Wetzel: Is the NCAA infraction system now too speedy to be fair?

In an effort to “accelerate the infractions process,” the NCAA implemented a new system in 2023. It was a worthy goal — NCAA cases often dragged on for years through an elaborate and expensive maze of hearings.

Among the new features was a bifurcation process that allowed some parties in a case to simply resolve the charges and begin dealing with any penalties rather than get left in limbo as a full adjudication played out. The school, for example, can admit guilt, but individuals involved get a separate case. Or vice versa.

It allowed UCLA, in 2024, to quickly negotiate a resolution after being charged with two relatively minor Level II violations involving its women’s cross country and track programs.

The penalty was so light — a $5,000 fine and a few recruiting restrictions — it would have been more costly for UCLA to fight even if it believed it was innocent. Meanwhile, the NCAA cleared its docket.

Win-Win.

Except it has been nothing but a loss for the assistant coach caught in the middle, Sean Brosnan.

The bifurcated process meant that even though Brosnan vehemently denies committing any violations, he never got to present an official defense in his individual case before the system incentivized his now former employer to just say he did it.

“The NCAA decided in UCLA’s Negotiated Resolution that Sean Brosnan had committed tampering violations before we had even submitted his response,” said Scott Tompsett, Brosnan’s attorney and a three-decade veteran of NCAA cases.

“I don’t see how a coach can get a fair hearing after the NCAA already decided he’s guilty,” Tompsett continued.

The NCAA declined comment on this case.

The question remains: In trying to fix a slow system that was sometimes unfair to participants, did the NCAA make things so fast that it’s sometimes unfair to participants?

The accusations here are pretty simple.

Brosnan coached Thousand Oaks (Calif.) Newberry Park High School to four state titles before UCLA hired him as an assistant in 2022.

In 2023, the NCAA charged Brosnan of tampering with two potential transfer recruits — Samantha McDonnell of Alabama and Mia Barnett of Virginia — before they officially entered the transfer portal.

Brosnan, however, countered that he had a preexisting, personal relationship with the families of both runners.

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.

Mia Barnett was from a different Southern California high school, but Brosnan met her and her father, Matt, during COVID-19 when Brosnan organized some track meets in Arizona. They communicated often as friends through the years.

Once Brosnan got to UCLA, each father separately mentioned that their daughters wanted to transfer. Brosnan said he told them he couldn’t talk about that until they entered the transfer portal. The fathers both backed him up to NCAA investigators.

“The first thing [Brosnan] said [was] ‘I can’t talk anything about that until [Samantha’s] in the portal,'” Todd McDonnell testified.

“Sean made it very clear,” Matt Barnett testified. “He goes, ‘well, I understand … but any discussions would have to go through the transfer portal.'”

Both runners eventually transferred to UCLA, although neither received any scholarship money. They both later left for Oregon.

After receiving a tip about the transfers, the NCAA opened an investigation. UCLA settled fairly quickly, which, again, made sense for the school. UCLA declined comment for this article.

Brosnan, though, was suddenly stuck. His contract with UCLA was not renewed and, with his own employer saying he committed recruiting violations, he said he has been passed over for other college jobs.

In July, the NCAA’s committee on infractions ruled Brosnan did tamper, citing that any communication between a coach and the family of a student-athlete at another school is considered “impermissible contact.” It didn’t matter if he was friends with the fathers or if they were discussing unrelated topics.

“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.”

Brosnan argues that such a hard-line interpretation is not only incorrect, but impractical and absurd since it would cause any NCAA coach to have to break off all communication with even lifelong friends or relatives who have a child playing somewhere else.

Brosnan has appealed, arguing that the standard for a violation should be if any actual “recruiting talk” occurred. A decision on that is pending.

In the meantime, Brosnan wonders what role UCLA’s resolution played in his verdict. After all, three of the seven members of the committee on infractions that ruled in his case also approved the NCAA-UCLA deal that already found him culpable.

An NCAA spokesman noted that “the Committee on Infractions is not bound by earlier resolutions within the same case. More specifically, the rules contemplate — and all parties acknowledge — that different outcomes are possible for the same case.”

Sure, in theory, but can they really be expected to reverse course and suddenly say a guy they agreed was guilty is now not guilty?

“I think it creates an implied bias,” Tompsett said.

Maybe Brosnan is clean here. Or maybe the committee on infractions is correct.

What is undeniable is that the new system has delivered as intended for the NCAA and the school — this was a swift and cheaper resolution of a low-stakes infractions case.

For Sean Brosnan though, this is very much high-stakes, fighting for his reputation and career from a perhaps impossible spot — and deemed guilty before he had the chance to prove he’s innocent.