The NCAA rulebook does not require "intent" in this case. The NCAA explicitly prohibits ALL CONTACT with members of opposing teams until they are in the portal.
Here is the rule:
An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics 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 scholastic or nonscholastic coach, advisor), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process. Before making contact, directly or indirectly, with a student-athlete of an NCAA Division II or Division III institution, or an NAIA four-year collegiate institution, an athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall comply with the rule of the applicable division or the NAIA rule for making contact with a student-athlete.
Also - the timing of the phone calls is 100% enough evidence.
This is 100% wrong, and ironically they’re quoting the wrong bylaw to defend the NCAA’s mistake. The rule they pasted is NOT self-executing it only applies when the communication is recruiting contact.
And the NCAA’s own rulebook defines recruiting contact in Bylaw 13.02.14 as communication with intent to influence enrollment or athletic participation.
That definition controls all contact rules. If there is no recruiting intent, there is no recruiting contact, and the restriction they quoted does not apply. The NCAA itself admitted: No recruiting language No inducements No attempt to influence enrollment Long-standing personal friendships predating UCLA No intent = no violation, no matter how badly the COI wants to pretend otherwise.
Here’s what they’re missing (or ignoring):
1. The bylaw they quoted is a contact restriction, not a redefinition of recruiting. It prohibits impermissible recruiting contact, not personal conversation. The NCAA can’t override the formal definition in 13.02.14 just because it’s convenient.
2. If their interpretation were true, the NCAA would be banning legal, normal human association. Coaches would have to cut off: former athletes friends relatives mentors ex-teammates the moment those people’s kids went to another school. That would get obliterated in federal court as an unlawful restriction on freedom of association.
3. Timing is NOT evidence — and the NCAA’s own manual says so. Timing only matters if there is recruiting content. Here, the NCAA explicitly admitted that none existed. Calling something “evidence” doesn’t make it evidence.
4. The NCAA must satisfy Bylaw 19.7.3 (“credible, persuasive evidence”). They didn’t. They had: no texts no emails no recruiting conversations no inducements no attempt to influence no athlete testimony saying Brosnan recruited They had nothing but the existence of friendship. That’s not evidence. That’s desperation.
5. The NCAA cannot criminalize friendships. This entire case hinges on the belief that friendship itself is an advantage. That is not a violation. That is not a bylaw. That is not enforceable. And it is absolutely not legal. BOTTOM LINE: They’re quoting a contact rule that only applies if recruiting intent exists, and the NCAA’s own record admits it did not. They’re trying to turn personal friendships into violations and timing into “proof,” which is legally meaningless under the bylaws and would get destroyed in a real court. The bylaw they’re hiding from is the one that actually matters: 13.02.14 — Recruiting requires intent. 19.7.3 — The NCAA must prove that intent. They didn’t. End of story.
You need credible, persuasive evidence? Here, directly from the athlete:
"During prospect 2’s interview with the enforcement staff, she recalled her father telling her about one of the calls he had with Brosnan in which Brosnan expressed that he would love to have prospect 2 at UCLA. Following her entry in the transfer portal January 2, 2023, prospect 2 enrolled at UCLA and competed for the institution."
Brosnan literally was telling other recruits that transfers were coming in before the transfer portal even opened.
The calling right before and right after someone enters a portal is a dead giveaway.
Sure, does Brosnan have a point that some of the rules are absurd if there's no exception for pre-existing relationships? Yep.
But let's not act like Brosnan wasn't committing rule violations by recruiting kids before they entered the portal.
He dug his grave not by having pre-exisisting friends, but by doing shady stuff when there was literally no reason to do so. All he had to do was keep his mouth shut and wait until they got in the portal. Instead, he's trying to use them to recruit HS kids, and calling the parents in a panic before they enter the portal.
1. This was not a rushed investigation. It was 13 months long when they imposed violations on UCLA. That's a lot of time to investigate like 8 phone calls and talk to 2 recruits.
2. Brosnan refused to cooperate for 4 months. He had a chance to respond and participate before UCLA agreed to sanctions, but he was uncooperative.
3. UCLA's acceptance of the sanctions has NO RELEVANCE to Brosnan's investigation. They still must provide evidence of NCAA violations for Brosnan's investigation (and they provided tons of evidence). There is no "implied bias" like his lawyer claims.
Everything in that post collapses the second you apply the actual law, the NCAA’s own bylaws, or basic logic: 1. “13-month investigation” means nothing when the NCAA violated procedure during those 13 months. They pulled 8,000+ files off Brosnan’s personal phone before giving him a release, before telling him he had a right to review or withhold private data, and before following their own meet-and-confer protocol. In any legitimate legal system, that’s not “time well spent.” That’s tainted evidence collection.
2. Calling his 4-month pause “uncooperative” is dishonest. He asked for one thing: metadata proving who accessed his private files without authorization. NCAA refused — because the answer would have looked bad for them. No competent lawyer lets a client walk into an interrogation while the opposing party hides their chain-of-custody. That’s not non-cooperation. That’s self-preservation in the face of procedural abuse.
3. Claiming UCLA’s acceptance has “no relevance” is laughable. The NCAA bifurcated the case specifically so UCLA could sign a quick deal to protect their postseason and dump the fallout onto the assistant coach. When a school signs a negotiated resolution, they accept the NCAA’s framing — not because it’s true, but because it’s convenient. That absolutely prejudices the case against the individual. Anyone who understands administrative law knows this. The reality: The NCAA cherry-picked facts, ignored exculpatory evidence, mishandled digital data, violated its own procedures, and then pretended “length of investigation” equals legitimacy. No judge, arbitrator, or neutral attorney would let this stand.
People keep quoting that line from the NCAA report as if it’s “credible evidence,” but it completely collapses under the NCAA’s own rules. Under Bylaw 19.7.3, the enforcement staff must produce credible, persuasive evidence, not hearsay stacked on hearsay. The NCAA used a daughter’s recollection of what her father supposedly told her years ago, even though the father himself told investigators he does NOT recall Brosnan ever saying that. That is double hearsay, legally worthless, and nowhere close to the burden of proof required. The only firsthand witness, the father, confirmed the opposite: Brosnan shut down transfer talk, said he couldn’t discuss anything until she was in the portal, and never initiated contact. There is no text, no recording, no message, no recruiting content, no attempt to influence anyone’s enrollment. Nothing. And timing proves nothing either. The athlete transferred because of family health and safety issues, which the NCAA acknowledges in its own report. The NCAA simply connected dots it wanted to connect, not dots supported by evidence. This is exactly why courts keep hammering the NCAA (McNair, Alston, O’Bannon, Miami): they use unreliable, contradictory, or illegal evidence, violate their own bylaws, and then pretend it’s airtight. Double hearsay that contradicts the only firsthand witness is NOT “credible, persuasive evidence.” It’s the kind of thing a real court throws out in five minutes which is precisely why the NCAA keeps losing lawsuits.
Brosnan literally was telling other recruits that transfers were coming in before the transfer portal even opened.
This.
Brosnan was recruiting high school girls by telling them that two college women were going to transfer to UCLA during the current school year, but Brosnan told the high school girls that he couldn't give out the transfers' names because those two women weren't in the portal yet.
1. This was not a rushed investigation. It was 13 months long when they imposed violations on UCLA. That's a lot of time to investigate like 8 phone calls and talk to 2 recruits.
2. Brosnan refused to cooperate for 4 months. He had a chance to respond and participate before UCLA agreed to sanctions, but he was uncooperative.
3. UCLA's acceptance of the sanctions has NO RELEVANCE to Brosnan's investigation. They still must provide evidence of NCAA violations for Brosnan's investigation (and they provided tons of evidence). There is no "implied bias" like his lawyer claims.
Everything in that post collapses the second you apply the actual law, the NCAA’s own bylaws, or basic logic: 1. “13-month investigation” means nothing when the NCAA violated procedure during those 13 months. They pulled 8,000+ files off Brosnan’s personal phone before giving him a release, before telling him he had a right to review or withhold private data, and before following their own meet-and-confer protocol. In any legitimate legal system, that’s not “time well spent.” That’s tainted evidence collection.
2. Calling his 4-month pause “uncooperative” is dishonest. He asked for one thing: metadata proving who accessed his private files without authorization. NCAA refused — because the answer would have looked bad for them. No competent lawyer lets a client walk into an interrogation while the opposing party hides their chain-of-custody. That’s not non-cooperation. That’s self-preservation in the face of procedural abuse.
3. Claiming UCLA’s acceptance has “no relevance” is laughable. The NCAA bifurcated the case specifically so UCLA could sign a quick deal to protect their postseason and dump the fallout onto the assistant coach. When a school signs a negotiated resolution, they accept the NCAA’s framing — not because it’s true, but because it’s convenient. That absolutely prejudices the case against the individual. Anyone who understands administrative law knows this. The reality: The NCAA cherry-picked facts, ignored exculpatory evidence, mishandled digital data, violated its own procedures, and then pretended “length of investigation” equals legitimacy. No judge, arbitrator, or neutral attorney would let this stand.
There is no jury, there's no such thing as "prejudicing the case against the individual"
We aren't dealing with law, we are dealing with NCAA rules.
The point of separating the UCLA case with the Brosnan case is because recruiting would be screwed up for 3 years for UCLA while Brosnan fights this tooth and nail, before sanctions even get applied. It basically would give UCLA a 4 year penalty - 3 for the entire length of the Brosnan investigation and then a year after.
Brosnan is spending 3 years out of college coaching to fight a 1 year suspension. Brosnan also would have been better off admitting wrongdoing and he would have been back coaching college at least 1 full year ago.
People keep quoting that line from the NCAA report as if it’s “credible evidence,” but it completely collapses under the NCAA’s own rules. Under Bylaw 19.7.3, the enforcement staff must produce credible, persuasive evidence, not hearsay stacked on hearsay. The NCAA used a daughter’s recollection of what her father supposedly told her years ago, even though the father himself told investigators he does NOT recall Brosnan ever saying that. That is double hearsay, legally worthless, and nowhere close to the burden of proof required. The only firsthand witness, the father, confirmed the opposite: Brosnan shut down transfer talk, said he couldn’t discuss anything until she was in the portal, and never initiated contact. There is no text, no recording, no message, no recruiting content, no attempt to influence anyone’s enrollment. Nothing. And timing proves nothing either. The athlete transferred because of family health and safety issues, which the NCAA acknowledges in its own report. The NCAA simply connected dots it wanted to connect, not dots supported by evidence. This is exactly why courts keep hammering the NCAA (McNair, Alston, O’Bannon, Miami): they use unreliable, contradictory, or illegal evidence, violate their own bylaws, and then pretend it’s airtight. Double hearsay that contradicts the only firsthand witness is NOT “credible, persuasive evidence.” It’s the kind of thing a real court throws out in five minutes which is precisely why the NCAA keeps losing lawsuits.
It's not "double hearsay" LMAO it's actually from the recruit in question. It's actually eyewitness evidence.
Brosnan's father and Brosnan are the defendants. A defendant in court crying that he didn't do it actually has no worth at all. Of course they are going to say what it takes to avoid penalty.
The daughter was literally an "eyewitness" evidence to Brosnan's and the father's violation. She received the evidence directly from the people involved.
Brosnan is a dishonest, self serving schmuck. Look at him or his people coming on here with their legal mumbo jumbo trying to bullsh1t their way out of what he's done. He's gonna come out of this looking even worse for wear. he should let sleeping dogs lie.
People keep quoting that line from the NCAA report as if it’s “credible evidence,” but it completely collapses under the NCAA’s own rules. Under Bylaw 19.7.3, the enforcement staff must produce credible, persuasive evidence, not hearsay stacked on hearsay. The NCAA used a daughter’s recollection of what her father supposedly told her years ago, even though the father himself told investigators he does NOT recall Brosnan ever saying that. That is double hearsay, legally worthless, and nowhere close to the burden of proof required. The only firsthand witness, the father, confirmed the opposite: Brosnan shut down transfer talk, said he couldn’t discuss anything until she was in the portal, and never initiated contact. There is no text, no recording, no message, no recruiting content, no attempt to influence anyone’s enrollment. Nothing. And timing proves nothing either. The athlete transferred because of family health and safety issues, which the NCAA acknowledges in its own report. The NCAA simply connected dots it wanted to connect, not dots supported by evidence. This is exactly why courts keep hammering the NCAA (McNair, Alston, O’Bannon, Miami): they use unreliable, contradictory, or illegal evidence, violate their own bylaws, and then pretend it’s airtight. Double hearsay that contradicts the only firsthand witness is NOT “credible, persuasive evidence.” It’s the kind of thing a real court throws out in five minutes which is precisely why the NCAA keeps losing lawsuits.
It's not "double hearsay" LMAO it's actually from the recruit in question. It's actually eyewitness evidence.
Brosnan's father and Brosnan are the defendants. A defendant in court crying that he didn't do it actually has no worth at all. Of course they are going to say what it takes to avoid penalty.
The daughter was literally an "eyewitness" evidence to Brosnan's and the father's violation. She received the evidence directly from the people involved.
Actually the recruit is the defendant so the recruit herself literally admitted it. This was an admission of guilt by the actual defendant! In every court of law, for all of our USA's history and even centuries prior, that is the most powerful form of evidence possible.
And your statement about her possibly misremembering the details of the call - perhaps that's why Brosnan was purposely not cooperating with the call...to make it harder to remember.
This is a crazy case. The NCAA literally admitted there was no tampering , their own report says no recruiting, no inducements, no attempts to pull an athlete out of another program. No pre athlete contact. They cleared that part completely. And then, somehow, they still twisted the case into a penalty over a few phone calls that had nothing to do with recruiting. So on one hand they admit ‘no tampering happened,’ and on the other they punish him anyway. Makes zero sense, even by NCAA standards.
I knew Brosnan didn’t do a damn thing. The guy was innocent from the start. The wild part is the NCAA basically telling coaches they have to cut off lifelong relationships the second a friend’s kid enrolls somewhere else. That’s their logic now normal human contact equals a violation. It’s mind-blowing, but honestly nothing about the NCAA shocks me anymore. When an organization is this backwards, this inconsistent, and this desperate to manufacture violations, you end up with nonsense like this case.Ans good for ESPN for getting the word out!
This is a crazy case. The NCAA literally admitted there was no tampering , their own report says no recruiting, no inducements, no attempts to pull an athlete out of another program. No pre athlete contact. They cleared that part completely. And then, somehow, they still twisted the case into a penalty over a few phone calls that had nothing to do with recruiting. So on one hand they admit ‘no tampering happened,’ and on the other they punish him anyway. Makes zero sense, even by NCAA standards.
I knew Brosnan didn’t do a damn thing. The guy was innocent from the start. The wild part is the NCAA basically telling coaches they have to cut off lifelong relationships the second a friend’s kid enrolls somewhere else. That’s their logic now normal human contact equals a violation. It’s mind-blowing, but honestly nothing about the NCAA shocks me anymore. When an organization is this backwards, this inconsistent, and this desperate to manufacture violations, you end up with nonsense like this case.Ans good for ESPN for getting the word out!
During prospect 2’s interview with the enforcement staff, she recalled her father telling her about one of the calls he had with Brosnan in which Brosnan expressed that he would love to have prospect 2 at UCLA. Following her entry in the transfer portal January 2, 2023, prospect 2 enrolled at UCLA and competed for the institution.
Prospect 1 entered the transfer portal on December 12, 2022, and prospect 2 entered on January 2, 2023. Two of Brosnan’s 11 phone calls with prospect 1’s father occurred at 10:25 p.m. and 11:07 p.m. on December 11, 2022, the night before prospect 1 entered the portal. Prospect 1’s father initiated both calls. Brosnan then initiated a phone call to prospect 1’s father the following day. The call concluded 13 minutes before prospect 1 entered the portal. Prospect 1’s father then called Brosnan three minutes after prospect 1 entered the portal.
This is a crazy case. The NCAA literally admitted there was no tampering , their own report says no recruiting, no inducements, no attempts to pull an athlete out of another program. No pre athlete contact. They cleared that part completely. And then, somehow, they still twisted the case into a penalty over a few phone calls that had nothing to do with recruiting. So on one hand they admit ‘no tampering happened,’ and on the other they punish him anyway. Makes zero sense, even by NCAA standards.
I knew Brosnan didn’t do a damn thing. The guy was innocent from the start. The wild part is the NCAA basically telling coaches they have to cut off lifelong relationships the second a friend’s kid enrolls somewhere else. That’s their logic now normal human contact equals a violation. It’s mind-blowing, but honestly nothing about the NCAA shocks me anymore. When an organization is this backwards, this inconsistent, and this desperate to manufacture violations, you end up with nonsense like this case.Ans good for ESPN for getting the word out!
Actually the full report shows Brosnan clearly broke multiple NCAA rules. Someone else posted it earlier, go read it.
They have a photo of him talking to a recruit at a meet before he was allowed to. And one of the recruits admitted to the NCAA that Brosnan and her father had recruiting conversations. UCLA's own compliance staff reported that Brosnan said he had a conversation with the father before the recruit was in the transfer portal.
Nobody forced Brosnan to become a college coach. If he didn't like the NCAA's rules, he should have stayed at Newbury Park.
I saw this over the weekend and was honestly shocked that Dan Wetzel, who is one of the biggest national sports writers out there, took on a story about a cross-country coach. That alone tells you how badly the NCAA messed this up. And the sad part is, none of this is new. The NCAA has been a disaster for years, getting sued over and over for situations just like this and breaking their own rules in the process. You’d think they would learn by now, but clearly they haven’t
I love that Dan Wetzel and ESPN finally called out the NCAA’s hypocrisy. Brosnan literally got hit with a violation for talking to longtime friends about personal, family stuff — and even the NCAA admitted there was no recruiting talk. His only “crime” was refusing to break off friendships because their kids ran at another school. Absolutely insane.
I saw this over the weekend and was honestly shocked that Dan Wetzel, who is one of the biggest national sports writers out there, took on a story about a cross-country coach. That alone tells you how badly the NCAA messed this up. And the sad part is, none of this is new. The NCAA has been a disaster for years, getting sued over and over for situations just like this and breaking their own rules in the process. You’d think they would learn by now, but clearly they haven’t
I love that Dan Wetzel and ESPN finally called out the NCAA’s hypocrisy. Brosnan literally got hit with a violation for talking to longtime friends about personal, family stuff — and even the NCAA admitted there was no recruiting talk. His only “crime” was refusing to break off friendships because their kids ran at another school. Absolutely insane.
Typing the same stuff a hundred times under a hundred different user names still doesn't make it true.
There is no NCAA hypocrisy here, they applied the same rule the same way they have been for longer than Brosnan has been alive.
He didn't have to break off friendships. Just wait a month until they enter the portal. The frequency of calls immediately prior to the recruit entering the portal is EXTREMELY DAMNING.
I knew Brosnan didn’t do a damn thing. The guy was innocent from the start. The wild part is the NCAA basically telling coaches they have to cut off lifelong relationships the second a friend’s kid enrolls somewhere else. That’s their logic now normal human contact equals a violation. It’s mind-blowing, but honestly nothing about the NCAA shocks me anymore. When an organization is this backwards, this inconsistent, and this desperate to manufacture violations, you end up with nonsense like this case.Ans good for ESPN for getting the word out!
Actually the full report shows Brosnan clearly broke multiple NCAA rules. Someone else posted it earlier, go read it.
They have a photo of him talking to a recruit at a meet before he was allowed to. And one of the recruits admitted to the NCAA that Brosnan and her father had recruiting conversations. UCLA's own compliance staff reported that Brosnan said he had a conversation with the father before the recruit was in the transfer portal.
Nobody forced Brosnan to become a college coach. If he didn't like the NCAA's rules, he should have stayed at Newbury Park.
Every claim they made is factually wrong or contradicted by the NCAA’s own record 1. “Brosnan had recruiting conversations.” False. The actual evidence (including both fathers’ sworn interviews) shows the opposite: Both fathers explicitly testified Brosnan refused to discuss transfers and told them “I can’t talk about that until she’s in the portal.” The COI even admits the calls were “personal in nature” and did not contain recruiting content. Their entire case is built on a second-hand memory (“she recalled her father telling her…”) not on any statement from the father, the person who actually had the call. That is not “credible, persuasive evidence” under Bylaw 19.7.3. 2. “He broke rules by talking to the dads.” This is the core absurdity: The NCAA admits Brosnan’s calls were friendship-based and non-recruiting and then punished him anyway, claiming any communication equals tampering, even with lifelong friends. That interpretation contradicts the definition of “recruiting” in Bylaw 13.02.14, which requires intent to solicit or influence enrollment. The NCAA never proved that, because it never happened. 3. About the “photo” at the meet That photo proves nothing except that Adams Cooke the former Duke coach took a picture while he stood next to a coach and athlete. The athlete herself admitted he never contacted her again and UCLA reported that no recruitment occurred. That’s why the NCAA classified it as a minor Level III, not tampering. Trying to use a Level III incidental contact as “proof” of a Level II violation is legally meaningless. 4. “UCLA compliance said he admitted something.” UCLA compliance never said he had a recruiting conversation. They only said he asked a general rules question — which he did, because he was trying to follow the rules. And UCLA admitted they never gave him any education on tampering, the transfer portal, or pre-existing relationships. The NCAA’s own decision says UCLA’s lack of education was so severe it required mitigation. 5. The full report actually helps Brosnan The report proves: No recruiting calls. No inducements. No intent to influence enrollment. Lifelong relationships acknowledged by all parties. Both athletes were transferring home for family medical reasons, not because of Brosnan. The NCAA admitted there is zero distinction between friendship and recruiting — a standard that would make almost every college coach guilty. Everything you just claimed is contradicted by the NCAA’s own evidence. The fathers denied recruiting, the NCAA admitted the calls were personal, the “photo” is a Level III technicality, and the only thing Brosnan is guilty of is refusing to abandon longtime friends which is exactly why this case is getting torched in mainstream media and ESPN called out the NCAA.
I love that Dan Wetzel and ESPN finally called out the NCAA’s hypocrisy. Brosnan literally got hit with a violation for talking to longtime friends about personal, family stuff — and even the NCAA admitted there was no recruiting talk. His only “crime” was refusing to break off friendships because their kids ran at another school. Absolutely insane.
Typing the same stuff a hundred times under a hundred different user names still doesn't make it true.
There is no NCAA hypocrisy here, they applied the same rule the same way they have been for longer than Brosnan has been alive.
He didn't have to break off friendships. Just wait a month until they enter the portal. The frequency of calls immediately prior to the recruit entering the portal is EXTREMELY DAMNING.
Yep, this is why on the official thread about this story, once they required registration this troll vanished/only posted under brand new accounts. It was telling.
The NCAA is setting itself up for another massive legal defeat, because this case is built on the same pattern that courts have already condemned: ignoring its own bylaws, applying standards that do not exist in the rulebook, and depriving an individual of fair process. In Brosnan’s case, the NCAA openly admits there was no recruiting talk, no intent, and no inducement, yet still labeled personal, pre-existing friendships as “tampering,” contradicting the NCAA’s own definition of recruiting in Bylaw 13.02.14 and the evidentiary requirement of “credible, persuasive evidence” in Bylaw 19.7.3. Worse, they pre judged him in UCLA’s negotiated resolution before he had a chance to respond, then sent three of the same officials to rule on him individually the exact kind of structural bias courts have struck down in previous NCAA losses (McNair, Alston, O’Bannon, Miami). It doesn’t stop there: mishandling and prematurely accessing 8,000 files from his personal phone including private data he never approved for release mirrors the same procedural misconduct that got the NCAA punished before. When you combine misapplied bylaws, lack of due process, internal contradictions, and mishandling of personal data, this case looks exactly like the kind the NCAA repeatedly loses in court, often with multi-million-dollar judgments. And they haven’t learned a thing which is why this one will come back to burn them too.