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

He is a cheater who ruined a college program.

Incorrect.
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.
That’s the reality of why he was not innocent.

UCLA did tell him that it was impermissible.

"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. At the infractions hearing, Brosnan denied approaching the compliance staff with questions regarding the potential transfer of prospects 1 and 2."

The NCAA did not "expand" it's definition of tampering. Tampering has ALWAYS been enforced this way. You cannot find one example in which the NCAA has allowed this conduct.

The October response lays it out pretty clearly: the phone records show conversations with longtime family friends relationships that predated UCLA. Both fathers testified he refused to discuss transfers and said, “I can’t talk about that until she’s in the portal.”
There’s no text, no offer, no scholarship discussion, no inducement. The only alleged “recruiting” statement is secondhand recollection.
That’s not a smoking gun. That’s inference.
UCLA Compliance also told him he could maintain friendships as long as he didn’t recruit. If that’s true, that’s reliance on institutional guidance, not secret tampering.
And the interview delay? It stemmed from the NCAA imaging and circulating 8,000 personal files before he could review them. That’s a privacy fight, not obstruction.
So what actually happened?
• Contact occurred before the portal with friends ( all coached have friends )
• The bylaw bans all contact ( against state and federal law)
• Intent and content don’t matter under NCAA rules ( also against the law)
Call it a strict-liability technical violation if you want.
But don’t pretend this was some proven bribery scheme. The record doesn’t show that. That’s the reality.

The stupid thing is doing this directly. All you need is some former runner (not officially with the school) who you talk with over the phone, never text to filter back and front with - has Bronson never watched a mob movie? Goodfellas.

The standard in a civil court case is "more likely than not."

A jury does don't need direct "smoking gun" evidence to find that something happened more likely than not. Circumstantial evidence is enough.

Applying that standard here, the question is: was it more likely than not that in his telephone conversations with the athlete's father just before and immediately after she entered the portal, Brosnan and her father discussed her entering the portal/transferring to UCLA?

I guess they could have been discussing the Dodgers, but you'd have to check your common sense at the door to think that they didn't talk about what would have been front and center on their minds.

This ESPN article has been proven to be 100% wrong. The obvious penalties were upheld based on the facts of the case and it was not influenced at all by UCLA's decision to serve the penalties early.

Also, UCLA would have been irreparably harmed by having to delay penalties for 3 years across multiple coaching staffs while Brosnan fought a losing battle. There would have been rumors and speculation that would have really hurt recruiting. Who would commit to a school that while knowing they might have to serve massive penalties in 2-3 years?

It's far better to immediately serve the punishments and move forward.

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.

They were just planning a BBQ. Nothing to do with transfers.

The most important take away from the Brosnan legal saga: his defense did not work and he destroyed his college career and seriously hurt UCLA's distance program for several years. And his pro team never happened. I hope his book sales are enough to sustain him but his 15 minutes are up. His relevance fades with each passing day since he does not coach anyone currently. He is done.

His book sales have tapered to less than one book per day on Amazon. He makes less than $1 per book. I don’t think that’s enough to sustain anyone.

If Brosnan actually believes that he'll "destroy" the NCAA in court, then he'll sue the NCAA. But I don't think that Brosnan is crazy enough to think that he'll win, so I don't expect to see a court case about this.

I don't really understand how this adds much to their case although I understand that their case is already rock solid from everything else.

If I transferred to a school and the coach got fired for NCAA violations and the school was waiting on sanctions as a result, why would I be obligated to stay? They were going to have an interim, cheap, inexperienced coach for at least season, recruiting was going to be dry for the same amount of time if not longer (meaning bad practice partners and bad XC team) if they stayed at UCLA. And who's to say they wouldn't have gotten tangled up in administration drama for being tangentially involved in UCLA as a whole getting sanctioned.

It was better for both sides that they immediately transferred out to new schools regardless of Brosnan's absence potentially being a catalyst. Not having a coach at all is a bigger factor of them leaving.

I suspect that his legal bills are crushing & he is desperate enough to try anything.

That's not right at all.

The issue would be the NCAA's reasoning: Can they prohibit people from having social contact with longtime friends, simply because those friends have kids who are potential recruits? That's an interesting question, and I wouldn't assume it's an easy win for the NCAA.

On the other hand, if the NCAA had determined, as a factual matter, that tampering happened, then Brosnan would have a very hard case. They still wouldn't be relitigating whether it happened; a court would review the NCAA's determination with extreme deference.

But can you call just for a social call 13 minutes before their kid enters the portal? I'm sure they were just catching up.

And then talk again 3 minutes after their kid entered the portal? Imagine that, 2 calls within 16 minutes of each other, with that guy's daughter entering the portal during the 16 minute period they were off the phone. Wow, what a coincidence!

Three minutes after an athlete enters the transfer portal, they are eligible to be contacted. That is exactly how the system is designed to work. Once an athlete is in the portal, communication is permitted. Suggesting otherwise is simply false.
What you cannot do legally or otherwise, is claim that a person is prohibited from speaking with someone on the phone because of their job. That notion is absurd and against federal and state law. Under that logic, every coach in the NCAA would be guilty of “tampering” simply for having friends, former athletes, or families they know at other schools. That is not how the law works.
Brosnan appealed because he is required to exhaust all administrative remedies before pursuing further legal action. That is standard procedure in any case involving the NCAA. And history shows that when these matters actually reach a courtroom, the NCAA loses the overwhelming majority of the time. Courts operate on evidence and law, not speculation or institutional narratives.
The NCAA itself acknowledged several critical facts:
Brosnan never contacted the student-athletes prior to their entry into the portal.
Every party involved including the athletes and their parents stated that no discussion about transferring took place beforehand.
The NCAA found zero text messages, emails, or documented communications suggesting tampering.
In other words, there is no evidence.
Legally, the burden of proof rests entirely with the NCAA. If they cannot produce evidence of tampering, then the allegation collapses. That is not opinion, that is basic due process.
I’m not a California attorney, but I am a lawyer in another state, and I can tell you this much, if Brosnan ultimately takes the NCAA to court and prevails, the financial exposure for the NCAA could be enormous. When an organization makes allegations without evidence and damages someone’s career in the process, the consequences in civil court can be very real.
Strip away the noise and the facts remain simple, no tampering, no evidence, no case.