CONFIRMED - Brosnan committed multiple NCAA violations at UCLA

In the NCAA there are 29-year-old freshman with agents getting paid huge sums upfront to transfer? Meanwhile, the NCAA claims Brosnan didn’t discuss recruiting before the athletes entered the portal, but they say just maintaining a friendship from years ago is a violation. It’s all such a crock of sh!t. The NCAA deserves to go away.

Lolol nonsense

I totally agree, the NCAA is completely messed up right now. It’s such a chaotic situation and honestly, it’s hard to see how they can fix it anytime soon. The whole system feels broken.

Hey get your facts straight, he’s a 29 year old Sophomore 😂

Who is?

T&F is way behind ncaa basketball and footballllllll. This has been happening in those sports for a long time, what Brosnan did will be normal in a few years or less

That’s why I laughed at the nonsense post. The NCAA absolutely did not claim this.

This is false. Football and basketball take tampering VERY seriously. Those sports used to have a MANDATORY 1 year sit out for any transfers. It's always been a massive violation.

This thread is not registered users only to post.

Both fathers and Coach Brosnan have clearly testified that there was no discussion about recruiting before the student / athletes entered the portal. The only interaction was when the fathers asked Coach Brosnan about transferring during one of their calls, and Brosnan responded exactly as required by NCAA rules: “I can’t talk to you about that until they enter the portal.” Coach Brosnan followed the rules to the letter. Now the NCAA is expecting him to sever all relationships with anyone who has a kid at another school, which is not only a blatant misinterpretation of the rule but also illegal to demand breaking friendships outside of work. This situation is completely unfair and unfairly targets Coach Brosnan.

Wejo - all deleted posts in this thread should be reviewed by a moderator and immediately restored if there are no violations of the terms of service. It is obvious that someone was manipulating the algorithm to delete all posts on one side of the argument.

The goal of that individual was to misrepresent the actual consensus of the posters - which overwhelmingly agree that the NCAA made the correct decision. But now the only posts that remain are against the NCAA's decision and all make the same inaccurate claim in support of Brosnan (a claim which the actual NCAA report strongly contradicts with direct evidence).

It is important that this thread stays open because it broke an important piece of news.

But it is equally important to restore posts that simply copied and pasted key evidence and testimony from the report. There is no reason for those posts to have been deleted. The only inaccurate posts were pro-Brosnan, and exactly zero of those demonstrably inaccurate posts were deleted. I think they should remain up, but the other posts should be restored as well.

All parties confirmed that no tampering occurred and there was no recruiting talk before the portal opened. They didn’t find a single email, text, or DM suggesting otherwise. The fathers, who have been friends for years, informed the NCAA along with Brosnan about what the conversations were actually about. There is no proof of tampering—only the NCAA fabricating conversations, which is illegal. Obviously it’s not a real hearing because in court the NCAA would get buried alive for lying and making up evidence

Here are the facts from the report:

Did the NCAA actually find no evidence of tampering?
"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."

Did any of the recruits admit that Brosnan ever told the parents he wanted the recruits to join the team prior to entering the portal (which would be a violation)?
"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.”

Was UCLA was paying for his cell phone service - meaning it was considered a work phone?

"During his time at UCLA, Brosnan had one cell phone, which he used for business purposes—including recruiting—as well as personal use. He owned the phone, but UCLA paid for his cell service."

Did the Enforcement staff use any information from Brosnan's phone?

"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."

Were there broken rules regarding imaging the phone?
"To be clear, the enforcement staff did not violate any bylaws or internal operating
procedures related to the imaging of Brosnan’s phone. It appears, however, that the enforcement staff departed from its usual practices when it did not give Brosnan the opportunity through the meet-and-confer process to review and withhold personal records before they were shared with the enforcement staff and institution. In other words, it seems to be a matter of order and timing rather than substance. Although this apparent departure from practice does not cure Brosnan’s failure to cooperate, the panel took these circumstances into account in applying and weighing aggravating and mitigating factors and prescribing penalties."

Did Brosnan ever admit to UCLA compliance that he or his wife had recruiting conversations with the recruits parents before they entered the portal?

"According to the associate director of compliance and recruiting (associate compliance director), the issue of preexisting relationships eventually arose in November 2022, when the cross country transfer window opened and Brosnan approached the compliance office with questions about prospects 1 and 2 potentially transferring to UCLA. The associate compliance director stated that Brosnan told the compliance staff that one of the prospects’ fathers reached out to Brosnan’s wife—who coached at Brosnan’s former high school—about transfer opportunities. The associate compliance director discerned that neither prospect was in the transfer portal. She and the compliance director then explained to Brosnan that he could not talk to the two prospects until they were in the portal, and they could not use Brosnan’s wife as a conduit to communicate with the family."

Did Brosnan's lawyer state that Brosnan had a legitimate reason to refuse to cooperate with the investigation for 4 months?

"Brosnan’s refusal to interview was not justified by the enforcement staff’s denial of his request for access to metadata related to his phone imaging. Indeed, Brosnan’s counsel admitted at the infractions hearing that the two issues were unconnected. When the enforcement staff stated at the hearing that Brosnan requested access to the metadata in order to prepare for his interview, his counsel immediately corrected the record and stated that Brosnan wanted to see the metadata “strictly for his own personal reasons” and not to prepare for the interview. In other words, Brosnan was leveraging his cooperation with the infractions process to obtain information for his own personal use. This is antithetical to the duty to cooperate."

Where there any other allegations of violations?

"While the institution and enforcement staff were investigating the tampering violations, the enforcement staff received information suggesting that Brosnan engaged in impermissible in-person contact with a women's cross country and track and field prospective student-athlete (prospect 3). Specifically, on June 18, 2023, at the Nike Outdoor High School National meet in Eugene, Oregon, Brosnan had a five-to 10-minute conversation with prospect 3, a rising junior, and her high school distance coach."

But was the conversation actually just a casual greeting or was it about recruiting?

"Prospect 3 confirmed the conversation was recruiting in nature."

Now you can all make your own decision on whether violations actually occurred.

You seriously must be working for the NCAA, cherry-picking their report like it’s gospel. The facts are crystal clear: this so-called NCAA report was written by the NCAA themselves, not some judge or real lawyer. They’re about to get slammed with a lawsuit for illegally imaging his phone against their own damn procedures. They conveniently forgot to mention that’s outright illegal. Once the LA Times or NY Times digs into this mess, everyone will see the truth. The facts haven’t changed—no tampering. Brosnan has long-standing relationships with two fathers he’s known for years. The NCAA handed down a violation not for actual tampering—they admit this—but for innocent phone calls that both Brosnan and the dads said weren’t recruiting. Those dads even asked about transfers, and Brosnan followed NCAA protocol perfectly, telling them “I can’t talk about that until she’s on the portal.” This is exactly how the NCAA wants coaches to handle these situations. There’s zero evidence: no texts, no emails, nothing. But the NCAA was so determined to slap a violation on him that they demanded he cut off friendships with any parents who have kids at other schools. Mark my words, this is going to be a case where the NCAA gets their asses handed to them and has to pay out big $$$ for breaking the law.