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.
You have not supported your claim that the evidence fails to meet the standard of being credible and sufficient.
What was Brosnan talking to the parent about conveniently right before and after the athlete entered the transfer portal?
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
Your post makes no sense. If Brosnan thought that he could sue the NCAA for all 15 of the things that you listed, then he would have already sued the NCAA. Even Brosnan himself doesn't believe your ridiculous post.
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
Your post makes no sense. If Brosnan thought that he could sue the NCAA for all 15 of the things that you listed, then he would have already sued the NCAA. Even Brosnan himself doesn't believe your ridiculous post.
No matter how strong the claims are, Brosnan had to exhaust all remedies before going to court. That’s standard. And if anything, going through two appeals where the NCAA ignored key legal and antitrust issues only strengthens what comes next. So the fact he hasn’t sued yet is exactly what you’d expect from someone following the proper legal process, not someone without a case. On top of that, he’s not up against the clock: 2–4 years for most California-based claims 4 years for federal antitrust Those windows typically run from the final appeal decision, which just happened a month ago. A smart legal strategy is to build the case the right way, not rush it. And there’s plenty there for Brosnan to pursue
Your post makes no sense. If Brosnan thought that he could sue the NCAA for all 15 of the things that you listed, then he would have already sued the NCAA. Even Brosnan himself doesn't believe your ridiculous post.
No matter how strong the claims are, Brosnan had to exhaust all remedies before going to court. That’s standard. And if anything, going through two appeals where the NCAA ignored key legal and antitrust issues only strengthens what comes next. So the fact he hasn’t sued yet is exactly what you’d expect from someone following the proper legal process, not someone without a case. On top of that, he’s not up against the clock: 2–4 years for most California-based claims 4 years for federal antitrust Those windows typically run from the final appeal decision, which just happened a month ago. A smart legal strategy is to build the case the right way, not rush it. And there’s plenty there for Brosnan to pursue
Brosnan has no basis for a lawsuit. The NCAA is 100% protected. Brosnan's biggest complaint is that he was punished for talking to his longtime friend. The NCAA's biggest issue is that he was talking to a prospect's parent about recruiting that prospect before the prospect was in the portal. That parent just so happened to be a friend of Brosnan's but the friendship has absolutely no relevance to the case.
Brosnan is trying to distract from the obvious evidence of recruiting and is trying to make it seem like the case is 100% about the NCAA dictating friendships. The phone calls alone are impermissible contact, but the NCAA ruled the CONTENT of the phone calls raised the conduct to a higher violation called tampering.
The NCAA has published tons of guidance on this issue. Here are some of the things it considers in tampering cases (from page 8 and 9)
"Tampering: Factors to Consider Results of the tampering. Did the student-athlete transfer? Were there inducements and/or benefits involved? Type and amount of benefits. Recipient of benefits. Pre-existing relationship Former coaches contacting former student-athletes. Previous relationship. Timing and sequence of events When did the student-athlete put their name in the transfer portal? When and how did initial contact with the student-athlete occur? Duration of time in the transfer portal? Was the tampering a part of another or additional violation(s)? Compounding violations (eligibility status). Frequency of impermissible contact Duration. Method and/or Avenue of Contact Phone, text or social media. Communication apps (e.g., iMessage, Whats App, Telegram). In-person contact. Third party involvement At the direction of a NCAA coach or staff member. Club/nonscholastic coaches. Family members. Boosters, alumni, members of the community."
Brosnan's case triggers MULTIPLE of those red flags. It wasn't even a close decision, it's tampering by a landslide.
No matter how strong the claims are, Brosnan had to exhaust all remedies before going to court. That’s standard. And if anything, going through two appeals where the NCAA ignored key legal and antitrust issues only strengthens what comes next. So the fact he hasn’t sued yet is exactly what you’d expect from someone following the proper legal process, not someone without a case. On top of that, he’s not up against the clock: 2–4 years for most California-based claims 4 years for federal antitrust Those windows typically run from the final appeal decision, which just happened a month ago. A smart legal strategy is to build the case the right way, not rush it. And there’s plenty there for Brosnan to pursue
Brosnan has no basis for a lawsuit. The NCAA is 100% protected. Brosnan's biggest complaint is that he was punished for talking to his longtime friend. The NCAA's biggest issue is that he was talking to a prospect's parent about recruiting that prospect before the prospect was in the portal. That parent just so happened to be a friend of Brosnan's but the friendship has absolutely no relevance to the case.
Brosnan is trying to distract from the obvious evidence of recruiting and is trying to make it seem like the case is 100% about the NCAA dictating friendships. The phone calls alone are impermissible contact, but the NCAA ruled the CONTENT of the phone calls raised the conduct to a higher violation called tampering.
The NCAA has published tons of guidance on this issue. Here are some of the things it considers in tampering cases (from page 8 and 9)
"Tampering: Factors to Consider Results of the tampering. Did the student-athlete transfer? Were there inducements and/or benefits involved? Type and amount of benefits. Recipient of benefits. Pre-existing relationship Former coaches contacting former student-athletes. Previous relationship. Timing and sequence of events When did the student-athlete put their name in the transfer portal? When and how did initial contact with the student-athlete occur? Duration of time in the transfer portal? Was the tampering a part of another or additional violation(s)? Compounding violations (eligibility status). Frequency of impermissible contact Duration. Method and/or Avenue of Contact Phone, text or social media. Communication apps (e.g., iMessage, Whats App, Telegram). In-person contact. Third party involvement At the direction of a NCAA coach or staff member. Club/nonscholastic coaches. Family members. Boosters, alumni, members of the community."
Brosnan's case triggers MULTIPLE of those red flags. It wasn't even a close decision, it's tampering by a landslide.
First, “the NCAA is 100% protected” is flat-out false. See NCAA v. Alston , unanimous Supreme Court decision confirming the NCAA is subject to antitrust law. They’re not immune, and they lose in court all the time. Second, you’re claiming “friendship is irrelevant” while the NCAA’s own guidance literally lists pre-existing relationships as something that must be evaluated. Ignoring that context and then inferring guilt from call logs is classic arbitrary enforcement. Third, “phone calls alone are impermissible contact” is just wrong. The rule requires recruiting conduct — offers, inducements, or transfer discussion. Not “you talked to someone a lot.” Frequency and timing are not violations by themselves. And this is where your whole argument falls apart: You say “content proves it,” but there’s no actual evidence of recruiting content: No athlete contact No offers or inducements No documented recruiting conversation Parents testified no pre-portal recruiting happened So what’s left? Call timing + assumptions. That’s not “credible and sufficient evidence” under NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1 that’s speculation. Now the part you’re completely ignoring , the laws the NCAA is exposing itself on:
Sherman Act §1 (Antitrust) The NCAA cannot arbitrarily restrict a coach’s ability to work or communicate without clear, consistent standards. Punishing lawful, non-recruiting communication based on inference is exactly the kind of restraint the courts have already warned them about (see Alston).
California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) Applying vague standards and inconsistent enforcement = unlawful and unfair business practice in California.
California Common Law “Fair Procedure” Doctrine Private organizations must provide a fundamentally fair process when their decisions impact someone’s career. Ignoring exculpatory evidence (long-standing relationship, testimony of no recruiting) and relying on assumptions violates that.
Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement (basic administrative law principle) You cannot: Ignore key context Infer intent without evidence Apply rules inconsistently That’s exactly how decisions get overturned. And that “factors” list you posted? Those are guidelines, not proof. Triggering a factor (like call frequency) does NOT equal a violation — otherwise every coach with a prior relationship would automatically be guilty.
No recruiting conduct + no inducements + no athlete contact = weak case. Calling it a “landslide” doesn’t make it one. It just means you’re confusing suspicion with evidence, which is exactly why the NCAA keeps getting exposed when real courts, with real legal standards, get involved. The NCAA does not get to tell you who to be friends with.
Your post makes no sense. If Brosnan thought that he could sue the NCAA for all 15 of the things that you listed, then he would have already sued the NCAA. Even Brosnan himself doesn't believe your ridiculous post.
No matter how strong the claims are, Brosnan had to exhaust all remedies before going to court. That’s standard. And if anything, going through two appeals where the NCAA ignored key legal and antitrust issues only strengthens what comes next. So the fact he hasn’t sued yet is exactly what you’d expect from someone following the proper legal process, not someone without a case. On top of that, he’s not up against the clock: 2–4 years for most California-based claims 4 years for federal antitrust Those windows typically run from the final appeal decision, which just happened a month ago. A smart legal strategy is to build the case the right way, not rush it. And there’s plenty there for Brosnan to pursue
Brosnan has no basis for a lawsuit. The NCAA is 100% protected. Brosnan's biggest complaint is that he was punished for talking to his longtime friend. The NCAA's biggest issue is that he was talking to a prospect's parent about recruiting that prospect before the prospect was in the portal. That parent just so happened to be a friend of Brosnan's but the friendship has absolutely no relevance to the case.
Brosnan is trying to distract from the obvious evidence of recruiting and is trying to make it seem like the case is 100% about the NCAA dictating friendships. The phone calls alone are impermissible contact, but the NCAA ruled the CONTENT of the phone calls raised the conduct to a higher violation called tampering.
The NCAA has published tons of guidance on this issue. Here are some of the things it considers in tampering cases (from page 8 and 9)
"Tampering: Factors to Consider Results of the tampering. Did the student-athlete transfer? Were there inducements and/or benefits involved? Type and amount of benefits. Recipient of benefits. Pre-existing relationship Former coaches contacting former student-athletes. Previous relationship. Timing and sequence of events When did the student-athlete put their name in the transfer portal? When and how did initial contact with the student-athlete occur? Duration of time in the transfer portal? Was the tampering a part of another or additional violation(s)? Compounding violations (eligibility status). Frequency of impermissible contact Duration. Method and/or Avenue of Contact Phone, text or social media. Communication apps (e.g., iMessage, Whats App, Telegram). In-person contact. Third party involvement At the direction of a NCAA coach or staff member. Club/nonscholastic coaches. Family members. Boosters, alumni, members of the community."
Brosnan's case triggers MULTIPLE of those red flags. It wasn't even a close decision, it's tampering by a landslide.
First, “the NCAA is 100% protected” is flat-out false. See NCAA v. Alston , unanimous Supreme Court decision confirming the NCAA is subject to antitrust law. They’re not immune, and they lose in court all the time. Second, you’re claiming “friendship is irrelevant” while the NCAA’s own guidance literally lists pre-existing relationships as something that must be evaluated. Ignoring that context and then inferring guilt from call logs is classic arbitrary enforcement. Third, “phone calls alone are impermissible contact” is just wrong. The rule requires recruiting conduct — offers, inducements, or transfer discussion. Not “you talked to someone a lot.” Frequency and timing are not violations by themselves. And this is where your whole argument falls apart: You say “content proves it,” but there’s no actual evidence of recruiting content: No athlete contact No offers or inducements No documented recruiting conversation Parents testified no pre-portal recruiting happened So what’s left? Call timing + assumptions. That’s not “credible and sufficient evidence” under NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1 that’s speculation. Now the part you’re completely ignoring , the laws the NCAA is exposing itself on:
Sherman Act §1 (Antitrust) The NCAA cannot arbitrarily restrict a coach’s ability to work or communicate without clear, consistent standards. Punishing lawful, non-recruiting communication based on inference is exactly the kind of restraint the courts have already warned them about (see Alston).
California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) Applying vague standards and inconsistent enforcement = unlawful and unfair business practice in California.
California Common Law “Fair Procedure” Doctrine Private organizations must provide a fundamentally fair process when their decisions impact someone’s career. Ignoring exculpatory evidence (long-standing relationship, testimony of no recruiting) and relying on assumptions violates that.
Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement (basic administrative law principle) You cannot: Ignore key context Infer intent without evidence Apply rules inconsistently That’s exactly how decisions get overturned. And that “factors” list you posted? Those are guidelines, not proof. Triggering a factor (like call frequency) does NOT equal a violation — otherwise every coach with a prior relationship would automatically be guilty.
No recruiting conduct + no inducements + no athlete contact = weak case. Calling it a “landslide” doesn’t make it one. It just means you’re confusing suspicion with evidence, which is exactly why the NCAA keeps getting exposed when real courts, with real legal standards, get involved. The NCAA does not get to tell you who to be friends with.
First, “the NCAA is 100% protected” is flat-out false. See NCAA v. Alston , unanimous Supreme Court decision confirming the NCAA is subject to antitrust law. They’re not immune, and they lose in court all the time. Second, you’re claiming “friendship is irrelevant” while the NCAA’s own guidance literally lists pre-existing relationships as something that must be evaluated. Ignoring that context and then inferring guilt from call logs is classic arbitrary enforcement. Third, “phone calls alone are impermissible contact” is just wrong. The rule requires recruiting conduct — offers, inducements, or transfer discussion. Not “you talked to someone a lot.” Frequency and timing are not violations by themselves. And this is where your whole argument falls apart: You say “content proves it,” but there’s no actual evidence of recruiting content: No athlete contact No offers or inducements No documented recruiting conversation Parents testified no pre-portal recruiting happened So what’s left? Call timing + assumptions. That’s not “credible and sufficient evidence” under NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1 that’s speculation. Now the part you’re completely ignoring , the laws the NCAA is exposing itself on:
Sherman Act §1 (Antitrust) The NCAA cannot arbitrarily restrict a coach’s ability to work or communicate without clear, consistent standards. Punishing lawful, non-recruiting communication based on inference is exactly the kind of restraint the courts have already warned them about (see Alston).
California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) Applying vague standards and inconsistent enforcement = unlawful and unfair business practice in California.
California Common Law “Fair Procedure” Doctrine Private organizations must provide a fundamentally fair process when their decisions impact someone’s career. Ignoring exculpatory evidence (long-standing relationship, testimony of no recruiting) and relying on assumptions violates that.
Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement (basic administrative law principle) You cannot: Ignore key context Infer intent without evidence Apply rules inconsistently That’s exactly how decisions get overturned. And that “factors” list you posted? Those are guidelines, not proof. Triggering a factor (like call frequency) does NOT equal a violation — otherwise every coach with a prior relationship would automatically be guilty.
No recruiting conduct + no inducements + no athlete contact = weak case. Calling it a “landslide” doesn’t make it one. It just means you’re confusing suspicion with evidence, which is exactly why the NCAA keeps getting exposed when real courts, with real legal standards, get involved. The NCAA does not get to tell you who to be friends with.
This is really so sad.
I agree the NCAA is sad , they get beat up in court every time. it’s a cartel that folds the second real courts look at it. See NCAA v. Alston. Vague rules + weak evidence = they get exposed every time.”
Brosnan has no basis for a lawsuit. The NCAA is 100% protected. Brosnan's biggest complaint is that he was punished for talking to his longtime friend. The NCAA's biggest issue is that he was talking to a prospect's parent about recruiting that prospect before the prospect was in the portal. That parent just so happened to be a friend of Brosnan's but the friendship has absolutely no relevance to the case.
Brosnan is trying to distract from the obvious evidence of recruiting and is trying to make it seem like the case is 100% about the NCAA dictating friendships. The phone calls alone are impermissible contact, but the NCAA ruled the CONTENT of the phone calls raised the conduct to a higher violation called tampering.
The NCAA has published tons of guidance on this issue. Here are some of the things it considers in tampering cases (from page 8 and 9)
"Tampering: Factors to Consider Results of the tampering. Did the student-athlete transfer? Were there inducements and/or benefits involved? Type and amount of benefits. Recipient of benefits. Pre-existing relationship Former coaches contacting former student-athletes. Previous relationship. Timing and sequence of events When did the student-athlete put their name in the transfer portal? When and how did initial contact with the student-athlete occur? Duration of time in the transfer portal? Was the tampering a part of another or additional violation(s)? Compounding violations (eligibility status). Frequency of impermissible contact Duration. Method and/or Avenue of Contact Phone, text or social media. Communication apps (e.g., iMessage, Whats App, Telegram). In-person contact. Third party involvement At the direction of a NCAA coach or staff member. Club/nonscholastic coaches. Family members. Boosters, alumni, members of the community."
Brosnan's case triggers MULTIPLE of those red flags. It wasn't even a close decision, it's tampering by a landslide.
First, “the NCAA is 100% protected” is flat-out false. See NCAA v. Alston , unanimous Supreme Court decision confirming the NCAA is subject to antitrust law. They’re not immune, and they lose in court all the time. Second, you’re claiming “friendship is irrelevant” while the NCAA’s own guidance literally lists pre-existing relationships as something that must be evaluated. Ignoring that context and then inferring guilt from call logs is classic arbitrary enforcement. Third, “phone calls alone are impermissible contact” is just wrong. The rule requires recruiting conduct — offers, inducements, or transfer discussion. Not “you talked to someone a lot.” Frequency and timing are not violations by themselves. And this is where your whole argument falls apart: You say “content proves it,” but there’s no actual evidence of recruiting content: No athlete contact No offers or inducements No documented recruiting conversation Parents testified no pre-portal recruiting happened So what’s left? Call timing + assumptions. That’s not “credible and sufficient evidence” under NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1 that’s speculation. Now the part you’re completely ignoring , the laws the NCAA is exposing itself on:
Sherman Act §1 (Antitrust) The NCAA cannot arbitrarily restrict a coach’s ability to work or communicate without clear, consistent standards. Punishing lawful, non-recruiting communication based on inference is exactly the kind of restraint the courts have already warned them about (see Alston).
California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) Applying vague standards and inconsistent enforcement = unlawful and unfair business practice in California.
California Common Law “Fair Procedure” Doctrine Private organizations must provide a fundamentally fair process when their decisions impact someone’s career. Ignoring exculpatory evidence (long-standing relationship, testimony of no recruiting) and relying on assumptions violates that.
Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement (basic administrative law principle) You cannot: Ignore key context Infer intent without evidence Apply rules inconsistently That’s exactly how decisions get overturned. And that “factors” list you posted? Those are guidelines, not proof. Triggering a factor (like call frequency) does NOT equal a violation — otherwise every coach with a prior relationship would automatically be guilty.
No recruiting conduct + no inducements + no athlete contact = weak case. Calling it a “landslide” doesn’t make it one. It just means you’re confusing suspicion with evidence, which is exactly why the NCAA keeps getting exposed when real courts, with real legal standards, get involved. The NCAA does not get to tell you who to be friends with.
You clearly don't have more than 1 year of NCAA coaching experience. The rule does not require recruiting. Innocent/accidental contact alone is a Level 3 violation (which is a lower level).
Brosnan's recruiting brought this up to a more severe Level 2 violation which is more commonly known as tampering.
This makes the pre-existing friendship argument null and void because the avalanche of recruiting evidence in this case would make it a violation regardless of the existence of a pre-existing friendship.
Nothing about this case relates to sherman anti-trust. You don't even know what anti-trust is. What you are arguing is the equivalent of saying that Walmart forcing employees to wear name tags is an anti-trust violation.
First, “the NCAA is 100% protected” is flat-out false. See NCAA v. Alston , unanimous Supreme Court decision confirming the NCAA is subject to antitrust law. They’re not immune, and they lose in court all the time. Second, you’re claiming “friendship is irrelevant” while the NCAA’s own guidance literally lists pre-existing relationships as something that must be evaluated. Ignoring that context and then inferring guilt from call logs is classic arbitrary enforcement. Third, “phone calls alone are impermissible contact” is just wrong. The rule requires recruiting conduct — offers, inducements, or transfer discussion. Not “you talked to someone a lot.” Frequency and timing are not violations by themselves. And this is where your whole argument falls apart: You say “content proves it,” but there’s no actual evidence of recruiting content: No athlete contact No offers or inducements No documented recruiting conversation Parents testified no pre-portal recruiting happened So what’s left? Call timing + assumptions. That’s not “credible and sufficient evidence” under NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1 that’s speculation. Now the part you’re completely ignoring , the laws the NCAA is exposing itself on:
Sherman Act §1 (Antitrust) The NCAA cannot arbitrarily restrict a coach’s ability to work or communicate without clear, consistent standards. Punishing lawful, non-recruiting communication based on inference is exactly the kind of restraint the courts have already warned them about (see Alston).
California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) Applying vague standards and inconsistent enforcement = unlawful and unfair business practice in California.
California Common Law “Fair Procedure” Doctrine Private organizations must provide a fundamentally fair process when their decisions impact someone’s career. Ignoring exculpatory evidence (long-standing relationship, testimony of no recruiting) and relying on assumptions violates that.
Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement (basic administrative law principle) You cannot: Ignore key context Infer intent without evidence Apply rules inconsistently That’s exactly how decisions get overturned. And that “factors” list you posted? Those are guidelines, not proof. Triggering a factor (like call frequency) does NOT equal a violation — otherwise every coach with a prior relationship would automatically be guilty.
No recruiting conduct + no inducements + no athlete contact = weak case. Calling it a “landslide” doesn’t make it one. It just means you’re confusing suspicion with evidence, which is exactly why the NCAA keeps getting exposed when real courts, with real legal standards, get involved. The NCAA does not get to tell you who to be friends with.
You clearly don't have more than 1 year of NCAA coaching experience. The rule does not require recruiting. Innocent/accidental contact alone is a Level 3 violation (which is a lower level).
Brosnan's recruiting brought this up to a more severe Level 2 violation which is more commonly known as tampering.
This makes the pre-existing friendship argument null and void because the avalanche of recruiting evidence in this case would make it a violation regardless of the existence of a pre-existing friendship.
Nothing about this case relates to sherman anti-trust. You don't even know what anti-trust is. What you are arguing is the equivalent of saying that Walmart forcing employees to wear name tags is an anti-trust violation.
Small clarification below:
"This makes the pre-existing friendship argument null and void because the avalanche of recruiting evidence in this case would make it a level 2 violation regardless of the existence of a pre-existing friendship."
If Brosnan sues the NCAA it would be a massive scumbag move because it would drag the prospects and their entire families into a lengthy legal battle when they just want to move on. It would be an incredibly selfish move just to get rid of his violation, with no benefit to the athletes themselves.
And even if he wins, no school will ever hire him again and no pro group will hire him. His name will be poisonous. Nobody wants to hire a guy that will threaten to sue over anything and everything.
If Brosnan sues the NCAA it would be a massive scumbag move because it would drag the prospects and their entire families into a lengthy legal battle when they just want to move on. It would be an incredibly selfish move just to get rid of his violation, with no benefit to the athletes themselves.
And even if he wins, no school will ever hire him again and no pro group will hire him. His name will be poisonous. Nobody wants to hire a guy that will threaten to sue over anything and everything.
A lawsuit wouldn’t be against families, it’s against the NCAA for how they enforce rules. That’s antitrust and due process, not dragging kids or any family into court. They already got smacked in NCAA v. Alston for operating illegally. If they’re punishing someone based on inference while ignoring their own compliance guidance, that’s exactly what courts step in for. And the “he’ll never be hired again” line is fear tactic garbage. People challenge the NCAA all the time now because they keep losing.
Holding the NCAA accountable is amazing, it’s literally how you stop broken enforcement. And number of NCAA coaches are coaching in the NCAA now who have sued the NCAA.
If Brosnan sues the NCAA it would be a massive scumbag move because it would drag the prospects and their entire families into a lengthy legal battle when they just want to move on. It would be an incredibly selfish move just to get rid of his violation, with no benefit to the athletes themselves.
And even if he wins, no school will ever hire him again and no pro group will hire him. His name will be poisonous. Nobody wants to hire a guy that will threaten to sue over anything and everything.
A lawsuit wouldn’t be against families, it’s against the NCAA for how they enforce rules. That’s antitrust and due process, not dragging kids or any family into court. They already got smacked in NCAA v. Alston for operating illegally. If they’re punishing someone based on inference while ignoring their own compliance guidance, that’s exactly what courts step in for. And the “he’ll never be hired again” line is fear tactic garbage. People challenge the NCAA all the time now because they keep losing.
Holding the NCAA accountable is amazing, it’s literally how you stop broken enforcement. And number of NCAA coaches are coaching in the NCAA now who have sued the NCAA.
The families' entire phone records will be subpoenaed - the athlete and the parents. Text history, call history, transcripts of phone calls, social media messages. They would also have to testify in court under oath.
The families would have to hire lawyers. Brosnan suing the NCAA would put the families in great financial and personal distress.
A lawsuit wouldn’t be against families, it’s against the NCAA for how they enforce rules. That’s antitrust and due process, not dragging kids or any family into court. They already got smacked in NCAA v. Alston for operating illegally. If they’re punishing someone based on inference while ignoring their own compliance guidance, that’s exactly what courts step in for. And the “he’ll never be hired again” line is fear tactic garbage. People challenge the NCAA all the time now because they keep losing.
Holding the NCAA accountable is amazing, it’s literally how you stop broken enforcement. And number of NCAA coaches are coaching in the NCAA now who have sued the NCAA.
The families' entire phone records will be subpoenaed - the athlete and the parents. Text history, call history, transcripts of phone calls, social media messages. They would also have to testify in court under oath.
The families would have to hire lawyers. Brosnan suing the NCAA would put the families in great financial and personal distress.
This isn’t about families at all, it’s about antitrust. The case would be whether the NCAA violated federal law (Sherman Act) and California law (§17200), not rehashing private conversations. Courts don’t allow fishing expeditions into nonparties’ lives, and discovery is limited to what’s actually relevant. The ‘entire phone records + transcripts + financial ruin’ angle is pure scare tactic nonsense and a lie
If Brosnan sues the NCAA it would be a massive scumbag move because it would drag the prospects and their entire families into a lengthy legal battle when they just want to move on. It would be an incredibly selfish move just to get rid of his violation, with no benefit to the athletes themselves.
And even if he wins, no school will ever hire him again and no pro group will hire him. His name will be poisonous. Nobody wants to hire a guy that will threaten to sue over anything and everything.
A lawsuit wouldn’t be against families, it’s against the NCAA for how they enforce rules. That’s antitrust and due process, not dragging kids or any family into court. They already got smacked in NCAA v. Alston for operating illegally. If they’re punishing someone based on inference while ignoring their own compliance guidance, that’s exactly what courts step in for. And the “he’ll never be hired again” line is fear tactic garbage. People challenge the NCAA all the time now because they keep losing.
Holding the NCAA accountable is amazing, it’s literally how you stop broken enforcement. And number of NCAA coaches are coaching in the NCAA now who have sued the NCAA.
You haven't produced one shred of evidence that the NCAA "ignored their own compliance guidance".
The text of the manual is clear that no contact of any kind is not allowed until the athlete is in the portal. You haven't shown one example of the NCAA applying it differently. The regional rules powerpoint I posted earlier is one of MANY examples of the NCAA reaffirming their rule that no contact of any kind is allowed.
Additionally, Brosnan got a more severe penalty because the NCAA had proof that Brosnan was discussing recruiting. The powerpoint I posted shows that the NCAA is allowed to factor in the timing of the calls, how long the athlete was in the portal before committing, and whether they contacted any other schools while in the portal.
This was the easiest tampering investigation the NCAA has ever had to review and enforce. Massive amounts of legit evidence against Brosnan. He can cry and whine all he wants, but they caught him red handed. Brosnan needs to man up and publicly admit his mistake, and then move forward.
The families' entire phone records will be subpoenaed - the athlete and the parents. Text history, call history, transcripts of phone calls, social media messages. They would also have to testify in court under oath.
The families would have to hire lawyers. Brosnan suing the NCAA would put the families in great financial and personal distress.
This isn’t about families at all, it’s about antitrust. The case would be whether the NCAA violated federal law (Sherman Act) and California law (§17200), not rehashing private conversations. Courts don’t allow fishing expeditions into nonparties’ lives, and discovery is limited to what’s actually relevant. The ‘entire phone records + transcripts + financial ruin’ angle is pure scare tactic nonsense and a lie
Wrong. Brosnan's entire argument hinges upon the claim that the conversations with the parents were about surfing and NEVER about recruiting. Those facts will have to be proven in court for his case to even have a chance.
And this Sherman Act is not even remotely applicable to this case. It's the polar opposite of the House and Alston cases.
This isn’t about families at all, it’s about antitrust. The case would be whether the NCAA violated federal law (Sherman Act) and California law (§17200), not rehashing private conversations. Courts don’t allow fishing expeditions into nonparties’ lives, and discovery is limited to what’s actually relevant. The ‘entire phone records + transcripts + financial ruin’ angle is pure scare tactic nonsense and a lie
Wrong. Brosnan's entire argument hinges upon the claim that the conversations with the parents were about surfing and NEVER about recruiting. Those facts will have to be proven in court for his case to even have a chance.
And this Sherman Act is not even remotely applicable to this case. It's the polar opposite of the House and Alston cases.
Wrong again. This isn’t about NCAA rules, it’s about the NCAA breaking the law. The parents and SA’s won't be getting sued, the NCAA is. They already had the phone records and still couldn’t show real pre-portal recruiting. So the whole “families get dragged in” angle is made-up. The actual issue is the NCAA abusing power and trying to regulate who someone can be friends with. That’s the case. Not your fantasy scenario.