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."
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point, you’d need a line of public contested infractions decisions, not negotiated settlements the NCAA itself says are nonprecedential showing that purely social or pre-existing friendship conversations with parents, absent recruiting offers or inducements, were historically treated the same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 is the only with the facts. The NCAA is so desperate to get a violation they say you can’t keep pre existing relationships. Now that’s crazy!
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 is the only with the facts. The NCAA is so desperate to get a violation they say you can’t keep pre existing relationships. Now that’s crazy!
Even in the North Pole we know the NCAA has been on the Naughty list for a few decades now.
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 is the only with the facts. The NCAA is so desperate to get a violation they say you can’t keep pre existing relationships. Now that’s crazy!
Burdenofproof literally has not provided one fact to support his argument. His entire argument is speculation.
He says 90% of coaches commit that violation every day, with no evidence to back it up. Then he claims the NCAA didn't intend for this rule to be applied this way, the precise way it was written, with no evidence to back it up.
All speculation. Not admissible here, not admissible in court.
BurdenOfProof is the only with the facts. The NCAA is so desperate to get a violation they say you can’t keep pre existing relationships. Now that’s crazy!
Burdenofproof literally has not provided one fact to support his argument. His entire argument is speculation.
He says 90% of coaches commit that violation every day, with no evidence to back it up. Then he claims the NCAA didn't intend for this rule to be applied this way, the precise way it was written, with no evidence to back it up.
All speculation. Not admissible here, not admissible in court.
Your argument falls apart once you apply the actual “burden-of-proof” standard used in NCAA enforcement cases. The enforcement staff carries the burden to prove a violation by credible and persuasive evidence. That means they must show facts that demonstrate a recruiting violation occurred — not merely that a conversation existed. And that’s exactly where this case falls apart. The public record shows no evidence of recruiting activity: No texts or emails offering a transfer opportunity No scholarship discussions No inducements No documented recruiting pitch No direct contact with the athletes themselves What the NCAA relied on were conversations with parents who were long-time acquaintances. Even those parents stated that the coach told them he could not discuss transferring until the portal. That statement, if anything, reflects compliance with the rule, not a violation. Bylaw 13 is a recruiting bylaw, not a “no human interaction” bylaw. The NCAA therefore had to prove recruiting conduct. Instead, their theory effectively became: contact itself equals recruiting. That is not proof; that is an inference layered on speculation. In any adjudicative setting, whether an administrative proceeding or a court applying fair procedure principles discipline cannot rest on speculation or assumptions. The decision must be supported by substantial evidence tied to the actual elements of the rule. When the record shows only that two people who already knew each other had conversations, with no evidence of recruiting content, the enforcement staff has not carried its burden. So the irony here is that the person accusing others of “speculation” is relying entirely on speculation himself assuming recruiting occurred without a single piece of documented recruiting evidence. When the NCAA cannot prove recruiting and instead argues that contact alone equals a violation, that’s not enforcement of the rule. That’s an after-the-fact reinterpretation used to justify a penalty.
Burdenofproof literally has not provided one fact to support his argument. His entire argument is speculation.
He says 90% of coaches commit that violation every day, with no evidence to back it up. Then he claims the NCAA didn't intend for this rule to be applied this way, the precise way it was written, with no evidence to back it up.
All speculation. Not admissible here, not admissible in court.
Your argument falls apart once you apply the actual “burden-of-proof” standard used in NCAA enforcement cases. The enforcement staff carries the burden to prove a violation by credible and persuasive evidence. That means they must show facts that demonstrate a recruiting violation occurred — not merely that a conversation existed. And that’s exactly where this case falls apart. The public record shows no evidence of recruiting activity: No texts or emails offering a transfer opportunity No scholarship discussions No inducements No documented recruiting pitch No direct contact with the athletes themselves What the NCAA relied on were conversations with parents who were long-time acquaintances. Even those parents stated that the coach told them he could not discuss transferring until the portal. That statement, if anything, reflects compliance with the rule, not a violation. Bylaw 13 is a recruiting bylaw, not a “no human interaction” bylaw. The NCAA therefore had to prove recruiting conduct. Instead, their theory effectively became: contact itself equals recruiting. That is not proof; that is an inference layered on speculation. In any adjudicative setting, whether an administrative proceeding or a court applying fair procedure principles discipline cannot rest on speculation or assumptions. The decision must be supported by substantial evidence tied to the actual elements of the rule. When the record shows only that two people who already knew each other had conversations, with no evidence of recruiting content, the enforcement staff has not carried its burden. So the irony here is that the person accusing others of “speculation” is relying entirely on speculation himself assuming recruiting occurred without a single piece of documented recruiting evidence. When the NCAA cannot prove recruiting and instead argues that contact alone equals a violation, that’s not enforcement of the rule. That’s an after-the-fact reinterpretation used to justify a penalty.
What's funny is that back when the recruiting violation took place, I bet Sean was giddy with excitement at pulling off such a coup, leveraging his prior relationships with these girls and their families. Thinking he was so clever and was on his way to being one of the coaching greats. But the longer this thread goes on, the more I simply feel pity towards him for not being able to accept what happened and move on with his life.
The NCAA continues to disappoint because cases like this make it painfully obvious how far the organization has drifted from its own stated principles. Rules are supposed to be applied based on evidence and the actual text of the bylaws, not stretched after the fact to justify a predetermined outcome. In this situation, the NCAA could not point to recruiting pitches, inducements, or any documented attempt to secure a transfer before the portal. Instead, the entire theory rested on the mere existence of conversations with people who had been long-time acquaintances. When enforcement starts treating ordinary relationships as violations without proof of recruiting activity, it exposes something deeper: an organization more focused on preserving its authority than on applying its rules fairly. And the online noise around cases like this is often fueled by a small group of trolls who thrive on misinformation. Some individuals get a strange satisfaction out of repeating half-truths or outright false claims online because it makes them feel better about themselves or about someone else’s success. But repeating misinformation doesn’t change the record. In the end, facts don’t bend to message board narratives, no matter how loudly or how often they’re posted.
What's funny is that back when the recruiting violation took place, I bet Sean was giddy with excitement at pulling off such a coup, leveraging his prior relationships with these girls and their families. Thinking he was so clever and was on his way to being one of the coaching greats. But the longer this thread goes on, the more I simply feel pity towards him for not being able to accept what happened and move on with his life.
What exactly has Brosnan done that offends you to keep posting about him ? Seriously. He’s not out there doing media tours whining about it. He’s not constantly in the press attacking people. He’s literally just coaching and moving forward with his life. Since UCLA he’s continued coaching athletes, wrote a book (Beyond Fast), and stayed involved in the sport. That sounds a lot like someone who did move on, not someone “stuck in the past.” And if he decides to sue the NCAA, that’s his legal right. It’s not your decision or anyone else on a message board. People challenge organizations in court all the time when they believe enforcement was wrong or unfair. That’s how the legal system works and good for him if he chooses so! Honestly, the weird part isn’t what Brosnan is doing. The weird part is people still sitting on message boards years later inventing stories about what they think he was feeling at the time. If he’s coaching, building athletes, and writing books, it looks like he’s doing just fine.
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 is the only with the facts. The NCAA is so desperate to get a violation they say you can’t keep pre existing relationships. Now that’s crazy!
Do you think that constantly changing your username to post under many different handles on this topic gives you more credibility or less credibility?
Can we play "pin the psychiatric personality disorder" on BurdenOfProof aka Sean Brosnan.
Time to get over Sean Brosnan. At this point it’s obvious some of you are more obsessed with him than anything he’s actually doing. This is actually getting sad
What's funny is that back when the recruiting violation took place, I bet Sean was giddy with excitement at pulling off such a coup, leveraging his prior relationships with these girls and their families. Thinking he was so clever and was on his way to being one of the coaching greats. But the longer this thread goes on, the more I simply feel pity towards him for not being able to accept what happened and move on with his life.
What exactly has Brosnan done that offends you to keep posting about him ? Seriously. He’s not out there doing media tours whining about it. He’s not constantly in the press attacking people. He’s literally just coaching and moving forward with his life. Since UCLA he’s continued coaching athletes, wrote a book (Beyond Fast), and stayed involved in the sport. That sounds a lot like someone who did move on, not someone “stuck in the past.” And if he decides to sue the NCAA, that’s his legal right. It’s not your decision or anyone else on a message board. People challenge organizations in court all the time when they believe enforcement was wrong or unfair. That’s how the legal system works and good for him if he chooses so! Honestly, the weird part isn’t what Brosnan is doing. The weird part is people still sitting on message boards years later inventing stories about what they think he was feeling at the time. If he’s coaching, building athletes, and writing books, it looks like he’s doing just fine.
The same trolls have been strangely addicted to posting about a Brosnan. They claim they dislike or disapprove of him, yet they can’t stop bringing their name up, day after day, thread after thread. Psychologically, this kind of behavior often comes from a mix of fixation, insecurity, and the small dopamine hit people get from attention and conflict online. The brain begins to reward the cycle post something negative, get reactions, feel validated, repeat. Over time it becomes less about truth and more about feeding that habit. What starts as “criticism” slowly turns into obsession, where the person they claim to dislike ends up living rent-free in their head. At that point the constant posting stops revealing anything about the target and instead exposes the underlying fixation of the person doing it.
What exactly has Brosnan done that offends you to keep posting about him ? Seriously. He’s not out there doing media tours whining about it. He’s not constantly in the press attacking people. He’s literally just coaching and moving forward with his life. Since UCLA he’s continued coaching athletes, wrote a book (Beyond Fast), and stayed involved in the sport. That sounds a lot like someone who did move on, not someone “stuck in the past.” And if he decides to sue the NCAA, that’s his legal right. It’s not your decision or anyone else on a message board. People challenge organizations in court all the time when they believe enforcement was wrong or unfair. That’s how the legal system works and good for him if he chooses so! Honestly, the weird part isn’t what Brosnan is doing. The weird part is people still sitting on message boards years later inventing stories about what they think he was feeling at the time. If he’s coaching, building athletes, and writing books, it looks like he’s doing just fine.
The same trolls have been strangely addicted to posting about a Brosnan. They claim they dislike or disapprove of him, yet they can’t stop bringing their name up, day after day, thread after thread. Psychologically, this kind of behavior often comes from a mix of fixation, insecurity, and the small dopamine hit people get from attention and conflict online. The brain begins to reward the cycle post something negative, get reactions, feel validated, repeat. Over time it becomes less about truth and more about feeding that habit. What starts as “criticism” slowly turns into obsession, where the person they claim to dislike ends up living rent-free in their head. At that point the constant posting stops revealing anything about the target and instead exposes the underlying fixation of the person doing it.
The only person obsessed with Brosnan on this message board is Sean. I can’t think of anyone as narcissistic.
What's funny is that back when the recruiting violation took place, I bet Sean was giddy with excitement at pulling off such a coup, leveraging his prior relationships with these girls and their families. Thinking he was so clever and was on his way to being one of the coaching greats. But the longer this thread goes on, the more I simply feel pity towards him for not being able to accept what happened and move on with his life.
What exactly has Brosnan done that offends you to keep posting about him ? Seriously. He’s not out there doing media tours whining about it. He’s not constantly in the press attacking people. He’s literally just coaching and moving forward with his life. Since UCLA he’s continued coaching athletes, wrote a book (Beyond Fast), and stayed involved in the sport. That sounds a lot like someone who did move on, not someone “stuck in the past.” And if he decides to sue the NCAA, that’s his legal right. It’s not your decision or anyone else on a message board. People challenge organizations in court all the time when they believe enforcement was wrong or unfair. That’s how the legal system works and good for him if he chooses so! Honestly, the weird part isn’t what Brosnan is doing. The weird part is people still sitting on message boards years later inventing stories about what they think he was feeling at the time. If he’s coaching, building athletes, and writing books, it looks like he’s doing just fine.
What exactly has Brosnan done that offends you to keep posting about him ? Seriously. He’s not out there doing media tours whining about it. He’s not constantly in the press attacking people. He’s literally just coaching and moving forward with his life. Since UCLA he’s continued coaching athletes, wrote a book (Beyond Fast), and stayed involved in the sport. That sounds a lot like someone who did move on, not someone “stuck in the past.” And if he decides to sue the NCAA, that’s his legal right. It’s not your decision or anyone else on a message board. People challenge organizations in court all the time when they believe enforcement was wrong or unfair. That’s how the legal system works and good for him if he chooses so! Honestly, the weird part isn’t what Brosnan is doing. The weird part is people still sitting on message boards years later inventing stories about what they think he was feeling at the time. If he’s coaching, building athletes, and writing books, it looks like he’s doing just fine.
Remind me which athletes he's coaching?
What you mean all the worlds elite are not lining up to be coached by a guy whose only claim to fame is he coached a hs team
Burdenofproof literally has not provided one fact to support his argument. His entire argument is speculation.
He says 90% of coaches commit that violation every day, with no evidence to back it up. Then he claims the NCAA didn't intend for this rule to be applied this way, the precise way it was written, with no evidence to back it up.
All speculation. Not admissible here, not admissible in court.
Your argument falls apart once you apply the actual “burden-of-proof” standard used in NCAA enforcement cases. The enforcement staff carries the burden to prove a violation by credible and persuasive evidence. That means they must show facts that demonstrate a recruiting violation occurred — not merely that a conversation existed. And that’s exactly where this case falls apart. The public record shows no evidence of recruiting activity: No texts or emails offering a transfer opportunity No scholarship discussions No inducements No documented recruiting pitch No direct contact with the athletes themselves What the NCAA relied on were conversations with parents who were long-time acquaintances. Even those parents stated that the coach told them he could not discuss transferring until the portal. That statement, if anything, reflects compliance with the rule, not a violation. Bylaw 13 is a recruiting bylaw, not a “no human interaction” bylaw. The NCAA therefore had to prove recruiting conduct. Instead, their theory effectively became: contact itself equals recruiting. That is not proof; that is an inference layered on speculation. In any adjudicative setting, whether an administrative proceeding or a court applying fair procedure principles discipline cannot rest on speculation or assumptions. The decision must be supported by substantial evidence tied to the actual elements of the rule. When the record shows only that two people who already knew each other had conversations, with no evidence of recruiting content, the enforcement staff has not carried its burden. So the irony here is that the person accusing others of “speculation” is relying entirely on speculation himself assuming recruiting occurred without a single piece of documented recruiting evidence. When the NCAA cannot prove recruiting and instead argues that contact alone equals a violation, that’s not enforcement of the rule. That’s an after-the-fact reinterpretation used to justify a penalty.
The true irony is the person reinterpreting the exact text of the bylaw is accusing others of "reinterpretation" for following the exact text of the bylaw. It's Beyond Dumb.