Brosnan lost his latest appeal, and this might have been his last chance to appeal within the NCAA system. Filing a lawsuit would be the next apparent step.
"The hearing panel argued that the tampering bylaw is straightforward because no communication can occur before the prospective student-athletes enter the Transfer Portal. Since Mr. Brosnan’s conduct clearly violated the bylaw (he acknowledged speaking with both fathers, and his phone records confirmed the timing and frequency of these calls), the hearing panel argued that a tampering violation occurred. The hearing panel stated that the bylaw makes no exception for friendly conversations based upon preexisting relationships and makes no distinction between recruiting and non-recruiting communications. (Committee on infractions Response Page Nos. 5 and 6) In addition, the hearing panel noted that it identified various information in the case record to support a reasonable inference of a recruiting nexus to the discussions.10 (Committee on Infractions Response Page No. 6, Footnote No. 4) Further, the hearing panel argued that a Level II case designation was warranted based on the multiple contacts over a three-month period showing they were not isolated or limited and that there was more than a minimal recruiting advantage gained by the conversations due to both individuals transferring and competing for the appellant. (Committee on Infractions Response
Page No. 7, Footnote No. 5)
As we noted above, it is the appellant’s burden to meet the standard of review and show that there is no information in the record to support the hearing panel’s determination and that no reasonable person, after considering the record, could have made the same determination as the hearing panel. After reviewing the case record and the parties’ arguments, we find that Mr. Brosnan has failed to meet his burden to overturn the hearing panel’s finding that contact violations occurred. We agree that the bylaw, under these facts, is straightforward and agree with the hearing panel’s finding that Mr. Brosnan communicated with the prospective student-athletes’ fathers before the prospective student-athletes entered the portal. Further, the hearing panel’s well-written decision clearly articulated their measured view of the full record before it and the weighing of various aggravating and mitigating factors in reaching a thoughtful and balanced determination. The hearing panel’s assessment as to the number and timing of calls to the prospective student-athletes’ families relative to the prospective student-athletes entering the Transfer Portal and indicating they did not want to be contacted by any institutions, as well as the fact that the prospective student-athletes actually transferred to UCLA, reasonably supports the tampering violation. In addition, the fact that both prospective student-athletes transferred to other institutions after Mr. Brosnan’s departure further supports the reasonableness of the hearing panel’s determination.
Therefore, this committee finds that the hearing panel’s determination that Mr. Brosnan’s actions were in violation of the tampering bylaw was reasonable."
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/miCaseView/report?id=103171