BREAKING - Brosnan LOSES his appeal, NCAA confirms serious violations happened

true facts wrote:

NCAA bogus investigating wrote:

Link:www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id...

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.

NCAA Broke wrote:

NCAA bogus investigating wrote:

Link:www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id...

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.

So the NCAA basically punished a coach for not cutting off long time/ pre existing relationships, which is absurd. That kind of overreach is exactly why courts keep hammering the NCAA under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and state unfair competition / fair procedure laws. If this ever gets real legal discovery, this will backfire badly on the NCAA. And I don’t think the NCAA has won a case in the last decade.

NCAA Broke wrote:

NCAA bogus investigating wrote:

Link:www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id...

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.

So the NCAA basically punished a coach for not cutting off long time/ pre existing relationships, which is absurd. That kind of overreach is exactly why courts keep hammering the NCAA under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and state unfair competition / fair procedure laws. If this ever gets real legal discovery, this will backfire badly on the NCAA. And I don’t think the NCAA has won a case in the last decade.

His appeal had no shot wrote:

NCAA Broke wrote:

So the NCAA basically punished a coach for not cutting off long time/ pre existing relationships, which is absurd. That kind of overreach is exactly why courts keep hammering the NCAA under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and state unfair competition / fair procedure laws.

If this ever gets real legal discovery, this will backfire badly on the NCAA. And I don’t think the NCAA has won a case in the last decade.

There are 2 totally different potential court cases.

Court Case 1. Brosnan's claim that he never discussed recruiting with the 2 fathers. If "real legal discovery" ever happened, Brosnan would be screwed, because he was going around in the fall of 2022 telling recruits that 2 college women had already agreed to transfer to UCLA even though they weren't in the transfer portal yet. "Real legal discovery" would find that out, because Brosnan told that to many recruits and their parents, and they wouldn't be hard to track down to get their testimony.

Brosnan has literally no chance at all of winning that argument in court. In fact, Brosnan would never take that argument to court, because he knows it would backfire on him and he would lose big time. There are too many people who heard him admit to illegal recruiting.

Court Case 2. The NCAA rules on recruiting athletes before they go into the transfer portal are illegal. This argument doesn't have much chance of winning in court. There is only a very, very small chance Brosnan could win, and get all the current transfer rules thrown out.

However, this argument wouldn't just be about Brosnan, it would be about completely changing how college sports work. The legal fees in a case like this would be huge. Brosnan doesn't have the money to pay the legal fees for a huge case like that, unless he found a law firm willing to work for free in exchange for a percentage of whatever money Brosnan hoped to win.

However, the legal fees (millions of dollars) would be much higher that the salary that Brosnan has lost over the past 3 years because he was fired from UCLA. (A few hundred thousand dollars.) So even if theoretically Brosnan won this case in court, the math doesn't work out.

Conclusion - So despite one poster (using a dozen different user names) claiming over and over that Brosnan will win big in court against the NCAA, that's not going to happen. In the first case it's because Brosnan broke the rules, he knows that he broke the rules, and he knows that lots of other people heard him admit to breaking the rules.

And the second case won't happen because it would take millions of dollars in legal fees (that Brosnan doesn't have) to try to beat the NCAA in court in an effort to change the entire college transfer system. When it comes to lawsuits against the NCAA, Brosnan is all talk, and no bite.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

His appeal had no shot wrote:

There are 2 totally different potential court cases.

Court Case 1. Brosnan's claim that he never discussed recruiting with the 2 fathers. If "real legal discovery" ever happened, Brosnan would be screwed, because he was going around in the fall of 2022 telling recruits that 2 college women had already agreed to transfer to UCLA even though they weren't in the transfer portal yet. "Real legal discovery" would find that out, because Brosnan told that to many recruits and their parents, and they wouldn't be hard to track down to get their testimony.

Brosnan has literally no chance at all of winning that argument in court. In fact, Brosnan would never take that argument to court, because he knows it would backfire on him and he would lose big time. There are too many people who heard him admit to illegal recruiting.

Court Case 2. The NCAA rules on recruiting athletes before they go into the transfer portal are illegal. This argument doesn't have much chance of winning in court. There is only a very, very small chance Brosnan could win, and get all the current transfer rules thrown out.

However, this argument wouldn't just be about Brosnan, it would be about completely changing how college sports work. The legal fees in a case like this would be huge. Brosnan doesn't have the money to pay the legal fees for a huge case like that, unless he found a law firm willing to work for free in exchange for a percentage of whatever money Brosnan hoped to win.

However, the legal fees (millions of dollars) would be much higher that the salary that Brosnan has lost over the past 3 years because he was fired from UCLA. (A few hundred thousand dollars.) So even if theoretically Brosnan won this case in court, the math doesn't work out.

Conclusion - So despite one poster (using a dozen different user names) claiming over and over that Brosnan will win big in court against the NCAA, that's not going to happen. In the first case it's because Brosnan broke the rules, he knows that he broke the rules, and he knows that lots of other people heard him admit to breaking the rules.

And the second case won't happen because it would take millions of dollars in legal fees (that Brosnan doesn't have) to try to beat the NCAA in court in an effort to change the entire college transfer system. When it comes to lawsuits against the NCAA, Brosnan is all talk, and no bite.

This post shows a complete misunderstanding of both the facts of the case and how litigation against the NCAA actually works.
First, the claim that “legal discovery would expose Brosnan” is pure speculation. The NCAA already had full investigative authority, they had phone records, review emails, request text messages, DM’s and interview witnesses under penalty of NCAA sanctions. After all of that, the NCAA still produced zero emails, zero texts, and zero direct communication with the athletes prior to the portal. That’s literally in the case summary.
If there were “many recruits and parents” who supposedly heard admissions of illegal recruiting, the NCAA would have presented them. They didn’t. Because they don’t exist. The NCAA had years to build a case and came up empty.
Second, the penalties themselves show how weak the case was. A Level II violation with no coaching suspension is almost unheard of in recruiting cases. That’s basically the infractions committee admitting: we don’t actually have proof of recruiting inducements but we’re going to punish someone anyway. In any real court, that kind of reasoning collapses immediately because the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Third, the legal argument about NCAA rules being challengeable is not some fantasy. Courts have been dismantling NCAA authority for years:
NCAA v. Alston – unanimous Supreme Court ruling against the NCAA under antitrust law.
O’Bannon v. NCAA – NCAA lost again on athlete compensation restrictions.
Todd McNair v. NCAA – NCAA paid millions after investigative misconduct.
Courts have repeatedly held that the NCAA cannot arbitrarily restrict economic opportunities or enforce rules without fair procedure. A rule that effectively says a coach must cut off pre-existing personal relationships or face punishment raises serious issues under antitrust law and state unfair-competition law.
Finally, the “legal fees” argument is also clueless. Major antitrust cases against the NCAA are routinely handled by firms on contingency or litigation funding because damages and fee-shifting statutes can make them extremely lucrative if successful. That’s exactly how most NCAA cases get litigated.
So the reality is the opposite of what this post claims:
The NCAA found no direct recruiting evidence.
They still issued a Level II with no suspension, which signals a weak case.
Courts have been hammering the NCAA for a decade under antitrust law.
Message board speculation and anonymous lies isn’t evidence. If the NCAA actually had the smoking gun people claim exists, it would already be in the record. It isn’t. The NCAA has released everything and the have nothing. Just imagine when you see all Brosnan proof, The NCAA is doomed.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

His appeal had no shot wrote:

There are 2 totally different potential court cases.

Court Case 1. Brosnan's claim that he never discussed recruiting with the 2 fathers. If "real legal discovery" ever happened, Brosnan would be screwed, because he was going around in the fall of 2022 telling recruits that 2 college women had already agreed to transfer to UCLA even though they weren't in the transfer portal yet. "Real legal discovery" would find that out, because Brosnan told that to many recruits and their parents, and they wouldn't be hard to track down to get their testimony.

Brosnan has literally no chance at all of winning that argument in court. In fact, Brosnan would never take that argument to court, because he knows it would backfire on him and he would lose big time. There are too many people who heard him admit to illegal recruiting.

Court Case 2. The NCAA rules on recruiting athletes before they go into the transfer portal are illegal. This argument doesn't have much chance of winning in court. There is only a very, very small chance Brosnan could win, and get all the current transfer rules thrown out.

However, this argument wouldn't just be about Brosnan, it would be about completely changing how college sports work. The legal fees in a case like this would be huge. Brosnan doesn't have the money to pay the legal fees for a huge case like that, unless he found a law firm willing to work for free in exchange for a percentage of whatever money Brosnan hoped to win.

However, the legal fees (millions of dollars) would be much higher that the salary that Brosnan has lost over the past 3 years because he was fired from UCLA. (A few hundred thousand dollars.) So even if theoretically Brosnan won this case in court, the math doesn't work out.

Conclusion - So despite one poster (using a dozen different user names) claiming over and over that Brosnan will win big in court against the NCAA, that's not going to happen. In the first case it's because Brosnan broke the rules, he knows that he broke the rules, and he knows that lots of other people heard him admit to breaking the rules.

And the second case won't happen because it would take millions of dollars in legal fees (that Brosnan doesn't have) to try to beat the NCAA in court in an effort to change the entire college transfer system. When it comes to lawsuits against the NCAA, Brosnan is all talk, and no bite.

First, the claim that “legal discovery would expose Brosnan” is pure speculation. The NCAA already had full investigative authority, they had phone records, review emails, request text messages, DM’s and interview witnesses under penalty of NCAA sanctions.

If there were “many recruits and parents” who supposedly heard admissions of illegal recruiting, the NCAA would have presented them. They didn’t.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

This post shows a complete misunderstanding of both the facts of the case and how litigation against the NCAA actually works.
First, the claim that “legal discovery would expose Brosnan” is pure speculation. The NCAA already had full investigative authority, they had phone records, review emails, request text messages, DM’s and interview witnesses under penalty of NCAA sanctions. After all of that, the NCAA still produced zero emails, zero texts, and zero direct communication with the athletes prior to the portal. That’s literally in the case summary.
If there were “many recruits and parents” who supposedly heard admissions of illegal recruiting, the NCAA would have presented them. They didn’t. Because they don’t exist. The NCAA had years to build a case and came up empty.
Second, the penalties themselves show how weak the case was. A Level II violation with no coaching suspension is almost unheard of in recruiting cases. That’s basically the infractions committee admitting: we don’t actually have proof of recruiting inducements but we’re going to punish someone anyway. In any real court, that kind of reasoning collapses immediately because the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Third, the legal argument about NCAA rules being challengeable is not some fantasy. Courts have been dismantling NCAA authority for years:
NCAA v. Alston – unanimous Supreme Court ruling against the NCAA under antitrust law.
O’Bannon v. NCAA – NCAA lost again on athlete compensation restrictions.
Todd McNair v. NCAA – NCAA paid millions after investigative misconduct.
Courts have repeatedly held that the NCAA cannot arbitrarily restrict economic opportunities or enforce rules without fair procedure. A rule that effectively says a coach must cut off pre-existing personal relationships or face punishment raises serious issues under antitrust law and state unfair-competition law.
Finally, the “legal fees” argument is also clueless. Major antitrust cases against the NCAA are routinely handled by firms on contingency or litigation funding because damages and fee-shifting statutes can make them extremely lucrative if successful. That’s exactly how most NCAA cases get litigated.
So the reality is the opposite of what this post claims:
The NCAA found no direct recruiting evidence.
They still issued a Level II with no suspension, which signals a weak case.
Courts have been hammering the NCAA for a decade under antitrust law.
Message board speculation and anonymous lies isn’t evidence. If the NCAA actually had the smoking gun people claim exists, it would already be in the record. It isn’t. The NCAA has released everything and the have nothing. Just imagine when you see all Brosnan proof, The NCAA is doomed.

Jack Ruby wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:

This post shows a complete misunderstanding of both the facts of the case and how litigation against the NCAA actually works.
First, the claim that “legal discovery would expose Brosnan” is pure speculation. The NCAA already had full investigative authority, they had phone records, review emails, request text messages, DM’s and interview witnesses under penalty of NCAA sanctions. After all of that, the NCAA still produced zero emails, zero texts, and zero direct communication with the athletes prior to the portal. That’s literally in the case summary.
If there were “many recruits and parents” who supposedly heard admissions of illegal recruiting, the NCAA would have presented them. They didn’t. Because they don’t exist. The NCAA had years to build a case and came up empty.
Second, the penalties themselves show how weak the case was. A Level II violation with no coaching suspension is almost unheard of in recruiting cases. That’s basically the infractions committee admitting: we don’t actually have proof of recruiting inducements but we’re going to punish someone anyway. In any real court, that kind of reasoning collapses immediately because the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Third, the legal argument about NCAA rules being challengeable is not some fantasy. Courts have been dismantling NCAA authority for years:
NCAA v. Alston – unanimous Supreme Court ruling against the NCAA under antitrust law.
O’Bannon v. NCAA – NCAA lost again on athlete compensation restrictions.
Todd McNair v. NCAA – NCAA paid millions after investigative misconduct.
Courts have repeatedly held that the NCAA cannot arbitrarily restrict economic opportunities or enforce rules without fair procedure. A rule that effectively says a coach must cut off pre-existing personal relationships or face punishment raises serious issues under antitrust law and state unfair-competition law.
Finally, the “legal fees” argument is also clueless. Major antitrust cases against the NCAA are routinely handled by firms on contingency or litigation funding because damages and fee-shifting statutes can make them extremely lucrative if successful. That’s exactly how most NCAA cases get litigated.
So the reality is the opposite of what this post claims:
The NCAA found no direct recruiting evidence.
They still issued a Level II with no suspension, which signals a weak case.
Courts have been hammering the NCAA for a decade under antitrust law.
Message board speculation and anonymous lies isn’t evidence. If the NCAA actually had the smoking gun people claim exists, it would already be in the record. It isn’t. The NCAA has released everything and the have nothing. Just imagine when you see all Brosnan proof, The NCAA is doomed.

The NCAA actually didn't use ANY of Brosnan's phone records. This is from the original report:

"In its arguments to the panel, the enforcement staff represented that Brosnan’s refusal to cooperate delayed the interview of the head coach and caused the enforcement staff to make initial charging decisions without the benefit of Brosnan’s interview statements. By the time Brosnan agreed to interview, the investigation was complete, and formal allegations were already contemplated. The enforcement staff also stated that it did not rely on any of the records imaged from Brosnan’s phone in bringing or supporting its allegations."

Also, Brosnan deleted pretty much everything anyway. "Brosnan and his counsel completed their review over the next two months, withholding all but 89 of the 7,969 records imaged from the device."

Brosnan admitted to the phone calls. If they were talking about surfing or if he was actively recruiting and offering them scholarships, it would still be the same violation with the same penalty. So the NCAA didn't need to waste time looking into it when Brosnan had already acknowledge the calls took place.

So you are trying to say the NCAA didn't find certain things that they literally didn't even look for, and they didn't even look at his phone. It shows that you are LYING about this case.

Even without looking at ANY of his phone records, one prospect ADMITTED that Brosnan told the father he wanted her on his team. And any jury in the world would determine that the timing of Brosnan's phone calls is proof that they were recruiting in nature as they were immediately before the prospects entered the portal.

His appeal had no shot wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:

First, the claim that “legal discovery would expose Brosnan” is pure speculation. The NCAA already had full investigative authority, they had phone records, review emails, request text messages, DM’s and interview witnesses under penalty of NCAA sanctions.

If there were “many recruits and parents” who supposedly heard admissions of illegal recruiting, the NCAA would have presented them. They didn’t.

You're just making things up, and purposely twisting what the NCAA rules state. The fact is that in order for the NCAA to find that Brosnan violated NCAA rules, the NCAA only needed to produce evidence that Brosnan was talking to the fathers of two women who were athletes at other universities before those 2 women went into the transfer portal. Period!

And that evidence was very easy to produce because Brosnan himself ADMITTED to talking to the father's BEFORE their daughters went into the transfer portal. So in addition to the NCAA getting hold of Brosnan's phone records, Brosnan ADMITTED he broke the rules. Case closed!

If Brosnan tried to take NCAA to court in order to sue the NCAA over his false claim that he was talking to the fathers but wasn't talking to them about any illegal recruiting, then the NCAA would take additional steps for full legal discovery, because obviously the NCAA doesn't want to lose a court case like that. And Brosnan KNOWS that in the fall of 2022 he was using those 2 women in his recruiting pitch to other recruits in an attempt to convince those recruits to go to UCLA. So there is no way he sues the NCAA over that.

All the NCAA has to do is contact every girl that Brosnan was recruiting, and their parents, and some of them would remember that Brosnan told them about the 2 women agreeing to transfer to UCLA before those 2 women were in the transfer portal.

On the other issue, could Brosnan sue in an attempt to get all the college transfer rules thrown out? He could try, but good luck trying to get a court to agree to that. It would result in total chaos, with college coaches constantly contacting runners from other schools trying to get them to transfer. No court is going to allow that to happen because it would turn the NCAA into a total mess.

So Brosnan won't be suing the NCAA despite you insisting dozens of times that he will.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

His appeal had no shot wrote:

You're just making things up, and purposely twisting what the NCAA rules state. The fact is that in order for the NCAA to find that Brosnan violated NCAA rules, the NCAA only needed to produce evidence that Brosnan was talking to the fathers of two women who were athletes at other universities before those 2 women went into the transfer portal. Period!

And that evidence was very easy to produce because Brosnan himself ADMITTED to talking to the father's BEFORE their daughters went into the transfer portal. So in addition to the NCAA getting hold of Brosnan's phone records, Brosnan ADMITTED he broke the rules. Case closed!

If Brosnan tried to take NCAA to court in order to sue the NCAA over his false claim that he was talking to the fathers but wasn't talking to them about any illegal recruiting, then the NCAA would take additional steps for full legal discovery, because obviously the NCAA doesn't want to lose a court case like that. And Brosnan KNOWS that in the fall of 2022 he was using those 2 women in his recruiting pitch to other recruits in an attempt to convince those recruits to go to UCLA. So there is no way he sues the NCAA over that.

All the NCAA has to do is contact every girl that Brosnan was recruiting, and their parents, and some of them would remember that Brosnan told them about the 2 women agreeing to transfer to UCLA before those 2 women were in the transfer portal.

On the other issue, could Brosnan sue in an attempt to get all the college transfer rules thrown out? He could try, but good luck trying to get a court to agree to that. It would result in total chaos, with college coaches constantly contacting runners from other schools trying to get them to transfer. No court is going to allow that to happen because it would turn the NCAA into a total mess.

So Brosnan won't be suing the NCAA despite you insisting dozens of times that he will.

Your argument collapses the second you actually read NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.4. The rule regulates recruiting contact (THAT'S A LIE) not simply knowing or speaking to a parent (THAT'S A LIE).

Admitting a phone call occurred is not an admission of recruiting (THAT'S A LIE). For a violation under Bylaw 13, the NCAA has to show the communication was recruiting in nature (THAT'S A LIE), inducements (THAT'S A LIE), pitches (THAT'S A LIE), or attempts to secure a transfer (THAT'S A LIE).

BurdenOfProof wrote:

His appeal had no shot wrote:

You're just making things up, and purposely twisting what the NCAA rules state. The fact is that in order for the NCAA to find that Brosnan violated NCAA rules, the NCAA only needed to produce evidence that Brosnan was talking to the fathers of two women who were athletes at other universities before those 2 women went into the transfer portal. Period!

And that evidence was very easy to produce because Brosnan himself ADMITTED to talking to the father's BEFORE their daughters went into the transfer portal. So in addition to the NCAA getting hold of Brosnan's phone records, Brosnan ADMITTED he broke the rules. Case closed!

If Brosnan tried to take NCAA to court in order to sue the NCAA over his false claim that he was talking to the fathers but wasn't talking to them about any illegal recruiting, then the NCAA would take additional steps for full legal discovery, because obviously the NCAA doesn't want to lose a court case like that. And Brosnan KNOWS that in the fall of 2022 he was using those 2 women in his recruiting pitch to other recruits in an attempt to convince those recruits to go to UCLA. So there is no way he sues the NCAA over that.

All the NCAA has to do is contact every girl that Brosnan was recruiting, and their parents, and some of them would remember that Brosnan told them about the 2 women agreeing to transfer to UCLA before those 2 women were in the transfer portal.

On the other issue, could Brosnan sue in an attempt to get all the college transfer rules thrown out? He could try, but good luck trying to get a court to agree to that. It would result in total chaos, with college coaches constantly contacting runners from other schools trying to get them to transfer. No court is going to allow that to happen because it would turn the NCAA into a total mess.

So Brosnan won't be suing the NCAA despite you insisting dozens of times that he will.

Your argument collapses the second you actually read NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.4. The rule regulates recruiting contact, not simply knowing or speaking to a parent. Admitting a phone call occurred is not an admission of recruiting. For a violation under Bylaw 13, the NCAA has to show the communication was recruiting in nature, inducements, pitches, or attempts to secure a transfer.
Even worse for your theory, the NCAA itself admitted it did not rely on the contents of Brosnan’s phone records. That means there were no texts, emails, or call transcripts proving recruiting. The case was built on timing and inference, not actual evidence of recruiting conduct.
So no, this isn’t “case closed.” Legally it’s the opposite: contact plus speculation does not satisfy the elements of a recruiting violation under Bylaw 13. Pretending otherwise just shows you don’t understand the rule or basic evidentiary standards.