Explaining both sides of the dispute between Blake Anderson and Utah State | News

The purpose of this article is not to reveal anything new, rather to sort through the claims and arguments both sides have already made in the now publicly available documents. Here is a link to all relevant documents released publicly or obtained by Cache Valley Daily since the terminations were announced July 2 with some redactions to protect certain individuals’ identities. It also focuses primarily on Anderson’s story, not the potential grievances from Bovee, Crosbie or Albrecht.

So, let’s begin.

The incident which kicked off the whole investigation happened on April 5, 2023 around 11 p.m. and involved a football player who was on Utah State’s roster at the time. That player, who’s name is being withheld from this story along with the alleged victim, was arrested and booked into the Cache County Jail that night on suspicion of assault and domestic violence in front of a child, both class B misdemeanors. Cache Valley Daily has obtained a copy of the police report and followed the case through the courts, which is still ongoing. The charge of domestic violence in front of a child has been dismissed. The student-athlete entered a no contest plea in abeyance, meaning he is not admitting guilt, and if he abides by his probation the case could be completely dismissed near the end of this year. 

The arresting officer said he arrived at the location — which is not on USU’s campus — and reported he “found the victim with marks on her neck. When asked how she received the marks, I was told [the football player] was pulling on her hoodie which caused her to be chocked [sic]. One of the bruises on her neck matched that of the draw string from her hoodie.” The victim being the girlfriend of the football player.

The affidavit also includes witness testimony, claiming they heard “a female screaming ‘get off of me’ and ‘you are choking me,’” and then ran outside to see the football player “standing over the female victim, holding her down.” 

These details are not disputed by Anderson or Utah State. Whether the player is guilty of the alleged crimes is not the focus of the Husch Blackwell investigation nor eventual firing of Anderson, Bovee, Crosbie and Albrecht. 

The following are the main points of contention between the statements from USU, Husch Blackwell and Anderson’s legal representation:

• Whether the incident involved “sexual misconduct”
• Whether Anderson was required to report the incident to begin with
• Whether Anderson failed to report the incident consistent with Utah State’s policy
• Whether Anderson conducted his own investigation and withheld information he gained
• Whether Anderson failed in his duties to meet the academic standards of the university

Whether the incident involved sexual misconduct

Anderson’s statement took aim at Utah State’s characterization of the incident as having involved “sexual misconduct,” a term used in USU’s public statement, the Husch Blackwell investigation and in the termination notices sent to Anderson. He claims the use of this term is “the first in a string of false and misleading statements.”

In a colloquial sense, the incident did not involve sexual misconduct, the common definitions being that sexual misconduct involves sexual assault, sexual exploitation or sexual harassment. No sexual encounter of any kind was reported to have occurred by the player toward his girlfriend.

USU Policy 339.1, however, defines sexual misconduct as instances that include “dating violence” and “domestic violence.” Since the incident with the player involved violence between two individuals who were dating, it is classified as sexual misconduct, under USU policy.

Whether Anderson had to report

Anderson’s responsibility to report is disputed based essentially on the reading of one sentence found in USU Policy 339.2.2:

“This policy applies to Sexual Misconduct committed against any person by an Employee, Student, or third party when the incident occurs in an Employment or Education Program or Activity in the United States.”

The difference between the two views on this statement boil down to how USU Policy 339.2.2. is interpreted.

Utah State’s position, stated in a July 19 update to its original post regarding the termination of Anderson’s contract, is that the above policy “requires employees to report all sexual misconduct, including domestic violence, that would fall under either USU policy 339 or 339A. In short, employees are required to report all information they know about any sexual misconduct” (emphasis added by USU).

Anderson suggested reporting is only required if sexual misconduct is committed by an employee, a student, or a third party if such misconduct occurred in an Employment or Education Program or Activity in the United States. The definition of the Employment or Education Program or Activity in the United States is defined to include the following locations/settings in the United States:

• Buildings and locations owned by USU
• Events conducted by USU
• If it involved USU-owned computers or any of its internet networks or remote learning platforms
• An off-campus setting “in which the university has substantial control over both the respondent and the context in which the sexual misconduct occurs” which includes off-campus buildings owned or controlled by officially recognized student organizations

Anderson’s response went on at length to try to show the incident did not meet any of the above criteria and USU hasn’t fought back on that specific front.

Anderson’s interpretation of the policy is consistent with what the Husch Blackwell investigation reports, which said Anderson did not file a report “because he was not aware he needed to do so given that the altercation occurred off campus.” Anderson’s response directly quotes that portion of the investigation and comments on it by stating: “Ironically, Coach Anderson was right about that.”

Whether Anderson failed to report

Arguably the most important aspect of all the points in this battle is whether Anderson reported or not. And one thing that would go a long way toward vindicating Anderson is if the evidence shows he actually did make a report that meets the requirements of USU policy.

Those requirements include submitting an incident report to the Title IX Coordinator within 24 hours of receiving information regarding sexual misconduct. The report is required to be submitted through an online form and must include a host of details which include:

• The names of all relevant persons involved, including the person who experienced the misconduct, who is reporting the misconduct, the alleged perpetrator and any witnesses
• The date, time and location of the incident
• The nature of the incident and a description of it
• All documentation the person reporting has received related to the incident, specifically including any written notes
• The date the reporting individual learned of the incident

Neither side is disputing that Anderson did not write up a report himself and send it to the Title IX Coordinator. Anderson’s claim is that he passed the information on to Jerry Bovee, who at the time was the interim athletic director, and that a group report was made.

A timeline of events is critical in understanding if Anderson met the 24-hour reporting window requirement. Anderson has provided a detailed timeline of events spanning April 4, 2023 until about April 15, 2023. The Husch Blackwell report doesn’t have as specific of a timeline, but its report appears to corroborate Anderson’s timeline, generally.

Anderson’s explanation is that he didn’t know of any arrest until April 11. He said he reached out to the player about missing the team’s breakfast check on April 6, but that the player simply said he missed it because he had to take his child to the hospital and did not even mention the arrest. When April 11 rolled around and Anderson learned of the arrest, he said he spoke with the player but was still not told that it involved domestic violence. Instead, based on what the player told Anderson, he was under the impression it was a disorderly conduct arrest.

The next day, April 12, Anderson said he called Bovee and had an eight-minute conversation at roughly 11 a.m., passing along what he knew, though Anderson’s timeline did not elaborate on what he knew at that time. An hour later, Anderson called Bovee again but had to leave a voicemail. At roughly 6:20 p.m., Anderson called Bovee again and had an 11-minute conversation with more updates, though, again, Anderson’s timeline didn’t specify what those updates were.

Anderson said that it was during that evening call on April 12 that Bovee told him he would make a group report, although Anderson stated they were both still unsure of exactly what they were dealing with. Anderson presumed this report would include his name and all details he provided.

The use of a group report in lieu of every individual submitting their own report through the online form is allowed under USU Policy 340.2.1.2, which states “a single Incident Report can be submitted by an individual Reporting Employee or multiple Reporting Employees, as long as all Reporting Employees are named on the Incident Report and every Reporting Employee has provided all information known in the Incident Report concerning the Sexual Misconduct.”

Anderson and Bovee’s statements are consistent with each other in claiming that Bovee made a group report, though the Husch Blackwell investigation summary is more specific about how a report was made. It states that the Office of Equity received an incident report from the the Interim VP for Student Affairs, Eric Olsen. The incident report was filed after a meeting between Olsen, Bovee and an unnamed employee (though Bovee has since said that employee was Crosbie). By the time this meeting occurred, the parties knew the incident involved domestic violence-related charges for the football player.

The fact Anderson’s name was not included in the report is significant as it would indicate an absence of a paper trail that would prove he fulfilled his obligation to file a report with the Title IX Coordinator/Office of Equity, either by reporting himself or being named on a group report.

Whether Anderson conducted his own investigation

The allegation that Anderson conducted his own investigation revolves largely around two aspects of his conduct after he learned of the incident of alleged domestic violence. Firstly, that he obtained written statements from the football player’s girlfriend and the player’s roommate (the roommate also being a member of the football team and was a witness to the incident). Secondly, that he allegedly didn’t do enough to pass this information along to the Title IX Coordinator.

According to USU Policy 340.2.1.2, employees who report incidents of sexual misconduct (as defined to include domestic violence) “should not investigate allegations of sexual misconduct.”

USU employees who report incidents of sexual misconduct (as defined to include domestic violence) “should not investigate allegations of sexual misconduct,” according to USU Policy 340.2.1.2. The Husch Blackwell report claimed that Anderson met with the football player, the player’s girlfriend and roommate, and asked for written statements from both. Husch Blackwell further reported that regarding a point in time when Anderson and Bovee were debating whether to suspend the football player, Anderson described the two as being “on a fact-finding mission.”

Anderson didn’t deny receiving statements from the people involved, even affirming he had them but emphasizing he passed them along to Bovee, a fact Husch Blackwell also reported. Anderson’s explanation was that on April 13, he met with the football player and that both the girlfriend and the roommate offered to provide written statements. His stance is that he did not seek out these statements, but was instead offered them freely by the girlfriend and roommate. Anderson later provided evidence to this end, which was that Anderson’s cell phone provider did not log any communication between Anderson and the player’s girlfriend during April 2023. The exception is one exchange that occurred on April 12, 2023, a day before the meeting in which Anderson says the girlfriend and roommate offered to provide statements.

Player’s Girlfriend: “This is [redacted]. I’m, just trying to drop this statement off. If you can get back to me, I’d appreciate it.”

Anderson: “So sorry … I had a dinner I had to get to. You can slide it under the door or bring it by in morning if that’s ok???”

Player’s Girlfriend: “no worries! I already left so i’ll bring it by tomorrow morning!”

There is a minor contradiction within this evidence. According to Anderson’s timeline, he did not have the meeting in which submitting a statement was brought up until the 13th. This text conversation, occurring on the 12th, implies a statement had already been written and was ready to be dropped off.

Potential contradiction aside, the evidence (including the date next to the signature on the girlfriend’s statement) clearly suggests Anderson received the statements on April 13. But this would have been after the initial report from Olsen was sent in and would not have been included. Since no follow-up reports were made, that information would not have been given to the Title IX Coordinator in a timely manner, if at all.

Anderson further disputes the information-gathering process as improper given what’s contained in the Student-Athlete (SA) Handbook for the 2022-23 academic year. Under the “Notification Policy” section it states “The Director of Athletics, in consultation with the head coach and sport supervisor, will determine additional disciplinary action based upon the individual circumstances of and misconduct.” This directive to determine additional disciplinary action is not contained within the 2023-24 version of the SA Handbook.

Anderson has contended that there is a contradictory nature between the SA Handbook and USU Policy. On one hand, the handbook requires decision-making based on understanding the circumstances that, by definition, requires some form of investigation. On the other hand, the official policy specifically prohibits investigating further.

Whether Anderson did not uphold academic standards 

USU added something to the termination letter that was not included in the Husch Blackwell investigation: the claim that Anderson did not “manage the team in a manner that reflects the academic values of USU.” It also cited this claim as a completely separate reason the university could fire Anderson for cause.

The primary evidence for USU’s claim is the Academic Progress Rating for the football team, which is based on the number of athletes that meet one or both of two criteria. One, they are academically eligible (minimum 2.0 GPA). Two, that they stay in school. The second notice of termination sent to Anderson noted that the team’s APR is on a downward trend. In Anderson’s first year it was 965 his first season, 944 the next but only 899 the following two years. Utah State is one of 12 Division I football programs with an APR below 930 over the last two seasons.

In the initial termination notice sent to Anderson, USU President Elizabeth Cantwell and Athletic Director Diana Sabau state they “have addressed this issue with you, and already communicated to you that your failure to directly engage and actively collaborate with academic support services and to track and enforce academic performance standards of your student-athletes has put your student-athletes and the Athletics Department at risk of both ineligibility and public embarrassment and disrepute.”

Anderson objected to the use of APR as an end-all-be-all metric. He cited several other cases that would suggest the academics on his team have “not only met, but have exceeded, the academic performances requirements” of USU. Anderson’s evidence also suggests improvements in overall academics.

• 33 football players honored in the Whitesides Scholar-Athlete Luncheon in 2024 (player must post 3.2 or higher GPA for previous two semesters). Had 28 players honored in both 2022 and 2023
• Six players named to National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame’s Hampshire Honor Society in 2024 (player must have a 3.2 GPA or better throughout his career)
• 35 of USU’s overall 94 Academic All-Mountain West athletes were football players (player must have 3.0 GPA or better and be a starter/significant contributor to their team). In 2023 that number was 25 and in 2022 just 18.

Also provided by Anderson was a declaration from Albrecht which attests to Anderson’s vigilance in upholding academic standards, something Albrecht would have had knowledge of as part of his role with the program.

“During my tenure (as director of player development), I interacted with Head Coach Blake Anderson on a regular basis and have personal knowledge that Coach Anderson closely monitored his players’ academic performance and constantly emphasized to his players the importance of academics and graduating on time,” Albrecht stated.

One note about the APR score is that some speculation is that when players transfer it can hurt a team’s APR because it’s based on players both meeting the minimum eligibility (a 2.0 GPA) and that player staying with the university. However, the NCAA accounts for transfers in its APR calculations and even adjusted how it addresses transfers’ impact on APR in 2021. It lessened the impact on teams from transferring players, mainly because before 2021, the athlete had to reach a 2.6 GPA to make up for the lost points due to lack of retention. The change was that so long as athletes met progress-toward-degree requirements, the previous team would not be penalized for lost retention.

Other arguments

There are a few miscellaneous arguments both sides made that do have some impact, but aren’t likely to be the deciding factors.

USU/Husch Blackwell’s concerns about lack of transparency and hesitancy to suspend the football player

Husch Blackwell’s conclusion to its report includes a paragraph that shares what it said were “related problems” about the fact Anderson didn’t speak of the arrest in meetings that occurred relatively soon after. The nature of those meetings were to address the “climate issues” within the program, specifically regarding sexual misconduct issues. Husch Blackwell said not bringing up the arrest of one of his players for something the meeting was attempting to address “raises general concerns about the transparency from Athletics Department personnel.” However, Husch Blackwell went on to directly admit Anderson not bringing the arrest up in a meeting did not violate any official policy, instead arguing it violated the spirit of the policy by promoting a culture of handling things “in house.” Anderson pounced on this admission from Husch Blackwell.

“The summary says the failure to discuss the player’s arrest at the culture meeting ‘may not violate stated policy.’ The very next sentence says ‘that is squarely contrary to applicable policies.’ That makes about as much sense as anything else written by USU’s self-styled ‘investigators,'” Anderson’s response letter said.

A further concern from Husch Blackwell was lack of action regarding suspending the player. He never was, apparently due to the fact he entered the transfer portal on April 17. Husch Blackwell cited multiple times interviews with Anderson and Bovee where both were hesitant to suspend the player until more information was known (something that also fueled Husch Blackwell’s conclusions about conducting an investigation). In USU’s July 18 letter that confirmed it would fire Anderson, it cited this hesitancy as one of four “undisputed” actions that “significantly violate USU policy.”

Anderson once again cited the SA Handbook, which notes athletes may receive suspensions, but do not state or imply that the suspension shall be immediate upon arrest or athletic department staff learning of the arrest. As a reminder of the timeline, it would have been roughly five days between the time staff learned of the arrest and the player entering the transfer portal. A report of the incident was sent roughly four days before the player transferred.

Anderson sought to poke holes in the credibility of the Husch Blackwell report

A lengthy portion of Anderson’s response regards the credibility of the investigation. Prior to its release, Mars had gone on social media multiple times to take aim at the investigation, calling it a “sham.” He also pointed out the investigation interviewed 10 individuals over the span of roughly a year and mockingly noted that it would make for an average of one person interviewed every five weeks.

Additionally, Anderson cast doubt on the legality of the investigation based on Utah’s private investigator laws. Such laws require licenses for PI work with a handful of exceptions, such as being licensed to practice law in Utah, which the Chicago-based lawyers (who’s names were redacted from Anderson’s response letter) would not necessarily have. Anderson admitted there may have been a special exemption given to USU and Husch Blackwell for the purposes of this investigation but considered it unlikely. The biggest potential pitfall of this point brought up by Anderson is that if he’s right, evidence from the investigation brought forth in what seems to be an inevitable court battle could not be used in court.

Another hole Anderson sought to poke was to point out supposed failures to uphold standard practices in investigations. The interviews for the investigation were not recorded according to Anderson, who said none of the people he knew that were interviewed recalled seeing recording equipment or being informed the meeting would be recorded. Anderson argued this is contrary to common practice for investigations from organizations like the Department of Justice, the U.S. Office of Inspector Governor and even the NCAA itself.

Anderson sought to bolster the perception of his non-tolerance of misconduct

Anderson’s response cited two examples of his lack of tolerance. The first was that he fired a USU staffer “on the spot and had him removed from the game venue” for inappropriately touching an unnamed female. The second was that on another occasion, Anderson “did not hesitate” to recommend to the athletic department that two of his players be dismissed over allegations of domestic abuse.