This report is the result of an investigation of the University of Maryland football program conducted by an eight-person commission reporting to the school's board of regents. Report on Maryland football culture cites problems but stops short of ‘toxic’ label

REPORT TO THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND

OF AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FOOTBALL PROGRAM

Commissioners:

Attorneys:

Frederick M. Azar, M.D.

Bonnie Lynn Bernstein

Hon. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.

Hon. Benson Everett Legg

Hon. C. Thomas McMillen

Charles P. Scheeler

Hon. Alexander Williams, Jr.

Douglas Lee Williams

Harry P. Rudo

Darryl L. Tarver

A. Neill Thupari

Thiru Vignarajah

DLA Piper LLP (US)

Jamie Lee

Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White LLC

Matthew Porter Legg

October 23, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

Executive Summary .........................................................................................1

A.

B.

C.

D.

II.

Our Assignment ...............................................................................................1

How We Conducted the Investigation .............................................................2

What We Found ...............................................................................................3

What We Recommend ...................................................................................14

The Scope and Methods of the Investigation ................................................16

A. The Independent Commissioners ..................................................................18

B. Interviews.......................................................................................................20

C. Documents .....................................................................................................25

III.

IV.

Introduction....................................................................................................26

Factual Background .......................................................................................28

A. Kevin Anderson becomes Athletics Director ................................................28

B. DJ Durkin is Hired as Head Football Coach .................................................38

C. Rick Court is DJ Durkinas First Hire; the Athletics Department

Changes the Reporting Structure for the Head Football Strength

Coach .............................................................................................................45

D. The Athletics Department Retains Counsel to Defend Football

Players Accused of Sexual Misconduct ........................................................62

E. aThe Last Strawa: Kevin Anderson Agrees to Go on Sabbatical .................68

F. Jordan McNair Suffers Heat Stroke on May 29, 2018, and

Passes Away on June 13 ................................................................................71

V.

Specific Allegations of Coaching and Other Staff Misconduct ....................74

A. Rick Court Alleged to Choke Injured Player with Lat Pulldown

Bar in Weight Room ......................................................................................75

B. Weights and Other Items Thrown Across Training Room............................77

C. Morning Tugs-of-War ...................................................................................78

D. Food Knocked from Playeras Hands .............................................................79

E. Player Compelled to Eat Candy Bars ............................................................82

F. Player Compelled to Eat until Vomiting .......................................................83

G. Players Exposed to Graphic Videos While Eating ........................................84

H. Player Removed from Meeting for Smiling ..................................................85

1

I.

J.

Verbal Abuse of Player During Practice .......................................................86

Players being Forced to Exercise on a Stair Stepper Machine

with a PVC Pipe.............................................................................................87

K. Player Complained of Bullying to Mr. Durkin ..............................................89

L. The aChampions Cluba .................................................................................89

VI.

Culture Assessment .......................................................................................92

A. The Process of Assessing Culture .................................................................92

B. The 2016 and 2017 Football Team Survey Data ...........................................94

C. The September 9, 2018 Survey Conducted by the Independent

Commission ...................................................................................................96

D. Representative Feedback from Current and Former Players,

Parents, Coaches, and Staff .........................................................................103

E. Perspectives of Other Coaches ....................................................................124

VII. Injuries .........................................................................................................126

A. Data Comparing Injuries Suffered During Mr. Durkinas Tenure

with the Year Preceding his Inaugural Season ............................................126

B. Anecdotal Evidence .....................................................................................128

C. General Attitudes About the Handling of Injuries by Training

Staff and Others ...........................................................................................135

VIII. Player Academic Progress Under Mr. Durkin .............................................140

A. Federal Graduation Rate (FGR) and Graduation Success Rate

(GSR) ...........................................................................................................140

B. Academic Progress Rate (APR) ..................................................................144

IX. UMD Internal Controls Designed to Ensure that the Athletics

Department and Football Program Comply with Rules and Policies ....................146

A. UMD Processes and Oversight to Ensure Sound Management

of the Athletics Department .........................................................................146

B. The Athletics Departmentas Specific Internal Controls to

Ensure Compliance with NCAA and Big Ten Mandates ............................148

C. Marylandas Newly-Developed Athletic Resources in Response

to the McNair Tragedy.................................................................................151

X.

Conclusions..................................................................................................152

2

A. The Players Who Spoke UpaBoth Initially and in Response to

Our InvestigationaShould be Commended ...............................................152

B. During Mr. Durkinas Tenure, the Athletics Department Lacked

a Culture of Accountability, did not Provide Adequate

Oversight of the Football Program, and Failed to Provide Mr.

Durkin with the Tools, Resources, and Guidance Necessary to

Support and Educate a First-Time Head Coach in a Major

Football Conference.....................................................................................153

C. Mr. Court, on Too Many Occasions, Acted in a Manner

Inconsistent with the Universityas Values and Basic Principles

of Respect for Others ...................................................................................155

D. Both Mr. Durkin and Leadership in the Athletics Department

Share Responsibility for the Failure to Supervise Mr. Court ......................156

E. The University Leadership Bears Some Responsibility for the

Ongoing Dysfunction of the Athletics Department .....................................158

F. The Maryland Football Team did not have a aToxic Culture,a

but it did have a Culture Where Problems Festered Because

Too Many Players Feared Speaking Out .....................................................159

G. Maryland Should Institute a Strong aMedical Modela for

Student-Athlete Care to Improve Health Outcomes and Ensure

that the University is a Leader in Collegiate Sports Medicine

Best Practices ...............................................................................................161

H. There is Common Ground to be Found Amongst All of the

Maryland Constituencies We Heard from, Providing a Basis for

Moving Forward Together...........................................................................162

XI.

Recommendations........................................................................................162

A. Strength and Conditioning Recommendations ............................................162

B. Independent Medical Care Model Recommendation ..................................178

C. Improving Accountability in the Athletics Department ..............................185

XII. Acknowledgments .......................................................................................192

3

APPENDICES

Appendix 1

Model Head Coach Performance Evaluation provided by K.

Anderson

Appendix 2

Model Assistant Coach Performance Evaluation provided by K.

Anderson

Appendix 3

K. Anderson Statement (10/16/2018)

Appendix 4

Football Organizational Chart (2017)

Appendix 5

Football Organizational Chart (2018)

Appendix 6

UMD Athletics Department Matrix

Appendix 7

UMD Athletics Department Staff Organizational Chart

(8/2018)

Appendix 8

aStop The Abusea Anonymous Email

Appendix 9

Football Survey (2016a17)

Appendix 10

Football Survey (2017a18)

Appendix 11

August 10, 2018 ESPN Article

Appendix 12

Football Survey Conducted by the Independent Commission

(9/9/2018)

Appendix 13

Letter a Danielsa Attorney to UMD Athletics (8/13/2018)

Appendix 14

Email a C. Scheeler to Danielsa Attorney (8/15/2018)

Appendix 15

Welcome Letter for Survey Conducted by the Independent

Commission (9/9/2018)

Appendix 16

Text Messages Sent to Coach Durkin

Appendix 17

aRating of Perceived Exertiona Scale

Appendix 18

Athletic Council Policy on Student-Athletes

4

GLOSSARY

AD

Athletics Director

CARA

Countable Athletically Related Activities

CSCCa

Collegiate Strength & Conditioning Coaches Association

MAPP

Maryland Athletics Policy and Procedures Manual

NCAA

National Collegiate Athletic Association

OGC

Office of General Counsel

PDs

Position Descriptions

PRD

Performance Review and Development

S&C

Strength and Conditioning

SCCC

Strength and Conditioning Coach Certified

UHR

University Human Resources Department

UMD

University of Maryland at College Park

5

I.

Executive Summary

A.

Our Assignment

On August 14, 2018, President Wallace D. Loh announced the formation of

an independent commission (the aCommissiona) to investigate allegations reported

in the media of a atoxica culture within the University of Maryland at College Park

(aUMD,a aMaryland,a or the aUniversitya) football program. At a press

conference held that day, President Loh stated that the charge of the Commission

was to areview . . . the practices and the culture of the football program . . . .a1

On August 17, 2018, the University System of Maryland Board of Regents

(the aRegentsa or aBoarda) assumed oversight and control of the investigation and

added five new members to the Commission on August 24, 2018. The Regents

reiterated the Commissionas charge: (1) to determine whether the culture of the

football program was atoxica as alleged in media reports; (2) to investigate the

specific incidents of player abuse as alleged in media reports, and any other

incidents we might uncover; and (3) to make recommendations for improving the

program.

The Commission is an investigative body; we were not tasked with

recommending or deciding whether any University employees should be retained

or terminated. We were directed not to duplicate the work of the Walters report,

1

See http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bs-md-umd-pressconference-transcript-20180814-story.html.

1

which examined the events of May 29, 2018, and Jordan McNairas tragic

death. We were, however, asked to determine whether a toxic football culture

caused his death. To summarize, we were directed to gather sufficient information

to assess Marylandas football culture and recommend best practices and protocols

to improve the program.

The Regents gave the Commission broad discretionary powers with respect

to the means and manner of carrying out this investigation. The Regents assured

the Commission that we would have the discretion to follow the evidence wherever

it led and pledged that the University would cooperate fully with the investigation.

The University, and in particular the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (the

aAthletics Departmenta or aAthleticsa), honored that pledge.

B.

How We Conducted the Investigation

We determined at the outset that the best way to assess the Maryland

football program was to speak to as many people as we could who were familiar

with the program. We reached out to every person who played football for

Maryland since Mr. Durkin was hired. We formally interviewed 165 people from

all major constituencies of the football program:

i* Student-athletes who played football at UMD under Mr. Durkin: 55

i* Parents of players: 24

i* Current and former Athletics Department staff, including coaches: 60

2

i* University Officials not in the Athletics Department: 12

i* Other people with college football expertise, and miscellaneous

individuals: 14

Members of the Commission also spoke with many other people affiliated

with college football, and we obtained from the University and various witnesses

thousands of documents, including emails, text messages, and other documents

describing the relevant policies, practices, and incidents involving the football

program.

We conducted a mandatory, but anonymous, survey of the football team on

September 9, 2018, at the Gossett Football Team House (aGossetta). Ninety-four

players participated, and many provided extremely thoughtful comments.

C.

What We Found

We have chronicled events illustrating the dysfunction of the Athletics

Department from 2016 through 2018, many of which impacted the football team.

We discuss numerous allegations of coaching misconduct during that period. We

have heard contradictory accounts of many events. We have recounted all

sides of each story, to the best of our ability, letting the reader draw his or her

own conclusions.

Similarly, we encountered a broad spectrum of views about the culture of the

football program and the quality of the coaching. In Section VI, we analyze the

3

results of three football player surveys conducted between 2016 and 2018. We

also compiled a diverse range of opinions about Marylandas football program from

more than two hundred people (including those who took the 2018 playersa

survey).

Based upon the totality of the evidence gathered, the eight members of this

Commission unanimously found the following:

1.

The players who spoke upaboth initially and in response to

our investigationashould be commended

Several players expressed their concerns to the media about the conduct and

culture of the football program, which were first reported in ESPNas articles of

August 10, 2018. We interviewed most of these playersaboth anonymous and

named sourcesaand feel they spoke in good faith about what they perceived as

unacceptable actions by University employees. They did not come forward with

intent to harm the University, but rather out of concern and frustration about the

program. This frustration, by all accounts, had been building for some time; the

death of teammate Jordan McNair seemingly served as a catalyst for bringing their

concerns to light.

In addition to those players who spoke with the media, the Commission

commends all the current and former players who spoke with us, or took the

survey, as part of our investigation. These individuals spoke up about their

4

experiences, enabling us to evaluate the program with vital insights from those

most closely involved with, and affected by, the football program.

Some have criticized players for thwarting the longstanding sports axiom,

a[w]hat happens in the locker room, stays in the locker room.a We feel strongly

that this mindset is misguided. Many athletics directors contacted by the

Commission, in fact, insist a aspeak upa culture is critical in cultivating a thriving

athletics community that prioritizes the welfare of student-athletes. Whether their

comments were supportive or critical, the football players who came forward, both

with the media and with the Commission, should be commended. We are grateful.

2.

During Mr. Durkinas tenure, the Athletics Department lacked a

culture of accountability, did not provide adequate oversight of

the football program, and failed to provide Mr. Durkin with the

tools, resources, and guidance necessary to support and educate

a first-time head coach in a major football conference

During the 2016 to 2018 seasons, the Athletics Department did not

effectively fulfill its responsibilities. University ombudsman and assistant to

President Loh, Cynthia Edmunds, described the Athletics Departmentas operations

during this period as achaos and confusion. A former coach compared the

departmentas dysfunction to aWashington [politics].a The University conducted a

Gallup Survey of employee engagement of all employees in the spring of 2016,

and then again approximately 18 months later. The survey results of the Athletics

Department employees deteriorated relative to the rest of the University, as well as

5

relative to its own 2016 scores, in the second survey. Jewel Washington, the

Universityas Chief of Human Resources, stated a[h]ere [in Maryland athletics],

there is no structure. That is not normal.a

The mismanagement of the Athletics Department had adverse effects on the

football program. We find little evidence of meaningful orientation and support

for first-time head football coach DJ Durkin. The importance of providing more

robust support for football was heightened by Marylandas entrance into the Big

Ten Conference in 2014. Reporting lines between football and the Athletics

Department were blurred and inconsistent. Assistant AD for Football Sports

Performance/Strength Coach Rick Court was effectively accountable to no one,

and the training staff went relatively unsupervised for extended periods due, in

part, to a rift between the Athletics Director (aADa) and his deputy, which

permeated the entire department. There was no formal mechanism to assess

coaching performance. There was not a single performance review for Mr. Court

during his tenure at Maryland. The Athletics Departmentas compliance office

lacked a system to track complaints. As a result, warning signals about the football

program, including an anonymous email sent on December 9, 2016 (discussed in

Section IV) went overlooked.

The Commission feels there was also an insufficient level of in-person

oversight of the football program. This, specifically, pertains to former AD Kevin

6

Anderson and AD Damon Evans, both during Mr. Evansas time as Deputy

AD/Football Sports Administrator and his time as Interim AD. According to

official University calendars and multiple corroborated accounts, the Departmentas

oversight of the football program was sporadic and inadequate. In contrast, many

athletics directors at aPower 5a2 football schools told the Commission both they

and the sports administrator visit practices, weight room workouts, or both, at least

once a week, particularly in season.

3.

Mr. Court, on too many occasions, acted in a manner

inconsistent with the Universityas values and basic principles of

respect for others

We spoke with Mr. Court and his counsel on three separate occasions,

collectively spanning over six hours. We interviewed dozens of players he

coached and dozens of fellow coaches and staff. The Commission believes Mr.

Court did have the best interests of the players at heart. His work, along with

others on the staff, contributed to significant decreases in injuries sustained by

players during the 2016 and 2017 seasons, compared to the prior year. He was

diligent in monitoring whether players were attending class and required team

meals. He established close relationships with some players and went abeyond the

The term aPower 5a refers to the five athletic conferences in the NCAAas Division I

Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) that traditionally represent the highest level of collegiate

football in the United States. These five conferences are the Big Ten Conference, the

Southeastern Conference (SEC), the Big 12 Conference, the Pac-12 Conference, and the Atlantic

Coast Conference. Though the term is not officially defined or recognized by the NCAA, it is

commonly known and used throughout the country by fans and media members alike.

2

7

calla on a number of occasions, even arranging for extensive medical procedures

for a player suffering from an affliction developed during childhood. We heard a

mixed range of views from the players, who ranked the strength and conditioning

(aS&Ca) program as the strongest aspect of the football program in 2016, yet gave

Mr. Court very low marks in 2018.

There were many occasions when Mr. Court engaged in abusive conduct

during his tenure at Maryland, as we document. While some interviewees

dismissed this as a motivational tactic, there is a clear line Mr. Court regularly

crossed, when his words became aattackinga in nature. This included challenging

a playeras manhood and hurling homophobic slurs (which Mr. Court denies but

was recounted by many). Additionally, Mr. Court would attempt to humiliate

players in front of their teammates by throwing food, weights, and on one occasion

a trash can full of vomit, all behavior unacceptable by any reasonable standard.

These actions failed the student-athletes he claimed to serve.

4.

Both Mr. Durkin and leadership in the Athletics Department

share responsibility for the failure to supervise Mr. Court

There is considerable evidence, as described in Section IV, that there was a

lack of clarity in Mr. Courtas reporting lines. Mr. Durkin claims that it was not his

responsibility to supervise Mr. Court, but it was, by Mr. Durkinas own account, his

decision to hire Mr. Court as the strength coach. Mr. Durkin worked closely with

Mr. Court virtually every day, and Mr. Durkin delegated great authority to Mr.

8

Court. It is a head coachas responsibility to establish and maintain a healthy,

positive environment for his players, and to hire coaches and staff who support

these efforts. Therefore, he bears some responsibility when Mr. Court, the

Assistant AD for Football Performance, exhibits unacceptable behavior.

At the same time, we must acknowledge factors that likely played a role in

Mr. Durkinas failure to adequately address Mr. Courtas behavior. As a first-time

head coach, Mr. Durkin heavily modeled his program after coaches for whom he

previously workedamost notably, Urban Meyer and Jim Harbaughawho have

achieved great success as tough, no-nonsense leaders. Mr. Durkin was hired under

high-pressure circumstances and tasked with turning a struggling football program

into a Big Ten contender, with less funding and fan support than other conference

programs. The Athletics Department provided little education around, or support

to handle, the myriad administrative responsibilities of a head coach, tasks Mr.

Durkin had not been delegated in previous jobs as a coordinator or position coach.

The Athletics Department leadership shares responsibility for the failure to

supervise Mr. Court. The confusion over to whom Mr. Court reported is a striking

illustration of the Athletics Departmentas disarray. Mr. Courtas contract designated

the head football coach as Mr. Courtas direct report. Mr. Evans and Marylandas

current Deputy AD agree that Mr. Court was supervised by Mr. Durkin. Mr.

Anderson and Mr. Durkin, however, contend that Mr. Court reported to an

9

Associate AD, Dr. David Klossner. Dr. Klossner denies this, but also states he did

supervise the S&C coach during Randy Edsallas tenure as head coach. Mr. Court

was not certain to whom he reported. Organization charts reviewed by the

Commission were inconsistent regarding Mr. Courtas reporting lines. Mr. Court

was not subject to annual performance reviews, nor was there any other concrete

mechanism by which the Athletics Department made Mr. Court accountable to the

Universityas standards. This confusion diluted Mr. Courtas accountability.

5.

The University leadership bears some responsibility for the

ongoing dysfunction of the Athletics Department

For more than two years, the Athletics Department suffered from high

leadership turnover rates, dissension, and internal rivalries. The Presidentas Office

became involved in 2016 and engineered Mr. Andersonas removal, initially by

designating him for a six-month sabbatical in October 2017. Dr. Loh candidly

states that, in retrospect, he wished he had moved sooner to change leadership.

This period of uncertainty further exacerbated ongoing turmoil in the Athletics

Department.

We recognize it can be difficult to make leadership changes, and this often

involves a protracted process. Yet, Mr. Andersonas sabbatical led to an extended

absence of effective leadership, as Mr. Evans was not named AD until July 2,

2018, about nine months after Mr. Anderson took leave.

10

As discussed in Section IV, there was a schism in the Athletics Department.

The Athletics Department dysfunction was largely due to a chasm between Mr.

Anderson and Deputy AD Evans. There are competing views regarding the causes

of, and responsibility for, this division. What is clear is that this schism caused the

Athletics Department to operate at a suboptimal level for an extended period.

Based on NCAA Bylaw 6.1.1, two members of the Commission would

assign ultimate responsibility to the University leadership for the ongoing

dysfunction of the Athletics Department.3

6.

The Maryland football team did not have a atoxic culture,a but

it did have a culture where problems festered because too many

players feared speaking out

Toxic means aextremely harsh, malicious, or harmful.a4 By definition,

Marylandas football culture was not toxic.

There was no uniform rejection of Marylandas coaching staff, and no

uniform rejection of the treatment of players, by any of the groups of stakeholders

interviewed by this Commission. The lone, clear consistency was that Mr. Courtas

level of profanity was often excessive and personal in nature. In light of our

See NCAA Bylaw 6.1.1 (aA member institutionas president or chancellor has ultimate

responsibility and final authority for the conduct of the intercollegiate athletics program and the

actions of any board in control of that program.a).

4

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/toxic.

3

11

conclusion that Marylandas football culture was not atoxic,a we do not find that the

culture caused the tragic death of Jordan McNair.

If the culture had been amalicious or harmful,a Mr. Durkin would not have

earned the loyalty and respect of many of his student-athletes and coaches. Many

players interviewed by the Commission felt Mr. Durkinas and Mr. Courtas

coaching tactics reflected those of a abig time football program.a Players, parents,

and staff shared stories of generosity and commitment regarding Mr. Durkin and

his wife, Sarah. The mother of a former player recounted how her sonas employer

said Coach Durkinas job reference was the strongest he had ever heard. After more

than ten hours of interviews with Mr. Durkin, we believe his concern for his

playersa welfare is genuine.

Yet many players, parents, and coaches lodged complaints with the

Commission about both Mr. Durkin and Mr. Court. Frustrations were shared about

the intensity and length of practices and workouts, insufficient recovery time, and

the aforementioned issues with Mr. Court. While many acknowledged Mr. Durkin

is a fiery and effective motivator and communicator, they felt he could better

inspire players if he made a greater effort to listen to their concerns.

Mr. Durkin advertised an aopen doora policy, but many players and

assistants felt this did not extend to those whose opinions did not align with Mr.

Durkinas. Some coaches feared sharing criticisms about Mr. Court. They feared

12

retribution or dismissal of their concerns because of the closeness of Mr. Durkin

and Mr. Court. Some chose, instead, to leave the program. One former assistant

said a[w]hen youare at the mercy of leadership, you donat want to be at the mercy

of their mistakes . . . I needed to get out.a Several dissenting coaches explained

they prefer a more anurturinga approach with players. Others didnat mind atough

love,a but cited the need for counterbalance. aIf you get on a player for doing

something wrong,a one coach opined, ayou have to go back later . . . and put a

hand on his shoulder and let him know you care. I donat think DJ did that.a

For generations, the dynamic between coach and football player has been

akin to that of parent and child. Because the coach is the authority figure, the

player should respect the coach, follow the rules, and not complain. This appears

to reflect the general mindset of Marylandas players. Although Mr. Durkin created

a Leadership Council to, in part, serve as a pipeline to the head coach, players

rarely felt comfortable sharing concerns with him. Players also told the

Commission there was little benefit in approaching Mr. Durkin with frustrations,

particularly about Mr. Court, because they viewed Coaches Court and Durkin as

athe same person.a

13

7.

Maryland should institute a strong amedical modela for studentathlete care to improve health outcomes and ensure that the

University is a leader in collegiate sports medicine best

practices

To re-establish trust with the student-athletes and other constituencies it

serves, the University has no credible alternative but to become a leader in the

development and implementation of sports medicine best practices. We urge the

University to strongly consider the recommendations made in Section XI of this

report and the Walters, Inc. report of September 21, 2018, to accomplish that

objective.

8.

There is common ground to be found amongst all of the

Maryland constituencies we heard from, providing a basis for

moving forward together

While we heard both harsh criticism and high praise about Maryland

football, the players, parents, coaches, and staff were unanimous in their passion

for the program. All constituencies want the players to develop to be the best

athletes and students they can be. Many current players describe the team as a

close-knit unit, one committed to representing the University to the best of their

ability. With critics and supporters united in these objectives, the Commission

feels there is a strong climate for moving forward together.

D.

What We Recommend

The decision to commission an independent investigation provides an

important opportunity to identify deficits and address them. In this spirit, the

14

Commission provides recommendations to improve the operation and oversight of

the Maryland football program in three main areas. The first addresses the S&C

program. We believe that the head football coach should not supervise the S&C

coaches, nor have the ability to hire and fire these coaches. It is, however,

perfectly appropriate for the head football coach to have input into these decisions.

We have spoken with several college athletics directors who have incorporated this

practice. We have also recommended that the University adopt voluntary

standards to ensure effective and appropriate strength coaching.

Second, consistent with the Walters, Inc. report, we recommend that the

University employ an Independent Medical Care Model. This model is designed to

ensure that all student-athlete health decisions are made by properly trained health

care personnel, without interference or influence from coaching staff or the

Athletics Department.

Third, we offer a menu of suggestions to improve the accountability of the

Athletics Department. Most pertinently, the department must maintain a log of all

athletics-related complaints and catalog and monitor how those complaints are

addressed.

Just as reasonable minds disagreed about the quality and culture of the

Maryland football program, we recognize that some will disagree with our

15

conclusions. We acknowledge that debate about the program will continue after

the release of this report. This is inevitable; perhaps even healthy.

We hope, however, that this report will contribute meaningfully to the

difficult task that lies ahead. Much work needs to be done for Maryland football to

regain the trust it has lost with some, and to reunite the Maryland constituencies

that have become factionalized. Much work also needs to be done by the

University to enact reforms that will improve the operations of the Athletics

Department and football program. The adoption of the recommendations set forth

in this report would be a valuable first step towards those goals.

II.

The Scope and Methods of the Investigation

On August 14, 2018, President Wallace D. Loh announced the formation of

an independent commission (the aCommissiona) to investigate allegations reported

in the media of a atoxica culture within the UMD football program. At a press

conference held that day, President Loh stated that the charge of the Commission

was to areview . . . the practices and the culture of the football program:a5

[The independent Commission members] will interview students,

student athletes, parents, coaches, staff and other people who want to

come forward and provide a report thatas based upon the work done

by reporters and has been published. We take those reports very

seriously, but I think due process does require us to lay out the facts,

give people a chance to respond and then we will act. But this is not

going to take forever. This is going to be an expedited but yet very

5

See http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bs-md-umd-pressconference-transcript-20180814-story.html.

16

careful review with all the confidentialityaconfidentiality in terms of

allowing people to speak confidentially and candidly.6

On August 17, 2018, the University System of Maryland Board of Regents (the

aRegentsa or aBoarda) assumed oversight and control of the investigation. The

Board added five new members to the Commission on August 24, 2018, providing

a greater breadth of experience and insight.

The Regents gave us, the Commission, broad discretionary powers with

respect to the means and manner of carrying out this investigation. The Regents

assured the Commission that we would have the discretion to follow the evidence

wherever it led and pledged that the University would cooperate fully with the

investigation. The University, and in particular the Athletics Department, honored

that pledge.

The Regents agreed that the Commission could withhold information from

the Regents, such as the names of players and other individuals who spoke to the

Commission, in order to obtain relevant information in situations where witnesses

wished to share information anonymously. This decision by the Regents has

allowed us to hear from many who otherwise would have been hesitant to speak

and may not have spoken at all.

6

See http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bs-md-umd-pressconference-transcript-20180814-story.html.

17

The Commissionas investigation began two months after the tragic death of

Jordan McNair on June 13, 2018. He was hospitalized after a team workout

session on May 29, 2018. Within a week of Jordan McNairas death, the University

retained Walters, Inc., a sports medicine consulting group led by Dr. Rod Walters,

to evaluate the circumstances of the death. Mindful of this earlier independent

investigation, the results of which were submitted to the University on September

21, 2018, the Commission has not sought to re-investigate the events of May 29,

2018, and defers to the Walters, Inc. report with respect to its factual findings.

Information that we discovered that was relevant to the scope of work conducted

by Walters, Inc. was referred to Dr. Walters.

The Regents reviewed our report shortly before it was released. No material

changes were made to the report as a result of that review.

A.

The Independent Commissioners

President Loh and the Regents named eight commissioners to conduct the

investigation:

Frederick M. Azar, M.D., Chief of Staff at Campbell Clinic Orthopaedics

and Professor and Director of Sports Medicine Fellowship program at the

University of Tennessee-Campbell Clinic Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and

Biomedical Engineering.

18

Bonnie Lynn Bernstein, a sports journalist and a University of Maryland,

College Park alumna, where she was an Academic All-American gymnast.

Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., a former Maryland governor and a former captain of

the Princeton University football team.

Hon. Benson Everett Legg, a retired former Chief Judge of the United

States District Court for the District of Maryland and a former member of the

Princeton University lacrosse team, who currently serves as a neutral mediator and

arbitrator with JAMS, Inc.

Hon. C. Thomas McMillen, President and CEO of the Lead 1 Association

(which represents the athletics directors and programs of the Football Bowl

Subdivision), a former U.S. Congressman, and University of Maryland, College

Park alumnus, where he was an All-American and Academic All-American

basketball player.

Charles P. Scheeler, a DLA Piper LLP (US) lawyer and former federal

prosecutor. He served as lead counsel during Senator George Mitchellas

investigation of steroids use in Major League Baseball, and as Monitor of Penn

State University following the indictments of Jerry Sandusky and other former

Penn State officials.

19

Hon. Alexander Williams, Jr., a retired former Judge of the U.S. District

Court of Maryland, and is currently senior counsel at Silverman, Thompson,

Slutkin & White LLC.

Douglas Lee Williams, Senior Vice President of Player Personnel for the

Washington Redskins, the first African-American to start at quarterback in a Super

Bowl (he was the MVP of the game), and former head football coach at Morehouse

College and Grambling State University.

The Commission was assisted by attorneys Harry Rudo, Darryl Tarver, Neill

Thupari (all of DLA Piper LLP (US)), Jamie Lee (of Silverman, Thompson,

Slutkin & White LLC), and Matthew Legg. DLA Piper Partner Thiru Vignarajah,

a former Deputy Attorney General of Maryland, was instrumental in the drafting of

this report.

B.

Interviews

The Commission decided at the outset that the best way to assess the

Maryland football program was to speak with as many people as we could who

were familiar with the program. We started with the aconsumersa of the football

program: student-athletes who are playing currently or played during the 2016 and

2017 football seasons, along with the parents of current students.

We obtained a database including every student-athlete who played at

Maryland for Mr. Durkin, along with their email addresses and cell phone

20

numbers. There are over 200 players on this list. The Commission reached out

individually by email and cell phone to every current and former player. We also

hand-delivered our contact information to every current player. We repeatedly

assured current and former players that we would preserve their anonymity if they

preferred to speak without attribution. We established offices on campus, away

from the football complex, for interviews. On two occasions (August 24, 2018,

and September 9, 2018), a Commission member also addressed the full team at

Gossett, thanking the players for their cooperation and offering those who had not

yet come forward the opportunity to speak with us confidentially.

Maryland football held a parentsa weekend and intra-team scrimmage on

Saturday, August 18, 2018. We worked with the football parentsa liaison group to

invite all parents to speak with us. The Athletics Department also sent a

memorandum to all parents inviting them to speak with us. We had six

Commission members and staff lawyers available for in-person meetings, and we

completed nine interviews of parents that day. For parents living far from campus,

or who could not make the weekendas events, the Commission subsequently

conducted phone and video interviews.7

7

On September 30, 2018, the Washington Post published an article containing allegations by

Kimberly Daniels, the mother of Elijah and Elisha Daniels, twins who had played at Maryland.

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/motivation-or-abuse-maryland-confrontsfootballs-fine-line-as-new-allegations-emerge/2018/09/30/e7ab028e-c3dd-11e8-b338a3289f6cb742_story.html?utm_term=.043c5f6b2975. Ms. Daniels advised the Washington Post

that she lacked faith in this investigation because the Commission had not contacted her or her

21

On October 4, 2018, the Athletics Department held a meeting for parents of

football players. A Commission member attended that meeting to listen to the

parentsa perspectives. Parents who could not attend were invited to participate by

phone.

Maryland made available for interview every member of the University with

whom we asked to speak. This included every member of the football coaching

and S&C staffs, the leadership and staff of the Athletics Department, athletic

trainers and medical personnel, and other representatives of the University of

Maryland ranging from student interns to the President of UMD.

We met with the Maryland personnel who were placed on leave on August

10 and 11, 2018, including Head Football Athletic Trainer Wes Robinson,

Assistant ADaDirector of Athletic Training Steve Nordwall, Assistant AD for

Football Sports Performance/Strength Coach Rick Court, and Head Football Coach

DJ Durkin. We interviewed Mr. Court and Mr. Durkin three times each. All told,

we spent over ten hours interviewing Mr. Durkin, and over six hours interviewing

sons. In fact, the Commission attempted to contact Ms. Daniels and her sons the very first day of

this investigation. Commission member Charles Scheeler sent an email, dated August 15, 2018,

to Roderick Vereen, an attorney representing Ms. Daniels and her sons. Mr. Vereen had

previously instructed the University that all efforts to communicate with his clients should be

made through him. (It is a violation of legal ethics rules to contact a person directly who is

represented by a lawyer). Mr. Scheeler invited the former players to speak confidentially with

the Commission about their experiences. Mr. Vereen did not respond to the email. After the

Washington Post article was published on September 30, we made several more attempts to

contact Ms. Daniels through her attorney, by both phone and email. Mr. Vereen never

responded.

22

Mr. Court. We interviewed Randy Edsall, who was the Maryland football teamas

head coach from 2011 to 2015. We also interviewed many former Maryland

assistant football coaches and Athletics Department administrators, including

former AD Kevin Anderson.

In addition, we utilized an online, anonymous survey to obtain feedback

from the 2018 Maryland football team. This survey was conducted by

RealRecruit, Inc., which shared the results with the Commission, but did not

provide any information that would allow us to identify responses from particular

players. This survey tool did, however, allow us to follow up with players

regarding information they shared in the survey, but without enabling the

Commission to know the names of the players involved. We made use of this

feature. Ninety-four players out of the 112 players on Marylandas roster

participated in this survey, providing more than 1,600 comments.

Finally, we consulted with a number of people outside the University

community. These included high school coaches from a number of schools whose

alumni have played football at Maryland recently, athletics directors and officials

at other aPower 5 Conference schools,a and counsel for Jordan McNairas family.

We also spoke with many individuals who reached out to us to share their opinions

and impressions.

23

All told, we spoke with 165 people. We had multiple interviews of many

key participants. The breakdown of interviews is as follows:

i* Student-athletes who played football at UMD under Mr. Durkin: 55

i* Parents of players: 24

i* Current and former Athletics Department staff, including coaches: 60

i* University Officials not in the Athletics Department: 12

i* Other people with college football expertise, and miscellaneous

individuals: 14

The Maryland Athletics Department had previously conducted surveys of

the football team following the 2016 and 2017 football seasons. We analyzed the

responses of 48 players from the 2016 season and 20 players from the 2017 season.

Neither the breadth and depth of the factual basis of this report, nor our

confidence in our findings and recommendations, would be possible without the

voluntary cooperation of the individuals who spoke with us. The Commission is

grateful to those individuals who collectively shared hundreds of hours of their

time so that our report would include their perspectives. But, in our view, they

shared a common goal to give us their honest assessment of the University and its

football program.

24

C.

Documents

Because the Commission holds no subpoena power, we could neither

compel the production of documents, nor require individuals to meet with us. We

made dozens of requests to the Athletics Department, the University

Administration, and various individuals. We received thousands of pages of text

messages, emails, and other documents in response.

We obtained documents from a variety of third-parties and public sources,

including documents that were provided by those whom we interviewed. We

reviewed many newspaper articles and comments posted on social media

platforms. Specific documents are quoted throughout this report, and key

additional documents are contained in the Appendices. Some documents were

provided on the condition and with the understanding that they would not be

shared publicly, which we have respected.

It would be impossible for the Commission to obtain every relevant fact or

to investigate every rumor or allegation. Nevertheless, from the dozens of voices

we heard and the hundreds of documents we reviewed, we gained detailed,

nuanced, and thoughtful perspective on the University of Maryland football

program. We are confident that the Commission garnered sufficient information

for us to write a credible and informative report that accurately assesses the

football program and its culture. This information, we believe, also allows us to

25

make recommendations on how to improve that program for the benefit of the

student-athletes who represent Maryland on the football field. It is to the players,

present and future, to whom we dedicate our work.

III.

Introduction

Maryland is one of our nationas oldest land grant academic institutions; its

forerunner, the Maryland Agricultural College, was chartered in 1856.8 The State

of Maryland took full control of the college in 1916, which was renamed the

University of Maryland in 1920.9 It has long served as one of the nationas leading

state universities, and its faculty has included three Nobel Prize winners.

Football has long played a central role in University life; the first football

team took the field in 1892.10 Maryland currently fields 11 intercollegiate

womenas teams and eight intercollegiate menas teams in addition to supporting

numerous club sports teams. Of these, the leading revenue-generating sport is

football.

In the ninety-eight seasons of University of Maryland football, the team has

played in three conferences: the Southern Conference, the Atlantic Coast

Conference, and, since 2014, the Big Ten Conference.11 Twenty-one different

8

See https://www.umd.edu/history-and-mission/timeline.

See https://www.umd.edu/history-and-mission/timeline.

10

See https://static.umterps.com/custompages/pdf/football/fbrecordbook.pdf.

11

See https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/maryland/index.html.

9

26

head coaches have led the University of Maryland football team since 1917,12 and

the team won the National Championship in 1953.13

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (aNCAAa) was established to

amaintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program

and the athlete as an integral part of the student body.a14 Maryland is a Division I

member institution of the NCAA. This division includes the most competitive

football programs in college athletics.

Division I member institutions, like Maryland, are governed by

commitments to various principles, such as institutional control and compliance,

student-athlete well-being, and sound academic standards.15 Moreover, they are

obligated to apply and enforce NCAA a[l]egislation governing the conduct of

intercollegiate athletics programs . . . .a16

Consistent with the objectives of the NCAA and Big Ten Conference, the

UMD Athletics Mission Statement sets forth the goals of the Athletics Department:

We educate, develop, and serve student-athletes through a culture of

academic and athletic excellence.

12

See https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/maryland/coaches.html.

See https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championshiphistory.

14

2017a18 NCAA Division I Manual at 1.

15

2017a18 NCAA Division I Manual at 12.

16

2017a18 NCAA Division I Manual at 1.

13

27

Our vision is to be the best intercollegiate athletics program while

producing graduates who are prepared to serve as leaders in the local,

state, and global communities.17

IV.

Factual Background

Our charge was to investigate the culture of the Maryland football program

under Coach Durkin. We endeavored to stay within the bounds of this mandate.

During our investigation, however, it became evident that during this time period,

there was significant dysfunction in the management of the Athletics Department,

which compromised that departmentas abilities to support and oversee the football

program. This context is important to understand the shortcomings in the

operations of the football program that we found. Accordingly, we begin with the

hiring of Kevin Anderson, who served as AD until October 2017, when he was

placed on sabbatical.

A.

Kevin Anderson becomes Athletics Director

On October 10, 2010, Kevin Anderson was named AD, succeeding Debbie

Yow. Mr. Anderson came from the United States Military Academy, where he

was AD from 2004 to 2010.18 Following the 2010 season, UMD bought out head

17

See https://umterps.com/news/2016/4/5/209289861.aspx.

See http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/21021467/maryland-now-says-athleticdirector-kevin-anderson-not-leave.

18

28

football coach Ralph Friedgenas contract and hired Randy Edsall, formerly the

head football coach at the University of Connecticut.19

Mr. Andersonas relationship with President Loh was never strong.

According to Mr. Anderson, the relationship began to deteriorate in late 2011,

when the University eliminated eight intercollegiate sports due to budgetary

constraints.20 Both recognized the financial difficulties confronting the Athletics

Department facing the University, but differed as to the best course to address the

problem.

Mr. Andersonas tenure as AD was marked by a high rate of turnover within

the department. Mr. Anderson initially replaced four members of a six-person

Athletics Executive Team (excluding Mr. Anderson himself). By the end of the

2011a12 academic year, he had installed his own executive team of eight

administrators. Over the next five years, the Executive Team ranged between five

and eight people (excluding Mr. Anderson himself). Fourteen executives exited

the team during that period (a 200% turnover rate). These changes included four

development directors in a five-year period. In contrast, during Ms. Yowas last

five years as the Maryland AD, five people departed from the Athletics

Department executive team, a more typical turnover rate.

19

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010202231.html.

20

See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/22/maryland-will-cut-eight-teamsmitigate-athletic-budget-deficit.

29

Several current and former staff members attribute the high turnover rate to

Mr. Andersonas practice of afreezing outa staff in whom he had lost confidence.

According to several staff members, Mr. Anderson would stop inviting the person

to meetings, even those relating to the personas duties, and his communications

with the person would decrease dramatically. His conduct was described by two

interviewees as apassive aggressive.a As a result, while those who were afrozen

outa technically still carried their titles, in practice they were no longer provided

the access and information they needed to do their jobs. These individuals

naturally sought employment elsewhere, whether inside or outside UMD.

Mr. Anderson, however, points out that most personnel who departed left for

jobs with greater responsibility.21 He also contends that his successor, Mr. Evans,

drove out at least one executive team member.22

Mr. Anderson hired Damon Evans as Senior Associate AD on December 1,

2014. Mr. Evans had served as AD at the University of Georgia from 2004 until

21

Specifically, Mr. Anderson recalled that former Deputy AD Nathan Pine is now the AD at

College of the Holy Cross, former Senior Associate AD Randy Eaton is now the AD at Western

Carolina University, former Senior Associate AD Tim McMurray is now the AD at Texas A&M

University a Commerce, former Deputy AD Joe Foley is now the Senior Associate AD at The

Pennsylvania State University, and former Associate AD J Batt is now a Senior Associate AD at

the University of Alabama.

22

We interviewed that former team member. That individual corroborated Mr. Andersonas

account as to his/her departure. A current staff member indicated, however, that the former team

member, at the time immediately prior to his/her departure, complained of having been frozen

out by Mr. Anderson. Another current staff member advised that the individual who departed

had, in fact, been frozen out by Mr. Anderson pursuant to the then-proposed organizational

matrix.

30

2010.23 Mr. Evans resigned from his post at Georgia in 2010, after an arrest on a

DUI charge.24 Prior to Mr. Evansas hiring, President Loh called the President of

the University of Georgia, Michael Adams. President Adams stated that Mr. Evans

had accepted complete responsibility for his misconduct and resigned without a

request from President Adams that he do so. According to President Loh,

President Adams said that he would hire Mr. Evans again if he had the opportunity.

Mr. Anderson conducted substantial due diligence before giving Mr. Evans a

second chance. Specifically, Mr. Anderson consulted with President Adams,

Vince Dooley, former Head Coach and AD at the University of Georgia, and Joe

Castiglione, AD at the University of Oklahoma, who worked with Mr. Evans at the

University of Missouri. Each of these individuals endorsed the hiring of Mr.

Evans. Prior to joining UMD, Mr. Evans had also been working as a consultant for

two senior Athletics staff members on efforts to improve Maryland football ticket

sales. Both Athletics Department staff members were impressed by Mr. Evans and

his work, and conveyed their thoughts to Mr. Anderson.

Initially, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Evans worked well together. But as the

2015a16 academic year drew to a close, several individuals in the Athletics

Department observed a deterioration in the relationship between the two men.

23

See https://umdrightnow.umd.edu/news/university-maryland-names-damon-evans-athleticdirector.

24

See https://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/georgia-athletic-director-damonevans-resigns-after-dui-arrest-070510.

31

During that school year, five of the seven members of Mr. Andersonas executive

team left their posts.

In 2016, Jewel Washington, Assistant Vice President and Chief of the

University Human Resources Department (aUHRa), and Michele Eastman, Chief

of Staff to President Loh, as well as Dr. Loh himself, attempted to address the

management problems within the Athletics Department. Mr. Anderson advised

Ms. Washington of his view that Mr. Evans was trying to undermine Mr. Anderson

and take his job. Mr. Anderson states that he later learned that Mr. Evans was

periodically going over his head and outside the chain of command by bypassing

him and speaking directly to President Loh about athletics matters, including the

renegotiating of Mr. Andersonas contract.25 Once Mr. Anderson discovered this,

he instructed Mr. Evans not to meet with Dr. Loh.

Both Mr. Evans and Dr. Loh deny these meetings took place. Instead, Mr.

Evans reports that he would have occasional meetings with Dr. Loh regarding

general athletics matters, such as the renovation of Cole Field House. Mr. Evansas

calendars reflect nine meetings that included Dr. Loh in 2016 (one of which may

Mr. Evansas calendar also disclosed 24 meetings between January 1, 2016, and October 1,

2017. Mr. Evans became Acting Athletics Director in fall 2017. Mr. Anderson says he was not

aware of these meetings between the Chief of Staff and Mr. Evans, and viewed this as

insubordination when we advised him of this. Mr. Evans and Ms. Eastman describe this as

normal interactions between the seconds-in-command of the Athletics Department and

Presidentas Office.

25

32

have been one-on-one), and six in 2017 through the middle of October (when Mr.

Evans became the Acting AD), none of which were one-on-one meetings.

On several occasions, Mr. Evans advised the Presidentas Chief of Staff,

Michele Eastman, that he had no ambitions to oust Mr. Anderson; indeed, he

remained grateful that Mr. Anderson had given him a second chance when no one

else was willing to do so. Ms. Eastman believed that Mr. Evans was genuine in

these remarks.

Ms. Eastman reached out to other Athletics Department members to get a

better sense of how the department was functioning. She was told that Mr.

Anderson was advising people to abypass University proceduresa and that staffers

were leaving because of Mr. Andersonas management style. The Presidentas

Office considered retaining an executive coach to advise Mr. Anderson but

ultimately did not do so.

President Loh met with Mr. Anderson regularly. On occasion, Dr. Loh tried

to convince Mr. Anderson that his job was not in jeopardy. Nevertheless, morale

within the Athletics Department continued to deteriorate. A long-serving and

highly-regarded UMD head coach reported that Mr. Anderson had frozen him/her

out as well. The coach attributed this to his/her having served on the AD search

committee in 2010 and not selecting Mr. Anderson as his/her first choice. He/she

33

reported that he/she had been unable to get Mr. Anderson to speak with him/her for

over a year.

On May 19, 2017, Mr. Anderson sent a memorandum to President Loh

proposing a anew integrated program in Sports Medicine . . . [to] be launched on

July 1, 2017.a Associate AD for Sports Performance David Klossner had worked

extensively on this project and was a principal author of the memorandum

(working with Dr. Andrew Pollak, the University of Maryland Medical System

Chair of Orthopaedics, and others). Dr. Klossner reported to Mr. Evans, but Mr.

Evans claims he did not learn of the memorandum until he was asked about it by

President Lohas Chief of Staff. By that time, however, Mr. Anderson had

effectively afrozen outa Mr. Evans as well. A key feature of the plan was to ensure

trainer independence: aalthough daily roles and responsibilities of the athletic

trainers will remain unchanged, supervision and clinical medical care will be

independent of any influence of the UMD Athletics Department.a

The Presidentas Office responded to the proposal with questions about costs,

whether the athletics trainers had been consulted (they had not), whether some

employees would be transferred from one UMD entity to another entity (they

would, which raised questions about the employees possibly losing seniority and

potential accrued benefits), and whether UMD would lose the authority to hire and

34

fire trainers (they would). Ultimately, President Lohas Chief of Staff advised Dr.

Klossner:

Iad like to meet about this . . . . I donat understand why this is

necessary, and realized this when I could not explain it well enough to

Dr. Loh for him to understand. In addition, I worry it will cost more

in the long run, and that we are ceding hiring and firing of UMD

employees to another institution.26

During this same time period, Mr. Anderson stripped Mr. Evans of many of

the latteras responsibilities, further fueling tensions. Mr. Evans recalls that Mr.

Anderson told him about his reduced authority while they were golfing with a

donor. Mr. Anderson alleged in an email to Dr. Loh that he was being undermined

by his staff:

I am . . . very concerned about anonymous allegations that have been

directed against me by Department of Athletics staff. These

allegations are quite serious and reflect quite negatively on both my

personal and professional reputations. . . .

I am now strongly considering seeking legal representation to respond

on my behalf. I take my responsibilities quite seriously and am

concerned that these allegations were calculated to undermine my

authority as the Director of Athletics.

Please advise me as when you would like to meet to continue our

discussions about the administrative structure in the Athletics

Department.

Ultimately, the Presidentas Office declined the proposal because it did not want to

surrender authority for hiring and firing of staff to another institution, but acknowledged that it

might make sense to revisit the proposal once the new sports medicine facility was operating in

the renovated Cole Field House.

26

35

That summer, President Loh invited both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Evans to his

home. There, President Loh instructed them to develop position descriptions

(aPDsa) for both of their jobs and to share these PDs with the Athletics staff.

These PDs would clarify the scope of the two leadersa activities, so as to avoid

aturf battlesa and inform the staff as to which leader should be consulted for a

given issue. Essentially, Mr. Anderson would serve in an external role, dealing

with alumni and the Big Ten Conference, and effectively act as CEO of the

department. Mr. Evans would assume a COO-like role, overseeing internal

operations.

According to Dr. Loh, Mr. Anderson initially ignored the order to circulate

the PDs to his executive team. President Loh considered this refusal to be

ainsubordination,a and he again instructed Mr. Anderson to share the PDs with his

team. After meeting with Dr. Loh, Mr. Evans recalls developing the first draft of

the PDs, which were then revised by Mr. Anderson and circulated to his executive

team.

Meanwhile, the Athletics Department was saddled with other management

challenges relevant to football. Cynthia Edmunds, who served as University

ombudsman and as an assistant to President Loh, was enlisted in early 2016 to

mediate disputes between members of the football training staff. Ms. Edmunds

found discord between the head trainer, Steve Nordwall, and the trainers he

36

supervised, as well as tension between Mr. Nordwall and his supervisor, Dr.

Klossner. Dr. Klossner concluded from these discussions that he should no longer

supervise the trainers, and accordingly he stopped doing so. Ms. Edmunds,

however, states that Dr. Klossner was merely advised to supervise Mr. Nordwall,

Dr. Klossneras direct report, and let Mr. Nordwall supervise his subordinates. This

left Mr. Nordwall effectively unsupervised for an extended duration.

Mr. Anderson states that he developed a plan for decisively addressing the

antagonism amongst the trainers, but he was informed by UHR that his plan would

not be implemented. He adds that he also developed a program for evaluating

athletics coaches and shared with us the forms that were created. See Appendices

1 and 2 (Head Coach and Assistant Coach Performance Evaluation Forms).27 Mr.

Anderson maintains that UHR prevented this initiative from moving forward.28

Overall, rather than working as a cohesive unit to ensure the health and well-being

of the student-athletes under their care, members of the Athletics Department

consistently failed to communicate with one another, as some staff members were

preoccupied with their own internal dysfunction.

Ms. Edmunds departed from the situation as UHR personnel became

involved. She described the operation of the Athletics Department during this

27

The University treated coaches like tenured professors, meaning that they were not subject

to annual performance reviews.

28

Mr. Anderson provided us with a statement about his tenure at UMD, which is included as

Appendix 3.

37

period as achaos and confusion.a Her assessment was echoed by others, including

a former coach who complained of press leaks designed to undermine certain

personnel and a lack of trust in the Athletics Department. The coach compared the

dysfunction to aWashington [politics].a

UMD conducted Gallup employment engagement surveys during this

period, which confirmed the turmoil in the Athletics Department. In early 2016,

the Athletics staff responded to the first Gallup survey, and the engagement results

compared favorably with campus-wide averages. In a second survey, conducted

18 months later, the Athletics Department engagement results decreased

dramatically, falling below campus-wide averages. Mr. Anderson scored in the

27th percentile (2016) and 29th percentile (2017) in employee engagement

compared to Gallup peer data among other colleges and universities.29 In contrast,

Mr. Evans was nationally rated in the 61st percentile (2016) and 73rd percentile

(2017) in employee engagement as assessed by his direct reports. This placed him

among the highest rated leaders in any UMD department.

B.

DJ Durkin is Hired as Head Football Coach

In the fall of 2015, Mr. Evans assumed supervisory duties over football,

relieving then-Deputy AD Kelly Mehrtens of her role. On October 11, 2015, Mr.

29

Mr. Anderson, as AD, was assessed by all members of his department.

38

Anderson announced Randy Edsallas dismissal as head coach.30 Mr. Anderson

states that Mr. Edsall was having a good year recruiting incoming freshmen for the

2016a17 season, and he wanted to provide Mr. Edsall an opportunity to finish the

season successfully. But Dr. Loh told Mr. Anderson that he was getting pressure

from important constituents to terminate Mr. Edsall immediately.

Dr. Loh vigorously denies that he raised the subject of Mr. Edsallas firing.

According to Dr. Loh, the firing was Mr. Andersonas idea. Mr. Evans concurs that

the idea originated with Mr. Anderson, and he says he was never aware that Dr.

Loh had any views on the issue. Offensive coordinator Mike Locksley served as

interim head coach for the remainder of the season.31

Mr. Anderson led the search for the new head football coach, which resulted

in two finalists. Mr. Anderson says that the entire search committee, including

himself, supported Mr. Durkin except for one member. Mr. Andersonas due

diligence regarding Mr. Durkin included speaking with Tyrone Willingham, Jim

Harbaugh, Jeremy Foley, Urban Meyer, Chris Kingston, former AD of Bowling

Green State University, and Michael Wilcox, a distinguished alumnus from

Bowling Green. All had worked with Mr. Durkin, and, according to Mr.

Anderson, all strongly endorsed Mr. Durkin.

30

31

https://umterps.com/news/2015/10/11/210413491.aspx.

https://umterps.com/news/2015/10/11/210413491.aspx.

39

Mr. Anderson recalls being particularly impressed when he interviewed Mr.

Durkin and his wife, Sarah, at Mr. Durkinas home. It was clear to Mr. Anderson

that the Durkins were a ateam,a with Sarah as invested in the development of

student-athletes as her husband. In Mr. Andersonas experience, that quality in a

marital relationship is often a strong indicator of a successful college coach.

Dr. Loh interviewed the finalists and also supported Mr. Durkin. Dr. Loh

and Mr. Durkin agree that, aside from that meeting, they did not have a personal

relationship.

On December 2, 2015, Mr. Durkin was announced as the new head coach of

the UMD Football Team.32 Mr. Durkin had previously served as an assistant coach

of several successful football programs.33 He was 37 years old and had never

served as a head coach before.34

Mr. Durkin reported to Mr. Evans, as his sport supervisor, but also had a

direct relationship with Mr. Anderson. This is not unusual; at many schools, the

AD has the closest relationship with the football coach.

Mr. Durkin states that he received no orientation or help with the

responsibilities of being a first-time head coach: managing a staff, ensuring

32

https://umterps.com/news/2015/12/2/210551572.aspx.

https://umterps.com/news/2015/12/2/210551572.aspx.

34

On November 22, 2014, Mr. Durkin served as head coach of the University of Florida

football team for one game after the previous head coach announced that he was resigning. See

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/11921415/dj-durkin-coach-florida-gators-bowlgame.

33

40

compliance with NCAA rules and University policies, hiring staff, and obtaining

equipment. He found the Maryland bureaucracy to be more challenging than what

he had experienced at other schools.

In this respect, as part of our investigation, we requested and received

numerous organizational charts from UMD, including those focusing on football

and those describing the Athletics Department as a whole. See Appendices 4 and

5, Football Organizational Charts from 2017 and 2018, respectively. These charts,

while helpful in conducting our interviews, were frequently described by those

identified therein as not being accurate representations of how reporting actually

functioned. Moreover, apart from a amatrix,a we learned that the Athletics

Department did not have an organizational chart in place for several years. See

Appendix 6. We received a chart dated August 2018, which post-dated our

request. See Appendix 7.

Jewel Washington, the UHR Chief, described several deficiencies she

observed in Athletics.35 First, at her prior employer, she worked with the AD to

train head coaches on managing their staff. In the case of a first-time coach like

Mr. Durkin, training also included borrowing from best practices derived from the

NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, and other sources, as well as learning how to

35

The Athletics Department had a dedicated human resources professional, but she did not

report to UHR. According to the UHR Chief, this made it difficult to bring the Athletics

Department in line with best practices to ensure that its members were held accountable to

performing their assigned duties.

41

follow UMD processes. Second, Ms. Washington would establish a performance

management system to evaluate the members of the athletics department, including

coaching staffs.

None of this happened, however, upon Mr. Durkinas arrival.36 According to

Ms. Washington: a[h]ere [in Maryland athletics], there is no structure. That is not

normal.a

Mr. Anderson, on the other hand, recalls spending considerable time

overseeing the football program. He says that once or twice a week, he either

observed practices, joined the team for meals, or attended football team events. He

also says he met with Mr. Durkin weekly to provide mentoring and address issues.

Mr. Anderson also recalls that, on at least three separate occasions, he had

prominent speakers come to address the players and coaching staff about

establishing the right culture around the football program. Mr. Anderson believes

that both Mr. Durkin and Mr. Court attended at least two of the presentations.

Mr. Evans states that he also visited the football team or staff about one to

two times per week. He says he would typically visit for 20 to 30 minutes to try to

establish relationships. Mr. Evans says that four departing assistant coaches came

According to Dr. Loh, it was Mr. Andersonas responsibility to ensure that new head

coaches received appropriate orientation and training.

36

42

to share their experiences with him, without Mr. Evans asking, which shows the

types of relationships he forged.

Mr. Durkin recalls events differently. He insists there was no consistent or

regular oversight by Mr. Anderson or Mr. Evans. Mr. Durkin does not recall Mr.

Anderson being around on a consistent basis even as frequently as once a week.37

Mr. Durkinas recollection is that Mr. Anderson occasionally went to practice,

stayed for 20 to 30 minutes, sometimes with Mr. Evans, and then left. Mr. Durkin

would then see Mr. Anderson again at practice a few weeks later, for the same

amount of time. Mr. Durkin also does not recall Mr. Anderson being at many

meals, other than Friday team meals before road games, which Mr. Anderson

attended because he was traveling with the team.

We examined the calendars of Mr. Anderson, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Durkin,

which all support Mr. Durkinas recollection. The calendars note a aweekly

meetinga from time to time, but these did not occur weekly. The contacts between

Mr. Durkin and either Mr. Anderson or Mr. Evans were sporadic according to the

calendars.38 Mr. Evans adds that his visits were not always planned, and thus not

always calendared.

37

According to Mr. Durkin, the frequency with which Mr. Evans observed the football

program was similar in nature to Mr. Andersonas habits, and Mr. Anderson and Mr. Evans often

visited together.

38

Mr. Andersonas and Mr. Durkinas calendars reflect that they met 15 times in 2016 and

three times in 2017 per Mr. Andersonas calendar, and eight times in 2016 and two times in 2017

per Mr. Durkinas calendar. Mr. Evansas and Mr. Durkinas calendars reflect that they met 14

43

Mr. Anderson also claimed that he instructed Mr. Evans, who supervised

football, to spend more time observing the program. When, according to Mr.

Anderson, Mr. Evans failed to do so, Mr. Anderson cited this shortcoming in Mr.

Evansas final performance review. We reviewed Mr. Evansas performance reviews

for 2016 and 2017 and did not see any such remarks.

Mr. Durkin arrived with ideas to make Marylandas program more

competitive with its Big Ten Conference rivals. He was successful in

implementing a new dietary program for the players, and there are now two

dieticians on staff. He also successfully worked with medical staff to create a new

policy for administration of pain medications to players, thereby minimizing the

risk of addiction.

Mr. Durkin was less successful with other initiatives. He states that he

repeatedly requested that a physician be assigned to cover every football practice,

and Mr. Anderson has confirmed that Mr. Durkin made this request. This is not

the custom at many schools, but some universities do provide this staffing for the

football team.39 Mr. Durkin asked for a psychologist dedicated solely to the

times in 2016, eight times in 2017, and seven times in 2018 per Mr. Evansas calendar, and one

time in 2016, one time in 2017, and seven times in 2018 per Mr. Durkinas calendar.

39

According to our Commission experts on this subject, Dr. Fred Azar and Doug Williams, it

is uncommon for a physician to be present for the entirety of every practice. Mr. Williams states

that the Washington Redskins have a physician on-site only on Wednesdays and game days. Dr.

Azar reports that a physician is on-site for scrimmages for the team he handles (the University of

Memphis). The presence of physicians at college football practices range from having someone

at every practice to no coverage at all. Many Division I universities have a physician attend at

44

football team. The University hired one, but Mr. Durkin was not satisfied because

the football team had to share the psychologist with all other intercollegiate teams,

and Mr. Durkin felt this would compromise her ability to adequately serve the

needs of all 110 football players. Mr. Durkin also tried to establish a group to look

into the schoolas marijuana testing policy, attempting to transform it from a

punitive to a therapeutic model.

In interviews with the Commission, Mr. Durkin expressed frustration with

the level of support, and the lack of communication, he received from Athletics.

He was particularly upset when UMD reorganized the doctors providing care to the

football players. Mr. Durkin felt that one physician, who had treated football

players for several years, was trusted by the players. This physician was removed

from her position without prior notice to, let alone input from, Mr. Durkin.

C.

Rick Court is DJ Durkinas First Hire; the Athletics Department

Changes the Reporting Structure for the Head Football Strength

Coach

Prior to Mr. Durkinas tenure, the Associate AD for Sports Performance, Dr.

Klossner, served as the direct supervisor of S&C coaches for all UMD

intercollegiate sports. It was unusual to have S&C coaches report to an Athletics

Department administrator in addition to their respective head coaches, but,

least some portion of practices. Some schools have a physician present at an on-campus student

health facility or a nearby training room where a physician is seeing non-football athletes.

45

according to a former administrator, Maryland was aahead of the curvea in that

regard. The reason for this supervisory structure was that S&C coaches were

vulnerable to the influences of their coaching staffs, whose competitive interests

might not always coincide with what medical and conditioning experts might think

was best for the players. An Associate AD could help shield S&C coaches from

these influences by being responsible for performance evaluations and hiring and

firing decisions.

Prior to the hiring of Dr. Klossner, UMD student-athletes across different

sports sustained a high number of ACL injuries.40 Dr. Klossneras initial duties

included modifying UMDas S&C programs to try to lower injury rates and enhance

student-athlete safety.

Coach Durkinas first hire was Rick Court, who served as the Assistant AD

for Football Performance, or in common parlance, Head Football S&C Coach.41

Mr. Anderson delegated authority to Mr. Durkin to make this hire.

Mr. Court and Mr. Durkin first met when they worked together on the

football staff at Bowling Green in 2005. Prior to coming to UMD, Mr. Court

worked at The Mississippi State University for Agriculture and Applied Science

(commonly known as Mississippi State University) as the Head S&C Coach for the

Injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament, more commonly known as the aACL,a are

frequently serious injuries, but they are unfortunately common in football.

41

See https://www.clarionledger.com/story/sports/college/mississippi-state/2015/12/07/msustrength-coach-headed-maryland/76926592/.

40

46

entire athletics program, with an emphasis on football.42 The Commission spoke

with Scott Stricklin, the former Mississippi State AD during Mr. Courtas tenure

there. Mr. Stricklin tells the Commission that he did not recall any employment or

misconduct issues with Mr. Court at Mississippi State.43 It should be noted that the

circumstances under which Mr. Court was hired at Mississippi State differed

greatly from those at Maryland. Mississippi Stateas head coach had already been

at the Mississippi State for five seasons, and he had engineered a resurgence

entailing several seasons in which the football team was ranked in the Top 25

nationally. Conversely, as one of the early hires during Mr. Durkinas tenure, Mr.

Court was tasked with helping Mr. Durkin craft a strategy for a middling program

that would enable them to compete in the Big Ten.

Mr. Durkin advised that he considered various factors before hiring Mr.

Court; in addition to his personal knowledge of Mr. Court, he had previously

spoken with three of Mr. Courtas prior supervisors: Mickey Marotti, Urban Meyer,

and Dan Mullen.44 Based on his conversations with all three, Mr. Durkin believed

that Mr. Court was highly qualified for the position that Mr. Durkin had in mind.

42

See https://www.cscca.org/members/mscc/member?id=757.

Mr. Stricklinas name is used with his consent.

44

Mr. Court coached with these individuals during their times with the following institutions.

Mickey Marotti was the head strength and conditioning coach at the University of Cincinnati

from 1990 to 1997. Urban Meyer was the head coach at Bowling Green from 2001 to 2002.

Dan Mullen was the head coach at Mississippi State from 2009 to 2017.

43

47

The dysfunction in the Athletics Department is illustrated by the confusion

over who supervised Mr. Court. Mr. Durkin advised us that he understood from

Mr. Anderson that Dr. Klossner was responsible for supervising Mr. Court.45 Mr.

Anderson agrees that Dr. Klossner was supervising Mr. Court.

But Mr. Courtas contract states that he reported directly to the head football

coach. Mr. Court and Mr. Anderson were the two signatories; neither knows who

put the clause into his contract establishing that Mr. Court reported to Mr. Durkin,

or why that clause was inserted.46

Both Mr. Evans and the Deputy AD are emphatic that Mr. Court reported to

Mr. Durkin, just as Mr. Courtas contract says. Dr. Klossner originally thought that

he was to supervise Mr. Court as he did the prior head strength coach, but stated in

an email in June 2016 that he understood he did not have such a responsibility.47

The football program organization chart displays Mr. Court reporting to Mr.

Durkin, although we were told that the chart represented lines of communication,

not supervision.

45

Mr. Durkin also claims that his contract states that he does not supervise strength and

conditioning coaches; we disagree with that interpretation.

46

Mr. Evans and Mr. Durkin state that they were not familiar with Mr. Courtas contract

clause stating that he reported to Mr. Durkin.

47

In June 2016 Dr. Klossner submitted his annual performance reviews for the football staff

he supervised. In his transmittal note to the human resources representative, he stated aI donat

think I have to do one for Rick Court.a

48

Mr. Court says it was never clear to him who his supervisor was, and that no

one gave him any performance reviews or assessments during his tenure. Thus,

there was no one in the Athletics Departmentaindeed, in the entire Universitya

who acknowledged it was their job to oversee Mr. Court and hold him accountable

to the Universityas standards. This was a departmental failure.

Mr. Durkin and Mr. Court proceeded to hire a football strength coach staff

without input from, or consultation with, Dr. Klossner. Mr. Durkin states that he

was granted authority from Mr. Anderson to do so, and Mr. Evans confirms that

Mr. Durkin was given a budget, but otherwise he had reasonable discretion to pick

these assistants.

1.

Warning signals about the football program

An Athletics Department administrator was approached by a football player

during the spring of 2016. The player stated that one of the S&C coaches used

language that made the player feel aless than human.a48 This administrator was

soon to leave Maryland. He/she told Mr. Evans about this incident. Mr. Evans

stated that he has no recollection of such a conversation.49

As Mr. Durkinas first season as head football coach was drawing to a close,

an anonymous email was delivered to Mr. Anderson, the UMD Presidentas public

48

We spoke to this former player. He confirmed that he had been subjected to abusive

language by one of the strength and conditioning coaches and that he had reported this to staff.

49

We did not advise Mr. Evans which athletics official brought this to Mr. Evansas attention,

given the staff memberas request to keep his/her name confidential.

49

email address, and others. It has been reported that this document was also

delivered as a letter to the Presidentas Office. That office has no record of such

receipt.

This December 9, 2016, email raised disturbing allegations about the

football program. It read in part:

One of Kevin Andersonas primary jobs is to look out for the physical

and mental welfare of his athletes. He is not doing his job and the fact

that he allows his coaches to psychologically, physically, and

emotionally abuse the athletes is paving the way for a multi-million

dollar civil lawsuit against the school and the coaches, alleging assault

and intentional infliction of emotional distress.50

The email made claims of mistreatment of athletes by Mr. Durkin and his

staff, and also alleged that the program was violating NCAA regulations by

exceeding practice time limits and requiring the players to sign false

documentation. It closed: aDURKIN SHOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE!

Immediately.a

The Presidentas public email is monitored by two staff employees. One

forwarded the anonymous email to Dr. Loh the following Monday afternoon with a

cover note: aPlease see the message below, which is unsigned, regarding alleged

abuse of student athletes. Would you like to send to Kevin Anderson directly to

discuss?a

50

December 9, 2016 email from fortheabused@gmail.com to president@umd.edu. This

email is included in Appendix 8.

50

That same evening, Dr. Loh directed that the anonymous email to Mr.

Anderson: aforward to KA on an FYI basis. He does no [sic] need to respond to

this anonymous email. Tx.a An email was sent by one of Dr. Lohas staff to Mr.

Anderson with a note: aSharing this message with you as an FYI. As the message

is anonymous, not [sic] response is needed. President Loh and Michele [Eastman,

Dr. Lohas Chief of Staff] also reviewed the message.a

The anonymous email was featured in a Washington Post article on

September 30, 2018.51 Prior to that time, we had interviewed Dr. Loh and his

Chief of Staff. Both stated that the Presidentas Office had not received any

football-related complaints during Mr. Durkinas tenure. The Chief of Staff advised

that the office had only received two athletics-related complaints during this time

period, and neither related to football.

We re-interviewed both Dr. Loh and his Chief of Staff. Both insist that they

had no memory whatsoever of the email, although they were certain that they

received it and commented upon it, given the paper trail. Even after reading the

email during his re-interview, Dr. Loh cannot remember the email, or if he had

aMotivation or abuse? Maryland confronts footballas fine line as new allegations emerge,a

Washington Post, September 30, 2018, available at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/motivation-or-abuse-maryland-confrontsfootballs-fine-line-as-new-allegations-emerge/2018/09/30/e7ab028e-c3dd-11e8-b338a3289f6cb742_story.html?utm_term=.043c5f6b2975.

51

51

even read it in 2016 (as opposed to just reading his assistantas covering note and

directing that the email be sent to Mr. Anderson).

The Chief of Staff described how the roughly 200 emails to Dr. Lohas public

inbox each day are typically handled. Two staffers review these emails and

forward emails that warrant responses to a cabinet member, the Dean, Dr. Loh, or

his staff. Anonymous emails typically do not receive responses. Emails that are

found to warrant a response or greater attention are separated out into electronic

folders, but there is no uniform follow-up mechanism. The December 9, 2016

email was placed in this electronic folder.52

Dr. Loh advises us that his typical protocol regarding complaints is to

forward the email to the appropriate Cabinet member (in this case, Mr. Anderson).

He does not recall any response from Mr. Anderson, which did not strike him as

unusual. Dr. Loh explains his ano need to responda instruction as relating solely to

fact that the University did not, as a matter of course, respond to anonymous

emails. Dr. Loh insists that ano need to responda did not equate to ano need to

investigate.a Rather, he expected Mr. Anderson to review and take whatever

action he felt was appropriate.

52

We reviewed the emails in this folder and did not see any other emails that raised

football-related concerns, except for an alleged student-athlete misconduct issue that was

publicly addressed.

52

Mr. Anderson recalls that he received the anonymous email. On December

9, 2016, Mr. Anderson forwarded the email to Damon Evans, Marcus Wilson, and

Zack Bolno, all Athletics Department staff, with the message, aWe need to talk

about this email.a

Mr. Anderson says that he asked whether these staff members had seen or

heard anything inappropriate. They all answered in the negative. He asked the

three members to be observant for any signs of inappropriate behavior, and they

uniformly responded that they would do so. Mr. Anderson recalls no one

subsequently advising him of any troubling observations. He is not aware of any

other Athletics Department actions in response to the anonymous allegations.

Mr. Evans does not recall any conversation with Mr. Anderson about the

email, and another staff member asserts that no such conversation occurred. Mr.

Wilson, who is no longer employed by UMD, declined to speak with us.

Mr. Anderson did not respond to Dr. Loh or the anonymous emailer, in

accordance with Dr. Lohas directive.53 Neither of them recall any conversations

about the email.

The anonymous email was also routed to the Athletics Department and

directed to an employee on the NCAA Compliance Staff. The employee

Mr. Andersonas and Dr. Lohas calendars do not reflect any meetings discussing this email;

there was a regular executive meeting when this email was not discussed, and there was a call

with Dr. Loh on Mr. Andersonas calendar, but Dr. Lohas calendar reveals a different meeting at

that time.

53

53

forwarded it to three other Athletics compliance officials, all on December 9.

Early in the investigation, we had asked the Athletics Department for all footballrelated complaints during Mr. Durkinas tenure. We also interviewed the two

Athletics compliance officials responsible for overseeing football and asked them

to identify all football-related complaints. We did not obtain the anonymous email

or any information about this complaint through any of these queries. Instead, we

learned of and received the email (including all threads in which the email had

been forwarded), the weekend before the Washington Post article was published.

In separate interviews conducted before September 30, Mr. Evans and the

two compliance officials all denied being aware of any football-related complaints

arising during Mr. Durkinas tenure, apart from complaints discussed elsewhere in

this report. As of his re-interview, Mr. Evans still has no recollection of the

anonymous email, but acknowledges he must have received it, given the document

trail.

We spoke to three individuals in the compliance department about the

December 9, 2016 complaint email. The staffer who received the email forwarded

it to his then-supervisor and the other members of the NCAA compliance staff.

All three compliance personnel tell us that they believe the email dealt

primarily with issues that were outside the purview of the compliance staff, and for

that reason it would be more appropriately addressed by the sport supervisor of

54

football (at that point, Mr. Evans). One of the few compliance-related allegations

was that Coach Durkin athwarts NCAA time limitsa and amakes the players sign

off on the required forms that would be audited by the NCAA.a54 The three

compliance personnel all say that, once they learned that Mr. Evans and other

senior staff were aware of the allegations in the email, they felt that they had no

additional responsibilities to act.

According to one individual from the NCAA compliance staff, there is no

standard process for addressing compliance complaints; it depends on the nature of

the complaint and the surrounding circumstances. There is no standard process for

documenting compliance complaints, either, and whether a complaint gets

documented is based on a ajudgment call.a The staffer states that generally, the

football program does not have a track record of compliance violations.

Furthermore, according to the staffer, it was unlikely that the football program ran

afoul of NCAA-imposed time limitations because of the way that time is counted.55

Another member of the compliance staff believes it to be unlikely that there

was a compliance violation given that both players and coaches signed off on time

sheets. The staffer had also attended several football practices and had not seen

anything that was of concern. As their supervisor was aware of the email, the

54

December 9, 2016 email (emphasis in original).

For example, a full day of competition only counts as three hours toward the

NCAA-imposed limit of 20 hours, even though student-athletes may spend several hours of the

day preparing for the game and participating in post-game team activities.

55

55

email appeared to complain more of culture-related issues than compliance-related

issues, and the compliance-related issue was believed unlikely to be an NCAA

violation, none of the compliance staff took any independent action to investigate

the allegations.

When the members of the compliance staff were asked about why they had

not shared the December 9, 2016, email with the Commission, each employee

stated (in effect) that the email had slipped their minds. None of them had taken

any action in response to the email (aside from verifying that their supervisor was

aware of it), and it was brought to their attention nearly two years ago.

In sum, it does not appear that the Athletics Department took any action of

consequence to investigate this email. This is problematic at many levels. The

email alleged violations of NCAA rules and serious misconduct that violated the

Universityas core principles. Mr. Durkin was never questioned or even made

aware of this email, a serious omission.

From all appearances, this anonymous memorandum simply aslipped

between the cracks.a This episode demonstrates an abject failure by the Athletics

Department, from the compliance staff to the AD, to perform its fundamental duty

of investigating complaints and ensuring the well-being of the student-athletes it

serves.

56

2.

A team survey lauds the football program and the strength and

conditioning program

In March 2017, the Athletics Department conducted an anonymous survey

of the football team.56 Forty-eight players took the survey.57 The survey data

identifies these players, but does not permit identification of an individual playeras

responses. Some of the players who spoke to ESPN in connection with its August

10, 2018, article took the survey.

The survey showed strong approval figures for the quality of coaching at the

head coach and assistant levels, as well as the quality of medical care provided.

Players responded on a 1 to 5 scale, with a1a signifying astrongly disagree,a and

a5a denoting astrongly agree.a The average scores for selected questions are:

i* The overall quality of the head coaching I received was

adequate and appropriate: 4.46

i* The overall quality of the assistant coaching I received was

adequate and appropriate: 4.46

NCAA Manual Article 6 Institutional Control states in part: aRule 6.3 Exit Interviews.

The institutionas director of athletics, senior woman administrator or designated representatives

(excluding coaching staff members) shall conduct exit interviews in each sport with a sample of

student-athletes (as determined by the institution) whose eligibility has expired. Interviews shall

include questions regarding the value of the studentsa athletics experiences, the extent of the

athletics time demands encountered by the student-athletes, proposed changes in intercollegiate

athletics and concerns related to the administration of the student-athletesa specific sports.

(Adopted: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/91, Revised: 8/7/14)a According to UMD NCAA compliance

staff, the NCAA permitted Maryland to satisfy this requirement through online surveys.

57

2016 survey data, attached as Appendix 9. The respondentsa names are redacted.

56

57

i* I was not subject to inappropriate physical contact, verbal

communication, or mental/emotional stress: 4.3758

i* My experience with the medical/training staff was positive and

met my needs: 4.1759

The playersa assessment of the strength coaches is of particular interest

given the current accusations. The players rated the strength coaches higher than

the head coach or the assistant coaches. Indeed, the strength coachesa score was

the highest score of any question posed in the survey:

i* My experience with the strength and coaching staff was a

positive and the staff met my teamas needs: 4.5960

The only comment regarding the S&C staff, apart from the rankings, was:

aFootball strength staff was the best hire ever!a

Mr. Evans stated that he reviewed these scores, and that it confirmed his

impression that Mr. Court was doing a good job. Mr. Evans said he observed the

players getting bigger, stronger, and fitter. These survey results seemed to match

Mr. Evansas impressions and observations.

The high scores for S&C coaching are also curious in that many players told

the Commission that Mr. Court was much tougher during the 2016 season, which

One player provided a astrongly disagreea answer, but his identity could not be ascertained

because of the anonymity of the survey. Four others provided a a3a or aneutrala response. The

other 41 players aAgreeda or aStrongly Agreeda with this question.

59

Two players aStrongly Disagreed,a and one player aDisagreeda with this question.

60

This average included one aStrongly Disagreeda response, 15 aAgreed,a and thirty

aStrongly Agreed.a

58

58

some viewed as a process of aweeding outa the players that Mr. Edsall recruited

who did not fit with Mr. Durkinas training methods. By 2017, some players

advised that they had adjusted to the new routine, and that Mr. Court was not as

consistently demeaning. Others said that over time they had learned to tune out

Mr. Courtas abusive language: a[h]eas called people names, you know. Itas a way

to motivate somebody. I donat think I saw a lot of personal attacks in front of the

team. Most of the team comments were positive.a

Athletics conducted another survey of the football team following the 20