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.
The “48 hours” claim is nonsense. She verbally committed to UCLA in the spring, then when UCLA didn’t renew Brosnan she changed course and went to Oregon. That’s entirely permitted under the portal rules and happens constantly
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.
Your argument falls apart under basic legal analysis. Bylaw 13 regulates recruiting conduct, which the NCAA defines as solicitation to secure enrollment. The NCAA investigated multiple transfers and found no recruiting evidence, so the COI fell back on the theory that maintaining pre-existing friendships with parents created an “advantage.” When a regulator invents a theory with no precedent after failing to prove the underlying violation, that’s not enforcement, that’s an after-the-fact expansion of the rule.
Facts you mean. Can’t break the law for your reinterpretation of a bylaw
No I don’t mean facts. You repeat the lie that the NCAA found no evidence of recruiting over and over again, with new usernames, same lies.
The actual record is pretty simple. The NCAA did not produce evidence of recruiting or inducements before the athletes entered the transfer portal. What they cited were conversations with parents who were long-time, pre-existing acquaintances. That’s the factual record. There were no texts, emails, offers, or recruiting materials presented showing pre-portal recruiting—only contact with people he already knew.
No I don’t mean facts. You repeat the lie that the NCAA found no evidence of recruiting over and over again, with new usernames, same lies.
The actual record is pretty simple. The NCAA did not produce evidence of recruiting or inducements before the athletes entered the transfer portal. What they cited were conversations with parents who were long-time, pre-existing acquaintances. That’s the factual record. There were no texts, emails, offers, or recruiting materials presented showing pre-portal recruiting—only contact with people he already knew.
"During prospect 2’s separate interview with the enforcement staff—which occurred over one year prior to her father’s interview—she recounted her understanding of this conversation based on what her father told her at the time. According to prospect 2, Brosnan told her father, “[W]e would love to have her, but I can’t talk to her until she’s in the portal.”"
There is more:
"Although a tampering violation occurred regardless of the content of Brosnan’s communications with the two fathers, the timing of the phone calls strongly suggests a recruiting nexus. As it relates to prospect 1’s father specifically, multiple calls occurred in the hours immediately before prospect 1 entered the transfer portal. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the conversations, at least in part, involved recruiting communication."
The actual record is pretty simple. The NCAA did not produce evidence of recruiting or inducements before the athletes entered the transfer portal. What they cited were conversations with parents who were long-time, pre-existing acquaintances. That’s the factual record. There were no texts, emails, offers, or recruiting materials presented showing pre-portal recruiting—only contact with people he already knew.
"During prospect 2’s separate interview with the enforcement staff—which occurred over one year prior to her father’s interview—she recounted her understanding of this conversation based on what her father told her at the time. According to prospect 2, Brosnan told her father, “[W]e would love to have her, but I can’t talk to her until she’s in the portal.”"
There is more:
"Although a tampering violation occurred regardless of the content of Brosnan’s communications with the two fathers, the timing of the phone calls strongly suggests a recruiting nexus. As it relates to prospect 1’s father specifically, multiple calls occurred in the hours immediately before prospect 1 entered the transfer portal. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the conversations, at least in part, involved recruiting communication."
passage actually highlights how weak the NCAA’s theory was. The only statement attributed to Brosnan was him explicitly following the rule: “I can’t talk to her until she’s in the portal.” That is compliance, not recruiting. Even more telling, the enforcement staff admitted the alleged violation existed “regardless of the content” of the conversations, which means they never proved any recruiting occurred at all. What they relied on instead was second-hand hearsay—a daughter recounting what her father supposedly told her about a conversation. That is not a direct quote from Brosnan and not evidence of recruiting. And even if a father independently tells his daughter, “that school would love to have you,” that statement by a parent is not against any NCAA rule. The **National Collegiate Athletic Association does not regulate what parents tell their own children. So the NCAA’s position effectively boiled down to this: contact itself was the violation, regardless of content, regardless of recruiting, and regardless of long-standing relationships. That interpretation goes far beyond the text of Bylaw 13, which governs recruiting conduct—not normal conversations between adults who may already know each other. If mere contact is enough, then the NCAA is essentially saying coaches must cut off normal relationships with friends or acquaintances whose children happen to compete at another school, which is not what the rule actually says and is precisely why the enforcement theory was so legally questionable.
The record actually proves the opposite of what the trolls keep claiming. What still amazes me is the NCAA still has never produced a single piece of evidence showing recruiting or inducements before portal entry. The only conduct cited was conversations with parents who were long-time acquaintances. In fact, the decision itself admits the alleged violation existed “regardless of the content” of those conversations. That means the NCAA did not prove recruiting at all, they simply treated the existence of contact between adults as the violation. In other words, the only thing Brosnan was actually “proven” guilty of was speaking with people he already knew, which is a far cry from proving impermissible recruiting under Bylaw 13.
The NCAA’s problem in court is simple, it did not prove recruiting. Its own transfer materials focus on impermissible pre-portal contact, yet on these facts the theory collapses into “contact itself is illegal,” even where the people involved were long-time acquaintances and there were no texts, emails, offers, or recruiting materials. That is not enforcement of a narrow recruiting bylaw; that is an ad hoc rule that says a coach must effectively cut off normal relationships if someone’s child happens to be at another school. Courts hate that kind of overreach because it looks arbitrary, unmoored from the text, and unsupported by substantial evidence.
Legally, that is where the NCAA walks into a buzz saw. In California, McNair shows the NCAA can be sued under fair-procedure principles when its discipline damages a coach’s profession. California’s § 17200 reaches unfair business practices. And Alston makes clear the NCAA does not get an antitrust free pass under Sherman Act § 1. So if the record is really just “he talked to people he already knew,” the NCAA is not defending a proven tampering case, it is defending an arbitrary restraint dressed up as enforcement.
Legally this case is dangerous ground for the NCAA. As pointed out the McNair case shows they can be sued in California when discipline damages a coach’s profession under fair-procedure principles. California §17200 reaches unfair business practices. And Alston made clear the NCAA doesn’t get an antitrust free pass under Sherman Act §1. The records show no actual evidence and the NCAA breaking clear laws is scary for them. TheNCAA isn’t defending a proven tampering case. They’re defending arbitrary enforcement with no evidence of recruiting. Courts don’t like that.
I don't really understand the objective here. Why do the arguing on Letsrun? If it's such a slam dunk of a legal case - take them to court. Trying (in vain) to convince people here is not going to clear your name. At this point we all know how you see the case, and how others see the case - and saying the same thing over and over is not going to change that.
I don't really understand the objective here. Why do the arguing on Letsrun? If it's such a slam dunk of a legal case - take them to court. Trying (in vain) to convince people here is not going to clear your name. At this point we all know how you see the case, and how others see the case - and saying the same thing over and over is not going to change that.
Sincerely, Insanity.
Because he's too broke to sue so he's desperately trying to clear his name to get a job. He hasn't had a job in 3 years. It's actually pathetic.
I don't really understand the objective here. Why do the arguing on Letsrun? If it's such a slam dunk of a legal case - take them to court. Trying (in vain) to convince people here is not going to clear your name. At this point we all know how you see the case, and how others see the case - and saying the same thing over and over is not going to change that.
Sincerely, Insanity.
It’s the same two trolls posting under different handles, with an actual lawyer owning them. Anyone who reads the board regularly can see it. The reality is simple: a few people can’t handle that Brosnan actually had success in the sport. So they sit behind anonymous accounts repeating the same false narratives hoping something sticks. It doesn’t make them right, it just makes them look obsessed. If you need to invent things about someone else to feel better about yourself, that’s not debate that’s insecurity.
I don't really understand the objective here. Why do the arguing on Letsrun? If it's such a slam dunk of a legal case - take them to court. Trying (in vain) to convince people here is not going to clear your name. At this point we all know how you see the case, and how others see the case - and saying the same thing over and over is not going to change that.
Sincerely, Insanity.
Because he's too broke to sue so he's desperately trying to clear his name to get a job. He hasn't had a job in 3 years. It's actually pathetic.
Case and point with this person who needs to post lies to make themselves feel better 😂
The registered poster defending Bronson is so obviously using ChatGPT in order to find any angle at which to defend him but paradoxically it’s making him look even more guilty that he already was lol