact. Brosnan did exactly what compliance requires: he drew the line and refused to talk recruiting pre-portal. The NCAA then retroactively redefined the rule, punished him anyway, used a procedurally poisoned accelerated process after UCLA admitted guilt first, hid behind secret committee voting, and even tried to spin routine legal advice about phone privacy as “non cooperation.” You don’t have to like the guy to see this was outcome-driven enforcement dressed up as due process.

This NCAA rule has NEVER been controversial. It's existed since the beginning of the NCAA, actually even earlier since the beginning of college sports. No amount of whining or crying is going to change that for Brosnan. It is a well established rule that everybody knows.

This rule exists for sports at literally every level. Pro sports have the same rule. High school sports and middle school sports. Youth recreation sports. Even RECESS - once the captains pick the teams you can't switch the teams.

The NCAA has enforced this rule countless times and the only people that complain about it are the people who get caught. Brosnan got caught.

triple threat wrote:

Friend Police wrote:

The NCAA actually said:
“Although the plain language of the legislation establishes that a violation occurred, Brosnan argued that Bylaw 13.1.1.3 is not intended to apply in this way, i.e., to non-recruiting social conversations with longstanding friends. But the bylaw does not make a distinction between recruiting contact and non-recruiting contact.”
And
“Even if Brosnan’s communications with the two prospects’ fathers did not touch on the possibility of their transfer to UCLA, simply maintaining those relationships provided an advantage”
So the NCAA is saying you can’t maintain friendships with anyone that has a kid at another school then where you coach. That’s why people are freaking out about this interpretation. It turns a recruiting rule into a relationship ban based purely on status. Thank god ESPN called out the NCAA!

Under your definition of the bylaw, Brosnan as the UCLA coach would have been allowed to send Nico Young workouts while he was at NAU - as long as Brosnan didn't ask Nico to transfer. Sending workouts would not qualify as "recruiting contact" in your definition.

Your definition also makes it allowable for Brosnan to trash the coaches of the 2 transfers in his conversations with the parents. He could have disparaged their workouts and blamed bad races on the coaching. He also could have talked about how amazing UCLA was and how much his team was improving. All that is allowed under your definition as long as Brosnan never said that the recruits should transfer.

That's how insane your interpretation of the rules are. Obviously none of that is allowed.

By the way, the transfer said the conversations between Brosnan and the coach were recruiting related. He also talked to a high school recruit before the permissible date. So everything you said is a lie.

Brosnan winning wrote:

People keep waving around the NCAA’s “report” like it’s gospel. It’s literally their own prosecution memo. Of course it says they’re right. That’s not evidence, that’s bureaucratic fan fiction. And the funniest part? Even in their own slanted, self serving write up, they STILL basically prove Brosnan’s core point, no actual recruiting, just pre-existing relationships they decided to criminalize after the fact. The real appeal record is sealed because it’s being litigated, and yeah… that’s where the stuff they don’t want public lives. Now ESPN is openly clowning the process, calling out the speed run justice and rigged optics. When national media starts treating your enforcement arm like a kangaroo court, the PR shield is gone. If you think Brosnan’s appeal isn’t loaded with receipts, contradictions, and procedural landmines, you’re not paying attention. This is the NCAA trying to win on message boards before they get torched on the actual record.

Media Side Door wrote:

From a media/business standpoint, ESPN didn’t run this because they care about one assistant coach, they ran it because the NCAA created a perfect storm of legal exposure, bad optics, and process abuse. Reporters don’t touch niche cases unless they reveal a system-wide flaw. This one checked every box. A accelerated “justice,” a school cutting a cheap deal, an individual getting railroaded after the fact, and a rule being enforced in a way that even the NCAA admits ignores intent. That’s not a track story, that’s an institutional accountability story. ESPN knows lawsuits, congressional pressure, and antitrust scrutiny are already circling the NCAA. This case fit the larger narrative: enforcement built for speed and self protection is starting to look reckless. When ESPN publishes something like this, it’s not random, it’s a signal that the media class thinks the NCAA overplayed its hand.

not controversial wrote:

Fall sprints needed wrote:

You can’t admit the rule is ridiculous, admit the process was unfair, admit Sean explicitly refused to talk transfers until the portal—and still claim the violation was “clear.” That’s logically impossible. Bylaw 13.1.1.3 governs recruiting activity, not lifelong friendships, and the NCAA never published any rule banning non-recruiting personal contact. Brosnan did exactly what compliance requires: he drew the line and refused to talk recruiting pre-portal. The NCAA then retroactively redefined the rule, punished him anyway, used a procedurally poisoned accelerated process after UCLA admitted guilt first, hid behind secret committee voting, and even tried to spin routine legal advice about phone privacy as “non cooperation.” You don’t have to like the guy to see this was outcome-driven enforcement dressed up as due process.

This NCAA rule has NEVER been controversial. It's existed since the beginning of the NCAA, actually even earlier since the beginning of college sports. No amount of whining or crying is going to change that for Brosnan. It is a well established rule that everybody knows.

This rule exists for sports at literally every level. Pro sports have the same rule. High school sports and middle school sports. Youth recreation sports. Even RECESS - once the captains pick the teams you can't switch the teams.

The NCAA has enforced this rule countless times and the only people that complain about it are the people who get caught. Brosnan got caught.

Get a life and move on! wrote:

It’s honestly time to grow up. ESPN didn’t write that article because they’re fans of Brosnan. They wrote it because the NCAA’s enforcement system now looks rushed, unfair, and structurally broken. That’s the story, not one assistant coach. At this point, the obsession with Brosnan on here is getting weird. The NCAA’s own report doesn’t even establish real tampering in the normal, common sense meaning of the word, it survives only by treating any contact as a violation regardless of intent. You can agree or disagree with that interpretation, but the case is being litigated and ESPN already framed the bigger issue. The real problem is an organization with massive power, zero transparency, and a process that protects schools while crushing individuals. It’s time to stop re trying this on a message board and move on.

TrollLife wrote:

Get a life and move on! wrote:

It’s honestly time to grow up. ESPN didn’t write that article because they’re fans of Brosnan. They wrote it because the NCAA’s enforcement system now looks rushed, unfair, and structurally broken. That’s the story, not one assistant coach. At this point, the obsession with Brosnan on here is getting weird. The NCAA’s own report doesn’t even establish real tampering in the normal, common sense meaning of the word, it survives only by treating any contact as a violation regardless of intent. You can agree or disagree with that interpretation, but the case is being litigated and ESPN already framed the bigger issue. The real problem is an organization with massive power, zero transparency, and a process that protects schools while crushing individuals. It’s time to stop re trying this on a message board and move on.

Amen brother, At this point it’s not analysis, it’s fixation. The trolls are clearly obsessed