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

The LAW wrote:

What’s particularly troubling in this case is that the NCAA’s decision-making process relies on internal bodies rather than independent review. The finding of a violation was not based on any actual evidence of tampering, but rather on the mere existence of communication.
The record shows that the conversations in question were with a longtime personal friend, with no recruiting discussions. Despite this, the NCAA effectively took the position that a coach must sever all preexisting relationships with anyone connected to a current student-athlete at another institution. That is an overbroad and unreasonable interpretation of the rules. And as other keep pointing out it’s 100% illegal in any court.
There is no evidence of tampering, only an inference drawn from timing( that’s not tampering). This is precisely why the NCAA has struggled in court when its enforcement actions are subjected to real legal scrutiny.

you do not understand wrote:

The LAW wrote:

What’s particularly troubling in this case is that the NCAA’s decision-making process relies on internal bodies rather than independent review. The finding of a violation was not based on any actual evidence of tampering, but rather on the mere existence of communication.
The record shows that the conversations in question were with a longtime personal friend, with no recruiting discussions. Despite this, the NCAA effectively took the position that a coach must sever all preexisting relationships with anyone connected to a current student-athlete at another institution. That is an overbroad and unreasonable interpretation of the rules. And as other keep pointing out it’s 100% illegal in any court.
There is no evidence of tampering, only an inference drawn from timing( that’s not tampering). This is precisely why the NCAA has struggled in court when its enforcement actions are subjected to real legal scrutiny.

The LAW wrote:

you do not understand wrote:

Everyone involved, including the athlete and the parents agreed on the key points, no scholarship discussion, no recruiting conversations, and zero direct communication with the athlete prior to the portal. The only contact was with a long-time family friend where there was a documented history of regular, non-recruiting communication.
That matters, because NCAA tampering rules are supposed to hinge on actual recruiting conduct, not retroactively reinterpreting normal, pre-existing relationships as violations.
What happened here is the NCAA effectively rewrote the standard after the fact, turning a lawful conversation into “tampering” without evidence of:
inducement
recruiting pitch
or athlete contact
That’s not enforcement, that’s inference stretched beyond its limits.
As for the “independent review” point: calling it independent doesn’t make it so. These are still member institutions operating within the same NCAA structure, applying NCAA interpretations, with no external oversight or adversarial testing of evidence like you’d see in a real court. That’s very different from true independence.
And the claim that “the prospect admitted it” is misleading. There was no admission of recruiting or inducement, because again by all accounts, those things didn’t happen.
So no, this isn’t some clean, unanimous confirmation of wrongdoing. It’s a case where:
the facts show no recruiting activity, and
the conclusion relies on expanding the definition of tampering beyond what actually occurred.

The LAW wrote:

you do not understand wrote:

Everyone involved, including the athlete and the parents agreed on the key points, no scholarship discussion, no recruiting conversations, and zero direct communication with the athlete prior to the portal. The only contact was with a long-time family friend where there was a documented history of regular, non-recruiting communication.
That matters, because NCAA tampering rules are supposed to hinge on actual recruiting conduct, not retroactively reinterpreting normal, pre-existing relationships as violations.
What happened here is the NCAA effectively rewrote the standard after the fact, turning a lawful conversation into “tampering” without evidence of:
inducement
recruiting pitch
or athlete contact
That’s not enforcement, that’s inference stretched beyond its limits.
As for the “independent review” point: calling it independent doesn’t make it so. These are still member institutions operating within the same NCAA structure, applying NCAA interpretations, with no external oversight or adversarial testing of evidence like you’d see in a real court. That’s very different from true independence.
And the claim that “the prospect admitted it” is misleading. There was no admission of recruiting or inducement, because again by all accounts, those things didn’t happen.
So no, this isn’t some clean, unanimous confirmation of wrongdoing. It’s a case where:
the facts show no recruiting activity, and
the conclusion relies on expanding the definition of tampering beyond what actually occurred.

rules are rules wrote:

The LAW wrote:

Everyone involved, including the athlete and the parents agreed on the key points, no scholarship discussion, no recruiting conversations, and zero direct communication with the athlete prior to the portal. The only contact was with a long-time family friend where there was a documented history of regular, non-recruiting communication.
That matters, because NCAA tampering rules are supposed to hinge on actual recruiting conduct, not retroactively reinterpreting normal, pre-existing relationships as violations.
What happened here is the NCAA effectively rewrote the standard after the fact, turning a lawful conversation into “tampering” without evidence of:
inducement
recruiting pitch
or athlete contact
That’s not enforcement, that’s inference stretched beyond its limits.
As for the “independent review” point: calling it independent doesn’t make it so. These are still member institutions operating within the same NCAA structure, applying NCAA interpretations, with no external oversight or adversarial testing of evidence like you’d see in a real court. That’s very different from true independence.
And the claim that “the prospect admitted it” is misleading. There was no admission of recruiting or inducement, because again by all accounts, those things didn’t happen.
So no, this isn’t some clean, unanimous confirmation of wrongdoing. It’s a case where:
the facts show no recruiting activity, and
the conclusion relies on expanding the definition of tampering beyond what actually occurred.

This is the dumbest post ever. Nothing was "retroactively reinterpreted" at all. The NCAA has always had rules for the first allowable day to contact recruits. And for transfers, you can never talk to them or their parents until the the transfer request paperwork was completed. This rule was applied the same way to Brosnan as it was in every tampering case since the NCAA began.

No contact. No exceptions.

rules are rules wrote:

The LAW wrote:

Everyone involved, including the athlete and the parents agreed on the key points, no scholarship discussion, no recruiting conversations, and zero direct communication with the athlete prior to the portal. The only contact was with a long-time family friend where there was a documented history of regular, non-recruiting communication.
That matters, because NCAA tampering rules are supposed to hinge on actual recruiting conduct, not retroactively reinterpreting normal, pre-existing relationships as violations.
What happened here is the NCAA effectively rewrote the standard after the fact, turning a lawful conversation into “tampering” without evidence of:
inducement
recruiting pitch
or athlete contact
That’s not enforcement, that’s inference stretched beyond its limits.
As for the “independent review” point: calling it independent doesn’t make it so. These are still member institutions operating within the same NCAA structure, applying NCAA interpretations, with no external oversight or adversarial testing of evidence like you’d see in a real court. That’s very different from true independence.
And the claim that “the prospect admitted it” is misleading. There was no admission of recruiting or inducement, because again by all accounts, those things didn’t happen.
So no, this isn’t some clean, unanimous confirmation of wrongdoing. It’s a case where:
the facts show no recruiting activity, and
the conclusion relies on expanding the definition of tampering beyond what actually occurred.

This is the dumbest post ever. Nothing was "retroactively reinterpreted" at all. The NCAA has always had rules for the first allowable day to contact recruits. And for transfers, you can never talk to them or their parents until the the transfer request paperwork was completed. This rule was applied the same way to Brosnan as it was in every tampering case since the NCAA began.

No contact. No exceptions.

Blue Print Truth wrote:

rules are rules wrote:

This is the dumbest post ever. Nothing was "retroactively reinterpreted" at all. The NCAA has always had rules for the first allowable day to contact recruits. And for transfers, you can never talk to them or their parents until the the transfer request paperwork was completed. This rule was applied the same way to Brosnan as it was in every tampering case since the NCAA began.

No contact. No exceptions.

This is just flat wrong and shows a complete misunderstanding of both the rule and how it’s actually enforced. The NCAA doesn’t have some “no contact with humans” rule. what’s prohibited is recruiting conversations about transferring, not speaking to people you’ve known for years. UCLA’s own compliance office literally said pre-existing relationships with parents are fine as long as you don’t discuss transfer, which never happened here. There was zero athlete contact, zero scholarship discussion, and zero evidence of inducement, aka the actual things required to prove tampering. The NCAA took a normal conversation with a longtime family friend, ignored its own guidance and lack of evidence, and stretched the rule to fit a narrative. Calling that “applied the same as every case” is a joke, most tampering cases actually involve, you know, recruiting. applying is with no contact ever mean every coach in the NCAA is guilty of this.

just reead the report wrote:

Blue Print Truth wrote:

This is just flat wrong and shows a complete misunderstanding of both the rule and how it’s actually enforced. The NCAA doesn’t have some “no contact with humans” rule. what’s prohibited is recruiting conversations about transferring, not speaking to people you’ve known for years. UCLA’s own compliance office literally said pre-existing relationships with parents are fine as long as you don’t discuss transfer, which never happened here. There was zero athlete contact, zero scholarship discussion, and zero evidence of inducement, aka the actual things required to prove tampering. The NCAA took a normal conversation with a longtime family friend, ignored its own guidance and lack of evidence, and stretched the rule to fit a narrative. Calling that “applied the same as every case” is a joke, most tampering cases actually involve, you know, recruiting. applying is with no contact ever mean every coach in the NCAA is guilty of this.

The NCAA did deduce that the conversations were recruiting in nature, based on the prospect admitting it and also the suspicious timing of the calls increasing in frequency and and duration the portal date became closer. That is more than enough evidence for the NCAA to find him guilty.

Where is the guidance from the NCAA that you claim they ignored? Hint: it doesn't exist.

Brosnan wins on facts wrote:

just reead the report wrote:

The NCAA did deduce that the conversations were recruiting in nature, based on the prospect admitting it and also the suspicious timing of the calls increasing in frequency and and duration the portal date became closer. That is more than enough evidence for the NCAA to find him guilty.

Where is the guidance from the NCAA that you claim they ignored? Hint: it doesn't exist.

Bylaw 19.7.1 requires credible and sufficient information that reasonably demonstrates a violation, not “we think it looks bad.” If the NCAA actually had proof, they would point to specific pre-portal recruiting conduct, offers, inducements, direct athlete communication, or explicit transfer discussion. They didn’t. Instead, they leaned on call frequency and a vague characterization of conversations, which is incredibly weak when there’s a documented pre-existing relationship. You don’t get to ignore that context and then reverse engineer intent. the facts show zero evidence. Remember Brosnan has a long history of calls with this parent as they were close friends. You can’t say you’re not allowed to talk to friends.

Brosnan wins on facts wrote:

just reead the report wrote:

The NCAA did deduce that the conversations were recruiting in nature, based on the prospect admitting it and also the suspicious timing of the calls increasing in frequency and and duration the portal date became closer. That is more than enough evidence for the NCAA to find him guilty.

Where is the guidance from the NCAA that you claim they ignored? Hint: it doesn't exist.

Bylaw 19.7.1 requires credible and sufficient information that reasonably demonstrates a violation, not “we think it looks bad.” If the NCAA actually had proof, they would point to specific pre-portal recruiting conduct, offers, inducements, direct athlete communication, or explicit transfer discussion. They didn’t. Instead, they leaned on call frequency and a vague characterization of conversations, which is incredibly weak when there’s a documented pre-existing relationship. You don’t get to ignore that context and then reverse engineer intent. the facts show zero evidence. Remember Brosnan has a long history of calls with this parent as they were close friends. You can’t say you’re not allowed to talk to friends.

important facts wrote:

Brosnan wins on facts wrote:

Bylaw 19.7.1 requires credible and sufficient information that reasonably demonstrates a violation, not “we think it looks bad.” If the NCAA actually had proof, they would point to specific pre-portal recruiting conduct, offers, inducements, direct athlete communication, or explicit transfer discussion. They didn’t. Instead, they leaned on call frequency and a vague characterization of conversations, which is incredibly weak when there’s a documented pre-existing relationship. You don’t get to ignore that context and then reverse engineer intent. the facts show zero evidence. Remember Brosnan has a long history of calls with this parent as they were close friends. You can’t say you’re not allowed to talk to friends.

Their evidence is credible and sufficient to prove the close friends WERE TALKING ABOUT RECRUITING THE DAUGHTERS. They received an admission of guilt from the prospect and they have legitimate digital forensic evidence showing a significantly higher frequency of calls clustered around the time the recruits were preparing to go in the portal.

They also have evidence from the fact the recruits committed to UCLA within minutes of entering the portal, they didn't want to be contact from any other schools, and that they transferred out after Brosnan left.

If they really wanted to attend UCLA just to be close to home and to be able to help their sick family members, then why did they transfer to Oregon after? Why not stay at UCLA? Why not transfer somewhere else really close to home? That fact fully discredits their alleged reasons for only wanting to contact UCLA and somehow being able to choose UCLA within minutes of entering the portal.

This was a slam dunk of a case and Brosnan got posterized.

Facts always win in Court wrote:

important facts wrote:

Their evidence is credible and sufficient to prove the close friends WERE TALKING ABOUT RECRUITING THE DAUGHTERS. They received an admission of guilt from the prospect and they have legitimate digital forensic evidence showing a significantly higher frequency of calls clustered around the time the recruits were preparing to go in the portal.

They also have evidence from the fact the recruits committed to UCLA within minutes of entering the portal, they didn't want to be contact from any other schools, and that they transferred out after Brosnan left.

If they really wanted to attend UCLA just to be close to home and to be able to help their sick family members, then why did they transfer to Oregon after? Why not stay at UCLA? Why not transfer somewhere else really close to home? That fact fully discredits their alleged reasons for only wanting to contact UCLA and somehow being able to choose UCLA within minutes of entering the portal.

This was a slam dunk of a case and Brosnan got posterized.

That argument collapses once you separate actual evidence from inference stacked on inference. Under NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1, “credible and sufficient information” means proof of impermissible recruiting conduct—not speculation based on timing, call volume, or hindsight narratives. A spike in calls between long-time family friends proves contact, not content; without texts, emails, recordings, or any direct communication with the student-athletes about transferring, scholarships, or inducements, there is no concrete evidence of a violation. An alleged “admission” is meaningless unless it clearly identifies prohibited recruiting activity (what was said, to whom, and when), which the record does not establish. The rest is circumstantial storytelling: quick portal commitments, later transfers, and post hoc motives are not violations and occur routinely across college athletics. Even UCLA compliance guidance allowed continued communication with parents based on pre-existing relationships so long as recruiting wasn’t discussed ( statement from UCLA) guidance the NCAA cannot simply ignore and replace with assumptions. You don’t meet a “credible and sufficient” standard by reverse-engineering intent from optics; you meet it with actual proof of recruiting conduct, which is absent here.

important facts wrote:

Facts always win in Court wrote:

That argument collapses once you separate actual evidence from inference stacked on inference. Under NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1, “credible and sufficient information” means proof of impermissible recruiting conduct—not speculation based on timing, call volume, or hindsight narratives. A spike in calls between long-time family friends proves contact, not content; without texts, emails, recordings, or any direct communication with the student-athletes about transferring, scholarships, or inducements, there is no concrete evidence of a violation. An alleged “admission” is meaningless unless it clearly identifies prohibited recruiting activity (what was said, to whom, and when), which the record does not establish. The rest is circumstantial storytelling: quick portal commitments, later transfers, and post hoc motives are not violations and occur routinely across college athletics. Even UCLA compliance guidance allowed continued communication with parents based on pre-existing relationships so long as recruiting wasn’t discussed ( statement from UCLA) guidance the NCAA cannot simply ignore and replace with assumptions. You don’t meet a “credible and sufficient” standard by reverse-engineering intent from optics; you meet it with actual proof of recruiting conduct, which is absent here.

The prospect's admission is not meaningless, you are making a preposterous and bad faith claim. The prospect's testimony is rock solid evidence of recruiting. Her interview with the NCAA took place 1 year before the parents interviewed with the NCAA so her testimony is significantly more important and more likely to be accurate.

The bylaw specifically sites that it accepts circumstantial evidence. So you cannot complain about circumstantial evidence.

Brosnan's case is the equivalent of a murder trial where someone's DNA was found at a crime scene, they were established to have been in the area at the time of the crime scene, and they had an internet search history of "how to dispose of a dead body" 30 seconds after the murder took place. There is no video evidence of the crime happening, but the jury is 100% going to put that person in prison for a very long time.