LOGAN — A day after Utah State University announced the firing of its head football coach, Blake Anderson, less than 45 days before the beginning of the 2024 season, Anderson’s attorney gave a sneak peek on social media of what is in the 70-page response to Anderson’s termination.
The publicized portion of what will be referred to as the “response letter” includes only roughly three pages (though Mars promised that the “Full response to follow with attached exhibits, which include USU’s termination letter, investigation summary, court records, and witness statements”), but includes several key arguments made by Anderson and his representation in response to allegations made by Utah State in their full statement regarding the firing.
Anderson’s response letter begins by noting Utah State’s right to terminate the contract at any time provided the university pays out the remaining contract, a process commonly referred to as a buyout. According to the terms of Anderson’s contract, that amount is 75 percent of the pro-rated cumulative total of salary remaining on his contract at the time of firing. That full amount remaining on Anderson’s contract — not including any salary already paid for the current year of his contract which began on Jan. 1 — is $6 million. Not including any of the first six months of Anderson’s 2024 salary (a total of $1.425 million), the buyout for the remaining contract would be approximately $4.5 million.
The response letter continues by claiming USU is attempting to “manufacture grounds” to avoid paying the buyout using what it calls a “sham investigation” (the statement putting the word investigation in quotes). The response letter cited multiple cases of what it says are similar situations, including that of former Kansas football head coach David Beaty, who was fired in 2018 and later sued his former employer over failure to pay his $3 million buyout after Kansas supposedly opened an investigation into NCAA violations to avoid paying the amount due.
Utah State’s statement, originally published on July 2 and later updated this past Thursday, says the firing is based on “actions taken in spring 2023.” It also announced the firing of Deputy Athletic Director Jerry Bovee and Football Director of Player Development & Community Austin Albrecht. The final decision to fire Anderson, according to the statement is “based on significant violations of his contractual obligations related to USU’s employee reporting requirements.”
Utah State’s statement makes two specific claims of misconduct.
- Anderson violated a “prohibition on employees outside the USU Office of Equity from investigating issues of sexual misconduct, including domestic violence.”
- Anderson “failed to manage the team in a manner that reflects USU’s academic values.”
In bold, italicized and enlarged, all-caps type, the response letter claims “While not required to do so, Coach Anderson nonetheless complied with USU policies 339 and 340,” the sections of Utah State policy regarding sexual misconduct and reporting sexual misconduct. Whether this claim holds true depends on the nature of the incidents in question. The details of this incident in question have not been released to the public. However in April 2023, the time frame when the incident is said to have occurred, a USU football player was arrested for suspicion of domestic violence. That player left the team before the 2023 season.
If, as has been claimed by USU, the nature of the incident included sexual misconduct or domestic violence committed by an employee or student, Anderson would indeed have been required to report information he received or witnessed to the Title IX Coordinator. Per USU Policy 339.1, “Sexual Misconduct” is defined to include instances of “Dating Violence” and “Domestic Violence” and not just instances of sexual assault, sexual harassment etc. And per USU Policy 340, Anderson is a required reporting employee as “athletic department employees” are included in that group. The one exception for reporting employees is if they receive the information “outside of their employment duties where a privilege applies based on state law, federal law, or regulations.”
That point, however, is moot considering the claim from Anderson is that he reported the information anyway, fulfilling the obligations required of him.
“Coach Anderson made a complete, timely report to the Interim AD, who in turn made an appropriate, timely ‘group report’ to USU’s Equity Office,” the response letter says.
A statement released by Jerry Bovee, who was interim AD at the time of the incident in question and has also been fired from his position as deputy athletic director over the 2023 incident, backs up this claim from Anderson, saying “Bovee and two other USU employees did in fact report the incident to the USU Office of Equity.”
The specific allegation of Anderson supposedly conducting his own investigation was given an explanation by the response letter.
“Coach Anderson did not conduct his own ‘Title IX investigation’ before a report was made to the Equity Office,” the response letter says. “Instead, Coach Anderson had no knowledge that an arrest had occurred for several days, then spent just over a day attempting to find out what his player was arrested for and why to determine whether any report was required.”
The response letter also includes an anecdote claiming a text, intended for Utah State Athletic Director Diana Sabau that was informing her to sign the termination letter for Senior Woman Administrator Amy Crosbie, was unintentionally sent to Crosbie herself prior to her even being given notice regarding her termination, (which eventually occurred on July 8).
Utah State continues shake up of athletic department, terminating Senior Woman Administrator Amy Crosbie
In another section, the response letter claims Utah State gave Anderson and Bovee “inconsistent, contradictory statements about material findings in USU’s year-long investigation.”
Utah State’s updated statement from Thursday included a brief comment on the response filed by Anderson and his representatives.
“Anderson’s response failed to acknowledge his responsibilities as a USU employee and as a head coach and instead sought to make excuses and unsuccessfully recast the clear language of USU’s policies,” USU’s statement said.
