BREAKING - Brosnan LOSES his appeal, NCAA confirms serious violations happened

The rule has always been clear. The only problem is that your reading comprehension is no good.

The funniest part of the “clear rule” crowd is that the NCAA couldn’t find a single text, email, or DM showing tampering.
Apparently the new standard is: we don’t have evidence, but we’re pretty sure something happened. That’s not a clear rule , that’s guesswork.

The "clear rule" states that any contact with the parent of a student athlete at another college who is not in the transfer portal is a violation. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Take your completely false made up arguments somewhere else.

Stop pretending that Brosnan calling the parents right before and after the daughter entered the portal is not damning evidence. Use your brain.

Why do people care about a high school coach and hasn't coached for years??

The prospect admitted it, said Brosnan told her father he would love to have her on the team. That's not guesswork, that's a fact.

Use your brain. A phone call happening near the portal entry is not ‘damning evidence’ by itself, it’s just a timeline you’re trying to inflate into guilt because the NCAA doen’t have actual proof. If it were so damning, where are the texts, emails, DMs, or one clear statement showing recruiting before the portal? There aren’t any. You’ve got innuendo, not evidence, and confusing suspicion with proof is exactly how people end up sounding loud, lazy, and wrong

One of the girls admitted that Brosnan told her dad that Brosnan wanted her at UCLA before she was in the transfer portal.

And Brosnan was going around telling recruits in the fall of 2022 that he had already gotten two college women to commit to transferring to UCLA but he couldn't name them because they weren't in the transfer portal yet.

None of your dumb posts are going to change the fact that Brosnan broke the rules!

This is all completely false and also not tampering. Even if the statement happened exactly as claimed, it still doesn’t legally prove tampering. NCAA enforcement requires proof of impermissible recruiting activity directed at the athlete prior to portal entry. Here there were no texts, emails, DMs, or direct contact with the athlete, just a parent’s account of a phone call. That’s circumstantial at best, which is why the case ended with a Level II and no suspension, something you basically never see if there’s real recruiting evidence.

Trolls keep repeating the NCAA’s conclusion without actually looking at the structure of the bylaw itself, which is the real problem. The NCAA essentially stretched the tampering rule beyond its text and created a standard that doesn’t logically exist in the rulebook.
Under NCAA Bylaw 13 (Recruiting), a tampering violation requires impermissible recruiting activity directed at a student-athlete enrolled at another institution prior to their entry into the transfer portal. That means identifiable recruiting conduct, inducements, promises, organized contact, or direct recruiting communication with the athlete.
But in this case the NCAA acknowledged there were no texts, no emails, no DMs, and no direct recruiting contact with the student-athlete. Instead, they built the violation around a conversation with a parent and the timing of phone calls. That’s not what the bylaw actually regulates. The rule governs recruiting contact with the student-athlete, not vague second-hand interpretations of conversations with third parties.
What the enforcement staff effectively did was reverse-engineer a violation. They started with the assumption that a transfer must have involved tampering and then treated circumstantial timing as if it were proof of recruiting. That flips the basic enforcement standard on its head. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the NCAA to show actual impermissible recruiting activity, not on a coach to prove a phone call didn’t involve recruiting.
That’s why the penalty structure itself exposed how weak the case was. A Level II violation with no coaching suspension is almost unheard of in legitimate tampering cases. If the NCAA truly had evidence of pre-portal recruiting, the penalty framework would have reflected that.
So the issue isn’t just the facts, it’s that the NCAA essentially expanded the bylaw beyond its plain meaning, turning normal conversations and preexisting relationships into violations. When enforcement bodies start inventing standards that don’t appear in the rulebook, you no longer have rule enforcement, you have rulemaking after the fact.

No, it's not false. The NCAA report specifically states that one of the women admitted that Brosnan told her dad that Brosnan wanted her at UCLA before she was in the transfer portal. Read the report, you idiot! It's in there!

And many people heard Brosnan saying that he had gotten 2 college women to commit to UCLA before they were in the transfer portal. He wasn't even trying to keep it a secret, that's how crazy he is. That is also why Brosnan will never sue the NCAA. He knows that he was going around saying that, and so he knows that he has no case.

False! Which is why, despite you posting the same false information over and over, you never quote verbatim from the NCAA rulebook, because you KNOW that the rulebook doesn't say what you falsely claim that it says.

The NCAA did not prove recruiting activity at all. They didn’t prove inducements. They didn’t prove scholarship promises. They didn’t prove direct contact with the athletes. There were no texts, emails, DMs, or documented recruiting communication.
What they actually relied on were phone calls with fathers men Brosnan had known for years before UCLA. Both fathers testified that he refused to discuss transferring until the athletes entered the portal, which is literally what compliance offices instruct coaches to do.
So what did the Appeals Committee really uphold? Not proven recruiting. They upheld a technical interpretation of Bylaw 13 that prohibits contact with “individuals associated with a student-athlete” before portal entry — regardless of whether recruiting content occurred.
That’s the problem. The NCAA effectively rewrote the rule through enforcement. A bylaw intended to prevent recruiting inducements was turned into a blanket prohibition on communication itself, even when the communication involves longstanding personal relationships and contains no recruiting discussion.
In other words, the standard shifted from “don’t tamper” to “don’t speak.”
That is a massive expansion of the rule. It transforms what should require proof of recruiting conduct into something closer to strict liability based on contact alone. And that standard was never clearly adopted by the membership in that form.
Worse, the NCAA is applying that interpretation selectively and without transparent evidentiary standards, which is exactly why its enforcement model has faced repeated legal challenges. Courts have repeatedly criticized the NCAA when its enforcement processes lack due process protections or apply vague rules retroactively.
The organization may be private, but it still operates within the bounds of contract law, antitrust law, and state law obligations. It can’t simply stretch a bylaw beyond its plain meaning and call that fair enforcement.
If the NCAA can punish a coach without proving recruiting activity, inducements, or athlete contact, then the rule is no longer about competitive integrity. It becomes about enforcement discretion without accountability.
And that’s why so many people see this as an overreach. Not because they think rules shouldn’t exist, but because rules shouldn’t be rewritten after the fact just to manufacture a violation.

Stop lying. The NCAA did NOT shift the rule. The "don't speak to parents of student athletes at other colleges until after they are in the transfer portal" has been the rule for a long time.

You keep saying “quote the rulebook” like nobody has read it. Fine — let’s actually quote it.
2025–26 NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw 13.1.1.4 (Tampering):
“An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution’s athletics interests shall not communicate or make contact with the student-athlete of another NCAA Division I institution, or any individual associated with the student-athlete (e.g., family member), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process.”
Now read that carefully.
The bylaw does not require the NCAA to prove:
• a scholarship promise
• an inducement
• direct contact with the athlete
• a written recruiting pitch
It explicitly covers “any individual associated with the student-athlete,” including a family member.
That’s exactly the point people keep making that you refuse to acknowledge. The NCAA didn’t prove recruiting. They didn’t prove inducements. They didn’t prove scholarship offers. They didn’t prove athlete contact. There were no texts, no emails, no DMs, no recruiting trail whatsoever.
What they relied on were phone calls with fathers Both men Brosnan had known for 4- 10 yeas years before UCLA.
Both fathers testified he ( Brosnan ) refused to discuss transferring until the portal, which is literally what compliance offices tell coaches to do.
So how did the NCAA still uphold a violation?
Because they expanded the bylaw through enforcement. Instead of proving recruiting activity, they treated the existence of contact itself as the violation, regardless of content. That effectively converts a rule designed to prevent recruiting inducements into a blanket prohibition on communication.
That’s not “tampering.” That’s strict liability for association.
And that’s why the penalty structure itself tells you how weak the case was. The Committee issued a Level II violation with no coaching suspension, which is almost unheard of in actual tampering cases where recruiting evidence exists.
So stop pretending this case proved some smoking-gun recruiting scheme. The NCAA proved contact with long time friends, not recruiting.
The real debate here isn’t whether Bylaw 13 exists. It’s whether the NCAA stretched it beyond its original purpose to punish ordinary relationships and conversations that contained no recruiting content at all.
If that’s the standard, then practically every coach in America with prior relationships with parents is technically one phone call away from a violation.
You can defend that rule if you want. But stop pretending the NCAA proved recruiting misconduct.
They didn’t. They proved contact and then treated normal history contact as guilt.

That makes zero sense. It is so damning that a text ISN’T NEEDED. Thats the point.

Do you think that constantly changing your username to post under many different handles on this topic gives you more credibility or less credibility?
Each time the same lies.

Honestly the whole situation just shows how messed up NCAA enforcement has become. They couldn’t point to a single piece of real recruiting evidence, no texts, no emails, scholarship offers, no contact with the athletes themselves. Nothing. Yet they still handed down a violation because of phone calls with fathers he had known for years before UCLA. Even then Brosnan told the fathers he couldn’t talk to them until they are in the portal.

That’s not proving tampering, that’s basically saying a coach can’t even maintain normal friendships if those people happen to have kids running at another school. When the standard shifts from proving recruiting to policing who someone talks to, the rule has clearly been stretched way past its original purpose. At that point it stops looking like fair enforcement and starts looking like an organization making things up as it goes.