So at this point we’ve got one dude posting under multiple burners and an actual lawyer laying out the facts. The contrast is wild. The haters are officially stuck in a loop, it’s straight-up obsession now. The sore loser energy in this thread is unhinged. If you still can’t move on, that says way more about you than it does about Brosnan.
You are the fake lawyer and the only one posting under multiple names. It’s as plain and obvious as Brosnan’s guilt.
This 100% discredits everything you've ever seen and exposes you as a biased liar.
Calling it a "formal legal concession" is the most ridiculous BS ever. It is actually them proving how GUILTY Brosnan is.
It's the NCAA saying just the existence of the calls is massive violation so we don't even need to investigate, argue, or consider the content of the calls. Even if you accept Brosnan's own alleged fact pattern as gospel, he is still guilty because the calls are the violation.
Regardless, the NCAA proved the content of the calls was recruiting related by getting a confession from the recruit and by demonstrating the timing of the calls could only have meant they were recruiting related.
The so called “confession from the recruit” is not a confession at all. It’s second-hand hearsay (daughter repeating what she claims her father told her), with no recording, no text, no witness, and even the key phrase not reliably quoted. That’s not a confession in any legal sense of the word. It’s was a Dad comforting his daughter. And “the timing proves it could only have been recruiting” is speculation dressed up as certainty. Timing can raise suspicion, it does not turn suspicion into proof. If timing alone were proof, courts wouldn’t need evidence at all. The NCAA forced technical contact rule, not on proven recruiting content. Pretending they “proved recruiting” is just rewriting what their own document actually says.
What deranged father would lie to her daughter that a coach told him he wanted her on her team when (allegedly) he had no idea if Brosnan did or did not?????
To get her hopes up only to potentially be devastated if that could actually said no? So she would give up her current scholarship and roster spot for a complete uncertainty at UCLA?
Also you just admitted that you have inside info on the case. How do you know the key phrase isn't reliably quoted? LMAO you just exposed yourself as being a person involved with the case.
The so called “confession from the recruit” is not a confession at all. It’s second-hand hearsay (daughter repeating what she claims her father told her), with no recording, no text, no witness, and even the key phrase not reliably quoted. That’s not a confession in any legal sense of the word. It’s was a Dad comforting his daughter. And “the timing proves it could only have been recruiting” is speculation dressed up as certainty. Timing can raise suspicion, it does not turn suspicion into proof. If timing alone were proof, courts wouldn’t need evidence at all. The NCAA forced technical contact rule, not on proven recruiting content. Pretending they “proved recruiting” is just rewriting what their own document actually says.
What deranged father would lie to her daughter that a coach told him he wanted her on her team when (allegedly) he had no idea if Brosnan did or did not?????
To get her hopes up only to potentially be devastated if that could actually said no? So she would give up her current scholarship and roster spot for a complete uncertainty at UCLA?
Also you just admitted that you have inside info on the case. How do you know the key phrase isn't reliably quoted? LMAO you just exposed yourself as being a person involved with the case.
No one claims he says he wanted her on the team. This argument collapses legally in three different ways. First, motive is irrelevant to admissibility and reliability. You don’t salvage hearsay by inventing a psychological profile of a witness. Courts don’t ask, “Would a reasonable dad lie to his daughter?” They ask: Was the statement firsthand? Was it recorded? Was it corroborated? Was it consistent? This one fails all four. It is double hearsay, unrecorded, uncorroborated, and internally uncertain. That alone guts it as proof of recruiting content. Second, the “she’d never risk her scholarship on uncertainty” claim is factually refuted by the record itself. The NCAA own report lists parental illness, anxiety, medical issues, housing vandalism, and general distress as independent drivers of the transfer. You don’t get to override the written findings with speculative emotion. Third, the “you admitted inside knowledge” attack is desperation logic. The public NCAA decision itself states the father could not consistently recall the exact wording and the daughter was relaying what she was told that is textbook unreliable attribution under any evidentiary standard. Pointing that out does not make someone an insider. It makes them literate. Finally, accusing someone of being “exposed” for referencing the NCAA’s own published uncertainty just confirms the real problem here: you need this statement to be a confession but legally, it isn’t one. It’s second-hand recollection with memory degradation and zero forensic support. You’re trying to turn speculation into evidence, psychology into proof, and insults into argument. That doesn’t survive in court, and it shouldn’t survive here either.
What deranged father would lie to her daughter that a coach told him he wanted her on her team when (allegedly) he had no idea if Brosnan did or did not?????
To get her hopes up only to potentially be devastated if that could actually said no? So she would give up her current scholarship and roster spot for a complete uncertainty at UCLA?
Also you just admitted that you have inside info on the case. How do you know the key phrase isn't reliably quoted? LMAO you just exposed yourself as being a person involved with the case.
No one claims he says he wanted her on the team.
THE DAUGHTER ADMITTED IT TO THE NCAA INVESTIGATORS.
What deranged father would lie to her daughter that a coach told him he wanted her on her team when (allegedly) he had no idea if Brosnan did or did not?????
To get her hopes up only to potentially be devastated if that could actually said no? So she would give up her current scholarship and roster spot for a complete uncertainty at UCLA?
Also you just admitted that you have inside info on the case. How do you know the key phrase isn't reliably quoted? LMAO you just exposed yourself as being a person involved with the case.
Third, the “you admitted inside knowledge” attack is desperation logic. The public NCAA decision itself states the father could not consistently recall the exact wording and the daughter was relaying what she was told that is textbook unreliable attribution under any evidentiary standard. Pointing that out does not make someone an insider. It makes them literate. Finally, accusing someone of being “exposed” for referencing the NCAA’s own published uncertainty just confirms the real problem here: you need this statement to be a confession but legally, it isn’t one. It’s second-hand recollection with memory degradation and zero forensic support. You’re trying to turn speculation into evidence, psychology into proof, and insults into argument. That doesn’t survive in court, and it shouldn’t survive here either.
The report states the father interviewed with the NCAA 1 year AFTER the daughter interviewed with the NCAA.
Your whole argument in this case is that the father and Brosnan, both accused of violations, are saying they are innocent. Their testimony is worthless in court. You can't use an accused murderer's not guilty plea as evidence they are not guilty.
The daughter's testimony is not hearsay. She is one of the defendants who admitted to the investigators under oath that they committed a violation. This wouldn't be considered to begin with. It also would fall under an "Admission of Party Opponent" exemption as NOT hearsay as defined by the Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)
Third, the “you admitted inside knowledge” attack is desperation logic. The public NCAA decision itself states the father could not consistently recall the exact wording and the daughter was relaying what she was told that is textbook unreliable attribution under any evidentiary standard. Pointing that out does not make someone an insider. It makes them literate. Finally, accusing someone of being “exposed” for referencing the NCAA’s own published uncertainty just confirms the real problem here: you need this statement to be a confession but legally, it isn’t one. It’s second-hand recollection with memory degradation and zero forensic support. You’re trying to turn speculation into evidence, psychology into proof, and insults into argument. That doesn’t survive in court, and it shouldn’t survive here either.
The report states the father interviewed with the NCAA 1 year AFTER the daughter interviewed with the NCAA.
Your whole argument in this case is that the father and Brosnan, both accused of violations, are saying they are innocent. Their testimony is worthless in court. You can't use an accused murderer's not guilty plea as evidence they are not guilty.
The daughter's testimony is not hearsay. She is one of the defendants who admitted to the investigators under oath that they committed a violation. This wouldn't be considered to begin with. It also would fall under an "Admission of Party Opponent" exemption as NOT hearsay as defined by the Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)
Third, the “you admitted inside knowledge” attack is desperation logic. The public NCAA decision itself states the father could not consistently recall the exact wording and the daughter was relaying what she was told that is textbook unreliable attribution under any evidentiary standard. Pointing that out does not make someone an insider. It makes them literate. Finally, accusing someone of being “exposed” for referencing the NCAA’s own published uncertainty just confirms the real problem here: you need this statement to be a confession but legally, it isn’t one. It’s second-hand recollection with memory degradation and zero forensic support. You’re trying to turn speculation into evidence, psychology into proof, and insults into argument. That doesn’t survive in court, and it shouldn’t survive here either.
The report states the father interviewed with the NCAA 1 year AFTER the daughter interviewed with the NCAA.
Your whole argument in this case is that the father and Brosnan, both accused of violations, are saying they are innocent. Their testimony is worthless in court. You can't use an accused murderer's not guilty plea as evidence they are not guilty.
The daughter's testimony is not hearsay. She is one of the defendants who admitted to the investigators under oath that they committed a violation. This wouldn't be considered to begin with. It also would fall under an "Admission of Party Opponent" exemption as NOT hearsay as defined by the Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)
This entire argument is legally confused from top to bottom. First, the idea that testimony from “accused parties is automatically worthless” is simply false. Defendants testify every day in court, and their credibility is weighed, not erased. A not-guilty plea analogy is irrelevant here because we’re not talking about pleadings, we’re talking about substantive factual testimony subject to cross-examination. Courts do not throw that out by default. That’s Day One trial law. Second, the claim that the daughter’s statement is “not hearsay” because it’s an admission of a party opponent under FRE 801(d)(2) is flat-out wrong. She is not the charged party here, Brosnan is. Her statement is being used against Brosnan, not against herself. That alone kills the 801(d)(2) argument. That exception only applies when the statement is offered against the same party who made it. You can’t magically convert a third party into a “party opponent” because you want to. Third, and this is the fatal flaw, her testimony about what her father allegedly told her that Brosnan allegedly said is textbook double hearsay: Brosnan to Father to Daughter to NCAA. Each layer requires its own independent hearsay exception. There isn’t one here. No recording. No text. No contemporaneous writing. And the NCAA itself confirms the father could not recall the exact wording later. That is the definition of unreliable testimonial transmission under evidentiary law. Fourth, calling this a sworn “admission” is also wrong. NCAA interviews are not criminal sworn testimony, not depositions, and not court-supervised examinations. They are investigative interviews governed by NCAA policy, not the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. You don’t get to import criminal evidentiary weight that legally does not exist.
THE DAUGHTER ADMITTED IT TO THE NCAA INVESTIGATORS.
You’re confusing who spoke with who can legally be bound by that statement, and you’re pretending repetition equals proof. It doesn’t. That’s why the NCAA had to rely on strict liability for contact, not proven recruiting content.
What deranged father would lie to her daughter that a coach told him he wanted her on her team when (allegedly) he had no idea if Brosnan did or did not?????
To get her hopes up only to potentially be devastated if that could actually said no? So she would give up her current scholarship and roster spot for a complete uncertainty at UCLA?
Also you just admitted that you have inside info on the case. How do you know the key phrase isn't reliably quoted? LMAO you just exposed yourself as being a person involved with the case.
No one claims he says he wanted her on the team. This argument collapses legally in three different ways. First, motive is irrelevant to admissibility and reliability. You don’t salvage hearsay by inventing a psychological profile of a witness. Courts don’t ask, “Would a reasonable dad lie to his daughter?” They ask: Was the statement firsthand? Was it recorded? Was it corroborated? Was it consistent? This one fails all four. It is double hearsay, unrecorded, uncorroborated, and internally uncertain. That alone guts it as proof of recruiting content. Second, the “she’d never risk her scholarship on uncertainty” claim is factually refuted by the record itself. The NCAA own report lists parental illness, anxiety, medical issues, housing vandalism, and general distress as independent drivers of the transfer. You don’t get to override the written findings with speculative emotion. Third, the “you admitted inside knowledge” attack is desperation logic. The public NCAA decision itself states the father could not consistently recall the exact wording and the daughter was relaying what she was told that is textbook unreliable attribution under any evidentiary standard. Pointing that out does not make someone an insider. It makes them literate. Finally, accusing someone of being “exposed” for referencing the NCAA’s own published uncertainty just confirms the real problem here: you need this statement to be a confession but legally, it isn’t one. It’s second-hand recollection with memory degradation and zero forensic support. You’re trying to turn speculation into evidence, psychology into proof, and insults into argument. That doesn’t survive in court, and it shouldn’t survive here either.
If you were actually a lawyer you would get disbarred for dishonesty + lack of integrity as well as for sheer incompetence after your very first time being in a courtroom.
Lawyers are always pretty sleazy but you take it to the next level. It's pretty disgusting how much you are straight up lying.
No one claims he says he wanted her on the team. This argument collapses legally in three different ways. First, motive is irrelevant to admissibility and reliability. You don’t salvage hearsay by inventing a psychological profile of a witness. Courts don’t ask, “Would a reasonable dad lie to his daughter?” They ask: Was the statement firsthand? Was it recorded? Was it corroborated? Was it consistent? This one fails all four. It is double hearsay, unrecorded, uncorroborated, and internally uncertain. That alone guts it as proof of recruiting content. Second, the “she’d never risk her scholarship on uncertainty” claim is factually refuted by the record itself. The NCAA own report lists parental illness, anxiety, medical issues, housing vandalism, and general distress as independent drivers of the transfer. You don’t get to override the written findings with speculative emotion. Third, the “you admitted inside knowledge” attack is desperation logic. The public NCAA decision itself states the father could not consistently recall the exact wording and the daughter was relaying what she was told that is textbook unreliable attribution under any evidentiary standard. Pointing that out does not make someone an insider. It makes them literate. Finally, accusing someone of being “exposed” for referencing the NCAA’s own published uncertainty just confirms the real problem here: you need this statement to be a confession but legally, it isn’t one. It’s second-hand recollection with memory degradation and zero forensic support. You’re trying to turn speculation into evidence, psychology into proof, and insults into argument. That doesn’t survive in court, and it shouldn’t survive here either.
If you were actually a lawyer you would get disbarred for dishonesty + lack of integrity as well as for sheer incompetence after your very first time being in a courtroom.
Lawyers are always pretty sleazy but you take it to the next level. It's pretty disgusting how much you are straight up lying.
This is pure emotional flailing. “Disbarred for having a different legal interpretation” is not a real concept. Lawyers get disciplined for theft, perjury, fraud, client exploitation, or criminal conduct, not for disagreeing with someone on an internet forum or explaining how hearsay and party opponent rules actually work. That’s not how bar discipline functions in any jurisdiction. Also, calling someone “dishonest” without pointing to a single false quote, mis-cited rule, or fabricated fact is just noise. If I were actually “lying,” you could refute it with one clean citation to the Federal Rules of Evidence or the NCAA record. You didn’t, because you can’t. And the “lawyers are sleazy” line is just a tantrum masquerading as moral superiority. When people run out of facts, they switch to character attacks. That’s been true in courtrooms for about 300 years.
. NCAA interviews are not criminal sworn testimony, not depositions, and not court-supervised examinations. They are investigative interviews governed by NCAA policy, not the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. You don’t get to import criminal evidentiary weight that legally does not exist.
Great, you just proved exactly why hearsay rules DO NOT apply because the NCAA operates it's investigations differently from actual criminal cases.
You can now no longer use "hearsay" as a defense because you admitted the NCAA is not bound by the same rules.
So at this point we’ve got one dude posting under multiple burners and an actual lawyer laying out the facts. The contrast is wild. The haters are officially stuck in a loop, it’s straight-up obsession now. The sore loser energy in this thread is unhinged. If you still can’t move on, that says way more about you than it does about Brosnan.
. NCAA interviews are not criminal sworn testimony, not depositions, and not court-supervised examinations. They are investigative interviews governed by NCAA policy, not the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. You don’t get to import criminal evidentiary weight that legally does not exist.
Great, you just proved exactly why hearsay rules DO NOT apply because the NCAA operates it's investigations differently from actual criminal cases.
You can now no longer use "hearsay" as a defense because you admitted the NCAA is not bound by the same rules.
Your words, not mine.
At this point, it’s hard to read this guy’s obsessive attacks on Brosnan as anything other than personal animus masquerading as analysis. He isn’t debating facts anymore, he’s projecting hostility. The fixation, the repeated distortions, the refusal to acknowledge inconvenient evidence, and the emotional tone all scream bias, not objectivity. When someone consistently ignores due process, twists legal standards, and resorts to character assassination instead of evidence, it stops being about rules and starts being about resentment. That’s not advocacy, that’s obsession. And obsession is exactly what destroys credibility.
And this is where the NCAA crosses from bad policy into serious legal danger. They admit the conversations were non-recruiting and friendship based, then punish them anyway by pretending intent doesn’t matter. That is classic strict liability overreach for ordinary speech and association, which is exactly what courts scrutinize under due process, contract law, and antitrust principles. You cannot retroactively criminalize normal human relationships with no recruiting proof and then destroy someone’s career on that basis. That’s not enforcement that’s arbitrary power. And that’s why this case isn’t just controversial… it’s legally radioactive.
As an objective former college coach of 25 years who is simply observing the facts, it looks like Brosnan has lost this case.
The NCAA Infractions dashboard shows that a decision has likely been made and will be released publicly very soon.
The pattern of updates from the dashboard implies bad news - Brosnan is always having to respond and offer a rebuttal. Not a good sign.
Even more telling is this epic meltdown by Brosnan, his lawyer, and his cronies on LRC and ESPN. The winning side does not respond to a win by threatening lawsuits like the quoted post. The winning side does not have temper tantrums on message boards or beg ESPN to write an article about how unfairly they were treated.
The coaches that will have long coaching careers are the ones that can admit mistakes. The ones that can handle losing gracefully. The ones that can build relationships instead of burning bridges. And maybe most importantly the ones that don't break the rules and then blame the rules when they are caught.
Here is the current status of the investigation from the dashboard: Appeal Request Window Begins: 07/08/25 Notice of Intent to Appeal Received: 07/23/25 COI Response: 09/25/25 Rebuttal: 10/10/25 Enforcement Statement/Submittal: 10/16/25 Party Response to Enforcement Submittal: 10/27/25
As an objective former college coach of 25 years who is simply observing the facts, it looks like Brosnan has lost this case.
The NCAA Infractions dashboard shows that a decision has likely been made and will be released publicly very soon.
The pattern of updates from the dashboard implies bad news - Brosnan is always having to respond and offer a rebuttal. Not a good sign.
Even more telling is this epic meltdown by Brosnan, his lawyer, and his cronies on LRC and ESPN. The winning side does not respond to a win by threatening lawsuits like the quoted post. The winning side does not have temper tantrums on message boards or beg ESPN to write an article about how unfairly they were treated.
The coaches that will have long coaching careers are the ones that can admit mistakes. The ones that can handle losing gracefully. The ones that can build relationships instead of burning bridges. And maybe most importantly the ones that don't break the rules and then blame the rules when they are caught.
Here is the current status of the investigation from the dashboard: Appeal Request Window Begins: 07/08/25 Notice of Intent to Appeal Received: 07/23/25 COI Response: 09/25/25 Rebuttal: 10/10/25 Enforcement Statement/Submittal: 10/16/25 Party Response to Enforcement Submittal: 10/27/25
I was just thinking the same thing. This is not the behavior of someone that is winning the case or that has any reasonable chance of winning the case. This is desperate behavior.
I don't think he'd be this desperate if he actually had a pro group lined up. So the pro group seems really unlikely too.
It's a shame because the Newbury Park days were really exciting. Now Brosnan is out of coaching entirely and may not ever coach again. I guess this is just a lesson to all those young coaches out there.
And this is where the NCAA crosses from bad policy into serious legal danger. They admit the conversations were non-recruiting and friendship based, then punish them anyway by pretending intent doesn’t matter. That is classic strict liability overreach for ordinary speech and association, which is exactly what courts scrutinize under due process, contract law, and antitrust principles. You cannot retroactively criminalize normal human relationships with no recruiting proof and then destroy someone’s career on that basis. That’s not enforcement that’s arbitrary power. And that’s why this case isn’t just controversial… it’s legally radioactive.
As an objective former college coach of 25 years who is simply observing the facts, it looks like Brosnan has lost this case.
The NCAA Infractions dashboard shows that a decision has likely been made and will be released publicly very soon.
The pattern of updates from the dashboard implies bad news - Brosnan is always having to respond and offer a rebuttal. Not a good sign.
Even more telling is this epic meltdown by Brosnan, his lawyer, and his cronies on LRC and ESPN. The winning side does not respond to a win by threatening lawsuits like the quoted post. The winning side does not have temper tantrums on message boards or beg ESPN to write an article about how unfairly they were treated.
The coaches that will have long coaching careers are the ones that can admit mistakes. The ones that can handle losing gracefully. The ones that can build relationships instead of burning bridges. And maybe most importantly the ones that don't break the rules and then blame the rules when they are caught.
Here is the current status of the investigation from the dashboard: Appeal Request Window Begins: 07/08/25 Notice of Intent to Appeal Received: 07/23/25 COI Response: 09/25/25 Rebuttal: 10/10/25 Enforcement Statement/Submittal: 10/16/25 Party Response to Enforcement Submittal: 10/27/25
That entire post is built on speculation, not law. The NCAA dashboard timelines are purely procedural and say nothing about outcome, mandatory rebuttals are not “bad signs” but required steps in every appeal, and public reactions LetsRun have zero evidentiary value in any adjudicative system. Threats of litigation don’t imply defeat, they signal alleged due process violations and preserved civil claims, and nothing publicly released constitutes any formal legal threat anyway. it’s simply an observation that the underlying facts appear to support a strong civil case against the NCAA as the NCAA has broken both federal and state laws in this case. The “good coaches admit mistakes” line is moral posturing, not a legal standard, and declaring guilt before a ruling is issued destroys any claim of objectivity. And when the same talking points keep appearing under multiple anonymous handles, it further erodes credibility by suggesting agenda posting rather than independent analysis. In the end, not a single sentence of that post actually proves a violation, refutes the appeal arguments, or addresses whether the bylaw was lawfully and consistently applied,it’s presumption dressed up as expertise.