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.
Amen, This isn’t some family courtroom drama. It’s antitrust. The haters need to read the NCAA v. Alston. The defendant is the NCAA, not parents, not SA’s. The issue is whether the NCAA broke federal and state law by overreaching and restricting lawful conduct. That’s it. Nobody’s dragging families into anything, you’re just misunderstanding how these cases actually work.
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.
The defendant is the NCAA, not parents, not SA’s. The issue is whether the NCAA broke federal and state law by overreaching and restricting lawful conduct. That’s it. Nobody’s dragging families into anything, you’re just misunderstanding how these cases actually work.
That's one of the few correct things that you've posted in this thread. Yes, Brosnan could make a lawsuit against the NCAA rules in general, and not about the specific case of these 2 recruits in particular.
But that kind of lawsuit would be trying to change the rules for every coach, every recruit, and every college, and that's a massive undertaking to get involved in a lawsuit that broad. No way Sean Brosnan wants to spend the next several years being bogged down with a massive legal case.
The defendant is the NCAA, not parents, not SA’s. The issue is whether the NCAA broke federal and state law by overreaching and restricting lawful conduct. That’s it. Nobody’s dragging families into anything, you’re just misunderstanding how these cases actually work.
That's one of the few correct things that you've posted in this thread. Yes, Brosnan could make a lawsuit against the NCAA rules in general, and not about the specific case of these 2 recruits in particular.
But that kind of lawsuit would be trying to change the rules for every coach, every recruit, and every college, and that's a massive undertaking to get involved in a lawsuit that broad. No way Sean Brosnan wants to spend the next several years being bogged down with a massive legal case.
This isn’t about “changing NCAA rules for everyone.” Nobody needs to rewrite bylaws. It’s about the NCAA misapplying its own rules in a way that violates the law. That’s a standard legal claim—arbitrary enforcement, antitrust issues, and state law violations. Courts don’t rewrite rules, they decide if an organization broke the law enforcing them. And the “he’ll be tied up for years” take is clueless. That’s not how litigation works. Lawyers do the work—filings, discovery, motions. The client isn’t sitting there all day grinding through it. And in cases like this, attorneys often take it on contingency because of the upside. See NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA already got smoked when they overstepped. Again this isn’t some massive rule-change crusade. It’s a targeted lawsuit for unlawful enforcement and damages. Completely different thing.
That's one of the few correct things that you've posted in this thread. Yes, Brosnan could make a lawsuit against the NCAA rules in general, and not about the specific case of these 2 recruits in particular.
But that kind of lawsuit would be trying to change the rules for every coach, every recruit, and every college, and that's a massive undertaking to get involved in a lawsuit that broad. No way Sean Brosnan wants to spend the next several years being bogged down with a massive legal case.
This isn’t about “changing NCAA rules for everyone.” Nobody needs to rewrite bylaws. It’s about the NCAA misapplying its own rules in a way that violates the law. That’s a standard legal claim—arbitrary enforcement, antitrust issues, and state law violations. Courts don’t rewrite rules, they decide if an organization broke the law enforcing them. And the “he’ll be tied up for years” take is clueless. That’s not how litigation works. Lawyers do the work—filings, discovery, motions. The client isn’t sitting there all day grinding through it. And in cases like this, attorneys often take it on contingency because of the upside. See NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA already got smoked when they overstepped. Again this isn’t some massive rule-change crusade. It’s a targeted lawsuit for unlawful enforcement and damages. Completely different thing.
This is false. Brosnan has no standing to sue about what he is complaining about because that fact pattern didn't apply to his case and thus was not injured by the rule.
He was not penalized for talking to a longtime friend about surfing. He was penalized for talking to a longtime friend ABOUT RECRUITING HIS DAUGHTER ILLEGALLY. The rule he wants to change wasn't even used against him. No standing to file a lawsuit.
He is no longer a college coach and thus he is no longer affected by the rules as they are written. He cannot sue.
This isn’t about “changing NCAA rules for everyone.” Nobody needs to rewrite bylaws. It’s about the NCAA misapplying its own rules in a way that violates the law. That’s a standard legal claim—arbitrary enforcement, antitrust issues, and state law violations. Courts don’t rewrite rules, they decide if an organization broke the law enforcing them. And the “he’ll be tied up for years” take is clueless. That’s not how litigation works. Lawyers do the work—filings, discovery, motions. The client isn’t sitting there all day grinding through it. And in cases like this, attorneys often take it on contingency because of the upside. See NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA already got smoked when they overstepped. Again this isn’t some massive rule-change crusade. It’s a targeted lawsuit for unlawful enforcement and damages. Completely different thing.
This is false. Brosnan has no standing to sue about what he is complaining about because that fact pattern didn't apply to his case and thus was not injured by the rule.
He was not penalized for talking to a longtime friend about surfing. He was penalized for talking to a longtime friend ABOUT RECRUITING HIS DAUGHTER ILLEGALLY. The rule he wants to change wasn't even used against him. No standing to file a lawsuit.
He is no longer a college coach and thus he is no longer affected by the rules as they are written. He cannot sue.
No standing” is lazy law school cosplay. Brosnan was the one charged, punished, branded with the violation, and financially harmed. That’s injury. The NCAA caused it. A court can redress it. Standing solved. Your argument isn’t about standing at all, it’s just you begging the merits question and pretending that because you agree with the NCAA’s story, he loses the right to sue. That’s not how Article III works. And him not currently coaching doesn’t vaporize damages for the NCAA’s past conduct.
This is false. Brosnan has no standing to sue about what he is complaining about because that fact pattern didn't apply to his case and thus was not injured by the rule.
He was not penalized for talking to a longtime friend about surfing. He was penalized for talking to a longtime friend ABOUT RECRUITING HIS DAUGHTER ILLEGALLY. The rule he wants to change wasn't even used against him. No standing to file a lawsuit.
He is no longer a college coach and thus he is no longer affected by the rules as they are written. He cannot sue.
No standing” is lazy law school cosplay. Brosnan was the one charged, punished, branded with the violation, and financially harmed. That’s injury. The NCAA caused it. A court can redress it. Standing solved. Your argument isn’t about standing at all, it’s just you begging the merits question and pretending that because you agree with the NCAA’s story, he loses the right to sue. That’s not how Article III works. And him not currently coaching doesn’t vaporize damages for the NCAA’s past conduct.
The NCAA has been getting hammered in court, especially on antitrust—this isn’t a minor issue. In this situation, they found no actual proof of pre-portal recruiting, yet still penalized Brosnan and effectively told him he couldn’t maintain personal friendships or discuss private matters. That kind of overreach is exactly where they get into legal trouble, and it’s the type of conduct that can end up costing them big.
This is false. Brosnan has no standing to sue about what he is complaining about because that fact pattern didn't apply to his case and thus was not injured by the rule.
He was not penalized for talking to a longtime friend about surfing. He was penalized for talking to a longtime friend ABOUT RECRUITING HIS DAUGHTER ILLEGALLY. The rule he wants to change wasn't even used against him. No standing to file a lawsuit.
He is no longer a college coach and thus he is no longer affected by the rules as they are written. He cannot sue.
No standing” is lazy law school cosplay. Brosnan was the one charged, punished, branded with the violation, and financially harmed. That’s injury. The NCAA caused it. A court can redress it. Standing solved. Your argument isn’t about standing at all, it’s just you begging the merits question and pretending that because you agree with the NCAA’s story, he loses the right to sue. That’s not how Article III works. And him not currently coaching doesn’t vaporize damages for the NCAA’s past conduct.
Actually he's right. Brosnan was hit with tampering for having recruiting conversations with someone not in the portal.
He was not punished for innocent conversations with a friend. The reports make this clear.
Additionally, Brosnan wasn't fired he just didn't get his contract renewed for in his words UCLA "didn’t like how I led the team.”
There is no evidence that the violations had anything to do with UCLA not renewing the contract.
Brosnan is stuck with no options other than throwing temper tantrums on letsrun.
No standing” is lazy law school cosplay. Brosnan was the one charged, punished, branded with the violation, and financially harmed. That’s injury. The NCAA caused it. A court can redress it. Standing solved. Your argument isn’t about standing at all, it’s just you begging the merits question and pretending that because you agree with the NCAA’s story, he loses the right to sue. That’s not how Article III works. And him not currently coaching doesn’t vaporize damages for the NCAA’s past conduct.
The NCAA has been getting hammered in court, especially on antitrust—this isn’t a minor issue. In this situation, they found no actual proof of pre-portal recruiting, yet still penalized Brosnan and effectively told him he couldn’t maintain personal friendships or discuss private matters. That kind of overreach is exactly where they get into legal trouble, and it’s the type of conduct that can end up costing them big.
No matter how often you repeat this lie, the NCAA did find pre-portal recruiting. It's in the report and it's quoted directly in the first post in this thread.
No standing” is lazy law school cosplay. Brosnan was the one charged, punished, branded with the violation, and financially harmed. That’s injury. The NCAA caused it. A court can redress it. Standing solved. Your argument isn’t about standing at all, it’s just you begging the merits question and pretending that because you agree with the NCAA’s story, he loses the right to sue. That’s not how Article III works. And him not currently coaching doesn’t vaporize damages for the NCAA’s past conduct.
The NCAA has been getting hammered in court, especially on antitrust—this isn’t a minor issue. In this situation, they found no actual proof of pre-portal recruiting, yet still penalized Brosnan and effectively told him he couldn’t maintain personal friendships or discuss private matters. That kind of overreach is exactly where they get into legal trouble, and it’s the type of conduct that can end up costing them big.
From a legal standpoint, that kind of conduct runs straight into multiple problems:
Federal antitrust law (Sherman Act §1): The NCAA is restricting normal economic activity and professional relationships without legitimate justification. Courts have already made clear they are not above antitrust scrutiny. California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200): Penalizing someone without evidence and interfering with their livelihood through arbitrary enforcement can qualify as unlawful and unfair business practices.
Due process / fair procedure principles: Punishing someone based on inference instead of actual evidence—while ignoring exculpatory facts—raises serious fairness issues that courts have recognized in cases involving private governing bodies.
Tortious interference with economic advantage: Slapping a coach with a violation that damages career opportunities, without proof, can be seen as interfering with his ability to work and earn.
And the key fact remains: the NCAA found zero actual proof of pre-portal recruiting. No inducements. No direct recruiting communication. No documented violation—just assumptions built off timing. That’s exactly why this is a big deal. This isn’t about enforcing rules—it’s about the NCAA stretching those rules beyond the law, and that’s where they continue to get crushed in court.
No standing” is lazy law school cosplay. Brosnan was the one charged, punished, branded with the violation, and financially harmed. That’s injury. The NCAA caused it. A court can redress it. Standing solved. Your argument isn’t about standing at all, it’s just you begging the merits question and pretending that because you agree with the NCAA’s story, he loses the right to sue. That’s not how Article III works. And him not currently coaching doesn’t vaporize damages for the NCAA’s past conduct.
The NCAA has been getting hammered in court, especially on antitrust—this isn’t a minor issue. In this situation, they found no actual proof of pre-portal recruiting, yet still penalized Brosnan and effectively told him he couldn’t maintain personal friendships or discuss private matters. That kind of overreach is exactly where they get into legal trouble, and it’s the type of conduct that can end up costing them big.
”We couldn’t prove you did anything… but it felt suspicious, so congrats—you’re guilty.”
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The NCAA has a long track record of overreaching and getting smacked in court for it. When enforcement starts relying on weak inferences instead of actual proof, that’s when things fall apart legally. If this case gets challenged the right way, it could end up costing them again because courts don’t just take their word for it.
The NCAA has been getting hammered in court, especially on antitrust—this isn’t a minor issue. In this situation, they found no actual proof of pre-portal recruiting, yet still penalized Brosnan and effectively told him he couldn’t maintain personal friendships or discuss private matters. That kind of overreach is exactly where they get into legal trouble, and it’s the type of conduct that can end up costing them big.
From a legal standpoint, that kind of conduct runs straight into multiple problems:
Federal antitrust law (Sherman Act §1): The NCAA is restricting normal economic activity and professional relationships without legitimate justification. Courts have already made clear they are not above antitrust scrutiny. California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200): Penalizing someone without evidence and interfering with their livelihood through arbitrary enforcement can qualify as unlawful and unfair business practices.
Due process / fair procedure principles: Punishing someone based on inference instead of actual evidence—while ignoring exculpatory facts—raises serious fairness issues that courts have recognized in cases involving private governing bodies.
Tortious interference with economic advantage: Slapping a coach with a violation that damages career opportunities, without proof, can be seen as interfering with his ability to work and earn.
And the key fact remains: the NCAA found zero actual proof of pre-portal recruiting. No inducements. No direct recruiting communication. No documented violation—just assumptions built off timing. That’s exactly why this is a big deal. This isn’t about enforcing rules—it’s about the NCAA stretching those rules beyond the law, and that’s where they continue to get crushed in court.
Wrong. Sherman Act has nothing to do with this. You and your AI lawyer are clueless. There are no economic implications in this matter.
Alston won because the NCAA was illegally restricting the amount of scholarship money athletes were receiving. House was settled because the NCAA was illegally preventing athletes from being able to share in the revenue that schools were earning from the work of the athletes.
Both of those were deemed illegal restraints of trade. Brosnan's case has nothing to do with trade or economic activity or labor markets.
Sherman Anti-trust can only be used for a limited window of things and this case is nowhere even close to that.
From a legal standpoint, that kind of conduct runs straight into multiple problems:
Federal antitrust law (Sherman Act §1): The NCAA is restricting normal economic activity and professional relationships without legitimate justification. Courts have already made clear they are not above antitrust scrutiny. California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200): Penalizing someone without evidence and interfering with their livelihood through arbitrary enforcement can qualify as unlawful and unfair business practices.
Due process / fair procedure principles: Punishing someone based on inference instead of actual evidence—while ignoring exculpatory facts—raises serious fairness issues that courts have recognized in cases involving private governing bodies.
Tortious interference with economic advantage: Slapping a coach with a violation that damages career opportunities, without proof, can be seen as interfering with his ability to work and earn.
And the key fact remains: the NCAA found zero actual proof of pre-portal recruiting. No inducements. No direct recruiting communication. No documented violation—just assumptions built off timing. That’s exactly why this is a big deal. This isn’t about enforcing rules—it’s about the NCAA stretching those rules beyond the law, and that’s where they continue to get crushed in court.
Wrong. Sherman Act has nothing to do with this. You and your AI lawyer are clueless. There are no economic implications in this matter.
Alston won because the NCAA was illegally restricting the amount of scholarship money athletes were receiving. House was settled because the NCAA was illegally preventing athletes from being able to share in the revenue that schools were earning from the work of the athletes.
Both of those were deemed illegal restraints of trade. Brosnan's case has nothing to do with trade or economic activity or labor markets.
Sherman Anti-trust can only be used for a limited window of things and this case is nowhere even close to that.
Wrong. “Sherman Act has nothing to do with this” is just confidently incorrect. You don’t get to wave away antitrust just because this isn’t another athlete compensation case. The law applies to labor markets, association rules, and enforcement actions that impact earning potential. The NCAA has already been told multiple times that they don’t get a free pass. Your entire argument hinges on pretending this isn’t economic. That’s the flaw. When the NCAA: labels a coach with a violation damages his reputation limits future hiring opportunities and interferes with his ability to earn that is economic impact in a labor market. Period. Coaches are not hobbyists they are market participants. Restricting how they operate and then penalizing them affects competition for coaching services. Also, antitrust is not some narrow “Alston/House only” lane. NCAA v. Alston didn’t create a tiny exception for athlete pay it reinforced that NCAA rules are subject to standard antitrust analysis. Same goes back to NCAA v. Board of Regents. Different facts, same principle: NCAA rules that restrain economic activity can violate antitrust law. You’re confusing one type of antitrust violation (compensation limits) with the entire scope of antitrust law. That’s not how this works.
It’s honestly funny, I feel bad for you (and your five handles). Brosnan’s moved on in every aspect, and you’re still stuck on it. That’s the part that’s actually sad. If it’s his lawsuit or non-lawsuit, why does it bother you this much?
Is there any way to get a moderator to lock this thread until any new, real developments occur? And by new/real I don't mean the endless nonsense that Brosnan keeps spamming the thread with, I mean actual, real life actions not on a computer screen. I feel a surprising amount sadness and pity for him after watching his continued obsession play out an internet message board. The best thing for his mental health and future well-being might be to shut this down for now so that he can move on.
It’s honestly funny, I feel bad for you (and your five handles). Brosnan’s moved on in every aspect, and you’re still stuck on it. That’s the part that’s actually sad. If it’s his lawsuit or non-lawsuit, why does it bother you this much?
My lord, right?! This is getting pathetic, the obsession with Brosnan is unreal. It’s like they have to keep posting just to fill some weird void in their lives.