Can we all agree it's crazy that Sean Brosnan can't run in the NCAA but a kid who admits to drug usage can?
Brosnan can still coach in the NCAA but he has a pro group now that he wants to give his full attention to.
This part is true. Brosnan was never banned from coaching and never received a suspension. The NCAA also admitted they didn’t find evidence he recruited anyone before the portal. Yet they still issued a Level II violation and a show-cause with no coaching suspension, which is almost unheard of. That alone shows how BS the case was
Brosnan can still coach in the NCAA but he has a pro group now that he wants to give his full attention to.
This part is true. Brosnan was never banned from coaching and never received a suspension. The NCAA also admitted they didn’t find evidence he recruited anyone before the portal. Yet they still issued a Level II violation and a show-cause with no coaching suspension, which is almost unheard of. That alone shows how BS the case was
FALSE. The NCAA found a lot of evidence. The appeals committee was made mostly non-NCAA employees that strongly agreed with the decision to charge Brosnan with violations. It was an impartial group of people that made the decision that have nothing to gain by penalizing Brosnan, they were just analyzing the facts of the case.
Members of the Infractions Appeals Committee for this Appeal • Julie Vannatta, acting committee chair and public member. • Colleen Hanycz, president at Xavier. • Allison Rich, director of athletics at New Hampshire. • David Shipley, law professor and faculty athletics representative at Georgia. • Maura Smith, associate commissioner/governance and compliance at the Sun Belt Conference.
This fully discredits Brosnan's entire argument because the whole NCAA and it's member institutions agree that this is how the tampering rule is applied. Brosnan's legal argument is bogus, as demonstrated by a law professor at Georgia being one of the members to make the final decision to charge Brosnan with violations.
This part is true. Brosnan was never banned from coaching and never received a suspension. The NCAA also admitted they didn’t find evidence he recruited anyone before the portal. Yet they still issued a Level II violation and a show-cause with no coaching suspension, which is almost unheard of. That alone shows how BS the case was
FALSE. The NCAA found a lot of evidence. The appeals committee was made mostly non-NCAA employees that strongly agreed with the decision to charge Brosnan with violations. It was an impartial group of people that made the decision that have nothing to gain by penalizing Brosnan, they were just analyzing the facts of the case.
Members of the Infractions Appeals Committee for this Appeal • Julie Vannatta, acting committee chair and public member. • Colleen Hanycz, president at Xavier. • Allison Rich, director of athletics at New Hampshire. • David Shipley, law professor and faculty athletics representative at Georgia. • Maura Smith, associate commissioner/governance and compliance at the Sun Belt Conference.
This fully discredits Brosnan's entire argument because the whole NCAA and it's member institutions agree that this is how the tampering rule is applied. Brosnan's legal argument is bogus, as demonstrated by a law professor at Georgia being one of the members to make the final decision to charge Brosnan with violations.
First, the Infractions Appeals Committee isn’t some independent court. It’s still part of the NCAA governance structure. Every person listed either works for an NCAA member institution or within the NCAA ecosystem. Presidents, ADs, conference compliance officers, and FARs are literally the people responsible for enforcing NCAA rules at their own schools. Calling that “impartial” is laughable. Second, the idea that a law professor being on the committee somehow validates the decision is nonsense. In a courtroom will win 100% of the time, that’s no question. David Shipley wasn’t acting as a judge applying constitutional law, he was serving as a Faculty Athletics Representative, which is an NCAA governance role. FARs exist specifically to represent the institution’s interests within NCAA governance. That’s not an independent legal review. Third, the claim that “the NCAA found a lot of evidence” is just flat wrong based on the public decision. The case itself states: No texts No emails No direct communication with the athletes Only a conversation with a parent with a pre-existing relationship, which Brosnan was by UCLA he could do. If the NCAA had actual tampering evidence, they would have presented it. They didn’t. Fourth, the punishment itself tells you everything. If this were a serious tampering case you’d see: suspension from coaching Instead? Level II violation with zero coaching suspension. That basically never happens in tampering cases. It’s the NCAA’s way of saying “we’re calling this a violation but we can’t actually prove anything serious.” Finally, the argument that “all NCAA members agree this is how the rule works” proves the opposite point. The NCAA is not a court, it’s a private cartel of member schools writing rules to protect themselves. Of course the members agree with how the rules are enforced, they’re the ones enforcing them and are all colleagues. And that’s exactly why these cases fall apart when they reach real courts. In 99.9 % of the time. The NCAA’s entire tampering system relies on assumptions and internal governance panels, not actual legal standards of proof. That’s why the organization has been losing case after case once judges get involved. So no, listing a few NCAA insiders on an appeals panel doesn’t “discredit Brosnan’s argument.” If anything, it proves the opposite: the same NCAA ecosystem investigating itself and declaring itself correct. Classic NCAA.
FALSE. The NCAA found a lot of evidence. The appeals committee was made mostly non-NCAA employees that strongly agreed with the decision to charge Brosnan with violations. It was an impartial group of people that made the decision that have nothing to gain by penalizing Brosnan, they were just analyzing the facts of the case.
Members of the Infractions Appeals Committee for this Appeal • Julie Vannatta, acting committee chair and public member. • Colleen Hanycz, president at Xavier. • Allison Rich, director of athletics at New Hampshire. • David Shipley, law professor and faculty athletics representative at Georgia. • Maura Smith, associate commissioner/governance and compliance at the Sun Belt Conference.
This fully discredits Brosnan's entire argument because the whole NCAA and it's member institutions agree that this is how the tampering rule is applied. Brosnan's legal argument is bogus, as demonstrated by a law professor at Georgia being one of the members to make the final decision to charge Brosnan with violations.
First, the Infractions Appeals Committee isn’t some independent court. It’s still part of the NCAA governance structure. Every person listed either works for an NCAA member institution or within the NCAA ecosystem. Presidents, ADs, conference compliance officers, and FARs are literally the people responsible for enforcing NCAA rules at their own schools. Calling that “impartial” is laughable. Second, the idea that a law professor being on the committee somehow validates the decision is nonsense. In a courtroom will win 100% of the time, that’s no question. David Shipley wasn’t acting as a judge applying constitutional law, he was serving as a Faculty Athletics Representative, which is an NCAA governance role. FARs exist specifically to represent the institution’s interests within NCAA governance. That’s not an independent legal review. Third, the claim that “the NCAA found a lot of evidence” is just flat wrong based on the public decision. The case itself states: No texts No emails No direct communication with the athletes Only a conversation with a parent with a pre-existing relationship, which Brosnan was by UCLA he could do. If the NCAA had actual tampering evidence, they would have presented it. They didn’t. Fourth, the punishment itself tells you everything. If this were a serious tampering case you’d see: suspension from coaching Instead? Level II violation with zero coaching suspension. That basically never happens in tampering cases. It’s the NCAA’s way of saying “we’re calling this a violation but we can’t actually prove anything serious.” Finally, the argument that “all NCAA members agree this is how the rule works” proves the opposite point. The NCAA is not a court, it’s a private cartel of member schools writing rules to protect themselves. Of course the members agree with how the rules are enforced, they’re the ones enforcing them and are all colleagues. And that’s exactly why these cases fall apart when they reach real courts. In 99.9 % of the time. The NCAA’s entire tampering system relies on assumptions and internal governance panels, not actual legal standards of proof. That’s why the organization has been losing case after case once judges get involved. So no, listing a few NCAA insiders on an appeals panel doesn’t “discredit Brosnan’s argument.” If anything, it proves the opposite: the same NCAA ecosystem investigating itself and declaring itself correct. Classic NCAA.
Stop pretending that Brosnan calling the parents right before and after the daughter entered the portal is not damning evidence. Use your brain.
First, the Infractions Appeals Committee isn’t some independent court. It’s still part of the NCAA governance structure. Every person listed either works for an NCAA member institution or within the NCAA ecosystem. Presidents, ADs, conference compliance officers, and FARs are literally the people responsible for enforcing NCAA rules at their own schools. Calling that “impartial” is laughable. Second, the idea that a law professor being on the committee somehow validates the decision is nonsense. In a courtroom will win 100% of the time, that’s no question. David Shipley wasn’t acting as a judge applying constitutional law, he was serving as a Faculty Athletics Representative, which is an NCAA governance role. FARs exist specifically to represent the institution’s interests within NCAA governance. That’s not an independent legal review. Third, the claim that “the NCAA found a lot of evidence” is just flat wrong based on the public decision. The case itself states: No texts No emails No direct communication with the athletes Only a conversation with a parent with a pre-existing relationship, which Brosnan was by UCLA he could do. If the NCAA had actual tampering evidence, they would have presented it. They didn’t. Fourth, the punishment itself tells you everything. If this were a serious tampering case you’d see: suspension from coaching Instead? Level II violation with zero coaching suspension. That basically never happens in tampering cases. It’s the NCAA’s way of saying “we’re calling this a violation but we can’t actually prove anything serious.” Finally, the argument that “all NCAA members agree this is how the rule works” proves the opposite point. The NCAA is not a court, it’s a private cartel of member schools writing rules to protect themselves. Of course the members agree with how the rules are enforced, they’re the ones enforcing them and are all colleagues. And that’s exactly why these cases fall apart when they reach real courts. In 99.9 % of the time. The NCAA’s entire tampering system relies on assumptions and internal governance panels, not actual legal standards of proof. That’s why the organization has been losing case after case once judges get involved. So no, listing a few NCAA insiders on an appeals panel doesn’t “discredit Brosnan’s argument.” If anything, it proves the opposite: the same NCAA ecosystem investigating itself and declaring itself correct. Classic NCAA.
Stop pretending that Brosnan calling the parents right before and after the daughter entered the portal is not damning evidence. Use your brain.
Come on! They were just catching up and reminiscing about old times. Just a couple of buddies having a chat. Nothing to see here.
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.
FALSE. The NCAA found a lot of evidence. The appeals committee was made mostly non-NCAA employees that strongly agreed with the decision to charge Brosnan with violations. It was an impartial group of people that made the decision that have nothing to gain by penalizing Brosnan, they were just analyzing the facts of the case.
Members of the Infractions Appeals Committee for this Appeal • Julie Vannatta, acting committee chair and public member. • Colleen Hanycz, president at Xavier. • Allison Rich, director of athletics at New Hampshire. • David Shipley, law professor and faculty athletics representative at Georgia. • Maura Smith, associate commissioner/governance and compliance at the Sun Belt Conference.
This fully discredits Brosnan's entire argument because the whole NCAA and it's member institutions agree that this is how the tampering rule is applied. Brosnan's legal argument is bogus, as demonstrated by a law professor at Georgia being one of the members to make the final decision to charge Brosnan with violations.
First, the Infractions Appeals Committee isn’t some independent court. It’s still part of the NCAA governance structure. Every person listed either works for an NCAA member institution or within the NCAA ecosystem. Presidents, ADs, conference compliance officers, and FARs are literally the people responsible for enforcing NCAA rules at their own schools. Calling that “impartial” is laughable. Second, the idea that a law professor being on the committee somehow validates the decision is nonsense. In a courtroom will win 100% of the time, that’s no question. David Shipley wasn’t acting as a judge applying constitutional law, he was serving as a Faculty Athletics Representative, which is an NCAA governance role. FARs exist specifically to represent the institution’s interests within NCAA governance. That’s not an independent legal review. Third, the claim that “the NCAA found a lot of evidence” is just flat wrong based on the public decision. The case itself states: No texts No emails No direct communication with the athletes Only a conversation with a parent with a pre-existing relationship, which Brosnan was by UCLA he could do. If the NCAA had actual tampering evidence, they would have presented it. They didn’t. Fourth, the punishment itself tells you everything. If this were a serious tampering case you’d see: suspension from coaching Instead? Level II violation with zero coaching suspension. That basically never happens in tampering cases. It’s the NCAA’s way of saying “we’re calling this a violation but we can’t actually prove anything serious.” Finally, the argument that “all NCAA members agree this is how the rule works” proves the opposite point. The NCAA is not a court, it’s a private cartel of member schools writing rules to protect themselves. Of course the members agree with how the rules are enforced, they’re the ones enforcing them and are all colleagues. And that’s exactly why these cases fall apart when they reach real courts. In 99.9 % of the time. The NCAA’s entire tampering system relies on assumptions and internal governance panels, not actual legal standards of proof. That’s why the organization has been losing case after case once judges get involved. So no, listing a few NCAA insiders on an appeals panel doesn’t “discredit Brosnan’s argument.” If anything, it proves the opposite: the same NCAA ecosystem investigating itself and declaring itself correct. Classic NCAA.
Remember the McNair v. NCAA case? That’s the one where Todd McNair sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association after the NCAA publicly claimed he lied during the Reggie Bush investigation. The court ruled the NCAA could be held liable for defamation because they presented their conclusion that McNair “lied” as a fact despite the investigation not having the safeguards of a real court. The case dragged on for years and ultimately ended in a confidential settlement reportedly worth ten millions++ That case exposed exactly what many people already suspected: NCAA infractions investigations are not real courts, and the committees are made up of people from the same NCAA buddies. They’re all part of the same governance structure enforcing NCAA rules on behalf of the same member schools. So when people say these committees are completely “independent,” that’s simply not reality. It’s an internal regulatory process, not an impartial judicial system. Given the NCAA’s long history of controversial enforcement decisions, it’s not surprising that cases like Brosnan’s continue to be cited whenever people question how fairly the infractions process treats individuals.
First, the Infractions Appeals Committee isn’t some independent court. It’s still part of the NCAA governance structure. Every person listed either works for an NCAA member institution or within the NCAA ecosystem. Presidents, ADs, conference compliance officers, and FARs are literally the people responsible for enforcing NCAA rules at their own schools. Calling that “impartial” is laughable. Second, the idea that a law professor being on the committee somehow validates the decision is nonsense. In a courtroom will win 100% of the time, that’s no question. David Shipley wasn’t acting as a judge applying constitutional law, he was serving as a Faculty Athletics Representative, which is an NCAA governance role. FARs exist specifically to represent the institution’s interests within NCAA governance. That’s not an independent legal review. Third, the claim that “the NCAA found a lot of evidence” is just flat wrong based on the public decision. The case itself states: No texts No emails No direct communication with the athletes Only a conversation with a parent with a pre-existing relationship, which Brosnan was by UCLA he could do. If the NCAA had actual tampering evidence, they would have presented it. They didn’t. Fourth, the punishment itself tells you everything. If this were a serious tampering case you’d see: suspension from coaching Instead? Level II violation with zero coaching suspension. That basically never happens in tampering cases. It’s the NCAA’s way of saying “we’re calling this a violation but we can’t actually prove anything serious.” Finally, the argument that “all NCAA members agree this is how the rule works” proves the opposite point. The NCAA is not a court, it’s a private cartel of member schools writing rules to protect themselves. Of course the members agree with how the rules are enforced, they’re the ones enforcing them and are all colleagues. And that’s exactly why these cases fall apart when they reach real courts. In 99.9 % of the time. The NCAA’s entire tampering system relies on assumptions and internal governance panels, not actual legal standards of proof. That’s why the organization has been losing case after case once judges get involved. So no, listing a few NCAA insiders on an appeals panel doesn’t “discredit Brosnan’s argument.” If anything, it proves the opposite: the same NCAA ecosystem investigating itself and declaring itself correct. Classic NCAA.
The members of the infractions appeals committee agreed that EVERY member of the NCAA agreed to play by the same rules, and one of those rules is that tampering is illegal and that the definition of tampering includes what Brosnan did.
So the NCAA found a violation, and then representatives of the member institutions agreed and said that Brosnan violated rules that their schools had agreed to and had been abiding by.
There are exactly ZERO schools trying to change the definition of tampering to allow what Brosnan did.
Pros don’t have silly recruiting rules. Nothing to stop him from completely dominating pro running, other than you actually need runners and a sponsor (small details).
First, the Infractions Appeals Committee isn’t some independent court. It’s still part of the NCAA governance structure. Every person listed either works for an NCAA member institution or within the NCAA ecosystem. Presidents, ADs, conference compliance officers, and FARs are literally the people responsible for enforcing NCAA rules at their own schools. Calling that “impartial” is laughable. Second, the idea that a law professor being on the committee somehow validates the decision is nonsense. In a courtroom will win 100% of the time, that’s no question. David Shipley wasn’t acting as a judge applying constitutional law, he was serving as a Faculty Athletics Representative, which is an NCAA governance role. FARs exist specifically to represent the institution’s interests within NCAA governance. That’s not an independent legal review. Third, the claim that “the NCAA found a lot of evidence” is just flat wrong based on the public decision. The case itself states: No texts No emails No direct communication with the athletes Only a conversation with a parent with a pre-existing relationship, which Brosnan was by UCLA he could do. If the NCAA had actual tampering evidence, they would have presented it. They didn’t. Fourth, the punishment itself tells you everything. If this were a serious tampering case you’d see: suspension from coaching Instead? Level II violation with zero coaching suspension. That basically never happens in tampering cases. It’s the NCAA’s way of saying “we’re calling this a violation but we can’t actually prove anything serious.” Finally, the argument that “all NCAA members agree this is how the rule works” proves the opposite point. The NCAA is not a court, it’s a private cartel of member schools writing rules to protect themselves. Of course the members agree with how the rules are enforced, they’re the ones enforcing them and are all colleagues. And that’s exactly why these cases fall apart when they reach real courts. In 99.9 % of the time. The NCAA’s entire tampering system relies on assumptions and internal governance panels, not actual legal standards of proof. That’s why the organization has been losing case after case once judges get involved. So no, listing a few NCAA insiders on an appeals panel doesn’t “discredit Brosnan’s argument.” If anything, it proves the opposite: the same NCAA ecosystem investigating itself and declaring itself correct. Classic NCAA.
Remember the McNair v. NCAA case? That’s the one where Todd McNair sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association after the NCAA publicly claimed he lied during the Reggie Bush investigation. The court ruled the NCAA could be held liable for defamation because they presented their conclusion that McNair “lied” as a fact despite the investigation not having the safeguards of a real court. The case dragged on for years and ultimately ended in a confidential settlement reportedly worth ten millions++ That case exposed exactly what many people already suspected: NCAA infractions investigations are not real courts, and the committees are made up of people from the same NCAA buddies. They’re all part of the same governance structure enforcing NCAA rules on behalf of the same member schools. So when people say these committees are completely “independent,” that’s simply not reality. It’s an internal regulatory process, not an impartial judicial system. Given the NCAA’s long history of controversial enforcement decisions, it’s not surprising that cases like Brosnan’s continue to be cited whenever people question how fairly the infractions process treats individuals.
You have no understanding of what that case was about, and it's worth mentioning the judge that helped McNair was a USC alumni in an obvious conflict of interest. In that case, the argument was that the investigators lied.
In Brosnan's case, Brosnan himself agrees with the facts as established and did not even try to argue them. "In his notice of intent to appeal form, Mr. Brosnan indicated that he intended to appeal the aggravating factors assessed against him by the hearing panel. However, Mr. Brosnan’s written submissions did not specifically address these aggravating factors and did not explain why they should not be applied to him."
Brosnan and the NCAA agree on everything that happened, all of the findings and facts of the case. The disagreement is that Brosnan claims those facts don't equal a violation. But every definition of tampering, every application of the tampering rule, and everyone in the NCAA supports the definition of tampering and that Brosnan violated the rule.
Brosnan can cry all he wants but there is no grounds for a lawsuit.
Remember the McNair v. NCAA case? That’s the one where Todd McNair sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association after the NCAA publicly claimed he lied during the Reggie Bush investigation. The court ruled the NCAA could be held liable for defamation because they presented their conclusion that McNair “lied” as a fact despite the investigation not having the safeguards of a real court. The case dragged on for years and ultimately ended in a confidential settlement reportedly worth ten millions++ That case exposed exactly what many people already suspected: NCAA infractions investigations are not real courts, and the committees are made up of people from the same NCAA buddies. They’re all part of the same governance structure enforcing NCAA rules on behalf of the same member schools. So when people say these committees are completely “independent,” that’s simply not reality. It’s an internal regulatory process, not an impartial judicial system. Given the NCAA’s long history of controversial enforcement decisions, it’s not surprising that cases like Brosnan’s continue to be cited whenever people question how fairly the infractions process treats individuals.
You have no understanding of what that case was about, and it's worth mentioning the judge that helped McNair was a USC alumni in an obvious conflict of interest. In that case, the argument was that the investigators lied.
In Brosnan's case, Brosnan himself agrees with the facts as established and did not even try to argue them. "In his notice of intent to appeal form, Mr. Brosnan indicated that he intended to appeal the aggravating factors assessed against him by the hearing panel. However, Mr. Brosnan’s written submissions did not specifically address these aggravating factors and did not explain why they should not be applied to him."
Brosnan and the NCAA agree on everything that happened, all of the findings and facts of the case. The disagreement is that Brosnan claims those facts don't equal a violation. But every definition of tampering, every application of the tampering rule, and everyone in the NCAA supports the definition of tampering and that Brosnan violated the rule.
Brosnan can cry all he wants but there is no grounds for a lawsuit.
You’re actually proving the point without realizing it. Nobody is arguing about the basic facts. The disagreement has always been about how the NCAA interpreted those facts. Brosnan didn’t dispute the events because the events themselves were never the issue. The NCAA acknowledged that: There were no texts or emails showing recruiting. There was no direct contact with the student-athletes before the portal. The conversations were with parents he had known for years. The entire violation was built on the NCAA’s interpretation that continuing to talk with parents you already have a relationship with can be considered tampering, even if the conversation itself isn’t about recruiting. That’s why the Committee on Infractions literally said the bylaw doesn’t distinguish between recruiting and non-recruiting communication and provides no exception for pre-existing relationships. Think about how extreme that interpretation is. Under that logic, if a coach has known a family for 10 years and they call to talk about life, injuries, or even something unrelated—the NCAA can still label it tampering simply because the athlete attends another school. So yes, Brosnan accepted the factual timeline. The dispute is whether those facts legally constitute tampering, which is exactly the kind of question courts deal with all the time. And the idea that “everyone in the NCAA agrees” isn’t some powerful argument. Of course they do. The NCAA investigators, enforcement staff, and infractions committees all operate inside the same internal system interpreting their own bylaws. That’s not the same thing as an independent legal standard. The real issue is this: the NCAA punished a coach for maintaining friendships with parents he had known for years, despite having no documented recruiting communication with the athletes themselves. When you strip away the NCAA’s internal language, that’s the case. And that’s exactly why people believe it would face serious scrutiny if it were ever tested outside the NCAA’s enforcement bubble.once real courts start applying state and federal law the NCAA will lose.
Pros don’t have silly recruiting rules. Nothing to stop him from completely dominating pro running, other than you actually need runners and a sponsor (small details).
He’s in Flagstaff coaching, traveling with his athletes, and doing his job while the same basement dwellers keep posting nonsense online.
You have no understanding of what that case was about, and it's worth mentioning the judge that helped McNair was a USC alumni in an obvious conflict of interest. In that case, the argument was that the investigators lied.
In Brosnan's case, Brosnan himself agrees with the facts as established and did not even try to argue them. "In his notice of intent to appeal form, Mr. Brosnan indicated that he intended to appeal the aggravating factors assessed against him by the hearing panel. However, Mr. Brosnan’s written submissions did not specifically address these aggravating factors and did not explain why they should not be applied to him."
Brosnan and the NCAA agree on everything that happened, all of the findings and facts of the case. The disagreement is that Brosnan claims those facts don't equal a violation. But every definition of tampering, every application of the tampering rule, and everyone in the NCAA supports the definition of tampering and that Brosnan violated the rule.
Brosnan can cry all he wants but there is no grounds for a lawsuit.
You’re actually proving the point without realizing it. Nobody is arguing about the basic facts. The disagreement has always been about how the NCAA interpreted those facts. Brosnan didn’t dispute the events because the events themselves were never the issue. The NCAA acknowledged that: There were no texts or emails showing recruiting. There was no direct contact with the student-athletes before the portal. The conversations were with parents he had known for years. The entire violation was built on the NCAA’s interpretation that continuing to talk with parents you already have a relationship with can be considered tampering, even if the conversation itself isn’t about recruiting. That’s why the Committee on Infractions literally said the bylaw doesn’t distinguish between recruiting and non-recruiting communication and provides no exception for pre-existing relationships. Think about how extreme that interpretation is. Under that logic, if a coach has known a family for 10 years and they call to talk about life, injuries, or even something unrelated—the NCAA can still label it tampering simply because the athlete attends another school. So yes, Brosnan accepted the factual timeline. The dispute is whether those facts legally constitute tampering, which is exactly the kind of question courts deal with all the time. And the idea that “everyone in the NCAA agrees” isn’t some powerful argument. Of course they do. The NCAA investigators, enforcement staff, and infractions committees all operate inside the same internal system interpreting their own bylaws. That’s not the same thing as an independent legal standard. The real issue is this: the NCAA punished a coach for maintaining friendships with parents he had known for years, despite having no documented recruiting communication with the athletes themselves. When you strip away the NCAA’s internal language, that’s the case. And that’s exactly why people believe it would face serious scrutiny if it were ever tested outside the NCAA’s enforcement bubble.once real courts start applying state and federal law the NCAA will lose.
Stop pretending that Brosnan calling the parents right before and after the daughter entered the portal is not damning evidence. Use your brain.
This whole thing is a slippery slope. The NCAA admitted they found no emails, no texts, no DMs, no student athlete contact, no proof of recruiting contact at all. One of the dads is a well-known pastor in LA and had known the coach for years. At some point you can’t punish a coach just for having friends. If there had actually been tampering, someone would have produced the receipts by now. The reality is the NCAA has nothing to stand on, which is why this case looks so absurd.
You’re actually proving the point without realizing it. Nobody is arguing about the basic facts. The disagreement has always been about how the NCAA interpreted those facts. Brosnan didn’t dispute the events because the events themselves were never the issue. The NCAA acknowledged that: There were no texts or emails showing recruiting. There was no direct contact with the student-athletes before the portal. The conversations were with parents he had known for years. The entire violation was built on the NCAA’s interpretation that continuing to talk with parents you already have a relationship with can be considered tampering, even if the conversation itself isn’t about recruiting. That’s why the Committee on Infractions literally said the bylaw doesn’t distinguish between recruiting and non-recruiting communication and provides no exception for pre-existing relationships. Think about how extreme that interpretation is. Under that logic, if a coach has known a family for 10 years and they call to talk about life, injuries, or even something unrelated—the NCAA can still label it tampering simply because the athlete attends another school. So yes, Brosnan accepted the factual timeline. The dispute is whether those facts legally constitute tampering, which is exactly the kind of question courts deal with all the time. And the idea that “everyone in the NCAA agrees” isn’t some powerful argument. Of course they do. The NCAA investigators, enforcement staff, and infractions committees all operate inside the same internal system interpreting their own bylaws. That’s not the same thing as an independent legal standard. The real issue is this: the NCAA punished a coach for maintaining friendships with parents he had known for years, despite having no documented recruiting communication with the athletes themselves. When you strip away the NCAA’s internal language, that’s the case. And that’s exactly why people believe it would face serious scrutiny if it were ever tested outside the NCAA’s enforcement bubble.once real courts start applying state and federal law the NCAA will lose.
Stop pretending that Brosnan calling the parents right before and after the daughter entered the portal is not damning evidence. Use your brain.
In the NCAA, the transfer portal process starts when the student-athlete tells their compliance office they want to transfer. The school then has up to 48 hours to actually enter the athlete into the portal. Because of that window, the athlete and certainly any outside coach, has no way of knowing the exact moment the name will appear in the portal. So pointing to a phone call right before the portal entry doesn’t prove anything. No one outside the compliance office knows the exact timing, which means the call timing by itself doesn’t show tampering or intent at all.
This whole thing is a slippery slope. The NCAA admitted they found no emails, no texts, no DMs, no student athlete contact, no proof of recruiting contact at all. One of the dads is a well-known pastor in LA and had known the coach for years. At some point you can’t punish a coach just for having friends. If there had actually been tampering, someone would have produced the receipts by now. The reality is the NCAA has nothing to stand on, which is why this case looks so absurd.
Do you think that constantly changing your username to post under many different handles on this topic gives you more credibility or less credibility?
Pros don’t have silly recruiting rules. Nothing to stop him from completely dominating pro running, other than you actually need runners and a sponsor (small details).
He’s in Flagstaff coaching, traveling with his athletes, and doing his job while the same basement dwellers keep posting nonsense online.
This whole thing is a slippery slope. The NCAA admitted they found no emails, no texts, no DMs, no student athlete contact, no proof of recruiting contact at all. One of the dads is a well-known pastor in LA and had known the coach for years. At some point you can’t punish a coach just for having friends. If there had actually been tampering, someone would have produced the receipts by now. The reality is the NCAA has nothing to stand on, which is why this case looks so absurd.
Do you think that constantly changing your username to post under many different handles on this topic gives you more credibility or less credibility?
Everyone seems to be ignoring that one of the athletes had major concerns about physical well-being. It’s in the report. Must have been bad to give up a scholarship to pay to go to UCLA. Doesn’t NCAA have a responsibility to promote the safety of its athletes?