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

BurdenOfProof wrote:

His appeal had no shot wrote:

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.

30 year coach wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:

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.

I was a coach in the NCAA for over 30 years, and the rule in question has ALWAYS been enforced exactly as it is written. Your interpretation of it is objectively wrong, ridiculous, and frankly deceitful as you know you are lying. These were violations. Period.

I can sometimes sympathize with the friendship argument but the facts in this case prove this was clear recruiting by Brosnan. Remember, the recruits committed to UCLA within minutes of going in the transfer portal, they asked not to be contacted by other schools and they never even reached out to other schools on their own.

The timing of phone calls is definitive proof, and the prospect herself admitted it. I bet she thought it was permissible for Brosnan to say "I would love to have her on the team but you need to be in the portal" but the NCAA has said millions of times that saying "we'd love to have you" is recruiting language and is not allowed when people are not in the portal.

As an added thought, Brosnan fighting this made it 10x worse for himself. Schools looking to hire him can forgive a small mistake if he admitted it and apologized, but Brosnan's temper tantrums made him 100% unemployable. Nobody wants to hire someone who can never admit when they are wrong and threatens to sue any time he doesn't get his way.

Holes in your story wrote:

30 year coach wrote:

I was a coach in the NCAA for over 30 years, and the rule in question has ALWAYS been enforced exactly as it is written. Your interpretation of it is objectively wrong, ridiculous, and frankly deceitful as you know you are lying. These were violations. Period.

I can sometimes sympathize with the friendship argument but the facts in this case prove this was clear recruiting by Brosnan. Remember, the recruits committed to UCLA within minutes of going in the transfer portal, they asked not to be contacted by other schools and they never even reached out to other schools on their own.

The timing of phone calls is definitive proof, and the prospect herself admitted it. I bet she thought it was permissible for Brosnan to say "I would love to have her on the team but you need to be in the portal" but the NCAA has said millions of times that saying "we'd love to have you" is recruiting language and is not allowed when people are not in the portal.

As an added thought, Brosnan fighting this made it 10x worse for himself. Schools looking to hire him can forgive a small mistake if he admitted it and apologized, but Brosnan's temper tantrums made him 100% unemployable. Nobody wants to hire someone who can never admit when they are wrong and threatens to sue any time he doesn't get his way.

Nice try with the “30-year coach” credential, but the premise is wrong from the start. The transfer portal didn’t even exist until 2018, and the modern enforcement framework around pre-portal contact and transfer authorization under Bylaw 13 is relatively new. So the claim that this exact situation has been enforced “the same way for 30 years or a very long time” is simply false. The system itself hasn’t even existed that long.
And the rest of your argument still relies on speculation. Timing is not proof of recruiting. Phone calls are not proof of recruiting content. Athletes entering the portal and committing quickly happens across the NCAA every single year. If timing alone proved tampering, the NCAA would be issuing violations constantly. They don’t, because Bylaw 13 regulates recruiting conduct, not the mere existence of conversations or assumptions about what was said.
So the “period, case closed” routine doesn’t work. You’re presenting circumstantial timing and assumptions as definitive proof, which is not how evidence works, either in NCAA enforcement or anywhere else.