BREAKING - Brosnan LOSES his appeal, NCAA confirms serious violations happened

ArbitraryEnforcement wrote:

NCAA is losing credibility wrote:

This might be one of the most absurd interpretations of a rule I’ve ever seen. Apparently now if you’re coaching in the NCAA and you happen to have friends whose kids run at another school, you’re supposed to not talk to them anymore or it’s a violation? So normal conversations between long-time friends are suddenly “tampering”? That’s ridiculous. If that were actually the standard, 90% of the coaches in the NCAA would be in violation every single week. It’s honestly laughable.

The absurd part of the interpretation is that it effectively says a coach must shut down normal, pre existing relationships if someone they know happens to have a kid competing at another NCAA school. That’s not how recruiting rules were historically understood and work. The recruiting bylaws were meant to stop actual tampering and inducements, not everyday conversations between people who’ve known each other for years. If the standard truly becomes “any contact equals a violation,” then you’re essentially criminalizing normal social interaction. I haven’t read every detail of this case but Brosnan would wipe the floor with the NCAA in court. The NCAA not only doesn’t apply that standard all coaches and it’s against the law.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

rbtrackfan wrote:

I would say it would be prudent to avoid contact if you might get transfers or otherwise just not take the transfers. Avoid the appearance of impropriety.....

The real problem with this case is that UCLA gave Brosnan permission. He followed the directions of his own university. Then the NCAA came in afterward and essentially tried to reinterpret the bylaw to say that a coach must cut off long-standing friendships if someone they know happens to have a child competing at another NCAA school.
That’s not what the bylaw says and it’s not how it has ever been applied. The recruiting bylaws are meant to prohibit actual recruiting or inducements, not normal conversations between people who have known each other for years. If the NCAA’s standard really becomes “any contact equals a violation,” then they’re not enforcing the rule as written—they’re inventing a new one after the fact.
That kind of arbitrary enforcement is exactly what courts have criticized the NCAA for before, including in NCAA v. McNair and more broadly when the Supreme Court rejected the NCAA’s special treatment arguments in NCAA v. Alston. Organizations can’t just rewrite rules mid-stream to justify a penalty.
At the end of the day the record shows no evidence of recruiting, only conversations with people Brosnan already knew. Punishing someone for maintaining normal relationships isn’t enforcing a bylaw, it’s stretching it beyond what it actually says.

poaching portals wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:

The real problem with this case is that UCLA gave Brosnan permission. He followed the directions of his own university. Then the NCAA came in afterward and essentially tried to reinterpret the bylaw to say that a coach must cut off long-standing friendships if someone they know happens to have a child competing at another NCAA school.
That’s not what the bylaw says and it’s not how it has ever been applied. The recruiting bylaws are meant to prohibit actual recruiting or inducements, not normal conversations between people who have known each other for years. If the NCAA’s standard really becomes “any contact equals a violation,” then they’re not enforcing the rule as written—they’re inventing a new one after the fact.
That kind of arbitrary enforcement is exactly what courts have criticized the NCAA for before, including in NCAA v. McNair and more broadly when the Supreme Court rejected the NCAA’s special treatment arguments in NCAA v. Alston. Organizations can’t just rewrite rules mid-stream to justify a penalty.
At the end of the day the record shows no evidence of recruiting, only conversations with people Brosnan already knew. Punishing someone for maintaining normal relationships isn’t enforcing a bylaw, it’s stretching it beyond what it actually says.

Nah he just got busted for recruiting the daughters of those “long-standing friendships”.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

poaching portals wrote:

Nah he just got busted for recruiting the daughters of those “long-standing friendships”.

The two athletes received zero scholarship or inducement from UCLA, were already on full scholarships at their previous schools, and the NCAA found no direct contact between Sean Brosnan and the athletes themselves. On top of that, the parents went on record stating that Brosnan explicitly told them he could not discuss transferring until their daughters entered the portal, which is exactly what the NCAA compliance guidance instructs coaches to say.
So what’s left? Essentially conversations with parents who were pre-existing acquaintances where Brosnan reiterated that he could not talk about transferring until the portal. That is not evidence of recruiting or inducement. If anything, it shows he was following the rule as written. When an enforcement case boils down to “there was contact but no recruiting,” the NCAA isn’t proving tampering, it’s stretching the rule to treat ordinary conversations as violations. That’s precisely the kind of arbitrary interpretation that gets organizations into trouble when their decisions are scrutinized legally. Coaches are allowed to continue relationships. That’s facts

poaching portals wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:

The two athletes received zero scholarship or inducement from UCLA, were already on full scholarships at their previous schools, and the NCAA found no direct contact between Sean Brosnan and the athletes themselves. On top of that, the parents went on record stating that Brosnan explicitly told them he could not discuss transferring until their daughters entered the portal, which is exactly what the NCAA compliance guidance instructs coaches to say.
So what’s left? Essentially conversations with parents who were pre-existing acquaintances where Brosnan reiterated that he could not talk about transferring until the portal. That is not evidence of recruiting or inducement. If anything, it shows he was following the rule as written. When an enforcement case boils down to “there was contact but no recruiting,” the NCAA isn’t proving tampering, it’s stretching the rule to treat ordinary conversations as violations. That’s precisely the kind of arbitrary interpretation that gets organizations into trouble when their decisions are scrutinized legally. Coaches are allowed to continue relationships. That’s facts

More lies. No scholarship does not mean no inducement/recruiting.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

poaching portals wrote:

More lies. No scholarship does not mean no inducement/recruiting.

The problem with your argument is that you’re ignoring what the actual record shows. The two athletes did not receive scholarships, NIL promises, or any inducement from UCLA, and they were already on full scholarships at their previous schools. The NCAA also found no direct contact between Sean Brosnan and the athletes themselves prior to the portal.
More importantly, both parents went on record saying Brosnan told them he could not discuss their daughters transferring until they entered the portal. That is literally what NCAA compliance guidance tells coaches to say. In other words, the only documented conversations were with pre-existing acquaintances where the coach explicitly stated he could not discuss transferring yet.
So what evidence of tampering actually exists?
No recruiting pitch.
No scholarship offer.
No NIL promise.
No communication with the athletes themselves.
At that point the case effectively boils down to the existence of conversations with people he already knew, not evidence of recruiting. That’s why people keep pointing out the issue: contact alone is not the same thing as recruiting or inducement, and treating it that way stretches the rule far beyond what it was written to address.

poaching portals wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:

The problem with your argument is that you’re ignoring what the actual record shows. The two athletes did not receive scholarships, NIL promises, or any inducement from UCLA, and they were already on full scholarships at their previous schools. The NCAA also found no direct contact between Sean Brosnan and the athletes themselves prior to the portal.
More importantly, both parents went on record saying Brosnan told them he could not discuss their daughters transferring until they entered the portal. That is literally what NCAA compliance guidance tells coaches to say. In other words, the only documented conversations were with pre-existing acquaintances where the coach explicitly stated he could not discuss transferring yet.
So what evidence of tampering actually exists?
No recruiting pitch.
No scholarship offer.
No NIL promise.
No communication with the athletes themselves.
At that point the case effectively boils down to the existence of conversations with people he already knew, not evidence of recruiting. That’s why people keep pointing out the issue: contact alone is not the same thing as recruiting or inducement, and treating it that way stretches the rule far beyond what it was written to address.

Repeating the same lies don’t make them true. Just because there was no scholarship does not mean there was no recruiting/inducement. Thats faulty logic.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

poaching portals wrote:

Repeating the same lies don’t make them true. Just because there was no scholarship does not mean there was no recruiting/inducement. Thats faulty logic.

These are the facts:

The problem with your argument is that you’re ignoring what the actual record shows. The two athletes did not receive scholarships, NIL promises, or any inducement from UCLA, and they were already on full scholarships at their previous schools. The NCAA also found no direct contact between Sean Brosnan and the athletes themselves prior to the portal.
More importantly, both parents went on record saying Brosnan told them he could not discuss their daughters transferring until they entered the portal. That is literally what NCAA compliance guidance tells coaches to say. In other words, the only documented conversations were with pre-existing acquaintances where the coach explicitly stated he could not discuss transferring yet.
So what evidence of tampering actually exists?
No recruiting pitch.
No scholarship offer.
No NIL promise.
No communication with the athletes themselves.
At that point the case effectively boils down to the existence of conversations with people he already knew, not evidence of recruiting. That’s why people keep pointing out the issue: contact alone is not the same thing as recruiting or inducement, and treating it that way stretches the rule far beyond what it was written to address.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

poaching portals wrote:

Repeating the same lies don’t make them true. Just because there was no scholarship does not mean there was no recruiting/inducement. Thats faulty logic.

These are the facts:

The problem with your argument is that you’re ignoring what the actual record shows. The two athletes did not receive scholarships, NIL promises, or any inducement from UCLA, and they were already on full scholarships at their previous schools. The NCAA also found no direct contact between Sean Brosnan and the athletes themselves prior to the portal.
More importantly, both parents went on record saying Brosnan told them he could not discuss their daughters transferring until they entered the portal. That is literally what NCAA compliance guidance tells coaches to say. In other words, the only documented conversations were with pre-existing acquaintances where the coach explicitly stated he could not discuss transferring yet.
So what evidence of tampering actually exists?
No recruiting pitch.
No scholarship offer.
No NIL promise.
No communication with the athletes themselves.
At that point the case effectively boils down to the existence of conversations with people he already knew, not evidence of recruiting. That’s why people keep pointing out the issue: contact alone is not the same thing as recruiting or inducement, and treating it that way stretches the rule far beyond what it was written to address.

your burden to prove wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:

That’s not what the bylaw says and it’s not how it has ever been applied. The recruiting bylaws are meant to prohibit actual recruiting or inducements, not normal conversations between people who have known each other for years. If the NCAA’s standard really becomes “any contact equals a violation,” then they’re not enforcing the rule as written—they’re inventing a new one after the fact.

You have yet to show ANY examples of this bylaw EVER being applied differently. The NCAA gave multiple examples of this bylaw being applied THE SAME as it was to Brosnan.

Now the burden of proof is on you to prove your statement. So post the specific examples or NCAA communications that prove this bylaw was ever applied differently. If you can't provide objective proof, then you should stop crying about this.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

your burden to prove wrote:

You have yet to show ANY examples of this bylaw EVER being applied differently. The NCAA gave multiple examples of this bylaw being applied THE SAME as it was to Brosnan.

Now the burden of proof is on you to prove your statement. So post the specific examples or NCAA communications that prove this bylaw was ever applied differently. If you can't provide objective proof, then you should stop crying about this.

First, your entire argument starts with a false premise. The NCAA does not publish every investigation or enforcement decision. A massive number of cases are handled through summary disposition, negotiated resolution, or internal compliance action that never become public reports. So your claim that there are “no other examples” is meaningless. All you’re really saying is you personally couldn’t find a PDF on Google. That’s not evidence of anything. That’s just ignorance of how NCAA enforcement actually works.
And more importantly, show one other case besides the Brosnan matter where the NCAA issued a Level II violation solely because a coach had a pre-existing relationship with a parent while having zero evidence of recruiting, zero evidence of athlete contact, and every person involved on record saying no recruiting conversation occurred before the portal. You can’t, because that scenario basically doesn’t exist in prior enforcement history.
Second, Bylaw 13 is a recruiting bylaw, not a “no human interaction allowed” bylaw. The entire structure of Bylaw 13 regulates recruiting conduct and inducements—offers, recruiting pitches, arranged visits, benefits, and similar activity. That’s what enforcement cases historically involve. Turning mere contact with someone you already knew into a violation completely detaches the rule from its text and its purpose.
Third, if the standard truly were “any contact with a parent whose kid is at another NCAA school equals tampering,” then almost all of Division I coaches would technically be in violation. Coaches have long-standing relationships with high school coaches, club coaches, former athletes, and parents they’ve known for years. The NCAA has never gone around charging all of those conversations as violations because the rule was always meant to target actual recruiting, not normal human relationships.
Fourth, even critics of the case admit what the evidence actually was: phone calls and conversations with parents. That’s it. No texts offering scholarships. No arranged visits. No recruiting materials. No inducements. No proof of pre-portal recruiting. When a “tampering” case boils down to contact without recruiting, you’re not enforcing a recruiting rule—you’re stretching it beyond recognition.
And the funniest part is your “burden of proof” speech. That’s not how enforcement works. The burden of proof is on the NCAA to prove the violation, not on random people on a message board to prove 30 years of NCAA enforcement history. If the theory of the violation is literally “contact itself equals tampering,” then the NCAA would need to show that’s how the rule has always been interpreted. They can’t, because it hasn’t been.
So the reality is pretty simple:
You’re trying to defend a case where the actual evidence shows conversations with people he already knew and no demonstrated recruiting activity whatsoever. Pretending that equals classic tampering doesn’t make the case stronger, it just exposes how weak the theory actually is.

your burden to prove wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:

First, your entire argument starts with a false premise. The NCAA does not publish every investigation or enforcement decision. A massive number of cases are handled through summary disposition, negotiated resolution, or internal compliance action that never become public reports. So your claim that there are “no other examples” is meaningless. All you’re really saying is you personally couldn’t find a PDF on Google. That’s not evidence of anything. That’s just ignorance of how NCAA enforcement actually works.
And more importantly, show one other case besides the Brosnan matter where the NCAA issued a Level II violation solely because a coach had a pre-existing relationship with a parent while having zero evidence of recruiting, zero evidence of athlete contact, and every person involved on record saying no recruiting conversation occurred before the portal. You can’t, because that scenario basically doesn’t exist in prior enforcement history.
Second, Bylaw 13 is a recruiting bylaw, not a “no human interaction allowed” bylaw. The entire structure of Bylaw 13 regulates recruiting conduct and inducements—offers, recruiting pitches, arranged visits, benefits, and similar activity. That’s what enforcement cases historically involve. Turning mere contact with someone you already knew into a violation completely detaches the rule from its text and its purpose.
Third, if the standard truly were “any contact with a parent whose kid is at another NCAA school equals tampering,” then almost all of Division I coaches would technically be in violation. Coaches have long-standing relationships with high school coaches, club coaches, former athletes, and parents they’ve known for years. The NCAA has never gone around charging all of those conversations as violations because the rule was always meant to target actual recruiting, not normal human relationships.
Fourth, even critics of the case admit what the evidence actually was: phone calls and conversations with parents. That’s it. No texts offering scholarships. No arranged visits. No recruiting materials. No inducements. No proof of pre-portal recruiting. When a “tampering” case boils down to contact without recruiting, you’re not enforcing a recruiting rule—you’re stretching it beyond recognition.
And the funniest part is your “burden of proof” speech. That’s not how enforcement works. The burden of proof is on the NCAA to prove the violation, not on random people on a message board to prove 30 years of NCAA enforcement history. If the theory of the violation is literally “contact itself equals tampering,” then the NCAA would need to show that’s how the rule has always been interpreted. They can’t, because it hasn’t been.
So the reality is pretty simple:
You’re trying to defend a case where the actual evidence shows conversations with people he already knew and no demonstrated recruiting activity whatsoever. Pretending that equals classic tampering doesn’t make the case stronger, it just exposes how weak the theory actually is.

You are saying the rule used to be enforced differently, but provide no proof. The NCAA has already provided proof. There are decades of violations of the rule being applied the exact way it has been written.

Here is the rule from 1990:

"An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution’s athletics interests shall not make contact with the student-athlete of another four-year collegiate institution, directly or indirectly, without first obtaining the permission of the first institution’s athletics director to do so, regardless of who makes the initial contact."

Link:ncaa.soutronglobal.net/Public/Default/...

Page 44 of the PDF file and page 72 of the NCAA manual.

And the top part of 13.1 clarifies that the rules apply to contacting the prospect AND the parents:
"Recruiting contacts(per 13.02.3) with a prospect(or the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians) by institutional staff members and/or representatives of the institution’s athletics interests are subject to the provisions set forth in this bylaw."

We have provided 36 years of evidence of this rule being CONSISTENT on ALL CONTACT being impermissible. The NCAA proved contact occurred (Brosnan admitted it). And the NCAA has decades of proof of the rule being applied strictly to all contact.

There is literally no evidence, support, history, of the BS you are saying. Just admit that it was a clear violation.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

your burden to prove wrote:

You are saying the rule used to be enforced differently, but provide no proof. The NCAA has already provided proof. There are decades of violations of the rule being applied the exact way it has been written.

Here is the rule from 1990:

"An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution’s athletics interests shall not make contact with the student-athlete of another four-year collegiate institution, directly or indirectly, without first obtaining the permission of the first institution’s athletics director to do so, regardless of who makes the initial contact."

Link:ncaa.soutronglobal.net/Public/Default/...

Page 44 of the PDF file and page 72 of the NCAA manual.

And the top part of 13.1 clarifies that the rules apply to contacting the prospect AND the parents:
"Recruiting contacts(per 13.02.3) with a prospect(or the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians) by institutional staff members and/or representatives of the institution’s athletics interests are subject to the provisions set forth in this bylaw."

We have provided 36 years of evidence of this rule being CONSISTENT on ALL CONTACT being impermissible. The NCAA proved contact occurred (Brosnan admitted it). And the NCAA has decades of proof of the rule being applied strictly to all contact.

There is literally no evidence, support, history, of the BS you are saying. Just admit that it was a clear violation.

Posting the 1990 bylaw is not proof of 36 years of identical enforcement. To prove your point, you’d need a line of public contested infractions decisions, not negotiated settlements the NCAA itself says are nonprecedential showing that purely social or pre-existing friendship conversations with parents, absent recruiting offers or inducements, were historically treated the same way. You haven’t shown that. You’ve shown the NCAA has broad rule language, not decades of identical precedent.”
And one more important point: even the NCAA’s own public description of the UCLA matter was that it involved “impermissible communications, primarily with parents,” while ESPN and others reported the Committee on Infractions treated “any communication” with a family member of a student-athlete at another school as impermissible. That shows what the NCAA ultimately argued here. But that is the disputed interpretation itself; it is not proof that the same interpretation was publicly and consistently applied for 36 years in materially identical cases.

You keep confusing rule text with enforcement precedent. Nobody disputes the bylaw existed. The question is whether the NCAA has a real body of public, contested precedent treating ordinary pre-existing parent conversations with no offer, no inducement, no recruiting materials, no portal entry the exact same way. The public cases you’re leaning on are mostly negotiated resolutions, and the NCAA itself says negotiated resolutions do not set precedent. So no, you have not proved 36 years of consistent enforcement. You’ve proved the NCAA had broad language and only recently chose to press the broadest possible reading of it. To prove your point, you would need a line of public infractions decisions with similar facts cases where a coach had only conversations with parents they already knew, with no recruiting pitch, no inducement, no scholarship offer, no texts or emails about transferring and the NCAA treated that alone as tampering.
You haven’t produced a single one. Not one.
The public cases people cite in this area almost always involve actual recruiting activity offers of aid, inducements, organized recruiting pitches, or repeated recruiting communications. That’s what Bylaw 13 was written to regulate: recruiting activity, not ordinary conversations between people who already knew each other.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

your burden to prove wrote:

You are saying the rule used to be enforced differently, but provide no proof. The NCAA has already provided proof. There are decades of violations of the rule being applied the exact way it has been written.

Here is the rule from 1990:

"An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution’s athletics interests shall not make contact with the student-athlete of another four-year collegiate institution, directly or indirectly, without first obtaining the permission of the first institution’s athletics director to do so, regardless of who makes the initial contact."

Link:ncaa.soutronglobal.net/Public/Default/...

Page 44 of the PDF file and page 72 of the NCAA manual.

And the top part of 13.1 clarifies that the rules apply to contacting the prospect AND the parents:
"Recruiting contacts(per 13.02.3) with a prospect(or the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians) by institutional staff members and/or representatives of the institution’s athletics interests are subject to the provisions set forth in this bylaw."

We have provided 36 years of evidence of this rule being CONSISTENT on ALL CONTACT being impermissible. The NCAA proved contact occurred (Brosnan admitted it). And the NCAA has decades of proof of the rule being applied strictly to all contact.

There is literally no evidence, support, history, of the BS you are saying. Just admit that it was a clear violation.

Posting the 1990 bylaw is not proof of 36 years of identical enforcement. To prove your point, you’d need a line of public contested infractions decisions, not negotiated settlements the NCAA itself says are nonprecedential showing that purely social or pre-existing friendship conversations with parents, absent recruiting offers or inducements, were historically treated the same way. You haven’t shown that. You’ve shown the NCAA has broad rule language, not decades of identical precedent.”
And one more important point: even the NCAA’s own public description of the UCLA matter was that it involved “impermissible communications, primarily with parents,” while ESPN and others reported the Committee on Infractions treated “any communication” with a family member of a student-athlete at another school as impermissible. That shows what the NCAA ultimately argued here. But that is the disputed interpretation itself; it is not proof that the same interpretation was publicly and consistently applied for 36 years in materially identical cases.

You keep confusing rule text with enforcement precedent. Nobody disputes the bylaw existed. The question is whether the NCAA has a real body of public, contested precedent treating ordinary pre-existing parent conversations with no offer, no inducement, no recruiting materials, no portal entry the exact same way. The public cases you’re leaning on are mostly negotiated resolutions, and the NCAA itself says negotiated resolutions do not set precedent. So no, you have not proved 36 years of consistent enforcement. You’ve proved the NCAA had broad language and only recently chose to press the broadest possible reading of it. To prove your point, you would need a line of public infractions decisions with similar facts cases where a coach had only conversations with parents they already knew, with no recruiting pitch, no inducement, no scholarship offer, no texts or emails about transferring and the NCAA treated that alone as tampering.
You haven’t produced a single one. Not one.
The public cases people cite in this area almost always involve actual recruiting activity offers of aid, inducements, organized recruiting pitches, or repeated recruiting communications. That’s what Bylaw 13 was written to regulate: recruiting activity, not ordinary conversations between people who already knew each other.