This same group of critics keeps repeating the NCAA’s talking points because they still can’t accept the reality: Brosnan didn’t tamper, and the NCAA couldn’t prove that he did. That’s not an opinion, that’s exactly why the case rests on nothing but second-hand recollections instead of actual evidence. Let’s be clear about what the actual bylaw requires. NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.3 only prohibits recruiting related contact with a student-athlete before they are in the transfer portal. It does not ban all human interaction, lifelong friendships, or conversations between adults about life, health, or anything non-recruiting. And both fathers testified under oath that Brosnan’s exact response to any transfer-related topic was: “I can’t discuss that until she’s in the portal.” That is precisely what compliance officers across the country instruct coaches to say. That’s not evasion, that’s textbook compliance. What the NCAA relied on instead is double hearsay: The father never accused Brosnan of recruiting. The daughter merely repeated what she claims she hoped or thought her father told her. There is no recording, no text, no inducement, no scholarship discussion, no visit arranged, no NIL offer, no transfer request. Just the vague phrase “he would love to have her,” which is not a recruiting action as a matter of law or NCAA precedent, especially when both parties directly deny it occurred and no recruiting followed until after the portal entry. And here’s the part critics keep dodging: The NCAA spent massive time and resources on phone extractions, interviews, and document review and still found nothing else. No pattern. No inducement. No offer. No pressure. No “harassment.” Nothing. If this were tampering, the evidence would be overwhelming. Instead, the file is empty. Even worse for the NCAA, the infractions panel admitted in its own decision that: Brosnan had longstanding personal relationships with both families. Both fathers confirmed Brosnan refused recruiting talk pre-portal. UCLA compliance failed to provide clear education on how pre-existing relationships interact with portal rules. An NCAA working group had already flagged that strict application of the tampering rule to friendship-based conversations could be unjust yet no guidance was issued before hammering him. So no, this case does not prove strict enforcement “working as intended.” It proves the opposite: a rushed system that stretched a bylaw beyond its own purpose to create a violation where no recruiting actually occurred. Lastly, calling this “protection of athletes” rings hollow when: No athlete was harmed No athlete testified to being pressured No athlete received improper benefits or scholarship ( the reason tampering was a thing ) And both athletes transferred only after entering the portal, which is exactly how the system is supposed to work Bottom line: Brosnan followed the rule. He said “I can’t talk until you’re in the portal.” The NCAA couldn’t find real evidence to contradict that, so it substituted hearsay and optics. That’s not enforcement. That’s narrative control. And the fact that this case is still being debated at all already shows how weak the underlying proof actually is. This isn’t a loss for Brosnan. It exposed how broken the NCAA process is.
I have a feeling this isn’t the end of the story, it’s the beginning of public accountability for the NCAA. It won’t be the first time that’s for sure.
Whether it was COVID protocols, practice time rules, shady recruiting, handling of the wildfire guidelines or any of the other situations he was reported to CIF for, those of us who witnessed his behavior at NP saw this coming. He has blurred the lines of rules for a long time and now that someone is finally holding him accountable, it’s somehow the system that is the problem?
As a current NCAA coach: this isn’t some career ending violation and it’s definitely not a real 13.1.1.3 case. That bylaw requires recruiting intent + inducement + pre-portal transfer push, none of that was proven here. Calls with longtime family contacts and a vague, disputed “he’d love to have you” with no offer, no money, no scholarship, no transfer request isn’t inducement. Guys get hired every year with way worse histories than this. This won’t keep him out of college coaching, if he wants that.
As a current NCAA coach: this isn’t some career ending violation and it’s definitely not a real 13.1.1.3 case. That bylaw requires recruiting intent + inducement + pre-portal transfer push, none of that was proven here. Calls with longtime family contacts and a vague, disputed “he’d love to have you” with no offer, no money, no scholarship, no transfer request isn’t inducement. Guys get hired every year with way worse histories than this. This won’t keep him out of college coaching, if he wants that.
The NCAA coaching talk is moot, because any day now Sean will be announcing his pro group.
Big time programs wouldn't hire for him one major reason at this point. He's a troublemaker.
He's arrogant. And he will absolutely do something to get his program in trouble again.
I don't remember specifics from his LRC pod interview, but just got a dirty feeling from the way he explained so many things away. I think he actually went to the point where he was defending himself over things people weren't even talking about. Just sounding guilty as hell.
If he wasn't into running, he'd be something like the Sham-wow guy.
What Sean did is very popular among D1 football and basketball. Sean is better for the sport and should be coaching somewhere, not just hosting a weird camp for high schoolers.
I have a feeling this isn’t the end of the story, it’s the beginning of public accountability for the NCAA. It won’t be the first time that’s for sure.
Whether it was COVID protocols, practice time rules, shady recruiting, handling of the wildfire guidelines or any of the other situations he was reported to CIF for, those of us who witnessed his behavior at NP saw this coming. He has blurred the lines of rules for a long time and now that someone is finally holding him accountable, it’s somehow the system that is the problem?
Still worried about COVID restrictions? My guy, the only restriction left is that Starbucks closes at 9. We made it out.😂😂😂😂😂
As a current NCAA coach: this isn’t some career ending violation and it’s definitely not a real 13.1.1.3 case. That bylaw requires recruiting intent + inducement + pre-portal transfer push, none of that was proven here. Calls with longtime family contacts and a vague, disputed “he’d love to have you” with no offer, no money, no scholarship, no transfer request isn’t inducement. Guys get hired every year with way worse histories than this. This won’t keep him out of college coaching, if he wants that.
“Calls with longtime family friends right before and after that friend’s daughter enters the portal”
”he’d love to have you conversations admitted by athlete”
Whether it was COVID protocols, practice time rules, shady recruiting, handling of the wildfire guidelines or any of the other situations he was reported to CIF for, those of us who witnessed his behavior at NP saw this coming. He has blurred the lines of rules for a long time and now that someone is finally holding him accountable, it’s somehow the system that is the problem?
Still worried about COVID restrictions? My guy, the only restriction left is that Starbucks closes at 9. We made it out.😂😂😂😂😂
Here is a great example of how Sean approaches things.
You may not like the rules, you may disagree with the rules and the rules may be stupid, but they are the rules.
As a current NCAA coach: this isn’t some career ending violation and it’s definitely not a real 13.1.1.3 case. That bylaw requires recruiting intent + inducement + pre-portal transfer push, none of that was proven here. Calls with longtime family contacts and a vague, disputed “he’d love to have you” with no offer, no money, no scholarship, no transfer request isn’t inducement. Guys get hired every year with way worse histories than this. This won’t keep him out of college coaching, if he wants that.
Let's look at the actual NCAA Bylaw you are using in your defense:
"An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall not communicate or make contact with the student-athlete of another NCAA Division I institution, or any individual associated with the student-athlete (e.g., family member scholastic or nonscholastic coach, advisor), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process."
It couldn't be any clearer. All contact is prohibited. "recruiting intent" is an imaginary concept that you made up - there is no such thing. And there is certainly no requirement to prove "recruiting intent" for an NCAA violation.
As a current NCAA coach: this isn’t some career ending violation and it’s definitely not a real 13.1.1.3 case. That bylaw requires recruiting intent + inducement + pre-portal transfer push, none of that was proven here. Calls with longtime family contacts and a vague, disputed “he’d love to have you” with no offer, no money, no scholarship, no transfer request isn’t inducement. Guys get hired every year with way worse histories than this. This won’t keep him out of college coaching, if he wants that.
Let's look at the actual NCAA Bylaw you are using in your defense:
"An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall not communicate or make contact with the student-athlete of another NCAA Division I institution, or any individual associated with the student-athlete (e.g., family member scholastic or nonscholastic coach, advisor), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process."
It couldn't be any clearer. All contact is prohibited. "recruiting intent" is an imaginary concept that you made up - there is no such thing. And there is certainly no requirement to prove "recruiting intent" for an NCAA violation.
This “all contact = automatic violation” take is pure fantasy and not how the NCAA even enforces its own rules. If intent didn’t matter, every birthday text, funeral convo, or random hallway chat would be a Level II or worse. That’s obviously not real life. The bylaw lives in recruiting legislation, so they still have to prove the contact was recruiting-related and pre-portal. Here they’ve got zero proof, just double hearsay, no texts, no recording, no witness, and both adults deny it. And even better, the NCAA itself has admitted that pre-existing relationships can warrant exceptions, yet they ignored that here. Strict when it’s convenient, flexible when it protects the school. Careers shouldn’t be decided on vibes and selective enforcement.
Let's look at the actual NCAA Bylaw you are using in your defense:
"An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall not communicate or make contact with the student-athlete of another NCAA Division I institution, or any individual associated with the student-athlete (e.g., family member scholastic or nonscholastic coach, advisor), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process."
It couldn't be any clearer. All contact is prohibited. "recruiting intent" is an imaginary concept that you made up - there is no such thing. And there is certainly no requirement to prove "recruiting intent" for an NCAA violation.
This “all contact = automatic violation” take is pure fantasy and not how the NCAA even enforces its own rules. If intent didn’t matter, every birthday text, funeral convo, or random hallway chat would be a Level II or worse. That’s obviously not real life. The bylaw lives in recruiting legislation, so they still have to prove the contact was recruiting-related and pre-portal. Here they’ve got zero proof, just double hearsay, no texts, no recording, no witness, and both adults deny it. And even better, the NCAA itself has admitted that pre-existing relationships can warrant exceptions, yet they ignored that here. Strict when it’s convenient, flexible when it protects the school. Careers shouldn’t be decided on vibes and selective enforcement.
What makes it even dumber is they didn’t just “bend” the rule, they kind of just tossed their own standards out the window. The bylaws are supposed to be about real proof, not rumors. About what actually happened, not some BS based guess. But instead they treated this like strict liability criminal law, which it’s never been. They ignored their own guidance on pre-existing relationships and shrugged off the fact that both people said no recruiting ever happened. I can’t wait for Brosnan to make the NCAA crumble on this
After reading his book my conclusion is that Sean has a real problem with authority, especially when he thinks someone is standing in his way. That can be a positive attribute, of course, but I don't think it sets him up well to be an NCAA coach, especially an assistant coach. I can understand why a program might be hesitant to bring someone on who's bound to clash with the head coach(es). At this point he has no track record with professional athletes, either, so he's kind of caught in no-man's land. If he can't convince a couple of pro athletes to take him on, his best option might be be to try to re-create his Newberry Park success at a different high school.
I came away for his book thinking that a lot of what made him successful on the high school level was getting the kids to buy into the program and then getting them to believe they were capable of running much faster than they ever thought possible at that age. I'm not sure those skills are as relevant with an athlete who's much closer to maxing out their potential, and who already has years of world-class training behind them. I'd love to be proven wrong, but there's no shame in elevating another high school program and having an impact on the lives of a new set of teenagers. But I suspect that might require swallowing a bit of the ego and that seems unlikely.