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).
You are VERY stupid, and a LIAR, and you also have a bad memory. You forgot that yesterday you posted the exact NCAA rule, which directly contradicts your latest post, proving that you are a non-stop LIAR.
. 2025–26 NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw 13.1.1.4 (Tampering): “An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution’s athletics, porving 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
.
So you have PROVEN that know what the rule says, but in most of your posts you flat out LIE about what the rule says. The rule ONLY requires contact. The rule DOES NOT require the NCAA to prove that recruiting happened during that contact.
Take your LIES somewhere else!
You’re confusing what the text literally says with what the NCAA still has to prove in a real enforcement case. Bylaw 13.1.1.4 bars communication or contact with another school’s athlete or someone associated with that athlete, such as a family member, before transfer authorization. That much is true. But merely quoting the bylaw does not magically prove what the communication was, why it happened, or whether the NCAA fairly applied that rule to longstanding preexisting relationships. NCAA compliance materials themselves describe tampering as involving coaches reaching out to family members “to see if they are interested in transferring,” which shows the bylaw is aimed at transfer-related contact, not absurdly criminalizing every human interaction in a vacuum. So no, the issue is not whether the bylaw contains the word “inducement.” The real issue is that you are pretending any contact whatsoever automatically ends the analysis. It does not. If the NCAA could not show recruiting content, transfer-related solicitation, or some actual tampering purpose, then what they did was reduce a tampering rule into a blanket “don’t speak to people you already know” rule. That is exactly the kind of overbroad enforcement people criticize, because the rule targets unauthorized transfer contact, not ordinary life, friendship, or preexisting relationships stripped of recruiting substance.
You are VERY stupid, and a LIAR, and you also have a bad memory. You forgot that yesterday you posted the exact NCAA rule, which directly contradicts your latest post, proving that you are a non-stop LIAR.
. 2025–26 NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw 13.1.1.4 (Tampering): “An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution’s athletics, porving 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
.
So you have PROVEN that know what the rule says, but in most of your posts you flat out LIE about what the rule says. The rule ONLY requires contact. The rule DOES NOT require the NCAA to prove that recruiting happened during that contact.
Take your LIES somewhere else!
You’re confusing what the text literally says with what the NCAA still has to prove in a real enforcement case. Bylaw 13.1.1.4 bars communication or contact with another school’s athlete or someone associated with that athlete, such as a family member, before transfer authorization.
That much is true.
And CONTACT is ALL that matters regarding a rule violation. Period. End of story.
You’re confusing what the text literally says with what the NCAA still has to prove in a real enforcement case. Bylaw 13.1.1.4 bars communication or contact with another school’s athlete or someone associated with that athlete, such as a family member, before transfer authorization.
That much is true.
And CONTACT is ALL that matters regarding a rule violation. Period. End of story.
The rest of your post was irrelevant.
“Contact is all that matters” is nonsense. If that were true, every D1 coach in America would be committing tampering daily because coaches know parents and families all over the sport. Tampering rules were written to stop transfer recruiting, not to criminalize normal human relationships. Your interpretation would make the rule absurd and legally indefensible.
And that would be breaking State, Federal and antitrust laws.
And CONTACT is ALL that matters regarding a rule violation. Period. End of story.
The rest of your post was irrelevant.
“Contact is all that matters” is nonsense. If that were true, every D1 coach in America would be committing tampering daily because coaches know parents and families all over the sport. Tampering rules were written to stop transfer recruiting, not to criminalize normal human relationships.
You're lying again. The NCAA rule does NOT "criminalize" contact. You made that up. Brosnan wasn't arrested. He didn't go to jail. He doesn't have a criminal record. Stop making things up.
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.
Both of you are missing the most important, and most obvious, reason why UCLA accepted the penalties. It's because Brosnan ADMITTED to breaking the rules. When the NCAA approached Brosnan they asked him "Did you talk to these 2 student athletes, or their parents, before they were in the transfer portal?" Brosnan said "Yes, of course I did. Their dads are friends of mine. I talk to them regularly." The NCAA then said "Thanks for making our life easy and admitting to breaking the rules."
So of course UCLA was going to accept the penalties after they found out that Brosnan admitted to breaking the rules. What else was UCLA supposed to do? Say "Brosnan is lying, he never talked to their fathers"? Once Brosnan admitted to breaking the rules, UCLA had no choice but to accept the penalties.
So to say that UCLA "fast tracked" it, is not correct. Brosnan himself fast tracked UCLA into admitting that Brosnan broke the rules, because Brosnan told the NCAA that he broke the rules.
Brosnan is trying to blame everyone except himself for the mess he finds himself in, when the reality is that he is the one that caused all the problems.
It’s honestly wild watching some of you bend yourselves into pretzels trying to pretend the NCAA didn’t completely screw this one up. The NCAA couldn’t produce and proof of tampering. Nothing. Zero. The entire case boiled down to phone calls with people he already knew. That’s it. Yet somehow the message board legal experts want everyone to believe that normal contact with someone you’ve known for years automatically equals recruiting. If that were actually the rule, then congratulations, every single coach in America would be guilty of tampering every week. And that’s the funniest part of this whole thing. Everyone actually involved in the sport knows what happened. Coaches, agents, athletes, they all know the case was weak. Meanwhile the same handful of LetsRun trolls show up every day writing essays trying to convince themselves it was some massive cheating scandal. At some point you guys are going to have to face reality, the NCAA forced a violation where they couldn’t prove recruiting prior to these athletes entering the portal. That’s why it ended up as a Level II with no suspension, which basically tells you everything you need to know. But sure, keep logging on every day to cry about it like it personally ruined your life. The rest of the sport has already moved on. And if Brosnan wants to take legal action, it’s sounds like it’s a huge win, but it’s his deal not yours. It’s time to let it go.
“Contact is all that matters” is nonsense. If that were true, every D1 coach in America would be committing tampering daily because coaches know parents and families all over the sport. Tampering rules were written to stop transfer recruiting, not to criminalize normal human relationships.
You're lying again. The NCAA rule does NOT "criminalize" contact. You made that up. Brosnan wasn't arrested. He didn't go to jail. He doesn't have a criminal record. Stop making things up.
Nobody said the NCAA rule creates an actual criminal offense. “Criminalize” in this context obviously means treating ordinary conduct as punishable wrongdoing under NCAA enforcement. Try to keep up. No one is claiming Brosnan was arrested, jailed, or given a criminal record. That’s a straw man because you can’t answer the real point.
It is not "disputed" that's what Brosnan said. That was the recruit's official testimony.
She told the NCAA Brosna was trying to recruit her by speaking to her father prior to her entering the portal.
It's airtight, the jury would make their decision in 5 minutes. Guilty.
That’s simply not true. Point to where it was ever stated that “she told the NCAA Brosnan was recruiting her by speaking to her father before she entered the portal”. You can’t, because that claim was never made anywhere.
She told the NCAA what Brosnan said to her father prior to the portal. Brosnan said he'd love to have her, which is 100% recruiting language.
Her testimony told the NCAA that Brosnan was recruiting via the father.
That's straight from the mouth of the main target of the investigation. That's the strongest possible evidence to the NCAA.
That’s simply not true. Point to where it was ever stated that “she told the NCAA Brosnan was recruiting her by speaking to her father before she entered the portal”. You can’t, because that claim was never made anywhere.
She told the NCAA what Brosnan said to her father prior to the portal. Brosnan said he'd love to have her, which is 100% recruiting language.
Her testimony told the NCAA that Brosnan was recruiting via the father.
That's straight from the mouth of the main target of the investigation. That's the strongest possible evidence to the NCAA.
And CONTACT is ALL that matters regarding a rule violation. Period. End of story.
The rest of your post was irrelevant.
“Contact is all that matters” is nonsense. If that were true, every D1 coach in America would be committing tampering daily because coaches know parents and families all over the sport.
“Contact is all that matters” is nonsense. If that were true, every D1 coach in America would be committing tampering daily because coaches know parents and families all over the sport.
Knowing is not the same thing as contacting.
When you’re friends or acquaintances with someone, you talk to them. You see them at meets, you hang out, you take calls. That’s normal human behavior. If that alone were “tampering,” then almost every coach in the NCAA would be guilty. That’s obviously not what the rule was intended to regulate, which is why there was zero evidence of actual recruiting or tampering
She told the NCAA what Brosnan said to her father prior to the portal. Brosnan said he'd love to have her, which is 100% recruiting language.
Her testimony told the NCAA that Brosnan was recruiting via the father.
That's straight from the mouth of the main target of the investigation. That's the strongest possible evidence to the NCAA.
Thats 100% false. Point out where ……………
BurdenOfProof your th only one with facts.
It’s the same handful of trolls repeating the same lies. They invent facts because the actual record doesn’t support their argument. When someone posts the real details, they can’t respond, so they just double down on misinformation.
Both of you are missing the most important, and most obvious, reason why UCLA accepted the penalties. It's because Brosnan ADMITTED to breaking the rules. When the NCAA approached Brosnan they asked him "Did you talk to these 2 student athletes, or their parents, before they were in the transfer portal?" Brosnan said "Yes, of course I did. Their dads are friends of mine. I talk to them regularly." The NCAA then said "Thanks for making our life easy and admitting to breaking the rules."
So of course UCLA was going to accept the penalties after they found out that Brosnan admitted to breaking the rules. What else was UCLA supposed to do? Say "Brosnan is lying, he never talked to their fathers"? Once Brosnan admitted to breaking the rules, UCLA had no choice but to accept the penalties.
So to say that UCLA "fast tracked" it, is not correct. Brosnan himself fast tracked UCLA into admitting that Brosnan broke the rules, because Brosnan told the NCAA that he broke the rules.
Brosnan is trying to blame everyone except himself for the mess he finds himself in, when the reality is that he is the one that caused all the problems.
It’s honestly wild watching some of you bend yourselves into pretzels trying to pretend the NCAA didn’t completely screw this one up. The NCAA couldn’t produce and proof of tampering. Nothing. Zero. The entire case boiled down to phone calls with people he already knew. That’s it. Yet somehow the message board legal experts want everyone to believe that normal contact with someone you’ve known for years automatically equals recruiting. If that were actually the rule, then congratulations, every single coach in America would be guilty of tampering every week. And that’s the funniest part of this whole thing. Everyone actually involved in the sport knows what happened. Coaches, agents, athletes, they all know the case was weak. Meanwhile the same handful of LetsRun trolls show up every day writing essays trying to convince themselves it was some massive cheating scandal. At some point you guys are going to have to face reality, the NCAA forced a violation where they couldn’t prove recruiting prior to these athletes entering the portal. That’s why it ended up as a Level II with no suspension, which basically tells you everything you need to know. But sure, keep logging on every day to cry about it like it personally ruined your life. The rest of the sport has already moved on. And if Brosnan wants to take legal action, it’s sounds like it’s a huge win, but it’s his deal not yours. It’s time to let it go.
Oh look, another new username repeating the same lies.
And CONTACT is ALL that matters regarding a rule violation. Period. End of story.
The rest of your post was irrelevant.
“Contact is all that matters” is nonsense. If that were true, every D1 coach in America would be committing tampering daily because coaches know parents and families all over the sport. Tampering rules were written to stop transfer recruiting, not to criminalize normal human relationships. Your interpretation would make the rule absurd and legally indefensible.
And that would be breaking State, Federal and antitrust laws.
Every D1 coach in America might be committing the same violations, but they weren't dumb enough to get caught and Brosnan was.
So Brosnan in his appeal claimed he didn't know it was against the rules. And you are saying every coach does it but Brosnan is the only one that got caught.
Brosnan sounds more clueless and clumsy than Homer Simpson.
My son went to HS in Manhattan Beach, CA with Dalia Frias. She was in top 5 High School girl runners that class. So bizarre she went to Duke. I guess that was her dream school education-wise? She entered transfer portal with many weeks left Duke 2nd semester and announced on her Instagram she was transferring to UCLA (like 40 minutes from her parents in Man Beach) where Brosnan was going to coach. Again- I guess for the academics as their running teams suck!!! Like 1-2 days later, Dalia abruptly removes her UCLA announcement, and announces she is transferring to Oregon. Ya-something bad happened there! Like Brosnan talked to her dad on the phone? She went from Duke, to UCLA with a 9% acceptance rate, to 80% acceptance rate at Oregon! She made a huge mistake! She should have stayed at Duke or UCLA.. unless she knew she was going to be in trouble for possible violations with Brosnan?
Who is SHE? Dalia Frias? She was at Duke Freshman year, announced on Instagram like April she was transferring to UCLA, then 1-2 days later, deleted that announcement, and announced she was going to Oregon.
“Contact is all that matters” is nonsense. If that were true, every D1 coach in America would be committing tampering daily because coaches know parents and families all over the sport. Tampering rules were written to stop transfer recruiting, not to criminalize normal human relationships. Your interpretation would make the rule absurd and legally indefensible.
And that would be breaking State, Federal and antitrust laws.
Every D1 coach in America might be committing the same violations, but they weren't dumb enough to get caught and Brosnan was.
So Brosnan in his appeal claimed he didn't know it was against the rules. And you are saying every coach does it but Brosnan is the only one that got caught.
Brosnan sounds more clueless and clumsy than Homer Simpson.
The whole thing makes even less sense when you look at the investigation. The NCAA looked at every athlete who transferred to UCLA 7 or 8 of them trying to find evidence of pre-portal recruiting.(because Vin Lananna forced an investigation and was bragging about it ) this was on the LetsRun podcast with Jon Gault, they found nothing. The only two situations they could point to were Sam McDonnell and Mia Barnett, where Brosnan already had long-standing friendships with their parents that existed well before UCLA. So after a massive investigation and spending all that money, the NCAA couldn’t find actual recruiting inducements or pre-portal recruiting. Instead they reinterpreted the bylaw to essentially say a coach should cut off friendships with anyone whose kid is at another NCAA school. That’s a huge stretch from what the rule was supposed to address and like others have pointed out, it’s against the law.
My son went to HS in Manhattan Beach, CA with Dalia Frias. She was in top 5 High School girl runners that class. So bizarre she went to Duke. I guess that was her dream school education-wise? She entered transfer portal with many weeks left Duke 2nd semester and announced on her Instagram she was transferring to UCLA (like 40 minutes from her parents in Man Beach) where Brosnan was going to coach. Again- I guess for the academics as their running teams suck!!! Like 1-2 days later, Dalia abruptly removes her UCLA announcement, and announces she is transferring to Oregon. Ya-something bad happened there! Like Brosnan talked to her dad on the phone? She went from Duke, to UCLA with a 9% acceptance rate, to 80% acceptance rate at Oregon! She made a huge mistake! She should have stayed at Duke or UCLA.. unless she knew she was going to be in trouble for possible violations with Brosnan?
I always thought it was more likely that Duke reported Brosnan for violations. They were so pissed when she went in the portal that they didn't bring her to indoor NCAA's even though she had qualified on their DMR.
There was definitely some behind the scenes drama going on there with Duke pulling her from NCAA's and Frias backing out of her UCLA commitment after less than 48 hours.
Every D1 coach in America might be committing the same violations, but they weren't dumb enough to get caught and Brosnan was.
So Brosnan in his appeal claimed he didn't know it was against the rules. And you are saying every coach does it but Brosnan is the only one that got caught.
Brosnan sounds more clueless and clumsy than Homer Simpson.
The whole thing makes even less sense when you look at the investigation. The NCAA looked at every athlete who transferred to UCLA 7 or 8 of them trying to find evidence of pre-portal recruiting.(because Vin Lananna forced an investigation and was bragging about it ) this was on the LetsRun podcast with Jon Gault, they found nothing. The only two situations they could point to were Sam McDonnell and Mia Barnett, where Brosnan already had long-standing friendships with their parents that existed well before UCLA. So after a massive investigation and spending all that money, the NCAA couldn’t find actual recruiting inducements or pre-portal recruiting. Instead they reinterpreted the bylaw to essentially say a coach should cut off friendships with anyone whose kid is at another NCAA school. That’s a huge stretch from what the rule was supposed to address and like others have pointed out, it’s against the law.
They did not reinterpret the bylaw. You cannot find 1 other example of the NCAA allowing a coach to talk to parents of athletes on another team prior to being in the portal of receiving permission to contact.
The NCAA has never said it was ok. The NCAA has never investigated any such conversations and deemed them appropriate. If other coaches are doing it, then provide evidence report them.
The bylaw states it's exact intention. It is YOU who is trying to reinterpret the bylaw.