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

Perhaps we should remember that the top NCAA schools have a win at all costs mentality. This involves, increased recruiting from other countries and I suspect PED use.
So yea for our economic system that encourages this!

The poster calling himself "BurdenOfProof" is most likely Sean Brosnan himself. That's why he knows what each of the two fathers said when they testified.

Or you can read this article and see

espn.com

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

In an effort to speed up infractions rulings, the NCAA implemented a new system in 2023 for low-stakes cases.

Open link

If a coach is texting an athlete at another school every day saying ‘your coach sucks,’ that is recruiting influence. That’s exactly why the NCAA bans recruiting contact with enrolled athletes outside the portal. BUT the NCAA still has to prove the contact actually involved recruiting or encouraging a transfer, not just that two people who know each other spoke

“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”

Before the date that the first woman entered the transfer portal Sean Brosnan was going around telling people that two college women had agreed to transfer to UCLA, but he said that he couldn't name the two women because neither one had gone into the transfer portal yet. I heard him say that myself. So stop already with your pathetic arguments.

Brosnan even talked about this on the LetsRun podcast. The NCAA’s whole theory was based on conversations with the fathers, people he had known for years and even spent holidays with. From what I remember in the public case file, the athletes were also on zero scholarship at their previous school and they spoke about this on LR podcast, which makes the idea of ‘inducement’ even weaker. Long-standing family relationships and a conversation with a parent aren’t tampering.

Sean Brosnan is well aware that he was telling recruits that there were two college women who had agreed to transfer to UCLA, and he is well aware that he was saying that before either woman had entered the transfer portal.

That is why Brosnan won't sue the NCAA. All the NCAA would have to do is call as witnesses all the girls he was recruiting and their parents and some of them would remember him saying that.

In the original case file, the explained that it is a violation regardless of what they spoke about. They listed several examples of violations being issued for the same situations:

"To be sure, there are reasons beyond plain language to apply the bylaw to non-recruiting
communications. As the COI has previously observed—and as Brosnan himself acknowledged during the hearing—relationship building is a core component of recruiting. See Appalachian State University (2016) (concluding that a Level II violation occurred when a football coach sent a prospect’s mother 416 text messages at a time when electronic communication was prohibited, and the institution did not have an interest in recruiting the prospect); see also University of Mississippi (2016) (concluding that Level II violations occurred when new members of the women’s basketball staff did not actively recruit student-athletes from their former institution but continued to have personal or mentor-based contacts with them, and those contacts “strengthened relationships”). Thus, 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 that other compliant coaches and institutions did not possess.17"

and

"Although this type of fact pattern has not arisen in any previous contested cases, the COI has approved three negotiated resolutions in which the parties agreed that tampering violations occurred when coaches had pre-portal, non-recruiting communications with individuals with whom they had a preexisting relationship. See Jacksonville State University (2021); Charleston Southern University (2020); and Seton Hall University (2019). While these cases are not precedential, the NR agreements may provide context for the membership’s understanding of the tampering rule, and the panel explored their factual and substantive similarities and differences with the parties during the hearing."

https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/miCaseView/report?id=103124

First, the Committee on Infractions essentially admits there was no recruiting discussion. Instead of proving recruiting, inducement, or encouragement to transfer, they argue that merely maintaining a relationship created an advantage. That’s not what the bylaw actually prohibits. The rule bars recruiting contact with an enrolled athlete, not ordinary human relationships with parents you’ve known for years.
Second, the cases they cite don’t support their conclusion. The Appalachian State example involved 416 text messages during a period when electronic communication itself was prohibited. That violation had nothing to do with transfer tampering and everything to do with breaking a specific recruiting communication ban. Completely different fact pattern.
Third, the Ole Miss case they reference involved staff maintaining active contact with athletes they previously coached, which the COI believed strengthened recruiting relationships. Again, that involved direct relationships with the athletes themselves, not a conversation with a parent who initiated contact.
Fourth, the three other examples they cite Jacksonville State (2021), Charleston Southern (2020), and Seton Hall (2019) were negotiated resolutions, not contested decisions. Even the panel admits they are not precedential. In legal terms, that means they carry virtually no weight as authority. Schools often agree to negotiated resolutions simply to avoid the cost and time of litigation, not because the interpretation is correct.
Finally, the most revealing part is the NCAA’s theory itself: that simply maintaining a preexisting relationship is an unfair “advantage.” That logic would criminalize normal relationships across college athletics. Coaches frequently have long-standing relationships with families, club coaches, and former athletes. If those relationships alone are enough to constitute tampering, then the rule becomes vague, arbitrary, and impossible to enforce consistently.
In short, the COI couldn’t point to recruiting, inducement, or encouragement to transfer, so they expanded the rule to say that a relationship itself is the violation ( again this is against the law). That’s not enforcement of a bylaw. That’s rewriting it and breaking law!

It’s pretty alarming how careless the NCAA can be in cases like this. And UCLA clearly doesn’t prioritize track and cross country anymore. Maybe they did in the 80s, but that era is long gone

Every coach in this sport has long relationships with parents and families. A conversation with someone you’ve known for years isn’t tampering. If that’s the standard the NCAA wants to use, then half the country’s coaches would be violations waiting to happen.

Damn Sean you are easy to lure back in. I thought maybe you had enough. You already lost, you can't argue your case here and get anywhere.

Go ahead with your lawsuit or appeal or whatever. You can't win and will only cost yourself more money.

You are just making stuff up. The NCAA is enforcing their rules the same way they have been since before Brosnan was even born.

If you take a new coaching job, you can no longer text your former athletes until after the graduate. You cannot say congrats on a good race. You cannot text their parents to say congrats.

Nobody forced Brosnan to be a coach. He agreed to play by the rules, then he chose to ignore them. There are consequences for that.