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.
There was no admission of tampering, none. An admission would require acknowledging actual recruiting conduct (transfer discussion, inducements, coordination, etc.). That never happened. At most you have a vague interpretation of conversations that every single party later clarified did not involve recruiting at all. You don’t get to call something an “admission” just because you want it to be. The “earlier = more reliable” take is also nonsense. Early interviews are often incomplete and lack context. That’s why you look at the full record, and the full record here shows consistent statements that there was no recruiting content, plus a documented pre-existing relationship. Ignoring that and cherry-picking one version is bad faith. Yes, circumstantial evidence is allowed, but Bylaw 19.7.1 requires it to be credible and sufficient to reasonably demonstrate a violation. That standard is not met when there’s an obvious innocent explanation: longtime friends talking, established call history, zero contact with athletes, zero inducements, zero transfer discussion. That’s not circumstantial evidence of guilt—that’s circumstantial evidence of normal behavior. And the murder analogy is ridiculous. There’s no “DNA,” no “search history,” no incriminating act. It’s literally just “they talked on the phone and we don’t like the timing.” That wouldn’t hold up anywhere. No admission + no direct evidence + innocent explanation that fits all facts = not sufficient under the NCAA’s own standard.
The prospect did admit to recruiting. Brosnan told the parent he'd love to have the daughter on the team. The NCAA rules call that recruiting language. The NCAA has many prior cases and many rules interpretations that specifically deem that recruiting language.
If a sophomore reaches out to a track coach, the coach cannot respond with "we'd love to have you on the team but we can't speak to you yet" because that is recruiting language and a violation with a recruit that is not allowed to be contacted yet.
Brosnan's denial and the parent's denial is meaningless in the investigation because they are just trying to avoid getting in trouble.
This early interview did not lack context and it was not incomplete.
The NCAA rightfully found Brosnan guilty. Accept it.
There was no admission of tampering, none. An admission would require acknowledging actual recruiting conduct (transfer discussion, inducements, coordination, etc.). That never happened. At most you have a vague interpretation of conversations that every single party later clarified did not involve recruiting at all. You don’t get to call something an “admission” just because you want it to be. The “earlier = more reliable” take is also nonsense. Early interviews are often incomplete and lack context. That’s why you look at the full record, and the full record here shows consistent statements that there was no recruiting content, plus a documented pre-existing relationship. Ignoring that and cherry-picking one version is bad faith. Yes, circumstantial evidence is allowed, but Bylaw 19.7.1 requires it to be credible and sufficient to reasonably demonstrate a violation. That standard is not met when there’s an obvious innocent explanation: longtime friends talking, established call history, zero contact with athletes, zero inducements, zero transfer discussion. That’s not circumstantial evidence of guilt—that’s circumstantial evidence of normal behavior. And the murder analogy is ridiculous. There’s no “DNA,” no “search history,” no incriminating act. It’s literally just “they talked on the phone and we don’t like the timing.” That wouldn’t hold up anywhere. No admission + no direct evidence + innocent explanation that fits all facts = not sufficient under the NCAA’s own standard.
The prospect did admit to recruiting. Brosnan told the parent he'd love to have the daughter on the team. The NCAA rules call that recruiting language. The NCAA has many prior cases and many rules interpretations that specifically deem that recruiting language.
If a sophomore reaches out to a track coach, the coach cannot respond with "we'd love to have you on the team but we can't speak to you yet" because that is recruiting language and a violation with a recruit that is not allowed to be contacted yet.
Brosnan's denial and the parent's denial is meaningless in the investigation because they are just trying to avoid getting in trouble.
This early interview did not lack context and it was not incomplete.
The NCAA rightfully found Brosnan guilty. Accept it.
You’re hanging the entire case on a quote Brosnan never even said. That “we’d love to have you” line came from a a girl that said my Dad might of said, I don’t remember parent, not him and the parent never testified Brosnan said it. That’s hearsay on top of hearsay, not evidence. In fact, the parents testified the opposite that Brosnan explicitly said they could not talk about any of that until she was in the portal. That directly undercuts any claim of pre-portal recruiting intent. The NCAA standard requires credible and sufficient proof of actual recruiting conduct, not assumptions built off call timing and misattributed quotes. No athlete contact, no inducements, no documented recruiting conversation, not actual evidence, just inference layered on top of a statement that isn’t even attributable to him. That’s not evidence; that’s speculation. Bottom line: when your “smoking gun” is a quote the coach didn’t say and the actual testimony says he avoided recruiting topics you don’t have a slam dunk case, you have a narrative problem.
The prospect did admit to recruiting. Brosnan told the parent he'd love to have the daughter on the team. The NCAA rules call that recruiting language. The NCAA has many prior cases and many rules interpretations that specifically deem that recruiting language.
If a sophomore reaches out to a track coach, the coach cannot respond with "we'd love to have you on the team but we can't speak to you yet" because that is recruiting language and a violation with a recruit that is not allowed to be contacted yet.
Brosnan's denial and the parent's denial is meaningless in the investigation because they are just trying to avoid getting in trouble.
This early interview did not lack context and it was not incomplete.
The NCAA rightfully found Brosnan guilty. Accept it.
You’re hanging the entire case on a quote Brosnan never even said. That “we’d love to have you” line came from a a girl that said my Dad might of said, I don’t remember parent, not him and the parent never testified Brosnan said it. That’s hearsay on top of hearsay, not evidence. In fact, the parents testified the opposite that Brosnan explicitly said they could not talk about any of that until she was in the portal. That directly undercuts any claim of pre-portal recruiting intent. The NCAA standard requires credible and sufficient proof of actual recruiting conduct, not assumptions built off call timing and misattributed quotes. No athlete contact, no inducements, no documented recruiting conversation, not actual evidence, just inference layered on top of a statement that isn’t even attributable to him. That’s not evidence; that’s speculation. Bottom line: when your “smoking gun” is a quote the coach didn’t say and the actual testimony says he avoided recruiting topics you don’t have a slam dunk case, you have a narrative problem.
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 factual findings of why he was not innocent.
The prospect did admit to recruiting. Brosnan told the parent he'd love to have the daughter on the team. The NCAA rules call that recruiting language. The NCAA has many prior cases and many rules interpretations that specifically deem that recruiting language.
If a sophomore reaches out to a track coach, the coach cannot respond with "we'd love to have you on the team but we can't speak to you yet" because that is recruiting language and a violation with a recruit that is not allowed to be contacted yet.
Brosnan's denial and the parent's denial is meaningless in the investigation because they are just trying to avoid getting in trouble.
This early interview did not lack context and it was not incomplete.
The NCAA rightfully found Brosnan guilty. Accept it.
You’re hanging the entire case on a quote Brosnan never even said. That “we’d love to have you” line came from a a girl that said my Dad might of said, I don’t remember parent, not him and the parent never testified Brosnan said it. That’s hearsay on top of hearsay, not evidence. In fact, the parents testified the opposite that Brosnan explicitly said they could not talk about any of that until she was in the portal. That directly undercuts any claim of pre-portal recruiting intent. The NCAA standard requires credible and sufficient proof of actual recruiting conduct, not assumptions built off call timing and misattributed quotes. No athlete contact, no inducements, no documented recruiting conversation, not actual evidence, just inference layered on top of a statement that isn’t even attributable to him. That’s not evidence; that’s speculation. Bottom line: when your “smoking gun” is a quote the coach didn’t say and the actual testimony says he avoided recruiting topics you don’t have a slam dunk case, you have a narrative problem.
The prospect admitting to the NCAA that Brosnan said he'd love to have her on the team is the definition of credible and sufficient proof of recruiting conduct. It came directly from a person who would suffer penalties if a violation was found. It is not a "misattributed quote" it is a DIRECT quote.
It's not hearsay because it came from the target of the investigation DURING the investigation. Hearsay is a an out of court statement in which the original speaker cannot be cross examined.
The parents denials have no credibility and are not evidence because they are just going to deny the crime like every other accused person ever. You can't use a convicted murderer's not guilty plea as evidence they are innocent. It is not a counterpoint to the actual evidence presented.
The NCAA met their burden of proof in this case with OVERWHELMING evidence to show Brosnan tampered and is therefore incredibly guilty.
You’re hanging the entire case on a quote Brosnan never even said. That “we’d love to have you” line came from a a girl that said my Dad might of said, I don’t remember parent, not him and the parent never testified Brosnan said it. That’s hearsay on top of hearsay, not evidence. In fact, the parents testified the opposite that Brosnan explicitly said they could not talk about any of that until she was in the portal. That directly undercuts any claim of pre-portal recruiting intent. The NCAA standard requires credible and sufficient proof of actual recruiting conduct, not assumptions built off call timing and misattributed quotes. No athlete contact, no inducements, no documented recruiting conversation, not actual evidence, just inference layered on top of a statement that isn’t even attributable to him. That’s not evidence; that’s speculation. Bottom line: when your “smoking gun” is a quote the coach didn’t say and the actual testimony says he avoided recruiting topics you don’t have a slam dunk case, you have a narrative problem.
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 factual findings of why he was not innocent.
This isn’t proof, it’s weak speculation built on timing and hearsay.
The “would love to have her” line is double hearsay and even that falls apart because the father never testified Brosnan said it. It’s just a daughter recalling her dad saying something to make her feel good. That’s not evidence of recruiting, let alone a violation. The call timing argument is even weaker. In the NCAA transfer process, athletes don’t know the exact moment they’ll appear in the portal compliance controls that. So “13 minutes before” is meaningless. Nobody is timing anything to a timestamp even the athlete doesn’t know. And the actual testimony cuts the other way: the father stated Brosnan told him he could not discuss transferring until she entered the portal exactly what NCAA rules require.
The facts:
There was a longstanding relationship Zero evidence of what was said Call logs don’t equal recruiting. Timing doesn’t equal intent, especially when long time friends and have regular conversations
Bottom line: no athlete contact, no offers, no documented recruiting, just hearsay and a timeline the NCAA is trying to spin into a violation while ignoring direct testimony that he followed the rules. That’s not proof of tampering.
What actually matters is the testimony and it completely blows up the NCAA’s entire theory. The father said Brosnan refused to talk about transferring until she was in the portal… which is literally the rule. So your “smoking gun” is a guy doing exactly what he’s supposed to do. Brilliant. Strip away the noise and you’ve got… nothing: Pre-existing relationship, zero evidence of what was actually said and that’s it. No athlete contact. No offers. No inducements. No documented recruiting. Just people staring at a call log like it’s a Ouija board trying to summon intent. You’re not proving tampering you’re guessing and forcing something that's not there, otherwise the NCAA would have presented it and they did not! This is what happens when you start with a conclusion and then desperately try to backfill it with timing charts and secondhand stories. If that’s the standard, then every coach in the country is guilty of something. Absolute joke.
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 factual findings of why he was not innocent.
This isn’t proof, it’s weak speculation built on timing and hearsay.
The “would love to have her” line is double hearsay and even that falls apart because the father never testified Brosnan said it. It’s just a daughter recalling her dad saying something to make her feel good. That’s not evidence of recruiting, let alone a violation. The call timing argument is even weaker. In the NCAA transfer process, athletes don’t know the exact moment they’ll appear in the portal compliance controls that. So “13 minutes before” is meaningless. Nobody is timing anything to a timestamp even the athlete doesn’t know. And the actual testimony cuts the other way: the father stated Brosnan told him he could not discuss transferring until she entered the portal exactly what NCAA rules require.
The facts:
There was a longstanding relationship Zero evidence of what was said Call logs don’t equal recruiting. Timing doesn’t equal intent, especially when long time friends and have regular conversations
Bottom line: no athlete contact, no offers, no documented recruiting, just hearsay and a timeline the NCAA is trying to spin into a violation while ignoring direct testimony that he followed the rules. That’s not proof of tampering.
Sean, stop trying to litigate this on Letsrun. It’s really pathetic. If you have such a strong case, put on your big boy pants and file a lawsuit.
This isn’t proof, it’s weak speculation built on timing and hearsay.
The “would love to have her” line is double hearsay and even that falls apart because the father never testified Brosnan said it. It’s just a daughter recalling her dad saying something to make her feel good. That’s not evidence of recruiting, let alone a violation. The call timing argument is even weaker. In the NCAA transfer process, athletes don’t know the exact moment they’ll appear in the portal compliance controls that. So “13 minutes before” is meaningless. Nobody is timing anything to a timestamp even the athlete doesn’t know. And the actual testimony cuts the other way: the father stated Brosnan told him he could not discuss transferring until she entered the portal exactly what NCAA rules require.
The facts:
There was a longstanding relationship Zero evidence of what was said Call logs don’t equal recruiting. Timing doesn’t equal intent, especially when long time friends and have regular conversations
Bottom line: no athlete contact, no offers, no documented recruiting, just hearsay and a timeline the NCAA is trying to spin into a violation while ignoring direct testimony that he followed the rules. That’s not proof of tampering.
Sean, stop trying to litigate this on Letsrun. It’s really pathetic. If you have such a strong case, put on your big boy pants and file a lawsuit.
That decision ultimately rests with Brosnan, but it’s reasonable to expect a lawsuit ( it’s an easy win) at some point. Based on the record, this is a case he’d be strongly positioned to win in court, the only real question is the cost to get there versus the potential upside, which could be significant.
This isn’t proof, it’s weak speculation built on timing and hearsay.
The “would love to have her” line is double hearsay and even that falls apart because the father never testified Brosnan said it. It’s just a daughter recalling her dad saying something to make her feel good. That’s not evidence of recruiting, let alone a violation. The call timing argument is even weaker. In the NCAA transfer process, athletes don’t know the exact moment they’ll appear in the portal compliance controls that. So “13 minutes before” is meaningless. Nobody is timing anything to a timestamp even the athlete doesn’t know. And the actual testimony cuts the other way: the father stated Brosnan told him he could not discuss transferring until she entered the portal exactly what NCAA rules require.
The facts:
There was a longstanding relationship Zero evidence of what was said Call logs don’t equal recruiting. Timing doesn’t equal intent, especially when long time friends and have regular conversations
Bottom line: no athlete contact, no offers, no documented recruiting, just hearsay and a timeline the NCAA is trying to spin into a violation while ignoring direct testimony that he followed the rules. That’s not proof of tampering.
Sean, stop trying to litigate this on Letsrun. It’s really pathetic. If you have such a strong case, put on your big boy pants and file a lawsuit.
Before anyone says “ put your big boy pants and file a lawsuit” understand the process, you have to exhaust all internal remedies first. That’s exactly why Brosnan went through two appeals. He checked the box the law requires before taking it to court. And what did that process look like? The NCAA using its own colleagues to judge its own case. That’s not an independent review, that’s a built-in bias machine. Call it what it is, a clown court! They also refuse to release full interviews or testimony, which tells you everything. If this was such a “slam dunk,” they’d have no problem showing the actual evidence. Instead, it’s hidden, because there is no real proof of tampering. Even more telling, their own findings acknowledge he could talk to long-time friends. That’s their language, not his. So they admit the relationship is legitimate, admit the communication is allowed, and still try to spin it into a violation with zero evidence of recruiting content. That’s not enforcement, that’s overreach. This is exactly the type of case that gets crushed in real court. Once you step outside the NCAA bubble, you’re dealing with due process, evidentiary standards, and antitrust scrutiny, not internal corrupt politics. The bottom line is Brosnan did what he had to do procedurally. Now it’s set up for what could be a massive lawsuit, especially when you factor in federal, state, and antitrust issues were all broken by the NCAA.
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 factual findings of why he was not innocent.
This isn’t proof, it’s weak speculation built on timing and hearsay.
The “would love to have her” line is double hearsay and even that falls apart because the father never testified Brosnan said it. It’s just a daughter recalling her dad saying something to make her feel good. That’s not evidence of recruiting, let alone a violation. The call timing argument is even weaker. In the NCAA transfer process, athletes don’t know the exact moment they’ll appear in the portal compliance controls that. So “13 minutes before” is meaningless. Nobody is timing anything to a timestamp even the athlete doesn’t know. And the actual testimony cuts the other way: the father stated Brosnan told him he could not discuss transferring until she entered the portal exactly what NCAA rules require.
The facts:
There was a longstanding relationship Zero evidence of what was said Call logs don’t equal recruiting. Timing doesn’t equal intent, especially when long time friends and have regular conversations
Bottom line: no athlete contact, no offers, no documented recruiting, just hearsay and a timeline the NCAA is trying to spin into a violation while ignoring direct testimony that he followed the rules. That’s not proof of tampering.
Everything you say is a lie. Brosnan could have appealed the specific evidence that the NCAA used and he did not. He did not appeal the validity of the prospect's testimony. He did not appeal to fight against the admissibility of the timing of the calls.
Brosnan has no standing to take these issues to court when he didn't even raise these issues in his appeal.
Factually, there is an exact time that the prospects enter the portal. There is a date and an exact time TO THE MINUTE that documents exactly when the prospect is entered into the portal. In fact, that exact time stamp for the exact athletes in question can still be found in the portal even now.
This isn’t proof, it’s weak speculation built on timing and hearsay.
The “would love to have her” line is double hearsay and even that falls apart because the father never testified Brosnan said it. It’s just a daughter recalling her dad saying something to make her feel good. That’s not evidence of recruiting, let alone a violation. The call timing argument is even weaker. In the NCAA transfer process, athletes don’t know the exact moment they’ll appear in the portal compliance controls that. So “13 minutes before” is meaningless. Nobody is timing anything to a timestamp even the athlete doesn’t know. And the actual testimony cuts the other way: the father stated Brosnan told him he could not discuss transferring until she entered the portal exactly what NCAA rules require.
The facts:
There was a longstanding relationship Zero evidence of what was said Call logs don’t equal recruiting. Timing doesn’t equal intent, especially when long time friends and have regular conversations
Bottom line: no athlete contact, no offers, no documented recruiting, just hearsay and a timeline the NCAA is trying to spin into a violation while ignoring direct testimony that he followed the rules. That’s not proof of tampering.
Everything you say is a lie. Brosnan could have appealed the specific evidence that the NCAA used and he did not. He did not appeal the validity of the prospect's testimony. He did not appeal to fight against the admissibility of the timing of the calls.
Brosnan has no standing to take these issues to court when he didn't even raise these issues in his appeal.
Factually, there is an exact time that the prospects enter the portal. There is a date and an exact time TO THE MINUTE that documents exactly when the prospect is entered into the portal. In fact, that exact time stamp for the exact athletes in question can still be found in the portal even now.
You can’t claim what Brosnan “didn’t appeal specific evidence” when the NCAA filings aren’t public, that’s guesswork, not fact. Brosnan had two appeals we know that, but the NCAA won’t release that. And the standing point is flat wrong. Standing is about harm and redressability, not nitpicking how arguments were framed internally. At most you’re talking about exhaustion and he went through two appeals, which is exactly what courts require before filing suit. The timestamp point is just as weak. Yes, the portal shows an exact time after the fact that doesn’t mean anyone knew the precise minute beforehand. You can’t assign intent to a clock nobody involved could actually see in real time. And none of this fixes the core problem: timing isn’t content. There’s still zero evidence of what was said, and the father’s testimony confirms Brosnan refused to discuss transferring until she was in the portal, which is compliance, not a violation. Bottom line: this is a procedural smokescreen covering a lack of evidence. Brosnan exhausted the process, has clear harm, and now has a strong basis to take this to court, including potential claims like:
Antitrust violations (restraint of trade under the Sherman Act framework, see NCAA v. Alston)
Unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code §17200
Denial of fair process / arbitrary enforcement (internal bias, inconsistent application of rules)
That’s where this actually gets tested, under real legal standards, not NCAA house rules. And why the NCAA always loses when tested in court. They will most likely have to settle to avoid getting destroyed in court. Otherwise Brosnan is a millionaire because antitrust is no joke and the NCAA definitely broke the law
The bottom line is Brosnan did what he had to do procedurally. Now it’s set up for what could be a massive lawsuit, especially when you factor in federal, state, and antitrust issues were all broken by the NCAA.
We'll all be waiting with baited breath, though it'll be tough while we continue to also hold our breaths for the pro team announcement.
The bottom line is Brosnan did what he had to do procedurally. Now it’s set up for what could be a massive lawsuit, especially when you factor in federal, state, and antitrust issues were all broken by the NCAA.
We'll all be waiting with baited breath, though it'll be tough while we continue to also hold our breaths for the pro team announcement.
What does a “pro team” have to do with the NCAA messing this up ? This is a major disaster for the NCAA that will hit them.
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 factual findings of why he was not innocent.
This isn’t proof, it’s weak speculation built on timing and hearsay.
The “would love to have her” line is double hearsay and even that falls apart because the father never testified Brosnan said it. It’s just a daughter recalling her dad saying something to make her feel good. That’s not evidence of recruiting, let alone a violation. The call timing argument is even weaker. In the NCAA transfer process, athletes don’t know the exact moment they’ll appear in the portal compliance controls that. So “13 minutes before” is meaningless. Nobody is timing anything to a timestamp even the athlete doesn’t know. And the actual testimony cuts the other way: the father stated Brosnan told him he could not discuss transferring until she entered the portal exactly what NCAA rules require.
The facts:
There was a longstanding relationship Zero evidence of what was said Call logs don’t equal recruiting. Timing doesn’t equal intent, especially when long time friends and have regular conversations
Bottom line: no athlete contact, no offers, no documented recruiting, just hearsay and a timeline the NCAA is trying to spin into a violation while ignoring direct testimony that he followed the rules. That’s not proof of tampering.
It’s not “weak evidence”, though. It’s enough from anyone with a brain to know that he broke tampering rules. That is why you have to keep creating new usernames to argue against the facts that go against your case.
Theres not going to be a wiretapped conversation for you and there doesn’t need to be because the facts were damning enough.
If you actually read the record, the NCAA didn’t just “get it wrong”—they potentially violated multiple federal, state, and their own internal rules:
Federal / Constitutional Violations • Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process) Findings based on speculation, omission of exculpatory evidence, and mischaracterization of testimony • First Amendment (Freedom of Association) Punishing lawful, long-standing personal relationships • Fourth Amendment (Unreasonable Search & Seizure) Imaging and distributing private phone data without proper consent (see Riley v. California) • Vagueness Doctrine Expanding bylaws beyond their text so no coach has clear notice of what’s actually prohibited
Federal Antitrust Law • Sherman Act §1 Restraining a coach’s ability to work and recruit through arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement (same framework recognized in NCAA v. Alston) California State Law Violations • California Constitution, Article I §1 (Right to Privacy) Unauthorized access and distribution of personal phone data • California Labor Code §§ 96(k), 98.6 Retaliation for lawful off-duty conduct (personal friendships) • California Labor Code §1102.5 Retaliation for asserting legal/privacy rights • California Civil Code §1798.100 (CCPA) Data collection and sharing without proper notice/consent • California Business & Professions Code §17200 Unfair competition / unlawful business practices • Defamation (Civil Code §§45–46) Publishing a false narrative of “tampering” unsupported by evidence
NCAA’s Own Rule Violations • Bylaw 19.13.1.1 (Reliable Evidence Standard) Decisions must be based on credible, factual evidence—not speculation • Bylaw 19.01.2 (Fairness & Institutional Responsibility) Ignoring compliance failures while penalizing the coach • IOP 19.2 (Data Handling / Due Process) Failure to allow proper review of seized personal data • Failure of Compliance Education (admitted in record) Punishing conduct without ever properly educating the rule
This isn’t proof, it’s weak speculation built on timing and hearsay.
The “would love to have her” line is double hearsay and even that falls apart because the father never testified Brosnan said it. It’s just a daughter recalling her dad saying something to make her feel good. That’s not evidence of recruiting, let alone a violation. The call timing argument is even weaker. In the NCAA transfer process, athletes don’t know the exact moment they’ll appear in the portal compliance controls that. So “13 minutes before” is meaningless. Nobody is timing anything to a timestamp even the athlete doesn’t know. And the actual testimony cuts the other way: the father stated Brosnan told him he could not discuss transferring until she entered the portal exactly what NCAA rules require.
The facts:
There was a longstanding relationship Zero evidence of what was said Call logs don’t equal recruiting. Timing doesn’t equal intent, especially when long time friends and have regular conversations
Bottom line: no athlete contact, no offers, no documented recruiting, just hearsay and a timeline the NCAA is trying to spin into a violation while ignoring direct testimony that he followed the rules. That’s not proof of tampering.
It’s not “weak evidence”, though. It’s enough from anyone with a brain to know that he broke tampering rules. That is why you have to keep creating new usernames to argue against the facts that go against your case.
Theres not going to be a wiretapped conversation for you and there doesn’t need to be because the facts were damning enough.
This argument is sad and elementary and falls apart both legally and logically.
First, “anyone with a brain knows” is not a standard of proof, it’s an admission they don’t actually have evidence. Under NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1, the burden is credible and sufficient information that reasonably demonstrates a violation, not gut feelings, assumptions, or message board confidence. Courts and even basic due process reject conclusions based on “it looks bad.” Second, calling it “damning” doesn’t make it so. Strip it down to actual facts:
No communication with the athletes No scholarship discussion No inducements No documented recruiting conversation
All parties testified no recruiting occurred pre-portal What’s left? Call timing and speculation about intent. That’s circumstantial inference built on a pre-existing friendship, which the NCAA cannot criminalize without rewriting its own rules. You don’t get to convert lawful conduct (talking to a long-time friend) into a violation just because you don’t like the optics. Third, the “you don’t need a wiretap” line is a dodge. True you don’t need a wiretap. But you do need actual evidence of recruiting conduct. Not assumptions. Not timing patterns. Not anonymous message board logic. Real evidence. The NCAA produced none. Finally, the personal attack about usernames is telling, it’s what people fall back on when they can’t win on facts. It has zero relevance to whether a violation occurred. Bottom line: When your case relies on “it looks bad” instead of proving actual recruiting behavior, you don’t have a rules violation you have a forced and false narrative. And narratives don’t meet the NCAA’s own evidentiary standard, let alone hold up anywhere near a courtroom.
It’s not “weak evidence”, though. It’s enough from anyone with a brain to know that he broke tampering rules. That is why you have to keep creating new usernames to argue against the facts that go against your case.
Theres not going to be a wiretapped conversation for you and there doesn’t need to be because the facts were damning enough.
This argument is sad and elementary and falls apart both legally and logically.
First, “anyone with a brain knows” is not a standard of proof, it’s an admission they don’t actually have evidence. Under NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1, the burden is credible and sufficient information that reasonably demonstrates a violation, not gut feelings, assumptions, or message board confidence. Courts and even basic due process reject conclusions based on “it looks bad.” Second, calling it “damning” doesn’t make it so. Strip it down to actual facts:
No communication with the athletes No scholarship discussion No inducements No documented recruiting conversation
All parties testified no recruiting occurred pre-portal What’s left? Call timing and speculation about intent. That’s circumstantial inference built on a pre-existing friendship, which the NCAA cannot criminalize without rewriting its own rules. You don’t get to convert lawful conduct (talking to a long-time friend) into a violation just because you don’t like the optics. Third, the “you don’t need a wiretap” line is a dodge. True you don’t need a wiretap. But you do need actual evidence of recruiting conduct. Not assumptions. Not timing patterns. Not anonymous message board logic. Real evidence. The NCAA produced none. Finally, the personal attack about usernames is telling, it’s what people fall back on when they can’t win on facts. It has zero relevance to whether a violation occurred. Bottom line: When your case relies on “it looks bad” instead of proving actual recruiting behavior, you don’t have a rules violation you have a forced and false narrative. And narratives don’t meet the NCAA’s own evidentiary standard, let alone hold up anywhere near a courtroom.
So pathetic and sad to keep arguing your case on an anonymous message board. I hope you’re able find fulfillment somewhere.
You’re hanging the entire case on a quote Brosnan never even said. That “we’d love to have you” line came from a a girl that said my Dad might of said, I don’t remember parent, not him and the parent never testified Brosnan said it. That’s hearsay on top of hearsay, not evidence. In fact, the parents testified the opposite that Brosnan explicitly said they could not talk about any of that until she was in the portal. That directly undercuts any claim of pre-portal recruiting intent. The NCAA standard requires credible and sufficient proof of actual recruiting conduct, not assumptions built off call timing and misattributed quotes. No athlete contact, no inducements, no documented recruiting conversation, not actual evidence, just inference layered on top of a statement that isn’t even attributable to him. That’s not evidence; that’s speculation. Bottom line: when your “smoking gun” is a quote the coach didn’t say and the actual testimony says he avoided recruiting topics you don’t have a slam dunk case, you have a narrative problem.
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 factual findings of why he was not innocent.
This argument is sad and elementary and falls apart both legally and logically.
First, “anyone with a brain knows” is not a standard of proof, it’s an admission they don’t actually have evidence. Under NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1, the burden is credible and sufficient information that reasonably demonstrates a violation, not gut feelings, assumptions, or message board confidence. Courts and even basic due process reject conclusions based on “it looks bad.” Second, calling it “damning” doesn’t make it so. Strip it down to actual facts:
No communication with the athletes No scholarship discussion No inducements No documented recruiting conversation
All parties testified no recruiting occurred pre-portal What’s left? Call timing and speculation about intent. That’s circumstantial inference built on a pre-existing friendship, which the NCAA cannot criminalize without rewriting its own rules. You don’t get to convert lawful conduct (talking to a long-time friend) into a violation just because you don’t like the optics. Third, the “you don’t need a wiretap” line is a dodge. True you don’t need a wiretap. But you do need actual evidence of recruiting conduct. Not assumptions. Not timing patterns. Not anonymous message board logic. Real evidence. The NCAA produced none. Finally, the personal attack about usernames is telling, it’s what people fall back on when they can’t win on facts. It has zero relevance to whether a violation occurred. Bottom line: When your case relies on “it looks bad” instead of proving actual recruiting behavior, you don’t have a rules violation you have a forced and false narrative. And narratives don’t meet the NCAA’s own evidentiary standard, let alone hold up anywhere near a courtroom.
So pathetic and sad to keep arguing your case on an anonymous message board. I hope you’re able find fulfillment somewhere.
I’m not arguing the case anonymously, I’m pointing out what the actual rules, procedures, and evidentiary standards are. That’s it. I left coaching about 8 years ago for financial reasons, so I’m not tied to any of this, I just follow and enjoy the sport now. I’ve always been a fan of Brosnan. What he did for high school distance running was very significant, whether people want to acknowledge it or not and I believe he’s one of the best distance coaches in the country. And when you actually look at the record, the facts show no tampering, no recruiting conversations, no scholarship discussion, no direct contact with the athletes. Just communication with a parent he had a long-standing relationship with, which all parties acknowledged. You can separate that from the NCAA process. The issue isn’t whether people feel something happened, it’s whether the NCAA met its own standard of “credible and sufficient evidence” tied to actual recruiting conduct. That’s a procedural question, not a personal one. I’d like to see him continue in the sport, because the impact he’s already had is pretty undeniable. The NCAA will and deserves to lose in court if Brosnan chooses to file.