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.
That is factually not true. As stated in the report:
"Although the plain language of the legislation establishes that a violation occurred, Brosnan argued that Bylaw 13.1.1.3 is not intended to apply in this way, i.e., to non-recruiting social conversations with longstanding friends. But the bylaw does not make a distinction between recruiting contact and non-recruiting contact. Nor does it create any exceptions for preexisting relationships. Additionally, there is no interpretive guidance or past infractions cases that acknowledge any such distinctions or exceptions."
They even listed several similar cases that they also gave violations for. Proving they have been applying this rule consistently for decades and Brosnan was treated fairly in receiving a warranted violation.
Here are the examples they listed: "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”)."
And they listed 3 more in a footnote - See Jacksonville State University (2021); Charleston Southern University (2020); and Seton Hall University (2019)
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.
That is factually not true. As stated in the report:
"Although the plain language of the legislation establishes that a violation occurred, Brosnan argued that Bylaw 13.1.1.3 is not intended to apply in this way, i.e., to non-recruiting social conversations with longstanding friends. But the bylaw does not make a distinction between recruiting contact and non-recruiting contact. Nor does it create any exceptions for preexisting relationships. Additionally, there is no interpretive guidance or past infractions cases that acknowledge any such distinctions or exceptions."
They even listed several similar cases that they also gave violations for. Proving they have been applying this rule consistently for decades and Brosnan was treated fairly in receiving a warranted violation.
Here are the examples they listed: "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”)."
And they listed 3 more in a footnote - See Jacksonville State University (2021); Charleston Southern University (2020); and Seton Hall University (2019)
1. The bylaws themselves bake in recruiting intent Article 13 is literally titled “Recruiting.” Inside it, the NCAA defines: “Recruiting” (Bylaw 13.02.13) = any solicitation of a prospect or a member of their family for the purpose of securing the prospect’s enrollment and participation in the athletic program. So when they say “there is no such thing as recruiting intent,” that’s just wrong. The definition of recruiting is a purpose/intent test – “for the purpose of securing enrollment.” Bylaw 13.1.1.3 lives inside that article and uses those definitions. On top of that, in public education pieces about tampering, the NCAA itself describes tampering as impermissible contact “particularly to encourage a transfer,” i.e., contact with the purpose of influencing movement between schools. That’s intent language again. You can’t pretend intent is “imaginary” when the rulebook literally defines recruiting around purpose and the NCAA’s own tampering explanations hinge on encouraging a transfer.
2. Their “no exceptions / no guidance” claim is undercut by their own Seton Hall case In the Seton Hall case they’re citing, the associate head coach had about 243 phone calls with a prospect’s mother while the kid was enrolled at another school, including 87 calls after the initial school explicitly denied permission to contact Seton Hall. Crucially, that case proves the opposite of what your critic is claiming: The coach and school argued that the calls were part of a strong personal relationship that started in high school and covered things like the mother’s health, daily prayer, and general life topics. The coach believed the calls were permissible because they did not include active recruitment of the prospect. That exact “is there an exception for pre-existing personal relationships / non-recruiting conversations?” question had to be sent up to AMA, the Interpretations Committee, and then the Legislative Committee for a formal interpretation, which finally said: yes, it’s still a violation “regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the personal relationship.” If the rule had always been “all contact is banned, no distinction, no debate, no exceptions,” you don’t need three NCAA bodies and a formal interpretation in 2019 to answer the question. The very fact that this interpretive chain was needed shows: There was ambiguity and disagreement in the membership. Coaches and compliance people reasonably believed that non-recruiting contact within a long-standing personal relationship could be okay. The “all contact, no exceptions” view is recent, contested, and not some decades-long settled truth. So when the panel in your case says “there is no interpretive guidance or past cases that recognize any distinction or exceptions,” that’s just not accurate. The Seton Hall process itself is interpretive guidance – it’s exactly the NCAA deciding, after debate, to go with a hyper-literal reading.
3. The “decades of consistent application” line falls apart when you actually read the comparators Look at the actual fact patterns they’re waving around: Appalachian State (2016): Assistant football coach sent 416 text messages to a prospect’s mother, knew it was illegal, told her they weren’t supposed to be texting but said it was fine if nobody knew, and kept it up for four months. That is sustained recruiting conduct, not a handful of neutral conversations with an old family friend. Charleston Southern (2020): Volleyball head coach had 79 contacts with at least eight student-athletes and two parents he’d previously coached or recruited at another school. Some conversations were purely casual, but the NCAA itself admits there were examples where he wanted those former players to join his new team. That’s classic “I want you to come play for me here” transfer recruiting. Jacksonville State (2021): NCAA decision notes that Jacksonville State recruited a current student-athlete at another school via his high school friend. The case is explicitly about recruiting between four-year institutions. Seton Hall (2019): 243 calls, including 87 calls after the initial school denied permission to contact. The whole point was a prospect who ended up at Seton Hall. Those cases all share key features your situation doesn’t: Massive volume of contact Clear link to an eventual transfer/enrollment decision Or explicit acknowledgment of wanting the athlete on the new team What you don’t see in those cases is: “We found a violation based purely on a small number of social calls with lifelong friends, with no texts, no recording, no witnesses, no recruiting language, and both adults denying any recruiting took place.” Also important: in Charleston Southern, the NCAA itself says “negotiated resolutions may not be appealed and do not set case precedent for other infractions cases.” So citing those as ironclad “precedent” that proves anything about your situation is misleading on its face.
4. Where actual law comes in: due process + antitrust. Even though the NCAA is a private association, courts have repeatedly hammered them over: Vagueness / fair notice – people must have a reasonable chance to know what conduct is prohibited. Arbitrary and selective enforcement – you can’t announce one standard and apply another. Restraint of trade / antitrust – you can’t restrict movement and earning power with no legitimate competitive justification. Here, they: Took a recruiting bylaw defined around “solicitation for the purpose of securing enrollment” and rewrote it into “any contact of any kind, about anything, is a violation.” Relied on double hearsay instead of credible, persuasive evidence – even though their own infractions rules say a hearing panel must be persuaded by credible evidence and, in NIL/tampering contexts, they now play with presumptions that still require “credible and sufficient” rebuttal. Used that overbroad reading to brand a coach as a tamperer, damage his employability, and chill basic human relationships. That’s exactly the kind of thing that draws due process and antitrust scrutiny in federal court: vague rule, stretched interpretation, weak evidence, big economic consequences. How to boil it down in a reply You can basically say: The rulebook itself defines recruiting around purpose/intent. That makes “recruiting intent” very real, not imaginary. The Seton Hall saga proves there was confusion and that the “no exceptions, all contact is banned” view is a relatively recent, contested interpretation, not a settled decades-long standard. The “comparable” cases they cite all involve heavy contact plus clear recruiting or transfer aims, not a few social calls with lifelong friends and no recruiting language. Their strict-liability, “any contact is tampering” reading clashes with their own definitions, their own case summaries, and basic legal principles about fair notice and non-arbitrary enforcement.
That exact “is there an exception for pre-existing personal relationships / non-recruiting conversations?” question had to be sent up to AMA, the Interpretations Committee, and then the Legislative Committee for a formal interpretation, which finally said: yes, it’s still a violation “regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the personal relationship.”
That is factually not true. As stated in the report:
"Although the plain language of the legislation establishes that a violation occurred, Brosnan argued that Bylaw 13.1.1.3 is not intended to apply in this way, i.e., to non-recruiting social conversations with longstanding friends. But the bylaw does not make a distinction between recruiting contact and non-recruiting contact. Nor does it create any exceptions for preexisting relationships. Additionally, there is no interpretive guidance or past infractions cases that acknowledge any such distinctions or exceptions."
They even listed several similar cases that they also gave violations for. Proving they have been applying this rule consistently for decades and Brosnan was treated fairly in receiving a warranted violation.
Here are the examples they listed: "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”)."
And they listed 3 more in a footnote - See Jacksonville State University (2021); Charleston Southern University (2020); and Seton Hall University (2019)
1. The bylaws themselves bake in recruiting intent Article 13 is literally titled “Recruiting.” Inside it, the NCAA defines: “Recruiting” (Bylaw 13.02.13) = any solicitation of a prospect or a member of their family for the purpose of securing the prospect’s enrollment and participation in the athletic program. So when they say “there is no such thing as recruiting intent,” that’s just wrong. The definition of recruiting is a purpose/intent test – “for the purpose of securing enrollment.” Bylaw 13.1.1.3 lives inside that article and uses those definitions. On top of that, in public education pieces about tampering, the NCAA itself describes tampering as impermissible contact “particularly to encourage a transfer,” i.e., contact with the purpose of influencing movement between schools. That’s intent language again. You can’t pretend intent is “imaginary” when the rulebook literally defines recruiting around purpose and the NCAA’s own tampering explanations hinge on encouraging a transfer.
2. Their “no exceptions / no guidance” claim is undercut by their own Seton Hall case In the Seton Hall case they’re citing, the associate head coach had about 243 phone calls with a prospect’s mother while the kid was enrolled at another school, including 87 calls after the initial school explicitly denied permission to contact Seton Hall. Crucially, that case proves the opposite of what your critic is claiming: The coach and school argued that the calls were part of a strong personal relationship that started in high school and covered things like the mother’s health, daily prayer, and general life topics. The coach believed the calls were permissible because they did not include active recruitment of the prospect. That exact “is there an exception for pre-existing personal relationships / non-recruiting conversations?” question had to be sent up to AMA, the Interpretations Committee, and then the Legislative Committee for a formal interpretation, which finally said: yes, it’s still a violation “regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the personal relationship.” If the rule had always been “all contact is banned, no distinction, no debate, no exceptions,” you don’t need three NCAA bodies and a formal interpretation in 2019 to answer the question. The very fact that this interpretive chain was needed shows: There was ambiguity and disagreement in the membership. Coaches and compliance people reasonably believed that non-recruiting contact within a long-standing personal relationship could be okay. The “all contact, no exceptions” view is recent, contested, and not some decades-long settled truth. So when the panel in your case says “there is no interpretive guidance or past cases that recognize any distinction or exceptions,” that’s just not accurate. The Seton Hall process itself is interpretive guidance – it’s exactly the NCAA deciding, after debate, to go with a hyper-literal reading.
3. The “decades of consistent application” line falls apart when you actually read the comparators Look at the actual fact patterns they’re waving around: Appalachian State (2016): Assistant football coach sent 416 text messages to a prospect’s mother, knew it was illegal, told her they weren’t supposed to be texting but said it was fine if nobody knew, and kept it up for four months. That is sustained recruiting conduct, not a handful of neutral conversations with an old family friend. Charleston Southern (2020): Volleyball head coach had 79 contacts with at least eight student-athletes and two parents he’d previously coached or recruited at another school. Some conversations were purely casual, but the NCAA itself admits there were examples where he wanted those former players to join his new team. That’s classic “I want you to come play for me here” transfer recruiting. Jacksonville State (2021): NCAA decision notes that Jacksonville State recruited a current student-athlete at another school via his high school friend. The case is explicitly about recruiting between four-year institutions. Seton Hall (2019): 243 calls, including 87 calls after the initial school denied permission to contact. The whole point was a prospect who ended up at Seton Hall. Those cases all share key features your situation doesn’t: Massive volume of contact Clear link to an eventual transfer/enrollment decision Or explicit acknowledgment of wanting the athlete on the new team What you don’t see in those cases is: “We found a violation based purely on a small number of social calls with lifelong friends, with no texts, no recording, no witnesses, no recruiting language, and both adults denying any recruiting took place.” Also important: in Charleston Southern, the NCAA itself says “negotiated resolutions may not be appealed and do not set case precedent for other infractions cases.” So citing those as ironclad “precedent” that proves anything about your situation is misleading on its face.
4. Where actual law comes in: due process + antitrust. Even though the NCAA is a private association, courts have repeatedly hammered them over: Vagueness / fair notice – people must have a reasonable chance to know what conduct is prohibited. Arbitrary and selective enforcement – you can’t announce one standard and apply another. Restraint of trade / antitrust – you can’t restrict movement and earning power with no legitimate competitive justification. Here, they: Took a recruiting bylaw defined around “solicitation for the purpose of securing enrollment” and rewrote it into “any contact of any kind, about anything, is a violation.” Relied on double hearsay instead of credible, persuasive evidence – even though their own infractions rules say a hearing panel must be persuaded by credible evidence and, in NIL/tampering contexts, they now play with presumptions that still require “credible and sufficient” rebuttal. Used that overbroad reading to brand a coach as a tamperer, damage his employability, and chill basic human relationships. That’s exactly the kind of thing that draws due process and antitrust scrutiny in federal court: vague rule, stretched interpretation, weak evidence, big economic consequences. How to boil it down in a reply You can basically say: The rulebook itself defines recruiting around purpose/intent. That makes “recruiting intent” very real, not imaginary. The Seton Hall saga proves there was confusion and that the “no exceptions, all contact is banned” view is a relatively recent, contested interpretation, not a settled decades-long standard. The “comparable” cases they cite all involve heavy contact plus clear recruiting or transfer aims, not a few social calls with lifelong friends and no recruiting language. Their strict-liability, “any contact is tampering” reading clashes with their own definitions, their own case summaries, and basic legal principles about fair notice and non-arbitrary enforcement.
Your entire argument is that the NCAA made their own rules incorrectly therefore Brosnan can do whatever the hell he wants. "baked in" intent is the most pathetic, BS excuse I've ever heard.
Your Seton Hall summary proves your whole argument is garbage. You are 100% wrong in implying the Seton Hall asking for an interpretation by the NCAA means the rule has always been uncertain. The NCAA confirmed the rule application was correct, Seton Hall appealed 3 times and lost every time. Any school can submit a request for an interpretation at any time. The Brosnan investigators actually mention that Brosnan could have asked for an interpretation but he didn't: "Brosnan could have sought an interpretation based on the specific facts of this case. He did not. Bylaw 19.4.6-(a) and (b) authorizes the COI to find facts and conclude whether violations occurred. Thus, the decision of whether Brosnan’s conduct violated tampering legislation rests with the panel. Given the straightforward nature of the bylaw and its historical application in past cases, the COI does not require an interpretation to conclude that a Bylaw 13.1.1.3 violation occurred."
The NCAA reaffirms in this case the EXACT thing it hits Brosnan with: "AMA determined that the phone calls, regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the associate head coach's personal relationship with the prospect's mother, were a violation of Bylaw 13.1.1.3. The institution appealed the decision to the NCAA Division I Interpretations Committee where AMA's decision was upheld. Seton Hall then appealed that decision to the NCAA Division Legislative Committee, which affirmed the decision."
Brosnan has ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS to escape this violation because all 3 different of the NCAA confirmed this is the rule and it is correctly applied. 1. The NCAA AMA, 2. The NCAA Division I Interpretations Committee, and 3. NCAA Division Legislative Committee. All 3 agree with the application of this rule used against Brosnan.
That is factually not true. As stated in the report:
"Although the plain language of the legislation establishes that a violation occurred, Brosnan argued that Bylaw 13.1.1.3 is not intended to apply in this way, i.e., to non-recruiting social conversations with longstanding friends. But the bylaw does not make a distinction between recruiting contact and non-recruiting contact. Nor does it create any exceptions for preexisting relationships. Additionally, there is no interpretive guidance or past infractions cases that acknowledge any such distinctions or exceptions."
They even listed several similar cases that they also gave violations for. Proving they have been applying this rule consistently for decades and Brosnan was treated fairly in receiving a warranted violation.
Here are the examples they listed: "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”)."
And they listed 3 more in a footnote - See Jacksonville State University (2021); Charleston Southern University (2020); and Seton Hall University (2019)
That exact “is there an exception for pre-existing personal relationships / non-recruiting conversations?” question had to be sent up to AMA, the Interpretations Committee, and then the Legislative Committee for a formal interpretation, which finally said: yes, it’s still a violation “regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the personal relationship.” If the rule had always been “all contact is banned, no distinction, no debate, no exceptions,” you don’t need three NCAA bodies and a formal interpretation in 2019 to answer the question. The very fact that this interpretive chain was needed shows: There was ambiguity and disagreement in the membership. Coaches and compliance people reasonably believed that non-recruiting contact within a long-standing personal relationship could be okay. The “all contact, no exceptions” view is recent, contested, and not some decades-long settled truth. So when the panel in your case says “there is no interpretive guidance or past cases that recognize any distinction or exceptions,” that’s just not accurate. The Seton Hall process itself is interpretive guidance – it’s exactly the NCAA deciding, after debate, to go with a hyper-literal reading.
You are deliberately misinterpreting what happened. There was no "ambiguity and disagreement in the membership".
Seton Hall asked for an interpretation.
The NCAA academic and membership affairs (AMA) said: VIOLATION
Seton Hall appealed.
NCAA Division I Interpretations Committee said: VIOLATION
The actual facts of the case are the exact opposite of what you claim. The NCAA was STANDING ON BUSINESS and every single level of the NCAA agreed. No ambiguity, only CERTAINTY.
That exact “is there an exception for pre-existing personal relationships / non-recruiting conversations?” question had to be sent up to AMA, the Interpretations Committee, and then the Legislative Committee for a formal interpretation, which finally said: yes, it’s still a violation “regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the personal relationship.” If the rule had always been “all contact is banned, no distinction, no debate, no exceptions,” you don’t need three NCAA bodies and a formal interpretation in 2019 to answer the question. The very fact that this interpretive chain was needed shows: There was ambiguity and disagreement in the membership. Coaches and compliance people reasonably believed that non-recruiting contact within a long-standing personal relationship could be okay. The “all contact, no exceptions” view is recent, contested, and not some decades-long settled truth. So when the panel in your case says “there is no interpretive guidance or past cases that recognize any distinction or exceptions,” that’s just not accurate. The Seton Hall process itself is interpretive guidance – it’s exactly the NCAA deciding, after debate, to go with a hyper-literal reading.
You are deliberately misinterpreting what happened. There was no "ambiguity and disagreement in the membership".
Seton Hall asked for an interpretation.
The NCAA academic and membership affairs (AMA) said: VIOLATION
Seton Hall appealed.
NCAA Division I Interpretations Committee said: VIOLATION
The actual facts of the case are the exact opposite of what you claim. The NCAA was STANDING ON BUSINESS and every single level of the NCAA agreed. No ambiguity, only CERTAINTY.
That exact “is there an exception for pre-existing personal relationships / non-recruiting conversations?” question had to be sent up to AMA, the Interpretations Committee, and then the Legislative Committee for a formal interpretation, which finally said: yes, it’s still a violation “regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the personal relationship.” If the rule had always been “all contact is banned, no distinction, no debate, no exceptions,” you don’t need three NCAA bodies and a formal interpretation in 2019 to answer the question. The very fact that this interpretive chain was needed shows: There was ambiguity and disagreement in the membership. Coaches and compliance people reasonably believed that non-recruiting contact within a long-standing personal relationship could be okay. The “all contact, no exceptions” view is recent, contested, and not some decades-long settled truth. So when the panel in your case says “there is no interpretive guidance or past cases that recognize any distinction or exceptions,” that’s just not accurate. The Seton Hall process itself is interpretive guidance – it’s exactly the NCAA deciding, after debate, to go with a hyper-literal reading.
You are deliberately misinterpreting what happened. There was no "ambiguity and disagreement in the membership".
Seton Hall asked for an interpretation.
The NCAA academic and membership affairs (AMA) said: VIOLATION
Seton Hall appealed.
NCAA Division I Interpretations Committee said: VIOLATION
The actual facts of the case are the exact opposite of what you claim. The NCAA was STANDING ON BUSINESS and every single level of the NCAA agreed. No ambiguity, only CERTAINTY.
The NCAA’s argument reduces to “we said violation three times, therefore there was no ambiguity.” That is not how law works. Repeating the same rigid interpretation through internal advisory bodies does not transform that interpretation into settled legal meaning, especially where none of those bodies has authority to decide fairness, due process, or whether non-recruiting speech between long-standing personal acquaintances constitutes tampering. Even more telling, the NCAA was simultaneously studying through its own working group, whether strict application of this rule to pre-existing relationships was appropriate at all. An organization cannot credibly claim absolute certainty about a rule’s reach while actively questioning that very reach. That contradiction alone defeats the NCAA’s “no ambiguity” narrative
The actual facts of the case are the exact opposite of what you claim. The NCAA was STANDING ON BUSINESS and every single level of the NCAA agreed. No ambiguity, only CERTAINTY.
The NCAA’s argument reduces to “we said violation three times, therefore there was no ambiguity.” That is not how law works. Repeating the same rigid interpretation through internal advisory bodies does not transform that interpretation into settled legal meaning, especially where none of those bodies has authority to decide fairness, due process, or whether non-recruiting speech between long-standing personal acquaintances constitutes tampering. Even more telling, the NCAA was simultaneously studying through its own working group, whether strict application of this rule to pre-existing relationships was appropriate at all. An organization cannot credibly claim absolute certainty about a rule’s reach while actively questioning that very reach. That contradiction alone defeats the NCAA’s “no ambiguity” narrative
No. The NCAA's argument is we are enforcing the rule as it is written, the same way we've enforced it thousands of times over the past years.
Those committees EXIST for that exist purpose. The interpretations committee is there to INTERPRET rules and the Legislative Committee is there the LEGISLATE (make laws).
The working group you mention decided to keep the rule exactly the same. This hurts your case because it shows the NCAA recently decided to continue enforcing the rule the same way. They acknowledged how important it is and stood their ground just 2 years prior to Brosnan's violations.
The NCAA’s argument reduces to “we said violation three times, therefore there was no ambiguity.” That is not how law works. Repeating the same rigid interpretation through internal advisory bodies does not transform that interpretation into settled legal meaning, especially where none of those bodies has authority to decide fairness, due process, or whether non-recruiting speech between long-standing personal acquaintances constitutes tampering. Even more telling, the NCAA was simultaneously studying through its own working group, whether strict application of this rule to pre-existing relationships was appropriate at all. An organization cannot credibly claim absolute certainty about a rule’s reach while actively questioning that very reach. That contradiction alone defeats the NCAA’s “no ambiguity” narrative
This ESPN article got me really interested in this case because I am a big fan of NP during the Brosnan era.
But after looking at the NCAA report and reading through this thread, it is quite obvious that the NCAA rules are really straightforward and that Brosnan violated them.
There are only 2 options that describe what happened.
1. Brosnan didn't know the rules and innocently broke them.
or
2. Brosnan knew the rules and was aware he was breaking them.
Brosnan is a really smart guy so I don't believe he wasn't aware of the rules. Especially with how big the transfer portal news story was a few years ago as some mysterious new thing, everyone in the world knows you can't talk to recruits (or their parents) until they go in the portal. This is probably the most important rule in the NCAA, without it we would have absolutely chaos.
The only logical conclusion here is that Brosnan knew he was violating the rules but thought he could do it in a way where he wouldn't get caught.
I have to admit I just lost a lot of respect for Brosnan here as a (former) fan. I think this is going to tarnish his legacy, including his time at NP. His greedy actions really screwed over the daughters of people he claims to be friends with, too. Just wait a few weeks dude.
That is factually not true. As stated in the report:
"Although the plain language of the legislation establishes that a violation occurred, Brosnan argued that Bylaw 13.1.1.3 is not intended to apply in this way, i.e., to non-recruiting social conversations with longstanding friends. But the bylaw does not make a distinction between recruiting contact and non-recruiting contact. Nor does it create any exceptions for preexisting relationships. Additionally, there is no interpretive guidance or past infractions cases that acknowledge any such distinctions or exceptions."
They even listed several similar cases that they also gave violations for. Proving they have been applying this rule consistently for decades and Brosnan was treated fairly in receiving a warranted violation.
Here are the examples they listed: "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”)."
And they listed 3 more in a footnote - See Jacksonville State University (2021); Charleston Southern University (2020); and Seton Hall University (2019)
That exact “is there an exception for pre-existing personal relationships / non-recruiting conversations?” question had to be sent up to AMA, the Interpretations Committee, and then the Legislative Committee for a formal interpretation, which finally said: yes, it’s still a violation “regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the personal relationship.”
Wow, the pro-Brosnan posters got DESTROYED by facts in this thread. I've never seen people try so hard to prove a point and get so HUMILIATED.
BurdenOfProof literally just posted that the NCAA said: yes, it’s still a violation “regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the personal relationship.”
That exact “is there an exception for pre-existing personal relationships / non-recruiting conversations?” question had to be sent up to AMA, the Interpretations Committee, and then the Legislative Committee for a formal interpretation, which finally said: yes, it’s still a violation “regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the personal relationship.”
Wow, the pro-Brosnan posters got DESTROYED by facts in this thread. I've never seen people try so hard to prove a point and get so HUMILIATED.
BurdenOfProof literally just posted that the NCAA said: yes, it’s still a violation “regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the personal relationship.”
The NCAA’s argument reduces to “we said violation three times, therefore there was no ambiguity.” That is not how law works. Repeating the same rigid interpretation through internal advisory bodies does not transform that interpretation into settled legal meaning, especially where none of those bodies has authority to decide fairness, due process, or whether non-recruiting speech between long-standing personal acquaintances constitutes tampering. Even more telling, the NCAA was simultaneously studying through its own working group, whether strict application of this rule to pre-existing relationships was appropriate at all. An organization cannot credibly claim absolute certainty about a rule’s reach while actively questioning that very reach. That contradiction alone defeats the NCAA’s “no ambiguity” narrative
This ESPN article got me really interested in this case because I am a big fan of NP during the Brosnan era.
But after looking at the NCAA report and reading through this thread, it is quite obvious that the NCAA rules are really straightforward and that Brosnan violated them.
There are only 2 options that describe what happened.
1. Brosnan didn't know the rules and innocently broke them.
or
2. Brosnan knew the rules and was aware he was breaking them.
Brosnan is a really smart guy so I don't believe he wasn't aware of the rules. Especially with how big the transfer portal news story was a few years ago as some mysterious new thing, everyone in the world knows you can't talk to recruits (or their parents) until they go in the portal. This is probably the most important rule in the NCAA, without it we would have absolutely chaos.
The only logical conclusion here is that Brosnan knew he was violating the rules but thought he could do it in a way where he wouldn't get caught.
I have to admit I just lost a lot of respect for Brosnan here as a (former) fan. I think this is going to tarnish his legacy, including his time at NP. His greedy actions really screwed over the daughters of people he claims to be friends with, too. Just wait a few weeks dude.
That argument assumes guilt without evidence, and that’s exactly the problem with this case. The NCAA produced zero proof that Sean Brosnan engaged in recruiting or tampering. No texts. No DMs. No offers. No portal discussions. No witness who actually heard recruiting language. The only allegation of recruiting intent came through double hearsay a daughter claiming what she believed her father said Brosnan said while both fathers directly denied any recruiting occurred. Even the NCAA’s own report concedes these were longstanding personal relationships and that Brosnan explicitly told them he could not discuss transfers until the portal. That’s compliance, not evasion. Further, neither athlete received a scholarship, which completely undercuts the idea of “greedy recruiting” or inducement—because inducement is the core harm the bylaw is designed to prevent. The bylaw does not require coaches to cut off all personal communication with lifelong friends, it requires proof of recruiting related intent, which the NCAA utterly failed to establish here. This wasn’t a caught in the act scandal it was a strictl liability reinterpretation applied retroactively to friendship, with no evidence of recruiting content at all. You can’t tarnish someone based on assumptions, hearsay, and zero recruiting evidence. That’s not “protecting the portal.” That’s abandoning basic standards of proof.
The NCAA’s argument reduces to “we said violation three times, therefore there was no ambiguity.” That is not how law works. Repeating the same rigid interpretation through internal advisory bodies does not transform that interpretation into settled legal meaning, especially where none of those bodies has authority to decide fairness, due process, or whether non-recruiting speech between long-standing personal acquaintances constitutes tampering. Even more telling, the NCAA was simultaneously studying through its own working group, whether strict application of this rule to pre-existing relationships was appropriate at all. An organization cannot credibly claim absolute certainty about a rule’s reach while actively questioning that very reach. That contradiction alone defeats the NCAA’s “no ambiguity” narrative
No. The NCAA's argument is we are enforcing the rule as it is written, the same way we've enforced it thousands of times over the past years.
Those committees EXIST for that exist purpose. The interpretations committee is there to INTERPRET rules and the Legislative Committee is there the LEGISLATE (make laws).
The working group you mention decided to keep the rule exactly the same. This hurts your case because it shows the NCAA recently decided to continue enforcing the rule the same way. They acknowledged how important it is and stood their ground just 2 years prior to Brosnan's violations.
There was NO uncertainty.
And there’s an even bigger problem the NCAA never answers. The NCAA are effectively claiming they have the power to regulate and prohibit private friendships. That is not just unreasonable, it’s legally impermissible. The NCAA is a private, non-governmental association, not a law-enforcement agency and they admitted no recruiting talk happened. It has no lawful authority to restrict a person’s freedom of association, speech, or personal relationships, especially when those relationships predate employment and involve no recruiting content at all. Courts have repeatedly held that private associations cannot impose conditions that violate public policy or fundamental civil liberties, particularly when those conditions are vague, overbroad, and selectively enforced. Telling a coach that he must effectively cut off lifelong friends or risk professional destruction is not rule enforcement it is restraint on lawful association, and it exposes the NCAA to real constitutional and civil liability once courts get involved.
Ok, I read the sympathetic ESPN article that Sean Brosnan, or one of his friends, convinced Dan Wetzel to write and this thread with too many posts from Sean, or one of his friends, as well as the NCAA infractions committee report.
I also read the bios of the seven NCAA infractions committee members that signed the report and thought they were reasonable individuals to assess whether violations have occurred, much more so than me or Rojo, and also far better suited than ESPN/Dan Wetzel.
The report was agreed to by Tricia Turley Brandenburg, Jody Conradt, Stephen Madva, chief hearing officer, Roderick Perry, Jill Redmond, James Stapleton, and Steven Waterfield.
ESPN's two main points of criticism seemed to be 1) procedurally the UCLA admitting guilt before Sean Brosnan makes it difficult for Sean to prove his innocence, and also 2) the rule that Sean was found to have violated is rather ridiculous.
I agree that the rule Sean was found to have violated is rather ridiculous, but it is also absolutely clear that he violated the rule, pissed off other coaches including by the flagrant way the transfer rules were violated (the NCAA transfer rules actually seem reasonable, and to me they seem to have been clearly violated, although the specific rule regarding contact is somewhat ridiculous).
ESPN's point about the procedural unfairness is also absolutely true. It is unfair that Sean has to fight for his innocence after UCLA admitted. Guilt. But, the problem is that the committee decided that there were clear violations of the rules. In other words he was not innocent.
Also, by refusing to cooperate with the infractions committee for four months, maybe his lawyer convinced him this was a good idea but, as detailed in the infractions report it did not help him and actually hurt his case.
Procedurally, it is also disappointing that there does not seem to be public reporting on how the Committee voted. My understanding is that these internal votes are private which is frankly ridiculous. If even one of the seven committee members determined Sean was innocent that would be helpful to know, but it seems probable after reading the report that the findings of violations was unanimous.
If Sean has cooperated with the committee and acknowledged his violations he would still have been sanctioned but I think it is likely that he would be coaching again in NCAA.
Even though Sean and his book seem rather egotistical, especially in discounting his great luck in having incredibly talented families go to his high school, I still think he has the potential to be a reasonable college coach if he just learns some humility.
Also, I want to echo the comments that the moderators on this site are absurdly biased in favor of Sean, as I have had several comments on earlier threads deleted for no reason other that the fact that they were mildly critical of Sean and his actions.
Sean, please work on learning to be nice to other coaches and people, a bit of humility might be helpful as well. You might find that even some of the haters like me actually do want you to succeed. Even though I am not convinced that you actually have the Midas touch and benefitted from luck with your absolutely incredible high school success, clearly you were at minimum a very good high school coach with the potential to excel in coaching at the collegiate or perhaps even professional level.
No. The NCAA's argument is we are enforcing the rule as it is written, the same way we've enforced it thousands of times over the past years.
Those committees EXIST for that exist purpose. The interpretations committee is there to INTERPRET rules and the Legislative Committee is there the LEGISLATE (make laws).
The working group you mention decided to keep the rule exactly the same. This hurts your case because it shows the NCAA recently decided to continue enforcing the rule the same way. They acknowledged how important it is and stood their ground just 2 years prior to Brosnan's violations.
There was NO uncertainty.
And there’s an even bigger problem the NCAA never answers. The NCAA are effectively claiming they have the power to regulate and prohibit private friendships. That is not just unreasonable, it’s legally impermissible. The NCAA is a private, non-governmental association, not a law-enforcement agency and they admitted no recruiting talk happened. It has no lawful authority to restrict a person’s freedom of association, speech, or personal relationships, especially when those relationships predate employment and involve no recruiting content at all. Courts have repeatedly held that private associations cannot impose conditions that violate public policy or fundamental civil liberties, particularly when those conditions are vague, overbroad, and selectively enforced. Telling a coach that he must effectively cut off lifelong friends or risk professional destruction is not rule enforcement it is restraint on lawful association, and it exposes the NCAA to real constitutional and civil liability once courts get involved.
The NCAA never said Sean couldn’t be friends with the two dads. They just say personal relationships don’t change the limitations on communicating with prospects.
Sean could have continued being bros with his boys, as long as his boy’s daughters didn’t run for UCLA.
Of all the schools in the country, why did they pick UCLA? Being friends provides an unfair advantage in recruiting. If claiming to be friends would change the limitations on recruiting, it would encourage coaches to just become friends with recruits parents in advance.