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

Sean, stop touting your own posts.

To state the obvious: the NCAA is generally free to set the rules applicable to their employees as they see fit, provided they do not violate federal law (e.g. discrimination against a protected class, antitrust - which has been their weakpoint - etc). There's no jail time with violating them, you'll just be fired.

Same as any company. While I personally don't care in the least and think this is dumb, the game has rules and one has to follow them. They investigated and believed that your communication represented tampering and fired you. That's their right. You don't have a grand constitutional right to call anyone you want, anytime, as a coach cross country in college, same as my employer is perfectly within their rights to fire me for my communications to others if they find it violates their policies. The NCAA found your communications violated their policies. They don't need to "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt" exactly what was said or find a "smoking gun" - this is not a court of law but a business decision. If it meets their standards for dismissal, that's their decision.

This is embarrassing. People break NCAA rules all the time. The world moves on. Admit it, find a HS to coach at (someone in the US will take you) and get kids running fast and almost no one will care. Trying to defend this on LetsRun is... real cool.

N

No, but it makes arbitrary and capricious enforcement, which is a good basis for appeal.

It's actually not against any rule to call a parent/friend, or a former athlete when they are not in the portal.

What's forbidden is to talk to them about recruiting, and then to recruit them.

If a coach calls a former athlete to congratulate them on a race, or a parent to talk about a football game, the conversation actually is harmless, and no one would even mention it to ncaa. The act of the transfer is what triggers complaints.

I doubt Brosnan takes legal action. Too much time is now gone and he probably does not want to be reinstated as coach, and it's too late for athletes to go back to UCLA. Most of these cases are raised right at the time of the ncaa ruling asking for an immediate court injunction.

The only slight chance would be if he wanted to sue for damages and have the violation removed from his record. He would be more likely to succeed by arguing that the transfer portal and tampering are violations of the athletes freedom to move as employees. This as opposed to claiming he was not guilty.

He could actually do both claiming 1- not guilty of tampering, and 2- even if guilty, the portal and the anti tampering rule are illegal.

If he went only with the 2nd claim, there would not need to be much discovery.

NCAA bylaws do NOT prohibit every conversation with a parent or former athlete.
Tampering requires proof of recruiting or inducement.
NCAA enforcement still carries the burden of proof.
Civil litigation is still possible even after the NCAA decision.
Here is a legally grounded rebuttal.
The post misunderstands both NCAA bylaws and how enforcement cases actually work.
First, it is correct that simply calling a parent, friend, or former athlete is not automatically an NCAA violation. NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.3 (Contact with Student-Athletes at Another Institution) prohibits recruiting contact with a student-athlete enrolled at another NCAA school without permission, but the violation requires evidence that the communication involved recruiting or inducement.
A conversation itself is not illegal. What matters is content and intent.
For example, coaches across the country routinely speak with:
parents they have known for years
former athletes
high school or club coaches
Those relationships are extremely common in sports like track and field. The NCAA cannot simply assume a recruiting violation because two people who know each other spoke on the phone.
Second, the claim that the “transfer triggers the complaint” is not legally relevant to the violation itself. A transfer may raise suspicion, but under NCAA enforcement procedures the NCAA still must prove that impermissible recruiting occurred before the athlete entered the transfer portal.
Under NCAA enforcement standards, violations must be proven by a “preponderance of the evidence.” That means the NCAA must prove that impermissible recruiting occurred.
That usually requires evidence such as:
messages recruiting the athlete
promises of roster spots or scholarships
NIL inducements
direct communication encouraging transfer
Without those elements, enforcement cases become extremely difficult to prove.
Third, the claim that legal action is unlikely because “too much time has passed” is also incorrect. Coaches have sued the NCAA long after infractions rulings when reputational damage or employment consequences were involved.
For example, courts have repeatedly allowed lawsuits against the NCAA involving:
defamation
tortious interference with employment
antitrust violations
The statute of limitations for these claims typically runs years, not months.
Fourth, the suggestion that the only legal argument would be attacking the transfer portal rules themselves misunderstands how litigation usually works. A plaintiff can absolutely pursue multiple claims simultaneously, including:
Wrongful finding / lack of evidence
Due process violations in the NCAA enforcement process
Antitrust challenges to NCAA transfer restrictions
Tortious interference with employment opportunities
In fact, many NCAA lawsuits include both factual innocence arguments and structural legal challenges.
Finally, the idea that discovery would not be necessary if someone challenged the portal rules is also unrealistic. Any serious antitrust or due-process lawsuit against the NCAA would involve extensive discovery, including emails, enforcement communications, and internal NCAA documents.
That is exactly what has happened in major NCAA cases such as NCAA v. Alston, where internal NCAA records became central evidence.
In short, the comment oversimplifies both NCAA bylaws and U.S. law.
A phone call itself is not a violation, tampering requires proof of recruiting activity, the NCAA still carries the burden of proof, and legal challenges can extend well beyond the timing of the NCAA ruling.

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.

Do not pretend they were not discussing transferring.

The timeline of phone calls does not prove tampering, especially if they are friends and that’s been proven, and when you actually look at the facts of the case and the governing rules, the NCAA’s conclusion raises serious legal and structural problems.
First, the NCAA’s theory is based almost entirely on phone records, not evidence of recruiting. The two fathers involved both testified to NCAA investigators that Brosnan explicitly told them he could not discuss transferring until the athletes entered the transfer portal.

Todd McDonnell testified:
“The first thing he said was ‘I can’t talk about that until Samantha is in the portal.’”

Matt Barnett testified similarly:
“Sean made it very clear… any discussions would have to go through the transfer portal.”

Those statements came directly from the witnesses the NCAA relied on. If the NCAA had proof that Brosnan actually recruited the athletes before the portal, it would have presented texts, emails, messages, or testimony stating that recruiting occurred. Instead, the case relied on the timing of phone calls, which proves nothing about the content of those conversations.
Second, the NCAA’s own ruling acknowledged something extremely important: there was no evidence of inducement.
In typical tampering cases you see evidence such as:
scholarship offers
NIL discussions
promises of roster spots
financial incentives
direct recruiting messages
None of that existed here. Both athletes transferred without receiving scholarship money, which makes an inducement theory even weaker.
Third, the Committee on Infractions essentially adopted an extreme interpretation of NCAA Bylaw 13 by claiming that any communication with a parent of a student-athlete at another institution is automatically impermissible contact, even if the discussion is unrelated to recruiting.
That interpretation is not only impractical, it is arguably inconsistent with how recruiting rules have historically been enforced. In sports like track and field, coaches frequently have longstanding relationships with families through club teams, high school programs, and previous coaching relationships. Treating every personal conversation as a recruiting violation would effectively require NCAA coaches to cut off communication with friends and former athletes, which is not how the rule has traditionally been understood.
Fourth, the enforcement process itself raises serious due-process concerns.
Under the NCAA’s new bifurcated infractions system, UCLA was allowed to resolve the case through a negotiated resolution that effectively accepted violations. However, that resolution already attributed tampering to Brosnan before his individual defense had even been submitted, according to his attorney.
Three members of the Committee on Infractions who later ruled in Brosnan’s case had also approved the UCLA resolution that labeled him responsible for the violation.
That creates an obvious fairness problem: the system effectively allowed the NCAA to declare an individual guilty before his case was fully adjudicated, raising questions about bias and procedural fairness.
Fifth, beyond NCAA rules, the situation raises potential issues under state law, federal law, and antitrust law.
The NCAA is not a government agency, but courts have repeatedly held that its rules and enforcement actions can still violate the law if they restrain economic activity or harm employment opportunities.
For example:
Antitrust law – In NCAA v. Alston (2021), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that NCAA restrictions affecting the economic opportunities of athletes can violate federal antitrust law. If NCAA transfer rules or tampering rules are interpreted in a way that restricts the movement of athletes or interferes with legitimate employment opportunities for coaches, those rules could face similar scrutiny.
Tortious interference with employment, If an organization makes a finding that damages a coach’s reputation and job prospects without sufficient evidence or fair process, it can potentially give rise to claims of interference with professional opportunities.
Restraint of trade concerns , Rules that limit the ability of athletes to move freely between schools, or that punish coaches based on speculative interpretations of ordinary communication, could be challenged as unreasonable restraints in a competitive labor market.
Finally, the claim that the phone calls prove tampering simply does not hold up. Phone logs show that calls occurred, not what was said. Without evidence of recruiting content, inducements, or direct communication with the athletes encouraging transfer, the NCAA’s conclusion rests solely on inference rather than proof.
In any fair adjudicative system, timing alone is not evidence of guilt.
The real issue raised by this case is whether the NCAA’s accelerated enforcement system and broad interpretation of contact rules have created a process where an individual coach can be labeled guilty based on circumstantial assumptions rather than demonstrable recruiting conduct.
Again Brosnan will win big in a real court. It’s that simple

Thanks for your thorough analysis.

2 brief responses:

- when I said transfer leads to a complaint, I was referring to Vin Lannana complaining to the ncaa about Brosnan tampering with his athlete.

If there was no transfer, Vin would not have complained, and there would be no tampering violation for LRC to discuss.

- if Brosnan chose to admit/plead no contest to tampering, and simply argue that the portal and tampering enforcement are illegal, there would be little reason for any discovery of phone records, conversation etc.

The discussion would simply be about whether an athlete is an employee, and if the ncaa can legally require the portal and forbid tampering.

There is no portal or tampering issues for coaches, ADs, Presidents, faculty, or regular students when they desire a transfer. Why should these barriers be in place for an athlete/employee, who is only similarly trying to improve their employment and academic situation.

.

If he broke any NCAA rules, shame on him. However, he knows how to make a fast group of runners. Too bad he went outside of the rules.

You’re still skipping over the central issue in this case.
First, the fact that Vin Lananna filed a complaint doesn’t establish that tampering actually occurred. And how do you know Vin Lananna did this ? There is nothing in this case that’s state who did the complaint. Anyone can file a complaint with the NCAA. The burden of proof is on the NCAA to demonstrate an actual violation. In this case, by the NCAA’s own findings, there were no texts, no emails, and no direct contact between Brosnan and the student-athletes before the portal. The only contact referenced was with a parent he had known for years. That alone is extremely weak evidence for a Level II tampering violation.
Second, the argument that there would have been “no complaint without a transfer” actually highlights the problem with the NCAA’s system. Transfers happen across college sports constantly. Coaches routinely have preexisting relationships with families, club coaches, and former athletes. If the mere existence of a relationship plus a later transfer is enough to trigger enforcement, then almost every coach in the NCAA could theoretically be accused of tampering.
Third, the suggestion that Brosnan could simply plead no contest and argue the portal’s legality ignores the reality of due process. If someone is accused of wrongdoing, they have every right to challenge the facts of the accusation. In a real court setting, the NCAA would have to produce evidence supporting the claim. That’s where discovery matters—because if the governing body cannot show communication or inducement, the case falls apart.
Finally, your broader point about the transfer portal and antitrust issues is actually why this situation is problematic. College athletes are increasingly treated like employees when it benefits the NCAA (NIL restrictions, transfer limitations, eligibility rules), but denied the freedoms that employees normally have. Coaches, administrators, and regular students can move institutions freely. Restricting athlete movement while simultaneously enforcing vague “tampering” rules raises serious antitrust and labor law questions that courts are already examining in multiple NCAA cases.
So the real issue here isn’t that a complaint was filed.
The issue is whether the NCAA can prove a violation, and whether the rules they’re enforcing would even survive scrutiny in a real court.
Right now, the publicly available facts suggest the evidence for tampering is none.

Barbosa would be proud.

The appeal was obviously not expected to change anything. It was just the final necessary step required before the lawsuit is filed. That favorable article by a top ESPN reporter shows that a top lawyer with connections is involved. There will be a multi-million dollar lawsuit filed. The NCAA has become a gravy train for lawyers.

This is not a serious answer.

Sean the fact that you come here LR to try and present your case or defend yourself is crazy. You are just about the most guilty person of committing a recruiting violation I have ever heard of. Let it go, move on with your life. Even if you got cleared you would never be hired by an NCAA school again. Stop bumping these threads up, it's not a good look.

The NCAA has NEVER said tampering requires proof of "recruiting or inducement".

Under your fake definition, Vin Lanana can text Colin Sahlman every day and say "your coach sucks" and that would not be tampering because there is no recruiting or inducement.

But obviously that is actually tampering and should not be allowed.

Where are you getting these direct quotes from the fathers? Those direct quotes, with their names attached, are not publicly available anywhere and most certainly are not in the NCAA reports because the NCAA does not name the recruits or their parents.

How do you have access to private information? You still haven't provided a source for your statement that neither athlete was offered a scholarship.