The timeline of phone calls does not prove tampering, especially if they are friends and that’s been proven, and when you actually look at the facts of the case and the governing rules, the NCAA’s conclusion raises serious legal and structural problems.
First, the NCAA’s theory is based almost entirely on phone records, not evidence of recruiting. The two fathers involved both testified to NCAA investigators that Brosnan explicitly told them he could not discuss transferring until the athletes entered the transfer portal.
Todd McDonnell testified:
“The first thing he said was ‘I can’t talk about that until Samantha is in the portal.’”
Matt Barnett testified similarly:
“Sean made it very clear… any discussions would have to go through the transfer portal.”
Those statements came directly from the witnesses the NCAA relied on. If the NCAA had proof that Brosnan actually recruited the athletes before the portal, it would have presented texts, emails, messages, or testimony stating that recruiting occurred. Instead, the case relied on the timing of phone calls, which proves nothing about the content of those conversations.
Second, the NCAA’s own ruling acknowledged something extremely important: there was no evidence of inducement.
In typical tampering cases you see evidence such as:
scholarship offers
NIL discussions
promises of roster spots
financial incentives
direct recruiting messages
None of that existed here. Both athletes transferred without receiving scholarship money, which makes an inducement theory even weaker.
Third, the Committee on Infractions essentially adopted an extreme interpretation of NCAA Bylaw 13 by claiming that any communication with a parent of a student-athlete at another institution is automatically impermissible contact, even if the discussion is unrelated to recruiting.
That interpretation is not only impractical, it is arguably inconsistent with how recruiting rules have historically been enforced. In sports like track and field, coaches frequently have longstanding relationships with families through club teams, high school programs, and previous coaching relationships. Treating every personal conversation as a recruiting violation would effectively require NCAA coaches to cut off communication with friends and former athletes, which is not how the rule has traditionally been understood.
Fourth, the enforcement process itself raises serious due-process concerns.
Under the NCAA’s new bifurcated infractions system, UCLA was allowed to resolve the case through a negotiated resolution that effectively accepted violations. However, that resolution already attributed tampering to Brosnan before his individual defense had even been submitted, according to his attorney.
Three members of the Committee on Infractions who later ruled in Brosnan’s case had also approved the UCLA resolution that labeled him responsible for the violation.
That creates an obvious fairness problem: the system effectively allowed the NCAA to declare an individual guilty before his case was fully adjudicated, raising questions about bias and procedural fairness.
Fifth, beyond NCAA rules, the situation raises potential issues under state law, federal law, and antitrust law.
The NCAA is not a government agency, but courts have repeatedly held that its rules and enforcement actions can still violate the law if they restrain economic activity or harm employment opportunities.
For example:
Antitrust law – In NCAA v. Alston (2021), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that NCAA restrictions affecting the economic opportunities of athletes can violate federal antitrust law. If NCAA transfer rules or tampering rules are interpreted in a way that restricts the movement of athletes or interferes with legitimate employment opportunities for coaches, those rules could face similar scrutiny.
Tortious interference with employment, If an organization makes a finding that damages a coach’s reputation and job prospects without sufficient evidence or fair process, it can potentially give rise to claims of interference with professional opportunities.
Restraint of trade concerns , Rules that limit the ability of athletes to move freely between schools, or that punish coaches based on speculative interpretations of ordinary communication, could be challenged as unreasonable restraints in a competitive labor market.
Finally, the claim that the phone calls prove tampering simply does not hold up. Phone logs show that calls occurred, not what was said. Without evidence of recruiting content, inducements, or direct communication with the athletes encouraging transfer, the NCAA’s conclusion rests solely on inference rather than proof.
In any fair adjudicative system, timing alone is not evidence of guilt.
The real issue raised by this case is whether the NCAA’s accelerated enforcement system and broad interpretation of contact rules have created a process where an individual coach can be labeled guilty based on circumstantial assumptions rather than demonstrable recruiting conduct.
Again Brosnan will win big in a real court. It’s that simple