What exactly has Brosnan done that offends you to keep posting about him ? Seriously. He’s not out there doing media tours whining about it. He’s not constantly in the press attacking people. He’s literally just coaching and moving forward with his life. Since UCLA he’s continued coaching athletes, wrote a book (Beyond Fast), and stayed involved in the sport. That sounds a lot like someone who did move on, not someone “stuck in the past.” And if he decides to sue the NCAA, that’s his legal right. It’s not your decision or anyone else on a message board. People challenge organizations in court all the time when they believe enforcement was wrong or unfair. That’s how the legal system works and good for him if he chooses so! Honestly, the weird part isn’t what Brosnan is doing. The weird part is people still sitting on message boards years later inventing stories about what they think he was feeling at the time. If he’s coaching, building athletes, and writing books, it looks like he’s doing just fine.
Remind me which athletes he's coaching?
Ok really , you need a life. You’re pathetic right now.
The same trolls have been strangely addicted to posting about a Brosnan. They claim they dislike or disapprove of him, yet they can’t stop bringing their name up, day after day, thread after thread. Psychologically, this kind of behavior often comes from a mix of fixation, insecurity, and the small dopamine hit people get from attention and conflict online. The brain begins to reward the cycle post something negative, get reactions, feel validated, repeat. Over time it becomes less about truth and more about feeding that habit. What starts as “criticism” slowly turns into obsession, where the person they claim to dislike ends up living rent-free in their head. At that point the constant posting stops revealing anything about the target and instead exposes the underlying fixation of the person doing it.
The only person obsessed with Brosnan on this message board is Sean. I can’t think of anyone as narcissistic.
Says the guy who can’t go five minutes without posting about Brosnan. That level of obsession is honestly more embarrassing than anything you’re trying to criticize.
Your argument falls apart once you apply the actual “burden-of-proof” standard used in NCAA enforcement cases. The enforcement staff carries the burden to prove a violation by credible and persuasive evidence. That means they must show facts that demonstrate a recruiting violation occurred — not merely that a conversation existed. And that’s exactly where this case falls apart. The public record shows no evidence of recruiting activity: No texts or emails offering a transfer opportunity No scholarship discussions No inducements No documented recruiting pitch No direct contact with the athletes themselves What the NCAA relied on were conversations with parents who were long-time acquaintances. Even those parents stated that the coach told them he could not discuss transferring until the portal. That statement, if anything, reflects compliance with the rule, not a violation. Bylaw 13 is a recruiting bylaw, not a “no human interaction” bylaw. The NCAA therefore had to prove recruiting conduct. Instead, their theory effectively became: contact itself equals recruiting. That is not proof; that is an inference layered on speculation. In any adjudicative setting, whether an administrative proceeding or a court applying fair procedure principles discipline cannot rest on speculation or assumptions. The decision must be supported by substantial evidence tied to the actual elements of the rule. When the record shows only that two people who already knew each other had conversations, with no evidence of recruiting content, the enforcement staff has not carried its burden. So the irony here is that the person accusing others of “speculation” is relying entirely on speculation himself assuming recruiting occurred without a single piece of documented recruiting evidence. When the NCAA cannot prove recruiting and instead argues that contact alone equals a violation, that’s not enforcement of the rule. That’s an after-the-fact reinterpretation used to justify a penalty.
The true irony is the person reinterpreting the exact text of the bylaw is accusing others of "reinterpretation" for following the exact text of the bylaw. It's Beyond Dumb.
Accurate. Brosnan is arguing for a different application of the bylaw than what is written in its text. He is wrong, he committed a violation, and he permanently has hurt his own reputation for failing to take accountability.
Your argument falls apart once you apply the actual “burden-of-proof” standard used in NCAA enforcement cases. The enforcement staff carries the burden to prove a violation by credible and persuasive evidence. That means they must show facts that demonstrate a recruiting violation occurred — not merely that a conversation existed. And that’s exactly where this case falls apart. The public record shows no evidence of recruiting activity: No texts or emails offering a transfer opportunity No scholarship discussions No inducements No documented recruiting pitch No direct contact with the athletes themselves What the NCAA relied on were conversations with parents who were long-time acquaintances. Even those parents stated that the coach told them he could not discuss transferring until the portal. That statement, if anything, reflects compliance with the rule, not a violation. Bylaw 13 is a recruiting bylaw, not a “no human interaction” bylaw. The NCAA therefore had to prove recruiting conduct. Instead, their theory effectively became: contact itself equals recruiting. That is not proof; that is an inference layered on speculation. In any adjudicative setting, whether an administrative proceeding or a court applying fair procedure principles discipline cannot rest on speculation or assumptions. The decision must be supported by substantial evidence tied to the actual elements of the rule. When the record shows only that two people who already knew each other had conversations, with no evidence of recruiting content, the enforcement staff has not carried its burden. So the irony here is that the person accusing others of “speculation” is relying entirely on speculation himself assuming recruiting occurred without a single piece of documented recruiting evidence. When the NCAA cannot prove recruiting and instead argues that contact alone equals a violation, that’s not enforcement of the rule. That’s an after-the-fact reinterpretation used to justify a penalty.
BurdenOfProof you are clearly lying. The NCAA did find evidence of recruiting.
Here is the NCAA Bylaw that outlines what they need to prove to violations:
"19.7 Standards of Review and Resolution Methods (Level I/II Cases) 19.7.1 Enforcement Allegation Standard. The enforcement staff shall make formal allegations if it determines there is credible and sufficient information (direct or circumstantial) that reasonably demonstrates a violation of one or more NCAA bylaws occurred. (Adopted: 8/31/22 effective 1/1/23)"
In their report, quoted below, they clearly state they determined that the evidence in Brosnan's case REASONABLY SUPPORTS a recruiting nexus to the conversations.
"In addition, the hearing panel noted that it identified various information in the case record to support a reasonable inference of a recruiting nexus to the discussions.10 (Committee on Infractions Response Page No. 6, Footnote No. 4) Further, the hearing panel argued that a Level II case designation was warranted based on the multiple contacts over a three-month period showing they were not isolated or limited and that there was more than a minimal recruiting advantage gained by the conversations due to both individuals transferring and competing for the appellant. (Committee on Infractions Response"
and
"The hearing panel’s assessment as to the number and timing of calls to the prospective student-athletes’ families relative to the prospective student-athletes entering the Transfer Portal and indicating they did not want to be contacted by any institutions, as well as the fact that the prospective student-athletes actually transferred to UCLA, reasonably supports the tampering violation. In addition, the fact that both prospective student-athletes transferred to other institutions after Mr. Brosnan’s departure further supports the reasonableness of the hearing panel’s determination."
BurdenOfProof you are clearly lying. The NCAA did find evidence of recruiting.
Here is the NCAA Bylaw that outlines what they need to prove to violations:
"19.7 Standards of Review and Resolution Methods (Level I/II Cases) 19.7.1 Enforcement Allegation Standard. The enforcement staff shall make formal allegations if it determines there is credible and sufficient information (direct or circumstantial) that reasonably demonstrates a violation of one or more NCAA bylaws occurred. (Adopted: 8/31/22 effective 1/1/23)"
In their report, quoted below, they clearly state they determined that the evidence in Brosnan's case REASONABLY SUPPORTS a recruiting nexus to the conversations.
"In addition, the hearing panel noted that it identified various information in the case record to support a reasonable inference of a recruiting nexus to the discussions.10 (Committee on Infractions Response Page No. 6, Footnote No. 4) Further, the hearing panel argued that a Level II case designation was warranted based on the multiple contacts over a three-month period showing they were not isolated or limited and that there was more than a minimal recruiting advantage gained by the conversations due to both individuals transferring and competing for the appellant. (Committee on Infractions Response"
and
"The hearing panel’s assessment as to the number and timing of calls to the prospective student-athletes’ families relative to the prospective student-athletes entering the Transfer Portal and indicating they did not want to be contacted by any institutions, as well as the fact that the prospective student-athletes actually transferred to UCLA, reasonably supports the tampering violation. In addition, the fact that both prospective student-athletes transferred to other institutions after Mr. Brosnan’s departure further supports the reasonableness of the hearing panel’s determination."
Everything BurdenOfProof said is a lie.
This clarified everything I was confused about, thank you.
Even if Brosnan sues about the "no contact with friends" rule (which does seem excessively restrictive), he would still have the same violations because the NCAA met their evidentiary standard of "reasonably demonstrates" a recruiting nexus to the conversations.
It's interesting that the NCAA does take circumstantial evidence. So the "inferences" that BurdenOfProof complained about are actually allowed by the NCAA.
BurdenOfProof you are clearly lying. The NCAA did find evidence of recruiting.
Here is the NCAA Bylaw that outlines what they need to prove to violations:
"19.7 Standards of Review and Resolution Methods (Level I/II Cases) 19.7.1 Enforcement Allegation Standard. The enforcement staff shall make formal allegations if it determines there is credible and sufficient information (direct or circumstantial) that reasonably demonstrates a violation of one or more NCAA bylaws occurred. (Adopted: 8/31/22 effective 1/1/23)"
In their report, quoted below, they clearly state they determined that the evidence in Brosnan's case REASONABLY SUPPORTS a recruiting nexus to the conversations.
"In addition, the hearing panel noted that it identified various information in the case record to support a reasonable inference of a recruiting nexus to the discussions.10 (Committee on Infractions Response Page No. 6, Footnote No. 4) Further, the hearing panel argued that a Level II case designation was warranted based on the multiple contacts over a three-month period showing they were not isolated or limited and that there was more than a minimal recruiting advantage gained by the conversations due to both individuals transferring and competing for the appellant. (Committee on Infractions Response"
and
"The hearing panel’s assessment as to the number and timing of calls to the prospective student-athletes’ families relative to the prospective student-athletes entering the Transfer Portal and indicating they did not want to be contacted by any institutions, as well as the fact that the prospective student-athletes actually transferred to UCLA, reasonably supports the tampering violation. In addition, the fact that both prospective student-athletes transferred to other institutions after Mr. Brosnan’s departure further supports the reasonableness of the hearing panel’s determination."
Everything BurdenOfProof said is a lie.
So BurdenOfProof was making up lies about what kind of proof the NCAA actually needs to enforce violations. Turns out the NCAA found enough evidence of tampering/ recruiting violations to state unequivocally that Brosnan tampered and recruited.
This is very damning for Brosnan and makes you wonder if BurdenOfProof has a personal connection to the case. Why else would he be so invested in it and so willing to make obvious lies about the case?
Your argument falls apart once you apply the actual “burden-of-proof” standard used in NCAA enforcement cases. The enforcement staff carries the burden to prove a violation by credible and persuasive evidence. That means they must show facts that demonstrate a recruiting violation occurred — not merely that a conversation existed. And that’s exactly where this case falls apart. The public record shows no evidence of recruiting activity: No texts or emails offering a transfer opportunity No scholarship discussions No inducements No documented recruiting pitch No direct contact with the athletes themselves What the NCAA relied on were conversations with parents who were long-time acquaintances. Even those parents stated that the coach told them he could not discuss transferring until the portal. That statement, if anything, reflects compliance with the rule, not a violation. Bylaw 13 is a recruiting bylaw, not a “no human interaction” bylaw. The NCAA therefore had to prove recruiting conduct. Instead, their theory effectively became: contact itself equals recruiting. That is not proof; that is an inference layered on speculation. In any adjudicative setting, whether an administrative proceeding or a court applying fair procedure principles discipline cannot rest on speculation or assumptions. The decision must be supported by substantial evidence tied to the actual elements of the rule. When the record shows only that two people who already knew each other had conversations, with no evidence of recruiting content, the enforcement staff has not carried its burden. So the irony here is that the person accusing others of “speculation” is relying entirely on speculation himself assuming recruiting occurred without a single piece of documented recruiting evidence. When the NCAA cannot prove recruiting and instead argues that contact alone equals a violation, that’s not enforcement of the rule. That’s an after-the-fact reinterpretation used to justify a penalty.
BurdenOfProof you are clearly lying. The NCAA did find evidence of recruiting.
Here is the NCAA Bylaw that outlines what they need to prove to violations:
"19.7 Standards of Review and Resolution Methods (Level I/II Cases) 19.7.1 Enforcement Allegation Standard. The enforcement staff shall make formal allegations if it determines there is credible and sufficient information (direct or circumstantial) that reasonably demonstrates a violation of one or more NCAA bylaws occurred. (Adopted: 8/31/22 effective 1/1/23)"
In their report, quoted below, they clearly state they determined that the evidence in Brosnan's case REASONABLY SUPPORTS a recruiting nexus to the conversations.
"In addition, the hearing panel noted that it identified various information in the case record to support a reasonable inference of a recruiting nexus to the discussions.10 (Committee on Infractions Response Page No. 6, Footnote No. 4) Further, the hearing panel argued that a Level II case designation was warranted based on the multiple contacts over a three-month period showing they were not isolated or limited and that there was more than a minimal recruiting advantage gained by the conversations due to both individuals transferring and competing for the appellant. (Committee on Infractions Response"
and
"The hearing panel’s assessment as to the number and timing of calls to the prospective student-athletes’ families relative to the prospective student-athletes entering the Transfer Portal and indicating they did not want to be contacted by any institutions, as well as the fact that the prospective student-athletes actually transferred to UCLA, reasonably supports the tampering violation. In addition, the fact that both prospective student-athletes transferred to other institutions after Mr. Brosnan’s departure further supports the reasonableness of the hearing panel’s determination."
Everything BurdenOfProof said is a lie.
This bylaw is also relevant here:
19.7.2 Committee on Infractions Decision Standard. In all matters before the Committee on Infractions, a hearing panel shall conclude a violation occurred if it determines an allegation is supported by credible and sufficient information (direct or circumstantial) on which a reasonable person could rely. (Adopted: 8/31/22 effective 1/1/23)
Your argument falls apart once you apply the actual “burden-of-proof” standard used in NCAA enforcement cases. The enforcement staff carries the burden to prove a violation by credible and persuasive evidence. That means they must show facts that demonstrate a recruiting violation occurred — not merely that a conversation existed. And that’s exactly where this case falls apart. The public record shows no evidence of recruiting activity: No texts or emails offering a transfer opportunity No scholarship discussions No inducements No documented recruiting pitch No direct contact with the athletes themselves What the NCAA relied on were conversations with parents who were long-time acquaintances. Even those parents stated that the coach told them he could not discuss transferring until the portal. That statement, if anything, reflects compliance with the rule, not a violation. Bylaw 13 is a recruiting bylaw, not a “no human interaction” bylaw. The NCAA therefore had to prove recruiting conduct. Instead, their theory effectively became: contact itself equals recruiting. That is not proof; that is an inference layered on speculation. In any adjudicative setting, whether an administrative proceeding or a court applying fair procedure principles discipline cannot rest on speculation or assumptions. The decision must be supported by substantial evidence tied to the actual elements of the rule. When the record shows only that two people who already knew each other had conversations, with no evidence of recruiting content, the enforcement staff has not carried its burden. So the irony here is that the person accusing others of “speculation” is relying entirely on speculation himself assuming recruiting occurred without a single piece of documented recruiting evidence. When the NCAA cannot prove recruiting and instead argues that contact alone equals a violation, that’s not enforcement of the rule. That’s an after-the-fact reinterpretation used to justify a penalty.
BurdenOfProof you are clearly lying. The NCAA did find evidence of recruiting.
Here is the NCAA Bylaw that outlines what they need to prove to violations:
"19.7 Standards of Review and Resolution Methods (Level I/II Cases) 19.7.1 Enforcement Allegation Standard. The enforcement staff shall make formal allegations if it determines there is credible and sufficient information (direct or circumstantial) that reasonably demonstrates a violation of one or more NCAA bylaws occurred. (Adopted: 8/31/22 effective 1/1/23)"
In their report, quoted below, they clearly state they determined that the evidence in Brosnan's case REASONABLY SUPPORTS a recruiting nexus to the conversations.
"In addition, the hearing panel noted that it identified various information in the case record to support a reasonable inference of a recruiting nexus to the discussions.10 (Committee on Infractions Response Page No. 6, Footnote No. 4) Further, the hearing panel argued that a Level II case designation was warranted based on the multiple contacts over a three-month period showing they were not isolated or limited and that there was more than a minimal recruiting advantage gained by the conversations due to both individuals transferring and competing for the appellant. (Committee on Infractions Response"
and
"The hearing panel’s assessment as to the number and timing of calls to the prospective student-athletes’ families relative to the prospective student-athletes entering the Transfer Portal and indicating they did not want to be contacted by any institutions, as well as the fact that the prospective student-athletes actually transferred to UCLA, reasonably supports the tampering violation. In addition, the fact that both prospective student-athletes transferred to other institutions after Mr. Brosnan’s departure further supports the reasonableness of the hearing panel’s determination."
Everything BurdenOfProof said is a lie.
Holy s***, Burdenofproof just got OWNED. I've never seen someone get so demolished on LRC. This annihilates all of his chat GPT garbage.
Burdenofproof has been exposed as a complete fraud.
This proves without a doubt that Brosnan committed multiple NCAA violations by illegally recruiting athletes from other teams before they were in the portal. Brosnan cheated and got caught.
Holy s***, Burdenofproof just got OWNED. I've never seen someone get so demolished on LRC. This annihilates all of his chat GPT garbage.
Burdenofproof has been exposed as a complete fraud.
This proves without a doubt that Brosnan committed multiple NCAA violations by illegally recruiting athletes from other teams before they were in the portal. Brosnan cheated and got caught.
It is definitive. If Brosnan doesn't speak about this and take full accountability for the violations, then it will forever tarnish his credibility. This is beginner level public relations basics.
He denied it so adamantly before, and now the evidence of his wrongdoing is so overwhelming. So he needs to address this, own up to it with no excuses, and apologize.
If he can do that, then he will be level in my book. It is not a major violation and can be forgiven if he seeks forgiveness. If he continues to deny, then I don't think anyone will ever trust him again.
"The letter also notes that only 15 Level II or above tampering cases have been fully adjudicated by the NCAA in five years, including just three involving FBS football, one involving men's basketball and zero involving women's basketball.
The NCAA says its enforcement team processed around 90 impermissible contact cases last year, including major infractions by Oklahoma State's women's tennis program and UCLA's cross country and track programs."
The Big 10, however, is misguided. The tampering rule is not the issue. The NIL rules need to be reformed because they are what's messing everything up. The NCAA is actually planning to start enforcing tampering more strictly and issuing significantly bigger penalties.
Why hasn't Gault or Rojo reached out to Brosnan for comment on this? Brosnan threads always get a ton of posts, so there are a lot of people interested in this situation and his response.
Your argument falls apart once you apply the actual “burden-of-proof” standard used in NCAA enforcement cases. The enforcement staff carries the burden to prove a violation by credible and persuasive evidence. That means they must show facts that demonstrate a recruiting violation occurred — not merely that a conversation existed. And that’s exactly where this case falls apart. The public record shows no evidence of recruiting activity: No texts or emails offering a transfer opportunity No scholarship discussions No inducements No documented recruiting pitch No direct contact with the athletes themselves What the NCAA relied on were conversations with parents who were long-time acquaintances. Even those parents stated that the coach told them he could not discuss transferring until the portal. That statement, if anything, reflects compliance with the rule, not a violation. Bylaw 13 is a recruiting bylaw, not a “no human interaction” bylaw. The NCAA therefore had to prove recruiting conduct. Instead, their theory effectively became: contact itself equals recruiting. That is not proof; that is an inference layered on speculation. In any adjudicative setting, whether an administrative proceeding or a court applying fair procedure principles discipline cannot rest on speculation or assumptions. The decision must be supported by substantial evidence tied to the actual elements of the rule. When the record shows only that two people who already knew each other had conversations, with no evidence of recruiting content, the enforcement staff has not carried its burden. So the irony here is that the person accusing others of “speculation” is relying entirely on speculation himself assuming recruiting occurred without a single piece of documented recruiting evidence. When the NCAA cannot prove recruiting and instead argues that contact alone equals a violation, that’s not enforcement of the rule. That’s an after-the-fact reinterpretation used to justify a penalty.
BurdenOfProof you are clearly lying. The NCAA did find evidence of recruiting.
Here is the NCAA Bylaw that outlines what they need to prove to violations:
"19.7 Standards of Review and Resolution Methods (Level I/II Cases) 19.7.1 Enforcement Allegation Standard. The enforcement staff shall make formal allegations if it determines there is credible and sufficient information (direct or circumstantial) that reasonably demonstrates a violation of one or more NCAA bylaws occurred. (Adopted: 8/31/22 effective 1/1/23)"
In their report, quoted below, they clearly state they determined that the evidence in Brosnan's case REASONABLY SUPPORTS a recruiting nexus to the conversations.
"In addition, the hearing panel noted that it identified various information in the case record to support a reasonable inference of a recruiting nexus to the discussions.10 (Committee on Infractions Response Page No. 6, Footnote No. 4) Further, the hearing panel argued that a Level II case designation was warranted based on the multiple contacts over a three-month period showing they were not isolated or limited and that there was more than a minimal recruiting advantage gained by the conversations due to both individuals transferring and competing for the appellant. (Committee on Infractions Response"
and
"The hearing panel’s assessment as to the number and timing of calls to the prospective student-athletes’ families relative to the prospective student-athletes entering the Transfer Portal and indicating they did not want to be contacted by any institutions, as well as the fact that the prospective student-athletes actually transferred to UCLA, reasonably supports the tampering violation. In addition, the fact that both prospective student-athletes transferred to other institutions after Mr. Brosnan’s departure further supports the reasonableness of the hearing panel’s determination."
Everything BurdenOfProof said is a lie.
Epic FAFO against Burden. He's too scared to come back here and and respond to the truth.
Probably too busy posting anonymously in UCLA threads.
To take down Brosnan. He is being unfairly targeted.
I hope he files a lawsuit and takes them down.
Well he made himself easy to target by tampering with student athletes and recruiting before allowed.
think it’s time you move on. You keep posting the same rhetoric over and over again. We get it, you don’t like Brosnan. But obsessively bringing him up in every thread is getting old. At some point it stops being criticism and just starts looking annoying and a little pathetic
Well he made himself easy to target by tampering with student athletes and recruiting before allowed.
think it’s time you move on. You keep posting the same rhetoric over and over again. We get it, you don’t like Brosnan. But obsessively bringing him up in every thread is getting old. At some point it stops being criticism and just starts looking annoying and a little pathetic
I have nothing against Brosnan as a person. I don’t bring him up in every thread. You are mistaking pointing out rules violations for personal grudge.
