People don’t read the case, because it shows The NCAA didn’t prove recruiting. They didn’t prove inducements. They didn’t prove scholarship promises. They didn’t prove direct contact with the athletes. What they proved was phone calls with fathers, men he’d known for years before UCLA.
Both dads testified he refused to discuss transfers until the portal. That’s literally what compliance tells coaches to say.
And here’s the real issue, the Appeals Committee upheld it not because recruiting was proven , but because the bylaw prohibits all contact with “individuals associated with student-athletes” before portal entry. No exception for friendship. No exception for long standing relationships. No requirement that recruiting content occur.
So now we’ve moved from “don’t tamper” to “don’t speak.”
That’s a huge difference.
You can’t rewrite a rule meant to prevent recruiting inducements into a blanket ban on personal association and then pretend it’s the same thing. The NCAA is a private organization, yes, but it doesn’t get to ignore constitutional protections, California labor law, or basic due process just because it says “bylaw 13.”
If there’s no recruiting content, no scholarship, no inducement, and no athlete contact, what exactly is the competitive advantage?
This case wasn’t about cheating. It was about expanding a rule beyond its original purpose and making “contact” itself the violation. That’s a strict-liability standard the membership never voted on in that form.
If that’s the standard, then almost every coach in America with prior relationships is in danger.
You can think the rule is fine. But let’s at least be honest about what happened. This wasn’t proven tampering , it was enforced isolation.
And that’s why people think the NCAA overreached and if Brosnan wishes so he can take them to court he would destroy them with any question.