You keep saying “quote the rulebook” like nobody has read it. Fine — let’s actually quote it. 2025–26 NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw 13.1.1.4 (Tampering): “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), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process.” Now read that carefully. The bylaw does not require the NCAA to prove: • a scholarship promise • an inducement • direct contact with the athlete • a written recruiting pitch It explicitly covers “any individual associated with the student-athlete,” including a family member. That’s exactly the point people keep making that you refuse to acknowledge. The NCAA didn’t prove recruiting. They didn’t prove inducements. They didn’t prove scholarship offers. They didn’t prove athlete contact. There were no texts, no emails, no DMs, no recruiting trail whatsoever. What they relied on were phone calls with fathers Both men Brosnan had known for 4- 10 yeas years before UCLA. Both fathers testified he ( Brosnan ) refused to discuss transferring until the portal, which is literally what compliance offices tell coaches to do. So how did the NCAA still uphold a violation? Because they expanded the bylaw through enforcement. Instead of proving recruiting activity, they treated the existence of contact itself as the violation, regardless of content. That effectively converts a rule designed to prevent recruiting inducements into a blanket prohibition on communication. That’s not “tampering.” That’s strict liability for association. And that’s why the penalty structure itself tells you how weak the case was. The Committee issued a Level II violation with no coaching suspension, which is almost unheard of in actual tampering cases where recruiting evidence exists. So stop pretending this case proved some smoking-gun recruiting scheme. The NCAA proved contact with long time friends, not recruiting. The real debate here isn’t whether Bylaw 13 exists. It’s whether the NCAA stretched it beyond its original purpose to punish ordinary relationships and conversations that contained no recruiting content at all. If that’s the standard, then practically every coach in America with prior relationships with parents is technically one phone call away from a violation. You can defend that rule if you want. But stop pretending the NCAA proved recruiting misconduct. They didn’t. They proved contact and then treated normal history contact as guilt.
Do you think that constantly changing your username to post under many different handles on this topic gives you more credibility or less credibility? Each time the same lies.
Wrong again. I’m literally the only one in this thread posting from a registered username, so the ‘multiple handles’ theory doesn’t even make sense. That’s just the standard LetsRun move when someone can’t refute the argument accuse them of being ten different posters
Do you think that constantly changing your username to post under many different handles on this topic gives you more credibility or less credibility? Each time the same lies.
I’m literally the only one in this thread posting from a registered username, so the ‘multiple handles’ theory doesn’t even make sense.
You're just like the430miler. One registered name and a whole bunch of anonymous names, just to make it appear that there are a lot of people defending Brosnan when it's actually just you.
You keep saying “quote the rulebook” like nobody has read it. Fine — let’s actually quote it.
2025–26 NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw 13.1.1.4 (Tampering):
“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), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process.”
And you are well aware that Brosnan broke that rule. And you are also well aware that Brosnan ADMITTED to breaking that rule. So stop already with your stupid posts!
I’m literally the only one in this thread posting from a registered username, so the ‘multiple handles’ theory doesn’t even make sense.
You're just like the430miler. One registered name and a whole bunch of anonymous names, just to make it appear that there are a lot of people defending Brosnan when it's actually just you.
Again, I’m literally the only one posting here with a registered username, which anyone on LetsRun can see. The rest of the posts are anonymous guests. So the idea that I’m somehow secretly running a dozen anonymous accounts doesn’t even make sense. What’s really going on is simpler, you don’t like the answers you’re getting. Instead of addressing the facts about the case, you pivot to the classic message-board tactic: attack the poster and invent a multi-account theory. The reality is the same whether one person says it or ten: the NCAA didn’t produce recruiting receipts, no texts, no emails, no DMs, no inducements, and no direct contact with the athletes. That’s straight from the case record. What they relied on were phone calls with parents who had known Brosnan for years. So if you want to debate the case, debate the facts. If your only argument is ‘you must be posting under different names,’ that just tells everyone you’re wrong.
You're just like the430miler. One registered name and a whole bunch of anonymous names, just to make it appear that there are a lot of people defending Brosnan when it's actually just you.
So if you want to debate the case, debate the facts.
OK. The FACT is that Brosnan broke this rule:
2025–26 NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw 13.1.1.4 (Tampering):
“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), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process.”
Do you think that constantly changing your username to post under many different handles on this topic gives you more credibility or less credibility? Each time the same lies.
Wrong again. I’m literally the only one in this thread posting from a registered username, so the ‘multiple handles’ theory doesn’t even make sense. That’s just the standard LetsRun move when someone can’t refute the argument accuse them of being ten different posters
You are clearly posting under dozens of usernames. Do you not see how obvious it is?
You keep saying “quote the rulebook” like nobody has read it. Fine — let’s actually quote it.
2025–26 NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw 13.1.1.4 (Tampering):
“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), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process.”
And you are well aware that Brosnan broke that rule. And you are also well aware that Brosnan ADMITTED to breaking that rule. So stop already with your stupid posts!
What the NCAA did instead was reinterpret Bylaw 13.1.1.4, which covers contact with a student-athlete or individuals associated with them before transfer authorization. They effectively treated the existence of contact itself as the violation, regardless of content. That’s a major shift from proving recruiting inducements to simply policing communication. So no there was never an admission of a recruiting violation. The NCAA couldn’t prove recruiting, so they expanded the interpretation of the bylaw and treated ordinary contact as tampering. That’s the actual dispute in the case, whether you like it or not the NCAA couldn’t prove anything and ended up handing down a level II with no coaching violation. Again that never happens because they has no evidence of a violation and gave one anyway
And you are well aware that Brosnan broke that rule. And you are also well aware that Brosnan ADMITTED to breaking that rule. So stop already with your stupid posts!
What the NCAA did instead was reinterpret Bylaw 13.1.1.4, which covers contact with a student-athlete or individuals associated with them before transfer authorization. They effectively treated the existence of contact itself as the violation, regardless of content. That’s a major shift from proving recruiting inducements to simply policing communication. So no there was never an admission of a recruiting violation. The NCAA couldn’t prove recruiting, so they expanded the interpretation of the bylaw and treated ordinary contact as tampering. That’s the actual dispute in the case, whether you like it or not the NCAA couldn’t prove anything and ended up handing down a level II with no coaching violation. Again that never happens because they has no evidence of a violation and gave one anyway
Dude this case was a joke even ESPN rolled the NCAA.
The NCAA did not prove recruiting activity at all. They didn’t prove inducements. They didn’t prove scholarship promises. They didn’t prove direct contact with the athletes. There were no texts, emails, DMs, or documented recruiting communication. What they actually relied on were phone calls with fathers men Brosnan had known for years before UCLA. Both fathers testified that he refused to discuss transferring until the athletes entered the portal, which is literally what compliance offices instruct coaches to do. So what did the Appeals Committee really uphold? Not proven recruiting. They upheld a technical interpretation of Bylaw 13 that prohibits contact with “individuals associated with a student-athlete” before portal entry — regardless of whether recruiting content occurred. That’s the problem. The NCAA effectively rewrote the rule through enforcement. A bylaw intended to prevent recruiting inducements was turned into a blanket prohibition on communication itself, even when the communication involves longstanding personal relationships and contains no recruiting discussion. In other words, the standard shifted from “don’t tamper” to “don’t speak.” That is a massive expansion of the rule. It transforms what should require proof of recruiting conduct into something closer to strict liability based on contact alone. And that standard was never clearly adopted by the membership in that form. Worse, the NCAA is applying that interpretation selectively and without transparent evidentiary standards, which is exactly why its enforcement model has faced repeated legal challenges. Courts have repeatedly criticized the NCAA when its enforcement processes lack due process protections or apply vague rules retroactively. The organization may be private, but it still operates within the bounds of contract law, antitrust law, and state law obligations. It can’t simply stretch a bylaw beyond its plain meaning and call that fair enforcement. If the NCAA can punish a coach without proving recruiting activity, inducements, or athlete contact, then the rule is no longer about competitive integrity. It becomes about enforcement discretion without accountability. And that’s why so many people see this as an overreach. Not because they think rules shouldn’t exist, but because rules shouldn’t be rewritten after the fact just to manufacture a violation.
The rule you posted actually makes it really clear that Brosnan committed tampering violations. The rule couldn't be more clear. There is no contact allowed, at all, for any reason. No exceptions.
Also you are clearly using crappy AI to make crappy arguments. You posted a long response, and then 7 minutes later you made this very lengthy response. No way that only took you 7 minutes to type up that response.
You're just like the430miler. One registered name and a whole bunch of anonymous names, just to make it appear that there are a lot of people defending Brosnan when it's actually just you.
Again, I’m literally the only one posting here with a registered username, which anyone on LetsRun can see. The rest of the posts are anonymous guests. So the idea that I’m somehow secretly running a dozen anonymous accounts doesn’t even make sense. What’s really going on is simpler, you don’t like the answers you’re getting. Instead of addressing the facts about the case, you pivot to the classic message-board tactic: attack the poster and invent a multi-account theory. The reality is the same whether one person says it or ten: the NCAA didn’t produce recruiting receipts, no texts, no emails, no DMs, no inducements, and no direct contact with the athletes. That’s straight from the case record. What they relied on were phone calls with parents who had known Brosnan for years. So if you want to debate the case, debate the facts. If your only argument is ‘you must be posting under different names,’ that just tells everyone you’re wrong.
You keep saying “quote the rulebook” like nobody has read it. Fine — let’s actually quote it. 2025–26 NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw 13.1.1.4 (Tampering): “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), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process.” Now read that carefully. The bylaw does not require the NCAA to prove: • a scholarship promise • an inducement • direct contact with the athlete • a written recruiting pitch It explicitly covers “any individual associated with the student-athlete,” including a family member. That’s exactly the point people keep making that you refuse to acknowledge. The NCAA didn’t prove recruiting. They didn’t prove inducements. They didn’t prove scholarship offers. They didn’t prove athlete contact. There were no texts, no emails, no DMs, no recruiting trail whatsoever. What they relied on were phone calls with fathers Both men Brosnan had known for 4- 10 yeas years before UCLA. Both fathers testified he ( Brosnan ) refused to discuss transferring until the portal, which is literally what compliance offices tell coaches to do. So how did the NCAA still uphold a violation? Because they expanded the bylaw through enforcement. Instead of proving recruiting activity, they treated the existence of contact itself as the violation, regardless of content. That effectively converts a rule designed to prevent recruiting inducements into a blanket prohibition on communication. That’s not “tampering.” That’s strict liability for association. And that’s why the penalty structure itself tells you how weak the case was. The Committee issued a Level II violation with no coaching suspension, which is almost unheard of in actual tampering cases where recruiting evidence exists. So stop pretending this case proved some smoking-gun recruiting scheme. The NCAA proved contact with long time friends, not recruiting. The real debate here isn’t whether Bylaw 13 exists. It’s whether the NCAA stretched it beyond its original purpose to punish ordinary relationships and conversations that contained no recruiting content at all. If that’s the standard, then practically every coach in America with prior relationships with parents is technically one phone call away from a violation. You can defend that rule if you want. But stop pretending the NCAA proved recruiting misconduct. They didn’t. They proved contact and then treated normal history contact as guilt.
Thank you for posting this because it makes it even more crystal clear how Brosnan violated the rule and incurred the rightful punishment.
You're just like the430miler. One registered name and a whole bunch of anonymous names, just to make it appear that there are a lot of people defending Brosnan when it's actually just you.
Again, I’m literally the only one posting here with a registered username, which anyone on LetsRun can see. The rest of the posts are anonymous guests. So the idea that I’m somehow secretly running a dozen anonymous accounts doesn’t even make sense. What’s really going on is simpler, you don’t like the answers you’re getting. Instead of addressing the facts about the case, you pivot to the classic message-board tactic: attack the poster and invent a multi-account theory. The reality is the same whether one person says it or ten: the NCAA didn’t produce recruiting receipts, no texts, no emails, no DMs, no inducements, and no direct contact with the athletes. That’s straight from the case record. What they relied on were phone calls with parents who had known Brosnan for years. So if you want to debate the case, debate the facts. If your only argument is ‘you must be posting under different names,’ that just tells everyone you’re wrong.
Don't waste your time. Haters hate when they are threatened. Brosnan wins again
I’m sure you’ve seen this article, buts It’s pretty telling that even ESPN is now questioning whether the NCAA’s new infractions system is “too speedy to be fair.” And the example they use? The Brosnan case. UCLA settled quickly because it was cheaper than fighting a $5k fine and minor recruiting restrictions. That settlement effectively let the NCAA declare tampering before Brosnan even submitted his defense. His attorney literally said the NCAA had already decided he was guilty before they responded. What’s even more absurd is that the NCAA admitted they didn’t find any pre portal recruiting. No texts, no emails, no absolutely nothing. The entire penalty essentially came down to Brosnan having pre-existing relationships with two parents he had known for years. So the logic is that a coach is supposed to break friendships with families they’ve known for years just to keep coaching? That’s the standard now? ESPN basically says as the assistant coach who got stuck holding the bag while the school settled and the NCAA cleared its docket. The bigger issue the article raises isn’t “did Brosnan cheat?” it’s whether the NCAA’s new fast-track system just runs people over to close cases faster and tell coaches they have to break relationships with a Friend if they have kids competing at a different NCAA school.
I’m sure you’ve seen this article, buts It’s pretty telling that even ESPN is now questioning whether the NCAA’s new infractions system is “too speedy to be fair.” And the example they use? The Brosnan case. UCLA settled quickly because it was cheaper than fighting a $5k fine and minor recruiting restrictions. That settlement effectively let the NCAA declare tampering before Brosnan even submitted his defense. His attorney literally said the NCAA had already decided he was guilty before they responded. What’s even more absurd is that the NCAA admitted they didn’t find any pre portal recruiting. No texts, no emails, no absolutely nothing. The entire penalty essentially came down to Brosnan having pre-existing relationships with two parents he had known for years. So the logic is that a coach is supposed to break friendships with families they’ve known for years just to keep coaching? That’s the standard now? ESPN basically says as the assistant coach who got stuck holding the bag while the school settled and the NCAA cleared its docket. The bigger issue the article raises isn’t “did Brosnan cheat?” it’s whether the NCAA’s new fast-track system just runs people over to close cases faster and tell coaches they have to break relationships with a Friend if they have kids competing at a different NCAA school.
The whole premise of the ESPN article is wrong. UCLA deciding to incur penalties early did not affect the decision in Brosnan's individual case. There are 2 lengthy reports detailing all the facts of Brosnan's violations. If Brosnan was proven innocent, UCLA would have looked really dumb for accepting and serving violations that it didn't need to.
The main reason UCLA fast tracked was because Brosnan refused to cooperate for 4 months. There was nothing "fast track" about Brosnan's investigation which took more than 3 years. Brosnan received due process and lost because he obviously broke the rules.
If Brosnan were actually friends with those parents, he would NOT have jeopardized the daughters eligibilities by talking before entering the portal.
That is not something a close personal friend does. The daughters paid the biggest price for Brosnan's violations. Barnett had to vacate her All American honors. He completely screwed over his "friends" daughters.
It looks like Brosnan only associated with these families to begin with because their daughters were fast and he wanted them to run on his high school team initially. Really sleazy.
Again, I’m literally the only one posting here with a registered username, which anyone on LetsRun can see. The rest of the posts are anonymous guests. So the idea that I’m somehow secretly running a dozen anonymous accounts doesn’t even make sense. What’s really going on is simpler, you don’t like the answers you’re getting. Instead of addressing the facts about the case, you pivot to the classic message-board tactic: attack the poster and invent a multi-account theory. The reality is the same whether one person says it or ten: the NCAA didn’t produce recruiting receipts, no texts, no emails, no DMs, no inducements, and no direct contact with the athletes. That’s straight from the case record. What they relied on were phone calls with parents who had known Brosnan for years. So if you want to debate the case, debate the facts. If your only argument is ‘you must be posting under different names,’ that just tells everyone you’re wrong.
Don't waste your time. Haters hate when they are threatened. Brosnan wins again
Quite a win. The arguments are so persuasive, yet guess what - the people that matter don’t agree.
The whole premise of the ESPN article is wrong. UCLA deciding to incur penalties early did not affect the decision in Brosnan's individual case. There are 2 lengthy reports detailing all the facts of Brosnan's violations. If Brosnan was proven innocent, UCLA would have looked really dumb for accepting and serving violations that it didn't need to.
The main reason UCLA fast tracked was because Brosnan refused to cooperate for 4 months. There was nothing "fast track" about Brosnan's investigation which took more than 3 years. Brosnan received due process and lost because he obviously broke the rules.
If Brosnan were actually friends with those parents, he would NOT have jeopardized the daughters eligibilities by talking before entering the portal.
That is not something a close personal friend does. The daughters paid the biggest price for Brosnan's violations. Barnett had to vacate her All American honors. He completely screwed over his "friends" daughters.
It looks like Brosnan only associated with these families to begin with because their daughters were fast and he wanted them to run on his high school team initially. Really sleazy.
This argument completely ignores the actual facts in the record. One of the fathers is literally a pastor who went on record saying Brosnan specifically told him he could NOT talk about recruiting. That alone destroys the idea that there was some secret scheme. If anything, it shows Brosnan was trying to follow the rules. The second father is someone Brosnan had known for years, they’d spent holidays and vacations together long before any transfer situation existed. The NCAA even acknowledged the relationship was preexisting. That’s called a normal personal relationship, not tampering. And here’s the legal problem the NCAA created for itself: they admitted they found no texts, emails, or recruiting inducements. None. Yet they still punished communication between long-time friends. When a private organization starts penalizing someone’s employment based on speculation rather than evidence, that’s exactly where due process and antitrust issues come into play. Courts have already slapped the NCAA around for this kind of overreach multiple times. That’s why the penalty was a Level II with no coaching suspension, which basically tells you they couldn’t prove actual recruiting. If there was real tampering evidence, the NCAA would’ve issued a suspension immediately from coaching , they did not. So the idea that he “used these families” is just message board fantasy. Both fathers said on record Brosnan refused to discuss recruiting, and the other was a long-time family friend. The NCAA couldn’t prove tampering, so they stretched a bylaw to punish a relationship. That’s why in court Brosnan will win it’s just a question of how much he wins.
