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 Even the panel admits they are not precedential.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!
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.
The portal/tampering framework hasn’t been enforced ‘the same way since before he was born’, the NCAA is literally sending new memos because the landscape keeps changing. And no, the rule isn’t ‘you can’t text or call a former athlete’s parent.’ It’s about impermissible pre-portal recruiting/transfer contact with enrolled athletes (or their reps). Saying ‘he chose to coach so shut up’ isn’t evidence. It’s just obedience cosplay.
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!
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.
1) “Same way since before Brosnan was born.”
That’s simply not true. The modern transfer-portal system which is the entire framework these tampering cases revolve around, is relatively recent. The NCAA has been issuing constant guidance and enforcement memos because the landscape is evolving. So claiming this has been enforced the same way for decades just isn’t accurate.
2) “You can’t even text a former athlete or parent congrats.” That’s an exaggerated
internet version of the rule. The tampering rule is about impermissible recruiting contact tied to a transfer, particularly pre-portal communication encouraging an athlete to leave another school. Compliance offices routinely tell coaches the proper response when the topic comes up: “I can’t discuss that until the athlete enters the portal.” That’s very different from a blanket rule saying coaches can never communicate with people they already know.
3) “He agreed to play by the rules, end of story.”
That’s not how enforcement works anywhere. Even when someone is subject to rules, the governing body still has to prove the violation under its own standards. The criticism here is that the NCAA effectively expanded the rule to say that simply maintaining a long-standing relationship is itself an “advantage,” which raises obvious questions about how consistently that can be applied across the sport.
In other words, the debate isn’t whether rules exist, it’s whether the NCAA actually proved a recruiting violation, or just stretched the rule to fit the outcome. The NCAA found no recruiting violations and changed the narrative and said no coaches are allowed to have friends with kids are other NCAA schools participating in sports. Again this is against the lax.
One thing I've never understood -- whether it's Shelby or this guy or the D3 kid -- at what point do you actually start to believe that you didn't do anything wrong?
I just can't really wrap my head about the sociopathy. Not saying anything, that's one thing. But to fight it, for years, when you're so obviously guilty -- why?
good question
not to defend Brosnan but after spending years learning coaching then taking a high school to the panicle of athletics, he was subjected to an onslaught of trolls each wanting to take a public bite out of him ( yes there were some legitimate criticisms). This was more than enough to make any sane person lose their bearings.
I wish he was more about coaching than self advancement.
One thing I've never understood -- whether it's Shelby or this guy or the D3 kid -- at what point do you actually start to believe that you didn't do anything wrong?
I just can't really wrap my head about the sociopathy. Not saying anything, that's one thing. But to fight it, for years, when you're so obviously guilty -- why?
good question
not to defend Brosnan but after spending years learning coaching then taking a high school to the panicle of athletics, he was subjected to an onslaught of trolls each wanting to take a public bite out of him ( yes there were some legitimate criticisms). This was more than enough to make any sane person lose their bearings.
I wish he was more about coaching than self advancement.
When someone has real success in this sport, the criticism always gets louder. That’s just the reality of being visible. But the important thing to remember is that most of the ‘hate’ you see online isn’t real world opinion, it’s anonymous message board noise. A handful of posters can make something look bigger than it actually is. In the real coaching world, people judge results, and taking a high school program to the top of the sport speaks for itself. Brosnan is clearly one of the better coaches in the country. What gets posted anonymously on here doesn’t change that
not to defend Brosnan but after spending years learning coaching then taking a high school to the panicle of athletics, he was subjected to an onslaught of trolls each wanting to take a public bite out of him ( yes there were some legitimate criticisms). This was more than enough to make any sane person lose their bearings.
I wish he was more about coaching than self advancement.
When someone has real success in this sport, the criticism always gets louder. That’s just the reality of being visible. But the important thing to remember is that most of the ‘hate’ you see online isn’t real world opinion, it’s anonymous message board noise. A handful of posters can make something look bigger than it actually is. In the real coaching world, people judge results, and taking a high school program to the top of the sport speaks for itself. Brosnan is clearly one of the better coaches in the country. What gets posted anonymously on here doesn’t change that
In the real world, Brosnan lost his job and hasn't worked as a coach in years (super-secret pro team aside). I agree that message board chatter might not matter, but the depth of his real world coaching resume, or lack thereof, speaks for itself. So maybe pure results aren't the only thing that influences a coach's career trajectory.
When someone has real success in this sport, the criticism always gets louder. That’s just the reality of being visible. But the important thing to remember is that most of the ‘hate’ you see online isn’t real world opinion, it’s anonymous message board noise. A handful of posters can make something look bigger than it actually is. In the real coaching world, people judge results, and taking a high school program to the top of the sport speaks for itself. Brosnan is clearly one of the better coaches in the country. What gets posted anonymously on here doesn’t change that
In the real world, Brosnan lost his job and hasn't worked as a coach in years (super-secret pro team aside). I agree that message board chatter might not matter, but the depth of his real world coaching resume, or lack thereof, speaks for itself. So maybe pure results aren't the only thing that influences a coach's career trajectory.
You have to follow the rules and you have to play nice with others or you don't get to do it anymore.
Somehow Brosnan thinks the NCAA is dictating who he can and can’t be friends with.
He can be friends with anyone he wants. He just can’t recruit anyone he wants (kids of those he wants to communicate with while they are on other teams).
In the real world, Brosnan lost his job and hasn't worked as a coach in years (super-secret pro team aside). I agree that message board chatter might not matter, but the depth of his real world coaching resume, or lack thereof, speaks for itself. So maybe pure results aren't the only thing that influences a coach's career trajectory.
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.
1) “Same way since before Brosnan was born.”
That’s simply not true. The modern transfer-portal system which is the entire framework these tampering cases revolve around, is relatively recent. The NCAA has been issuing constant guidance and enforcement memos because the landscape is evolving. So claiming this has been enforced the same way for decades just isn’t accurate.
This just shows how little you know. The modern transfer-portal system is NOT the "entire framework these tampering cases revolve around"
Before the transfer portal, athletes had to request permission to contact other schools or a request a transfer release. This was more restrictive than the transfer portal, and thus tampering was an even bigger problem.
Talking to athletes (or their parents) before they had received a release or permission to contact was tampering in the same way that talking to them before they enter the portal is tampering. The tampering rule did not change at all.
That’s the problem. The NCAA never showed evidence Brosnan recruited the athletes. They pointed to conversations with parents he’d known for years and turned ‘relationship = advantage’ into a violation. That’s why people think the rule was stretched and illegal
The NCAA did not get full access to his phone records but still showed evidence that Brosnan recruited them. But just the existence of the phone calls is a violation and has been a violation for forever.
The NCAA did produce video evidence of Brosnan committing a separate violation talking to a high school recruit at a meet before the permissible day.
That’s the problem. The NCAA never showed evidence Brosnan recruited the athletes. They pointed to conversations with parents he’d known for years and turned ‘relationship = advantage’ into a violation. That’s why people think the rule was stretched and illegal
Stop pretending that Brosnan calling the parents right before and after the daughter entered the portal is not damning. Use your brain.
That’s the problem. The NCAA never showed evidence Brosnan recruited the athletes. They pointed to conversations with parents he’d known for years and turned ‘relationship = advantage’ into a violation. That’s why people think the rule was stretched and illegal
Stop pretending that Brosnan calling the parents right before and after the daughter entered the portal is not damning. Use your brain.
The NCAA didn’t find evidence Brosnan recruited anyone before the portal. They essentially admitted that. The violation became ‘relationship advantage.’ If that’s the rule, then coaches can’t talk to anyone who has a kid at another NCAA school, which is obviously ridiculous, but the NCAA was forced embellish a rule in order to fin a violation.
Stop pretending that Brosnan calling the parents right before and after the daughter entered the portal is not damning. Use your brain.
The NCAA didn’t find evidence Brosnan recruited anyone before the portal. They essentially admitted that. The violation became ‘relationship advantage.’ If that’s the rule, then coaches can’t talk to anyone who has a kid at another NCAA school, which is obviously ridiculous, but the NCAA was forced embellish a rule in order to fin a violation.
You’re correct. The NCAA’s statement:
“simply maintaining those relationships provided an advantage that other compliant coaches did not possess”
Stop pretending that Brosnan calling the parents right before and after the daughter entered the portal is not damning. Use your brain.
The NCAA didn’t find evidence Brosnan recruited anyone before the portal. They essentially admitted that. The violation became ‘relationship advantage.’ If that’s the rule, then coaches can’t talk to anyone who has a kid at another NCAA school, which is obviously ridiculous, but the NCAA was forced embellish a rule in order to fin a violation.
No, that is not what the NCAA said. Stop pretending that Brosnan calling the parents right before and after the daughter entered the portal is not damning. Use your brain.
Yeah, but JPMC isn’t part of a unified organization that depends on fair play. Your example isn’t even close to relevant.
Well, the reason the NCAA keeps losing case after case is that your 'unified organization that depends on fair play' has no legal status and consistently violates the employment rights of athletes.
the rule is for the coach... not the athlete... the limit on time to enter the portal may be changed since it limits the athlete BUT the coach works for an instituion which belongs to an organization that agreed to follow the rules of the organization that the institution belongs to.. the coach is then required to follow the rules...
it's so simple and obvious. it is the coach's fault for not knowing and following the rules the institution the coach worked for agreed to.