Report On The University of Maryland Investigation

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. Harry P. Rudo

Bonnie Lynn Bernstein Darryl L. Tarver
Hon. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. A. Neill Thupari
Hon. Benson Everett Legg Thiru Vignarajah
Hon. C. Thomas McMillen DLA Piper LLP (US)
Charles P. Scheeler
Hon. Alexander Williams, Jr. Jamie Lee
Douglas Lee Williams Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White LLC
Matthew Porter Legg
October 23, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary .........................................................................................1
A. Our Assignment ...............................................................................................1
B. How We Conducted the Investigation .............................................................2
C. What We Found ...............................................................................................3
D. What We Recommend ...................................................................................14
II. The Scope and Methods of the Investigation ................................................16
A. The Independent Commissioners ..................................................................18
B. Interviews.......................................................................................................20
C. Documents .....................................................................................................25
III. Introduction....................................................................................................26
IV. 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 Durkin’s 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. “The Last Straw”: 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 Player’s 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. Verbal Abuse of Player During Practice .......................................................86
J. 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 “Champions Club” .................................................................................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. Durkin’s 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 Department’s Specific Internal Controls to
Ensure Compliance with NCAA and Big Ten Mandates ............................148
C. Maryland’s Newly-Developed Athletic Resources in Response
to the McNair Tragedy.................................................................................151
X. Conclusions..................................................................................................152
2
A. The Players Who Spoke Up—Both Initially and in Response to
Our Investigation—Should be Commended ...............................................152
B. During Mr. Durkin’s 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 University’s 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 “Toxic Culture,”
but it did have a Culture Where Problems Festered Because
Too Many Players Feared Speaking Out .....................................................159
G. Maryland Should Institute a Strong “Medical Model” 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 “Stop The Abuse” Anonymous Email
Appendix 9 Football Survey (2016–17)
Appendix 10 Football Survey (2017–18)
Appendix 11 August 10, 2018 ESPN Article
Appendix 12 Football Survey Conducted by the Independent Commission
(9/9/2018)
Appendix 13 Letter – Daniels’ Attorney to UMD Athletics (8/13/2018)
Appendix 14 Email – C. Scheeler to Daniels’ 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 “Rating of Perceived Exertion” 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 “Commission”) to investigate allegations reported
in the media of a “toxic” culture within the University of Maryland at College Park
(“UMD,” “Maryland,” or the “University”) football program. At a press
conference held that day, President Loh stated that the charge of the Commission
was to “review . . . the practices and the culture of the football program . . . .”1
On August 17, 2018, the University System of Maryland Board of Regents
(the “Regents” or “Board”) assumed oversight and control of the investigation and
added five new members to the Commission on August 24, 2018. The Regents
reiterated the Commission’s charge: (1) to determine whether the culture of the
football program was “toxic” 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-press-
conference-transcript-20180814-story.html.
1
which examined the events of May 29, 2018, and Jordan McNair’s 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 Maryland’s 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
“Athletics Department” or “Athletics”), 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:
 Student-athletes who played football at UMD under Mr. Durkin: 55
 Parents of players: 24
 Current and former Athletics Department staff, including coaches: 60
2
 University Officials not in the Athletics Department: 12
 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 (“Gossett”). 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 Maryland’s football program from
more than two hundred people (including those who took the 2018 players’
survey).
Based upon the totality of the evidence gathered, the eight members of this
Commission unanimously found the following:
1. The players who spoke up—both initially and in response to

our investigation—should be commended
Several players expressed their concerns to the media about the conduct and
culture of the football program, which were first reported in ESPN’s articles of
August 10, 2018. We interviewed most of these players—both anonymous and
named sources—and 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,
“[w]hat happens in the locker room, stays in the locker room.” We feel strongly
that this mindset is misguided. Many athletics directors contacted by the
Commission, in fact, insist a “speak up” 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. Durkin’s 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 Department’s operations
during this period as “chaos and confusion. A former coach compared the
department’s dysfunction to “Washington [politics].” 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
University’s Chief of Human Resources, stated “[h]ere [in Maryland athletics],
there is no structure. That is not normal.”
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 Maryland’s 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 (“AD”) 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 Department’s 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. Evans’s time as Deputy
AD/Football Sports Administrator and his time as Interim AD. According to
official University calendars and multiple corroborated accounts, the Department’s
oversight of the football program was sporadic and inadequate. In contrast, many
athletics directors at “Power 5”2 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 University’s 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 “beyond the
2
The term “Power 5” refers to the five athletic conferences in the NCAA’s 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.
7
call” 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
(“S&C”) 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 “attacking” in nature. This included challenging
a player’s 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. Court’s reporting lines. Mr. Durkin claims that it was not his
responsibility to supervise Mr. Court, but it was, by Mr. Durkin’s 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 coach’s 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. Durkin’s failure to adequately address Mr. Court’s behavior. As a first-time
head coach, Mr. Durkin heavily modeled his program after coaches for whom he
previously worked—most notably, Urban Meyer and Jim Harbaugh—who 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 Department’s disarray. Mr. Court’s contract designated
the head football coach as Mr. Court’s direct report. Mr. Evans and Maryland’s
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 Edsall’s tenure as head coach. Mr. Court
was not certain to whom he reported. Organization charts reviewed by the
Commission were inconsistent regarding Mr. Court’s 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
University’s standards. This confusion diluted Mr. Court’s 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 President’s Office
became involved in 2016 and engineered Mr. Anderson’s 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. Anderson’s 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 “toxic culture,” but
it did have a culture where problems festered because too many
players feared speaking out
Toxic means “extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful.”4 By definition,
Maryland’s football culture was not toxic.
There was no uniform rejection of Maryland’s 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. Court’s
level of profanity was often excessive and personal in nature. In light of our
3
See NCAA Bylaw 6.1.1 (“A member institution’s 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.”).
4
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/toxic.
11
conclusion that Maryland’s football culture was not “toxic,” we do not find that the
culture caused the tragic death of Jordan McNair.
If the culture had been “malicious or harmful,” 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. Durkin’s and Mr. Court’s
coaching tactics reflected those of a “big time football program.” 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 son’s employer
said Coach Durkin’s 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
players’ 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 “open door” policy, but many players and
assistants felt this did not extend to those whose opinions did not align with Mr.
Durkin’s. 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 “[w]hen you’re at the mercy of leadership, you don’t want to be at the mercy
of their mistakes . . . I needed to get out.” Several dissenting coaches explained
they prefer a more “nurturing” approach with players. Others didn’t mind “tough
love,” but cited the need for counterbalance. “If you get on a player for doing
something wrong,” one coach opined, “you have to go back later . . . and put a
hand on his shoulder and let him know you care. I don’t think DJ did that.”
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 Maryland’s 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
“the same person.”
13
7. Maryland should institute a strong “medical model” for student-
athlete 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 “Commission”) to investigate allegations reported
in the media of a “toxic” culture within the UMD football program. At a press
conference held that day, President Loh stated that the charge of the Commission
was to “review . . . the practices and the culture of the football program:”5
[The independent Commission members] will interview students,

student athletes, parents, coaches, staff and other people who want to
come forward and provide a report that’s 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
16
careful review with all the confidentiality—confidentiality in terms of
allowing people to speak confidentially and candidly.6
On August 17, 2018, the University System of Maryland Board of Regents (the
“Regents” or “Board”) 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
17
The Commission’s 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 McNair’s 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 Mitchell’s
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 “consumers” 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 parents’ weekend and intra-team scrimmage on
Saturday, August 18, 2018. We worked with the football parents’ 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 weekend’s 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-confronts-
footballs-fine-line-as-new-allegations-emerge/2018/09/30/e7ab028e-c3dd-11e8-b338-
a3289f6cb742_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
parents’ 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 AD–Director 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 team’s
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 Maryland’s 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 “Power 5 Conference schools,” and counsel for Jordan McNair’s 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:
 Student-athletes who played football at UMD under Mr. Durkin: 55
 Parents of players: 24
 Current and former Athletics Department staff, including coaches: 60
 University Officials not in the Athletics Department: 12
 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 nation’s 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 nation’s 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
women’s teams and eight intercollegiate men’s 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.
9
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.
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 (“NCAA”) was established to
“maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program
and the athlete as an integral part of the student body.”14 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 “[l]egislation governing the conduct of
intercollegiate athletics programs . . . .”16
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.
13
See https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-
history.
14
2017–18 NCAA Division I Manual at 1.
15
16
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 department’s 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.
18
See http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/21021467/maryland-now-says-athletic-
director-kevin-anderson-not-leave.
28
football coach Ralph Friedgen’s contract and hired Randy Edsall, formerly the
head football coach at the University of Connecticut.19
Mr. Anderson’s 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. Anderson’s 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
2011–12 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. Yow’s 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/wp-
dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010202231.html.
20
See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/22/maryland-will-cut-eight-teams-
mitigate-athletic-budget-deficit.
29
Several current and former staff members attribute the high turnover rate to
Mr. Anderson’s practice of “freezing out” 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 person’s duties, and his communications
with the person would decrease dramatically. His conduct was described by two
interviewees as “passive aggressive.” As a result, while those who were “frozen
out” 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 – 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. Anderson’s
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. Evans’s 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
2015–16 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-athletic-
director.
24
See https://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/georgia-athletic-director-damon-
evans-resigns-after-dui-arrest-070510.
31
During that school year, five of the seven members of Mr. Anderson’s executive
team left their posts.
In 2016, Jewel Washington, Assistant Vice President and Chief of the
University Human Resources Department (“UHR”), 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. Anderson’s 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. Evans’s
calendars reflect nine meetings that included Dr. Loh in 2016 (one of which may
25
Mr. Evans’s 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
President’s Office.
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 President’s 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 “bypass University procedures” and that staffers
were leaving because of Mr. Anderson’s management style. The President’s
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 “new integrated program in Sports Medicine . . . [to] be launched on
July 1, 2017.” 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 Loh’s Chief of Staff. By that time, however, Mr. Anderson had
effectively “frozen out” Mr. Evans as well. A key feature of the plan was to ensure
trainer independence: “although 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.”
The President’s 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 Loh’s Chief of Staff advised Dr.
Klossner:
I’d like to meet about this . . . . I don’t 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 latter’s 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.
26
Ultimately, the President’s 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.
35
That summer, President Loh invited both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Evans to his
home. There, President Loh instructed them to develop position descriptions
(“PDs”) for both of their jobs and to share these PDs with the Athletics staff.
These PDs would clarify the scope of the two leaders’ activities, so as to avoid
“turf battles” 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
“insubordination,” 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. Klossner’s 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 “chaos and confusion.” 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 “Washington [politics].”
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 Edsall’s dismissal as head coach.30 Mr. Anderson
states that Mr. Edsall was having a good year recruiting incoming freshmen for the
2016–17 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. Edsall’s firing.
According to Dr. Loh, the firing was Mr. Anderson’s 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. Anderson’s 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
https://umterps.com/news/2015/10/11/210413491.aspx.
31
39
Mr. Anderson recalls being particularly impressed when he interviewed Mr.
Durkin and his wife, Sarah, at Mr. Durkin’s home. It was clear to Mr. Anderson
that the Durkins were a “team,” with Sarah as invested in the development of
student-athletes as her husband. In Mr. Anderson’s 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
33
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-bowl-
game.
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 “matrix,” 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. Durkin’s arrival.36 According to
Ms. Washington: “[h]ere [in Maryland athletics], there is no structure. That is not
normal.”
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
36
According to Dr. Loh, it was Mr. Anderson’s responsibility to ensure that new head
coaches received appropriate orientation and training.
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. Durkin’s 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. Durkin’s recollection. The calendars note a “weekly
meeting” 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. Anderson’s habits, and Mr. Anderson and Mr. Evans often
visited together.
38
Mr. Anderson’s and Mr. Durkin’s calendars reflect that they met 15 times in 2016 and
three times in 2017 per Mr. Anderson’s calendar, and eight times in 2016 and two times in 2017
per Mr. Durkin’s calendar. Mr. Evans’s and Mr. Durkin’s 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.
Evans’s final performance review. We reviewed Mr. Evans’s performance reviews
for 2016 and 2017 and did not see any such remarks.
Mr. Durkin arrived with ideas to make Maryland’s 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. Evans’s calendar, and one
time in 2016, one time in 2017, and seven times in 2018 per Mr. Durkin’s 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 school’s 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 Durkin’s First Hire; the Athletics Department

Changes the Reporting Structure for the Head Football Strength
Coach
Prior to Mr. Durkin’s 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 “ahead of the curve” 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. Klossner’s initial duties
included modifying UMD’s S&C programs to try to lower injury rates and enhance
student-athlete safety.
Coach Durkin’s 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
40
Injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament, more commonly known as the “ACL,” 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/msu-
strength-coach-headed-maryland/76926592/.
46
entire athletics program, with an emphasis on football.42 The Commission spoke
with Scott Stricklin, the former Mississippi State AD during Mr. Court’s 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 State’s 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. Durkin’s 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. Court’s 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.
43
Mr. Stricklin’s 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.
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. Court’s 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. Court’s 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. Court’s 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 “I don’t
think I have to do one for Rick Court.”
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 Department—indeed, in the entire University—
who acknowledged it was their job to oversee Mr. Court and hold him accountable
to the University’s 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 “less than human.”48 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. Durkin’s first season as head football coach was drawing to a close,
an anonymous email was delivered to Mr. Anderson, the UMD President’s 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. Evans’s attention,
given the staff member’s 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 President’s 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 Anderson’s 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: “DURKIN SHOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE!
Immediately.”
The President’s public email is monitored by two staff employees. One
forwarded the anonymous email to Dr. Loh the following Monday afternoon with a
cover note: “Please see the message below, which is unsigned, regarding alleged
abuse of student athletes. Would you like to send to Kevin Anderson directly to
discuss?”
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: “forward to KA on an FYI basis. He does no [sic] need to respond to
this anonymous email. Tx.” An email was sent by one of Dr. Loh’s staff to Mr.
Anderson with a note: “Sharing this message with you as an FYI. As the message
is anonymous, not [sic] response is needed. President Loh and Michele [Eastman,
Dr. Loh’s Chief of Staff] also reviewed the message.”
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 President’s Office had not received any
football-related complaints during Mr. Durkin’s 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
51
“Motivation or abuse? Maryland confronts football’s fine line as new allegations emerge,”
Washington Post, September 30, 2018, available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/motivation-or-abuse-maryland-confronts-
a3289f6cb742_story.html?utm_term=.043c5f6b2975.
51
even read it in 2016 (as opposed to just reading his assistant’s covering note and
directing that the email be sent to Mr. Anderson).
The Chief of Staff described how the roughly 200 emails to Dr. Loh’s 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 “no need to respond” instruction as relating solely to
fact that the University did not, as a matter of course, respond to anonymous
emails. Dr. Loh insists that “no need to respond” did not equate to “no need to
investigate.” 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, “We need to talk
about this email.”
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. Loh’s 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
53
Mr. Anderson’s and Dr. Loh’s 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. Anderson’s calendar, but Dr. Loh’s calendar reveals a different meeting at
that time.
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 football-
related complaints during Mr. Durkin’s 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. Durkin’s 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 “thwarts NCAA time limits” and “makes the players sign
off on the required forms that would be audited by the NCAA.”54 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 “judgment call.” 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).
55
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
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
University’s core principles. Mr. Durkin was never questioned or even made
aware of this email, a serious omission.
From all appearances, this anonymous memorandum simply “slipped
between the cracks.” 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 player’s
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 “1” signifying “strongly disagree,” and
“5” denoting “strongly agree.” The average scores for selected questions are:
 The overall quality of the head coaching I received was

adequate and appropriate: 4.46
 The overall quality of the assistant coaching I received was

adequate and appropriate: 4.46
56
NCAA Manual Article 6 Institutional Control states in part: “Rule 6.3 Exit Interviews.
The institution’s 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 students’ 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-athletes’ specific sports.
(Adopted: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/91, Revised: 8/7/14)” 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 respondents’ names are redacted.
57
 I was not subject to inappropriate physical contact, verbal
communication, or mental/emotional stress: 4.3758
 My experience with the medical/training staff was positive and

met my needs: 4.1759
The players’ 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 coaches’ score was
the highest score of any question posed in the survey:
 My experience with the strength and coaching staff was a

positive and the staff met my team’s needs: 4.5960
The only comment regarding the S&C staff, apart from the rankings, was:
“Football strength staff was the best hire ever!”
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. Evans’s 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
58
One player provided a “strongly disagree” answer, but his identity could not be ascertained
because of the anonymity of the survey. Four others provided a “3” or “neutral” response. The
other 41 players “Agreed” or “Strongly Agreed” with this question.
59
Two players “Strongly Disagreed,” and one player “Disagreed” with this question.
60
This average included one “Strongly Disagreed” response, 15 “Agreed,” and thirty
“Strongly Agreed.”
58
some viewed as a process of “weeding out” the players that Mr. Edsall recruited
who did not fit with Mr. Durkin’s 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. Court’s abusive language: “[h]e’s called people names, you know. It’s a way
to motivate somebody. I don’t think I saw a lot of personal attacks in front of the
team. Most of the team comments were positive.”
Athletics conducted another survey of the football team following the 2017
season.61 The number of players who participated in this anonymous, voluntary
online survey was less than half (20 vs. 48) than participated in the prior year’s
survey. Still, the players’ responses suggested a healthy program. As described in
Section VI, 89% of the players agreed or strongly agreed that the coaching was
adequate and appropriate.62
3. Other warning signs prior to May 29, 2018
One assistant coach tells the Commission that he expressed concerns to Mr.
Durkin about Mr. Court’s behavior on one occasion. Mr. Durkin denies this.
Another assistant coach reportedly mentioned in a coaching staff meeting that
practices were too intense. Other coaches have stated that they did not think Mr.
61
2017 survey data, attached as Appendix 10. The respondents’ names are redacted.
62
See Appendix 10.
59
Durkin knew of Mr. Court’s alleged excesses. We were told by several assistants
that Mr. Court’s conduct was never raised in coaches’ meetings, which Mr. Court
attended. One former assistant who was quite critical of Mr. Court says: “I don’t
think he [Mr. Durkin] knew. No one would have brought complaints to DJ
because most considered them [Mr. Durkin and Mr. Court] the same person.” This
led staff to avoid discussing Mr. Court with Mr. Durkin.
There were also mixed reviews as to how receptive Mr. Durkin was to
feedback and suggestions to change generally. Mr. Durkin denies that he was ever
approached by a member of the football staff about Mr. Court’s behavior prior to
May 29, 2018, and he notes that he always maintained an “open door policy.”
Despite Mr. Durkin’s contentions, some players feared that complaining to him
could lead to his thinking less of the player, which could affect their standing on
the team or playing time.
Mr. Durkin and Mr. Evans both recount one instance in which parents
complained about Mr. Court’s conduct prior to Jordan McNair’s tragedy. On April
9, 2018, the parents of a player met with Mr. Evans. The parents contended that
their son deserved a scholarship (he was a walk-on) and that he should be given “a
legitimate opportunity to compete for playing time.” They said that Mr. Court (and
two other coaches, including Mr. Durkin) had subjected their son to physical and
verbal abuse. In particular, Mr. Court had refused to allow the player to sit on a
60
heated bench during a home game in November, as that space was reserved for the
starters.63 Mr. Court began berating their son in the fall of 2017, and Mr. Court
and several other coaches “targeted” him for abuse. On one occasion, Mr. Court
told the player that he “couldn’t play” (i.e., was not good enough to play) during a
workout.
Mr. Evans then arranged a meeting a week later between the parents, the
player, Mr. Durkin, and the Assistant AD for Football and Equipment Operations.
Mr. Durkin insisted that the player be present during the meeting. The player was
largely silent during the meeting, but he confirmed his parents’ accusations.
All parties agree that this meeting lasted over two hours and was contentious
at times.64 The parents state that Mr. Durkin completely supported Mr. Court,
saying that, “no non-starter should sit on the [heated] bench.” Mr. Durkin says that
he was getting different information from the player than he was from the parents.
For example, the player had told his parents that he was choked by an assistant
coach, but in front of Mr. Durkin, the player stated that the coach was
demonstrating a defensive hand placement technique that caused the player’s
shoulder pads to tighten. Mr. Durkin acknowledged that Mr. Court should not
63
The temperature was 37 degrees at kickoff. See
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/KCGS/date/2017-11-
11?req_city=College%20Park&req_state=MD&req_statename=Maryland&reqdb.zip=20742&re
qdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999.
64
We interviewed all five participants in the meeting.
61
have said the player “couldn’t play,” but noted that Mr. Court said this on an
occasion when the player was late to a workout. The parents and player admit that
both Mr. Durkin and Mr. Court were “overly polite” to the player in their
subsequent coaching of him.
From the Commission’s interviews with 165 players, parents, coaches, staff,
and others familiar with the UMD football program, as well as email searches of
18 members of the Athletics Department, this is the totality of evidence that either
Mr. Durkin or Athletics Department leaders were warned about misconduct in the
football program (apart from one incident discussed in Section V.K). Mr. Durkin
does admit that he heard Mr. Court using the “p**** b****” and “p**** f*****”
epithets, but did not hear that language directed at specific individuals.65 Mr.
Durkin further acknowledges that he heard about the incident where Mr. Court
took a box of food out of a player’s hands and threw it against the wall. See
Section V. But Mr. Durkin still does not believe that Mr. Court “crossed any
lines.”
D. The Athletics Department Retains Counsel to Defend Football

Players Accused of Sexual Misconduct
On or about June 20, 2017, the head of the University’s Office of Civil
Rights & Sexual Misconduct (commonly known as the “Title IX Office”) met with
65
The specific language referenced is “pussy bitch” and “pussy faggot,” which we refer to as
“p**** b****” and “p**** f*****” respectively throughout this report.
62
Mr. Durkin and another member of the Athletics Department regarding a potential
investigation of sexual misconduct alleged by a student affiliated with athletics
against two football players. Following that initial meeting, the Title IX Office
decided to move forward with a formal investigation of the complaint.
Once the decision was made to proceed with the investigation, members of
the Executive Staff of the Athletics Department met to discuss the pending
investigation. Mr. Durkin was not at this meeting. At that meeting, several of
those present recall that Deputy AD Evans advised Mr. Anderson not to engage or
participate in the investigation and to let it run its course. Mr. Anderson
vigorously denies this account, however.
According to information gathered during a University internal investigation
conducted in September 2017, either Mr. Anderson or Mr. Durkin, or both,
“solicited and facilitated payment to a law firm to represent the accused players.”
With regards to the solicitation, Mr. Durkin states that he was approached by the
two football players under investigation, and they recommended Donald Jackson,
founder and lead attorney of The Sports Group. The two student-athletes made
this recommendation after having spoken with another football player previously
represented by Mr. Jackson in connection with an eligibility issue.
Mr. Jackson did not receive an engagement letter from the University for his
representation of the two football players who were the subjects of the Title IX
63
investigation. When Mr. Jackson represented another football player and a
basketball player in earlier matters relating to their eligibility, he received
engagement letters for his services. The normal course of business to retain
outside counsel for student-athletes at Maryland involved coordination between
Deputy AD Evans, a Senior Associate AD, and the University’s General Counsel’s
office. The General Counsel is required to authorize the retention of outside
counsel. Once that authorization is given, then a fee engagement agreement is
entered into between the University and outside counsel. After obtaining that fee
engagement letter, only then can the University of Maryland College Park
Foundation, Inc. (the “Foundation”) be approached for monies to pay for that
attorney’s services.
By all accounts, that protocol was not followed for Mr. Jackson’s
representation of the two football players. Rather, in late August 2017, the law
firm submitted a request for payment for $15,000 for “upcoming speaking” fees
after having received an email from an Assistant AD (from his spouse’s personal
email account) asking for an invoice for “your fee for speaking at Maryland.” Mr.
Jackson had previously agreed to charge a flat fee of $15,000 for his representation
of the two players.
According to the University’s internal investigation findings, “upon receipt
of the request [to pay $15,000 for a “speaker’s fee”], an employee . . . brought it to
64
the attention of . . . Damon Evans, who in turn brought it to the attention of the
President. . . . Upon receiving this information, the President instructed the former
AD to end the relationship with the attorney, which the former AD attempted to do
in an email to [Mr. Jackson].” Mr. Jackson, however, continued to represent the
players.
Before Dr. Loh’s instructions were put into effect, the Assistant AD advised
Mr. Jackson that the invoice he drafted “would not work.” Instead, he sent Mr.
Jackson a revised invoice dated August 29, 2017, which described Mr. Jackson’s
services as an “Eligibility Consultation.”66 NCAA rules permit schools to hire
counsel for players to address eligibility issues. As school sanctions (such as
suspension or expulsion) can affect eligibility, the NCAA typically permits schools
to pay for counsel when a player faces disciplinary proceedings.
In order to process payment of the revised invoice, Mr. Evans says he was
directed by Mr. Anderson to facilitate payment as quickly as possible through the
Foundation. On September 7, 2017, Mr. Anderson, the Senior Associate AD for
Finance and Operations, and the Associate AD for Compliance, each
countersigned a Disbursement Request Form to the Foundation for $15,000 to be
66
The Compliance Office approved the payment of Mr. Jackson’s fee as characterized in the
revised invoice. Mr. Jackson states that he neither created, nor participated in the creation of, the
revised invoice, which describes his services as an “Eligibility Consultation.” It appears that the
revised invoice was generated by someone in the Athletics Department.
65
paid to Mr. Jackson for an “Eligibility Consultation,” and payment was wired to
Mr. Jackson’s account.
Mr. Anderson denies any involvement in creating the “speaker’s fee”
payment plan and claims that the first time he was made aware of the arrangement
was when Mr. Evans presented him with an invoice for Mr. Jackson’s services
described as a “speaker’s fee” and asked for his approval of the payment. Mr.
Anderson says that he advised Mr. Evans he would not approve of any payment to
Mr. Jackson for a “speaker’s fee.”
Although Mr. Jackson was eventually paid through the Foundation funds for
an “Eligibility Consultation,” the manner by which his services were retained, and
then paid for, suggests a departmental failure to obtain University approval to
retain an attorney, and subterfuge as to the true purpose of the funds. The Athletics
Department had previously obtained the approval of the General Counsel’s Office
when it retained Mr. Jackson to represent other student-athletes in other matters, as
well as obtained an engagement letter documenting the terms of engagement. It
failed to do so here.
The use of Foundation monies was also questionable at best. The
Foundation’s expressly stated purpose is:
to receive, hold, invest, manage, use, dispose of and administer

property of all kinds, whether given absolutely or in trust, or by way
of agency or otherwise, and to make expenditures, to or for the benefit
of the University of Maryland College Park, its mission, goals, and
66
programs, or for any or all of the educational and support activities
that may be conducted by the University of Maryland College Park
. . . to endow scholarships and other forms of student aid, and to
support any of the programs, activities or services of the
University of Maryland College Park.67
(emphasis added). Here, supporter gifts were used to pay for the representation of
two football players facing serious allegations of sexual misconduct. The
Foundation’s bylaws permit a broad range of uses of funds, but it is questionable as
to whether it extends to legal fees. Perhaps most problematic, the Athletics
Department funded the legal defense of the student-athletes accused of misconduct,
but it did not provide legal support to the complainant, who was also affiliated with
the Athletics Department.
Ultimately, the Office of Student Conduct and the Standing Review
Committee held a hearing for the two football players on September 29, 2017, and
found that one of the football players was responsible for the alleged violations,
but that the other was not responsible. The student found responsible was
expelled.
Several members of the Athletics Department staff tell us that one of the
functions of an effective Athletics Department is to protect coaches from becoming
embroiled in difficult student disciplinary situations such as this. Mr. Durkin, a
67
Foundation Bylaws;
http://umcpf.org/userfiles/file/Foundation%20Public%20Content/policies/UMCPF_By_Laws.pdf
; http://umcpf.org/board/showPage.php?name=purposes.
67
relatively new coach, was described by Dr. Loh as a “babe in the woods” regarding
the complexities of a Title IX investigation of this nature. Still, Mr. Durkin’s
failure to question a plan that characterized Mr. Jackson’s services as “speaker’s
fees,” which was plainly pretextual, is troubling.68
E. “The Last Straw”: Kevin Anderson Agrees to Go on Sabbatical
For Dr. Loh, Mr. Anderson’s failure to follow protocols in retaining an
attorney to represent the football players accused of sexual misconduct was “the
last straw.” In particular, Dr. Loh found it disturbing that Mr. Anderson provided
financial resources to the accused, while the complainant, who was also a student
affiliated with the Athletics Department, was not provided with any assistance. On
September 27, 2017, Dr. Loh ordered his General Counsel’s office to investigate
the matter. Dr. Loh suspended Mr. Anderson with pay while that investigation was
pending.
Dr. Loh viewed the situation as irreparable. The University and Mr.
Anderson reached an agreement on October 16, 2017, whereby Mr. Anderson
agreed to resign six months later, in April 2018. The intervening period was
labeled a “sabbatical,” with Mr. Evans taking over the day-to-day administration of
68
We understand that allegations of undue influence and/or pressure exerted by members of
the Athletics Department over the course of this Title IX investigation are the subject of an
ongoing investigation by an outside law firm retained by the University through the Attorney
General’s Office. Accordingly, we have refrained from addressing that issue in this report.
68
Athletics.69 But as the Washington Post reported at the time, “it remains unclear if
Anderson will be back in six months.”70
Both Mr. Anderson and Dr. Loh knew that Mr. Anderson would not return.
Dr. Loh provided Mr. Anderson with this six-month grace period for two reasons.
First, the college sports world was then ensnared in a nationwide college basketball
bribery scandal.71 Several prominent people in the University feared that the
media would incorrectly interpret a resignation by Mr. Anderson as an admission
that Maryland was involved in this scandal. Second, the grace period allowed Mr.
Anderson to continue to hold the title while he searched for another athletics
director position. Mr. Anderson advised Dr. Loh that he was likely to find a new
position within sixty days.
Mr. Anderson did not find a new AD post within sixty days. He resigned on
April 13, 2018, after which the University commissioned a search firm to find his
replacement. Then-interim AD Damon Evans was among the applicants.
Although the sabbatical arrangement may have avoided false speculation
and benefited Mr. Anderson, it created a lack of leadership and an atmosphere of
uncertainty in the Athletics Department for another six months. The 2017 Thriving
69
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/terrapins-insider/wp/2017/10/16/maryland-
athletic-director-kevin-anderson-to-go-on-six-month-sabbatical/?utm_term=.c6b3dba6aa2f.
70
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/terrapins-insider/wp/2017/10/16/maryland-
athletic-director-kevin-anderson-to-go-on-six-month-sabbatical/?utm_term=.c6b3dba6aa2f.
71
See https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2017/9/27/16367814/ncaa-basketball-
fbi-investigation-coaches-agents-adidas.
69
Workplace Initiative survey, which was conducted in October 2017, just as these
changes were occurring, reflects the decrease in staff confidence (and employee
engagement) occasioned by this decision. While Mr. Evans was aware that Mr.
Anderson would not be returning, he did not know if he would succeed Mr.
Anderson.
As a result, from October 2017 through July 2018, many people in the
Athletics Department were uncertain as to whether Mr. Anderson would return.
The department has been characterized as being in “limbo” during this period.
Nevertheless, Mr. Evans reports that during this time, he attempted to strengthen
relationships and initiate reforms within the department.
Ultimately, the national search, announced in April 2018, concluded on July
2, 2018, when Dr. Loh named Mr. Evans as Maryland’s AD.
Looking back on the period in which Mr. Anderson supervised Mr. Durkin,
Mr. Anderson recalls Mr. Durkin as “demanding but fair.” Mr. Anderson believes
that Mr. Durkin shared Mr. Edsall’s philosophy: he wanted his team to win games,
but his most important job was to develop men who would be productive members
of society. Mr. Anderson claims he never saw any instances of abuse, and is
adamant that he would not tolerate such conduct. He points to an instance at
another school where he had earlier served as AD. About six months after the fact,
Mr. Anderson learned that a coach had grabbed a player by the jersey and slammed
70
him against the wall. Mr. Anderson terminated the employment of the coach. He
believes that if a staff member had seen abusive behavior, he would have learned
about it and acted just as he did at his prior school.
F. Jordan McNair Suffers Heat Stroke on May 29, 2018, and Passes
Away on June 13
The tragic events surrounding the death of Jordan McNair are recounted in
the independent evaluation of Walters, Inc., submitted to the University on
September 21, 2018. We defer to Mr. Walters’ findings, and we have not sought to
re-investigate those events.
After initially being taken to Washington Adventist Hospital, Mr. McNair
was transported to the Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland
Hospital in Baltimore.72 He was surrounded by family, and was frequently visited
by players and staff. Mr. Durkin, frequently accompanied by his wife, visited
every day until June 4, when the family asked for privacy. Mr. Durkin spoke at the
memorial service after Jordan’s death. Dr. Loh visited with the family in the
hospital, and also attended the service.
Mr. Durkin states that after the McNair tragedy, he called Mr. Evans to
request an external review of how player safety was handled on that occasion.
72
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/terrapins-insider/wp/2018/06/13/jordan-
mcnair-maryland-offensive-lineman-dies/?utm_term=.a3b11e54905c;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/terrapins-insider/wp/2018/06/13/jordan-mcnair-
maryland-offensive-lineman-dies/?utm_term=.a3b11e54905c.
71
After Dr. Walters provided his preliminary report in late July, suggesting that the
training staff bore some responsibility for the tragedy, Mr. Durkin urged Mr. Evans
to retain a new training staff before August practices began, to ensure the safety of
the players.
On August 10, 2018, ESPN published an article about the Maryland football
program.73 This article is included in Appendix 11. The story alleged a “toxic
coaching culture under head coach DJ Durkin,” and described a series of incidents,
which we address in Section V.
That same day, UMD announced that it had placed members of its athletics
staff on administrative leave, but did not specify the personnel.74 Those
individuals were head football trainer Wes Robinson, director of athletic training
Steve Nordwall, and Mr. Court.75 Mr. Court announced his resignation on
August 14.
Mr. Evans spoke to Mr. Durkin around the time of the release of the ESPN
articles. Mr. Durkin stated that the allegations made by Malik Jones in the article
did not accurately portray what had transpired. See Section V. Mr. Evans also
73
See http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/24342005/maryland-terrapins-
football-culture-toxic-coach-dj-durkin.
74
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/maryland-places-athletic-staffers-on-
leave-in-wake-of-football-players-death/2018/08/10/26012958-9ce9-11e8-843b-
36e177f3081c_story.html?utm_term=.6f382e0467b9.
75
See http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/24348378/maryland-terrapins-place-
trainers-leave-amid-investigation-jordan-mcnair-death.
72
spoke to Mr. Court. Mr. Court denied some of the allegations, admitted that some
incidents occurred (but with incorrect details), and supplied differing details and
context to show why he felt his actions were appropriate. Even with the context,
Mr. Evans concluded that Mr. Court’s acts of requiring a player to eat candy bars
in the weight room at Halloween or grabbing a food box out of a player’s hands
were not appropriate. See Section V.
On August 11, 2018, UMD placed Mr. Durkin on paid administrative
leave.76 Mr. Evans advised that, unlike Mr. Court, the University did not conclude
that Mr. Durkin had done anything inappropriate. Still, the University decided that
a paid leave during the investigation was prudent given the seriousness of the
allegations. Mr. Durkin states that he received a letter from Mr. Evans which read:
“You have been provided an opportunity to discuss this pending action with me at
a meeting today prior to this action.” Mr. Durkin claims that he was never, in fact,
provided such an opportunity. The Commission has seen no evidence that the
University conducted any fact-finding prior to placing Mr. Durkin on leave, or that
Mr. Durkin had an opportunity to tell his side of the story before being placed on
paid leave.
76
See https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2018/08/11/marylands-dj-durkin-leave-
amid-investigation-into-player-treatment/968590002/.
73
Mr. Evans’s view is that Mr. Durkin “operates within the norm of big
programs in big schools,” particularly given what Mr. Evans has seen at other
institutions. Mr. Evans does not believe that Maryland has a toxic culture, and
does not feel that the portrait of Mr. Durkin drawn in media reports is a fair one.
He acknowledges that Mr. Durkin must be assessed responsibility for the failure of
supervision over Mr. Court. But Mr. Evans acknowledges that the entire Athletics
Department leadership, including himself, bears responsibility for Mr. Court’s
excesses.
On August 14, 2018, Dr. Loh announced:
[The] University will retain an external expert to undertake a

comprehensive examination of our coaching practices in the football
program, with the goal that these practices reflect – not subvert – the
core values of our University.77
Ours is the investigation that followed. The eight members of this
commission were announced on August 24, 2018.78
V. Specific Allegations of Coaching and Other Staff Misconduct
Players, parents, and coaches provided specific allegations of when UMD
coaches and staff “crossed a line” from intense but appropriate motivational tactics
to improper and abusive misconduct. Some of these examples have already been
77
See http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/24351245/maryland-football-coach-
dj-durkin-put-leave-amid-reports-toxic-culture;
https://president.umd.edu/communications/statements/updates-umd-football-program.
78
See https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2018/08/24/mcmillen-added-to-
commission-investigating-maryland-football/37595343/.
74
publicly reported; others have not. Some of them have been emphatically
disputed; others have not. Descriptions of what took place are the product of
interviews with multiple sources. These incidents comprise the most serious
allegations that we heard during our interviews with players, parents, and coaches.
They are recounted in roughly chronological order. We say “roughly” because we
could not pinpoint time periods for every allegation, and some allegations were of
an ongoing nature.
The absence of certain evidence is also notable. We were not told of any
allegations of misconduct or mistreatment directed at Jordan McNair prior to the
alleged events of May 29, 2018. But we were told that some players, who were not
themselves the targets of abuse, still felt adverse effects from these events.
A. Rick Court Alleged to Choke Injured Player with Lat Pulldown

Bar in Weight Room
During an off-season training session in January 2016, Mr. Court allegedly
approached a player who was working out on a lateral muscle (“lat”) pulldown
machine.79 This account was provided by two players who were eyewitnesses to
the events, as well as the allegedly-affected player’s mother. In our September 9,
2018 survey of the current football players, we did not receive any comments
discussing this incident.
79
Exercising on a lat pulldown machine involves the individual in a seated position pulling
down on an overhead bar, similar to the exercise shown in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lueEJGjTuPQ.
75
The player had undergone surgery in December 2015 and was struggling to
complete an additional pulldown rep of the lat bar. Mr. Court allegedly came up
behind the player and said “come on motherf***er” and pressed the lat bar into his
neck, choking him. The player’s parent, who first learned of the alleged incident
from her son in the spring of 2018, reported that the incident had a long-term
impact on the player. Another player observed that Mr. Court and the player in
question had a poor relationship partly because Mr. Court sent staff to monitor
whether that player was attending his classes—the player had a spotty attendance
record. The player’s parents reported that their son told his mother that Mr. Durkin
acknowledged the incident, believed it was wrong, but indicated “no charges
would be pressed.”
There is disagreement about when Mr. Durkin was advised of this alleged
incident, or whether he was present at all; Mr. Durkin denies he was there. One
player stated that Mr. Durkin was in the weight room at the time; the other player
was not sure. Mr. Durkin maintains he only learned of the allegations after the
death of Jordan McNair, when the parent’s mother brought this complaint to him.
Mr. Durkin says that he then went to the player, who denied that the incident
occurred.
Mr. Court vigorously denies this incident ever happened. Each member of
the strength and training staff was specifically asked if he was aware of a choking
76
incident; none reported knowing about this, and some seemed genuinely surprised
about the nature of the question.
B. Weights and Other Items Thrown Across Training Room
Several players also report demeaning, and potentially dangerous, acts of
aggression by Mr. Court in the weight room. There are reports of instances where
Mr. Court hurled weights across the room, in apparent frustration with players
failing to push themselves as hard as he would like. Witnesses agree, both in
individual interviews and in the anonymous team survey, that Mr. Court never
threw anything at anyone, nor did any of the thrown weights or items strike
anyone. In our September 9, 2018 survey of the current football players, we
received 28 comments mentioning Mr. Court throwing objects in the weight room.
One player also advises that Mr. Court, in anger, smashed a PVC pipe over a
cooler (PVC pipes are used as an exercise tool). No one was hurt or meant to be
injured, but these illustrations were presented as part of a pattern of aggressiveness
that was part of Mr. Court’s approach to motivation.
Another incident that was repeatedly discussed, with variations as to the
details, was an instance where Mr. Court flung a trash can that contained a player’s
vomit across the weight room. During the workout session, the player in question
had gotten sick and vomited into the trash can. Some sources, including former
players Michal (“Gus”) Little and E.J. Donahue, alleged that Mr. Court then
77
shoved the player against a refrigerator in the gym and forced him to clean up his
own vomit from the trash can, which Mr. Court had thrown across the weight
room.80 Others state that Mr. Court just threw the can against the wall, without
touching the player, and the spilled vomit was then cleaned by a staff member. In
either event, Mr. Court’s behavior was unacceptable. However, the player in
question and his immediate family were not as offended as other teammates, and
they remain supportive of Mr. Durkin and Mr. Court.
Mr. Court denies the trash can vomit incident ever took place. He
acknowledged that he threw small items, potentially including weights, but never
at anyone. Mr. Durkin denies knowledge of these incidents before the publication
of the ESPN article.
C. Morning Tugs-of-War
The ESPN article described tug-of-war contests where one player was pitted
against an entire unit or squad. The article, citing an anonymous source who
characterized the incident as “barbaric,” explained that a player struggled and
collapsed, and was called a “p****” by Mr. Court.
None of the players or coaches we interviewed advised of this particular
incident or practice—that is, one player against an entire squad. Similarly, none of
80
We had conversations with Gus Little and E.J. Donahue that were coordinated by the law
firm of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy. Mr. Little’s and Mr. Donahue’s names are used with their
consent.
78
the 94 players who took the survey mentioned this one-versus-many scenario,
notwithstanding a specific question designed to elicit events like this. See 2018
Survey Questions, attached as Appendix 12, at Part 3, Question 1.
Gus Little provided us with highly critical comments about the program. As
to this allegation, however, he states that only players who participated were
players who did not travel to road games. Mr. Little is unclear as to whether the
tugs-of-war were voluntary or required, but he says that the non-travel players did
them “all the time.” Multiple players and coaches confirm that sometimes the
coaches encouraged one-on-one tugs-of-war before breakfast. One player stated
that he was aware of another player who had participated in a tug-of-war contest
and that the players were aware that the coaches wanted them to do it. Mr. Durkin
admits that one-on-one pre-breakfast tugs-of-war occurred from time to time, but
insisted that they were not coercive nor meant to be punitive. Mr. Court says that
he instituted this competition after learning that other schools were also employing
this technique. In our September 9, 2018 survey of current football players, we
received three comments discussing the general practice of tug-of-war
competitions.
D. Food Knocked from Player’s Hands
There are reports of players being, as some characterized it, disrespected,
demeaned, or humiliated in incidents involving food. One example first supplied
79
in reporting by ESPN involved a player having his meal knocked out of his hands.
In our September 9, 2018 survey of the current football players, we received eight
comments discussing food being hit out of a player’s hands.
Players and coaches corroborate such an event, albeit with different details,
in interviews and the 2018 survey. But a staff member and Mr. Durkin state that
players found this incident amusing, not intimidating.
Mr. Court recalls that the incident took place just before the first road game
of the 2016 season. Players were directed to eat lunch during a two-hour window
and not to eat during the subsequent team meeting. A player arrived towards the
end of the two-hour window and brought a box lunch into the team meeting. Mr.
Court, whose S&C staff was taking attendance, told the player to finish eating
within five minutes, which was when the meeting was scheduled to begin. After
five minutes had passed, the player was still eating out of his box lunch. Mr. Court
subsequently snatched the box out of the player’s hand, tossed it against the wall,
and addressed the entire group on the importance of punctuality, saying “I was
trying to set the tone for what that day was going to be.” Others say Mr. Court
knocked the food out of the player’s hand onto the ground.
Mr. Durkin says that he did not observe this event and did not find out until
he heard players making jokes about it on the way back from the game. Mr.
80
Durkin further defends the action, as the player had been given ample time to eat,
and it was important that player not eat right before traveling to a game.
Several witnesses note that this incident did not carry the significance
ascribed to it by the ESPN article. First, Mr. Durkin states that players were
laughing about the incident on the team bus following the game that day. Several
witnesses also cite a pre-bowl game skit later that year. In the skit, a member of
the coaching staff playing the role of Mr. Court knocked food out of a player’s
hands. The skit was prepared by the position group of the player in question. The
parody was well received by the players and prompted laughter.
The player involved did not find the incident amusing. He says that he was
unfairly targeted for following the common practice of eating during meetings. He
feels that Mr. Court disrespected him in front of the entire team, and says that
“where I’m from, you don’t disrespect people like that.”
The player also reports that, later in the season, Mr. Court again called him
out in front of teammates. Mr. Court purportedly said to his teammates, referring
to the player, “this is an example of what not to be.” The player says this “messed
him up mentally.” We also spoke to the player’s father, who concurs that Mr.
Court’s behavior affected his son psychologically.
81
E. Player Compelled to Eat Candy Bars
Multiple current and former players confirm news reports that a specific
player who was overweight was given candy bars and snacks by Mr. Court while
others worked out or looked on. This was seen by fellow players as an attempt to
ridicule the overweight player. The incident reportedly took place around
Halloween 2016, when there was candy available in the weight room. In our
September 9, 2018 survey of the current football players, we received 14
comments discussing this incident.
Several interviewees say that the player in question presented unique
challenges for the coaches in terms of managing his weight, and that a wide range
of motivational strategies had been tried unsuccessfully. Accounts vary as to
whether Mr. Court placed the candy bars on the player’s lap, dropped them at his
feet, hurled them at the player, or poured a bin of them on the player and then
forced the player to eat them while the rest of the team worked out. Mr. Court says
he threw a bag of the candy at the player’s feet. One player recalls that Mr. Court
called the player “fat.”
While details vary, coaches and staff members recall the incident but shared
the conclusion that Mr. Court was seeking to motivate a challenging player and
address the health risks associated with the player’s weight. We also heard stories
of several situations in which Mr. Court went “beyond the call” to assist with this
82
young man’s health, including arranging a long-needed medical procedure to
address a health issue that arose during the player’s childhood.
There is disagreement about whether Mr. Durkin knew of the incident before
the ESPN article, which was published in August 2018, or whether he was present
in the weight room when it took place. Mr. Durkin denies learning of the incident
until the release of the August 10, 2018 ESPN article. Mr. Court admits this
occurred, but denies calling the player a “waste of life,” as alleged by others.
Mr. Court further defends his actions as an appropriate motivational technique to
try to get the player to recognize his health problems related to weight, given the
prior failure of more conventional methods.
The relationship between this player and Mr. Court may have improved in
the following months. In the spring of 2017, about six months after the incident,
the player texted Mr. Court:
Just wanted to say I’m sorry about earlier. You know I love ya man,
[you] did a lot of s*** for me the past year.
F. Player Compelled to Eat until Vomiting
The ESPN article published in August 2018 referenced a player being forced
to eat until he vomited, although neither the source nor the player in question is
identified. More than one player, and at least one coach, confirm that a player
vomited during a team meal, although there was disagreement regarding whether
the player was forced to eat, or if he was simply eating and vomited. A coach
83
explains that this player’s eating habits were closely monitored because the player
had off-field issues that might be affecting his appetite in an unhealthy way.
Coaches sat with the player in question to ensure that he was actually eating
instead of merely reporting that he ate. Although the coach did not observe the
incident, he heard that it did take place.
The coach emphasizes that this was not fairly characterized as force feeding.
Instead, coaches and staff were monitoring what they believed to be a particular
health issue that the player faced. Players confirm that the player in question was
struggling with a health issue that affected his appetite. In our September 9, 2018
survey of the current football players, we received six comments discussing this
incident.
We heard from one player and three parents about the coaching staff moving
this player’s locker into the bathroom. Nobody we spoke with identified a single
coach as responsible for the decision to move the player’s locker to the bathroom.
In our September 9, 2018 survey of the current football players, we received six
comments discussing this matter. Mr. Durkin states that he does not recall the
player’s locker being moved to the bathroom.
G. Players Exposed to Graphic Videos While Eating
Multiple players anonymously complain that the coaching staff would
subject teams during meal time to disturbing videos. According to Gus Little, this
84
included videos of serial killers, drills entering eyeballs, and bloody scenes with
animals eating animals. Another player says that there were videos of rams and
bucks running at each other at full speed. Mr. Durkin maintains that horror movies
were sometimes shown at breakfast to motivate and entertain players.
Mr. Court states that the staff would screen different videos at breakfast to
break up the monotony of fall camp. Each season, they would play horror films or
scenes of animals fighting (from a mainstream source, like Animal Planet) only
prior to the first day of full contact practice in pads. Selections on other days
included videos the players had made during the summer of their workouts, “Fast
and Furious” movie highlights, and a variety of movies and motivational clips. In
our September 9, 2018 survey of the current football players, we did not receive
any comments discussing this incident.
H. Player Removed from Meeting for Smiling
According to ESPN’s reporting, defensive lineman Malik Jones was
castigated by Mr. Durkin for smiling during a team meeting during the 2016
season. There was a preexisting rift between the player and the coach, which was
only amplified when Mr. Durkin observed the player not paying attention during
the meeting.
We spoke to a source who claimed knowledge of Jones’s current thinking,
whom we found reliable. The source states that Malik Jones currently believes that
85
the Maryland football program “was not a bad culture,” and the event he related to
ESPN was a “misunderstanding.” The source says Mr. Jones believes that the staff
had “his best interest at heart,” and, apart from this incident, Mr. Jones did not
think the tone was too harsh. Mr. Jones transferred after the 2016 season. In our
September 9, 2018 survey of the current football players, we did not receive any
comments discussing this incident.
I. Verbal Abuse of Player During Practice
An eyewitness observed a player come off the field during practice and take
his helmet off. The player was having difficulty breathing. Mr. Court approached
the player and yelled “What the f*** are you doing?” The player put his hand up,
unable to speak as he tried to get his breathing under control. According to the
witness, Mr. Court said “Are you crying, you f***ing p****?”
Finally, the player gathered himself, and told Mr. Court: “[g]et the f***
away from me.” A team medical provider was also informed of this incident, but
did not relay it to the Athletics Department staff because he had not heard any prior
complaints about Mr. Court. In our September 9, 2018 survey of the current
football players, we did not receive any comments discussing this incident.
Mr. Court denies verbally abusing the player. Mr. Court recalls that the
team was doing an “inside run” and one of the rules of the drill was that players
had to run off of the field. After a play, the player in question walked off of the
86
field. Mr. Court says that he told the player to go back and run off the field, the
player protested, and the two had a verbal exchange laced with foul language.
Mr. Court admits that he may have said, “[w]hat the f*** are you doing?” But he
denies mocking the player’s physical condition, or using the term “p****.” Mr.
Court believes that the player became upset because of how he was playing, as
opposed to anything that Mr. Court said.
More generally, Mr. Court admits to using profanity and slurs to motivate,
including “p****” and “b****.” He denies, however, ever using the homophobic
slur “f*****,” although several players and coaches tell us that Mr. Court used this
term. Mr. Court also denies directing any slurs at players, save for one incident
during a mat drill. Mr. Court tells us that he discussed this conversation with the
student-athlete shortly thereafter, and they resolved any disagreement.
Mr. Court, players, coaches, and staff all agree that profanity was rampant
within the program and was used by players and coaches alike. Indeed, junior
football staff claim that they were sometimes the subjects of profane and
demeaning language directed at them by players.
J. Players being Forced to Exercise on a Stair Stepper Machine with

a PVC Pipe
According to several sources, Mr. Court employed a disciplinary tactic of
ordering players to exercise on a stair stepper machine for up to one hour. This
was often the punishment when players would arrive late to workouts or otherwise
87
fail to follow Mr. Court’s instructions. This practice was referred to as the “Jesus
Walks” exercise by a former player; we did not hear anyone claim that Mr. Court
used this term.81 In our September 9, 2018 survey of the current football players,
we received one comment discussing this practice.
Mr. Court freely admits to requiring this stair stepper machine exercise in
what he believed to be appropriate circumstances. Players would be told to do the
exercise for 15 minutes if they were late to a workout, because they had missed the
warm-up. If a player missed an entire workout, they were told to do the stair
stepper machine exercise for one hour with a PVC pipe across their shoulders. Mr.
Durkin also acknowledges that players were required to do this exercise, which he
deemed appropriate in certain circumstances. Mr. Durkin and Mr. Court further
insist that exercising on a stair stepper machine with a PVC pipe across the
player’s shoulders improves core strength and posture, as it prevents the player
from “cheating” on the exercise by leaning into the side handles of the exercise
machine. Our medical expert confirmed that the use of a PVC pipe while on this
exercise equipment is an appropriate exercise technique.
81
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/motivation-or-abuse-maryland-
confronts-footballs-fine-line-as-new-allegations-emerge/2018/09/30/e7ab028e-c3dd-11e8-b338-
88
K. Player Complained of Bullying to Mr. Durkin
A former Maryland football player, Edward “E.J.” Donahue tells us that
during his time on the football team at Maryland, he experienced depression and
anxiety because of the bullying he received from the football staff, for which he
obtained counseling.82 Mr. Donahue also claims that Mr. Court had a practice of
“fat-shaming” and humiliating players regarding their weight. Mr. Donahue has
described his time playing under Mr. Durkin as “the worst year of [his] life” and
says that “it’s hard to hear about it and talk about it again.” After the 2016 season,
Mr. Donahue left the football program, and he eventually transferred from UMD.
Mr. Durkin admits that Mr. Donahue came to speak to him in December
2016. He recalls that Mr. Donahue opened up about issues that he was
experiencing, some of which dated back to high school. Mr. Durkin denies that
Mr. Donahue mentioned “fat shaming.”
In our September 9, 2018 survey of the current football players, we received
two comments about fat shaming incidents.
L. The “Champions Club”
Several players and coaches have mentioned the “Champions Club,” which
was a group of players recognized by Mr. Durkin. Players were eligible to become
part of the Champions Club if they had a strong record of attendance at classes,
82
Mr. Donahue’s name is used with his consent.
89
practices, workouts, and other obligations and, in the coaching staff’s judgment,
demonstrated maximum effort during team activities. A video produced by the
Athletics Department promoting the Champions Club shows events where the
members are celebrated and rewarded with steaks and crab cakes, while the rest of
the players received hot dogs, hamburgers, and beans.83 In one media report, it
was implied that non-club members always ate hot dogs and beans.84 These
Champions Club events, however, only occurred about once a semester.
Otherwise, all team members ate the same food, with many more choices than hot
dogs and beans.
Other football teams have similar groups to honor players’ efforts.85 In our
September 9, 2018 survey of the current football players, we did not receive any
comments discussing this issue.
The attitudes about the Champions Club appear to be divided. Some players
view the Champions Club as a means for Mr. Durkin to show favoritism to the
players he likes while demeaning the players whom he dislikes. A member of the
coaching staff, who spoke to the Commission anonymously, states that “a lot of
83
See http://www.dbknews.com/2016/08/18/coach-dj-durkin-implements-champions-club-
to-promote-accountability/. The video is no longer available online. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2_eU39FB0Q&app=desktop.
84
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/motivation-or-abuse-maryland-
confronts-footballs-fine-line-as-new-allegations-emerge/2018/09/30/e7ab028e-c3dd-11e8-b338-
a3289f6cb742_story.html.
85
For example, one former player states that the Ohio State football program has a similar
group.
90
players had a problem with the Champions Club being biased. It was well-
intended, but it also felt like it became something to use against players to get them
to fall in line.” One player claims that he was denied Champions Club status even
though he rightfully earned it.
Other players saw it as an appropriate incentive for players to do what was
expected of them. According to former Maryland quarterback Perry Hills, the
Champions Club was a way of getting players to “buy-in.”86 “There’s guys who
are buying in that have done the things that he’s asked. And he wants to show
people that if they join in and do those things that he’s asking, that they’re going to
be rewarded.”87
Mr. Durkin, for his part, states that his intention behind the Champions Club
was to reward efforts, particularly among those players who receive less playing
time. According to Mr. Durkin, “the Champions Club was created to reward those
who don’t get all the recognition. This is my way of rewarding walk-ons and guys
who don’t get all of the playing time.” Mr. Durkin also describes the Champions
Club as an “inclusive group,” meaning that he wanted to encourage all members of
the team to earn their way to becoming part of the group.88
86
Mr. Hills’s name is used with his consent.
87
The video is no longer available online. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2_eU39FB0Q&app=desktop.
88
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2_eU39FB0Q&app=desktop.
91
VI. Culture Assessment
College football is demanding and can be physically brutal. It can also build
character, teach team work and sportsmanship, and prepare participants for
successful careers and lives long after competitive athletics ends. For those who
are provided the opportunity and choose to participate, the University should not
only provide an environment that challenges players to be the best athletes they can
be and prepares them to fairly compete at the highest levels of Division I football,
but also supports them and conscientiously mitigates the on-the-field and off-the-
field risks of competitive collegiate sports.
A. The Process of Assessing Culture
Defining culture, much less measuring it, is a difficult task.89 We
approached this challenge by trying to get as many perspectives as possible from
the “consumers” of the football program—current and former players, and their
parents—as well as from the “providers” of the program—coaches and staff.
We wanted everyone involved with the program to have an opportunity to be
heard. We contacted, by email, phone, or both, virtually every single player who
played for Coach Durkin at Maryland.90 We also sent a memorandum to the
89
See https://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/meaning-culture.
90
We made multiple attempts to speak with Elijah and Elisha Daniels. Roderick Vereen, a
Florida-based attorney, had previously written the University, advising that he represented
Kimberly Daniels and her sons, and directed the University to route all communications to his
clients through him. See Appendix 13. On August 15, 2018, the Commission sent an email to
Mr. Vereen and asked to speak to his clients. See Appendix 14. Mr. Vereen failed to respond.
92
players’ parents, collaborated with the parents’ liaison, Mark Roski, to spread word
of our interest in speaking to parents, and made six sets of interviewers available
on the day of the intra-squad scrimmage (August 18, 2018).91 All told, we spoke to
165 people, as described in Section II.
Most importantly, we spoke with 55 student-athletes who played football at
Maryland under Coach Durkin. We also anonymously surveyed 94 of the current
players.
In addition, we reviewed prior survey data. Following both the 2016 and
2017 football seasons, football players were provided with an anonymous
voluntary online survey. This was valuable data, as it demonstrated the stark
difference in the attitudes of the players before and after the McNair tragedy.
We are grateful to everyone who shared their thoughts. Collectively, this
process yielded several hundred hours of conversations with the people who know
the program best. What we attempt to do below is to provide a representative
sampling of the wide spectrum of viewpoints we heard.
After the publication of the Washington Post article on September 30, we made more attempts to
contact Ms. Daniels through Mr. Vereen by email and telephone, but again received no response.
91
We are grateful to Mr. Roski. He generously volunteered his time and energy to help us
get word to parents of players about our interest in obtaining their views and shared with them
how to get in touch with us.
93
B. The 2016 and 2017 Football Team Survey Data
NCAA rules require that its member schools conduct exit interviews of
selected student-athletes as they depart the school.92 The Athletics Department
satisfied this mandate by taking surveys of the football team after the 2016 and
2017 seasons. The surveys were emailed to all players on March 3, 2017, and
December 7, 2017, respectively, with follow-up reminders. The results of these
surveys are included in Appendices 9 and 10; we have redacted the names of the
respondents.93
For 2016, 48 players responded out of approximately 110. In 2017, the
number of respondents dipped to 20.94 There were not as many email reminders
sent in connection with the 2017 survey, which may account, at least in part, for
the decreased participation.
The 2016 survey showed strong player approval for the quality of coaching.
In the 2016 survey, 43 out of 46 respondents either “Agreed” or “Strongly Agreed”
that the quality of head coaching and assistant coaching was adequate and
appropriate. 41 out of 46 respondents stated that they were not subject to
92
NCAA Manual Article 6 Institutional Control, Rule 6.3 Exit Interviews.
93
We also reviewed results from an anonymous survey collected in May 2016. As the
questions did not specify whether feedback was being provided on Coach Edsall or Coach
Durkin, this survey was not useful in the Commission’s analysis (Durkin’s employment began in
December 2015, and he served as head coach during spring practices).
94
Though 48 and 20 individuals responded to questions in each survey, respectively, they did
not all answer every question, which accounts for the lower number of responses for some of the
data discussed herein.
94
inappropriate physical conduct, verbal communication, or mental/emotional stress.
Four respondents were neutral, and only one respondent “Disagreed” or “Strongly
Disagreed” with each of these queries.
At least 85% of the respondents “Agreed” or “Strongly Agreed” that: 1) they
had a positive experience with medical/training staff, 2) they were pleased with the
level of care received, and 3) the staff was available to the student-athletes. Out of
46 respondents, all except one either “Agreed” or “Strongly Agreed” that they had
a positive experience with the S&C staff, and that the staff met their needs.
In the 2017 survey, 16 out of 18 respondents (89%) either “Agreed” or
“Strongly Agreed” that the quality of head coaching and assistant coaching was
adequate and appropriate; the other two were neutral. Similar responses were
given regarding inappropriate physical conduct, verbal communication, or
mental/emotional stress; only one respondent stated that he was subject to
inappropriate physical contact, verbal communication, and mental/emotional
stress. The players also endorsed the medical staff; there was only one negative
response to a total of nine different questions regarding the quality of the
medical/training staff’s services. All player responses were positive or neutral
regarding the quality of the S&C program. The two specific comments made
about the S&C team were: “[m]y strength coach has worked with many athletes
and all results have been positive,” and “Coach Court and staff are great.”
95
C. The September 9, 2018 Survey Conducted by the Independent
Commission
On Sunday, September 9, 2018, we asked the players to take an anonymous,
online survey at Gossett for thirty minutes.95 The survey was administered by
RealRecruit, Inc., an independent intercollegiate sports assessment surveyor with
no prior affiliation with UMD. Neither the coaching staff nor the players were
informed of this survey until that morning. Ninety-four players—almost everyone
present—took the survey. There was also an interactive feature used by the
Commission to ask follow-up questions to the anonymous student-athletes to gain
additional information or clarification.
The survey contained ranking questions. For example, the first question
was, “Rate your overall experience as a member of the University of Maryland
football team.” The player could rate the program from 0.5 to 5 stars, in one-half
star increments.
The survey also contained short answer questions such as “[h]ow would you
describe the culture of the Maryland football program?” The complete set of
survey questions is published in Appendix 12. The players were instructed to base
their answers on the football program as they experienced it from the beginning of
95
The Survey Welcome Letter received by the players is included as Appendix 15.
96
their Maryland careers to the point in time when Coach Durkin was placed on paid
administrative leave (August 11, 2018).
Many of the ranking questions we used were identical to questions posed to
32 Division I college football teams by RealRecruit during the 2016 and 2017
football seasons (the same period for which we were surveying). None of these
other surveys, however, were taken in response to a specific incident, but were
instead collected as part of the football programs’ customary postseason
assessment process. We were able to compare the responses of the Maryland
football team to the attitudes of these other schools’ teams from the 2017 season,
recognizing that there were some differences in the circumstances that led to the
surveys.
DJ Rick Court
Overall Team Durkin (vs.
Contingent Culture/Values
Experience Chemistry (vs. Head Assistant
Coaches) Coaches)
32 Team
3.8 3.8 4.1 3.8 4.2
comparison
UMD
3.1 3.0 3.9 3.0 2.3
players (94)
Freshmen
3.6 3.7 4.1 3.0 2.2
UMD (28)
Sophomores
3.1 2.8 3.9 3.0 2.4
UMD (30)
Juniors
2.9 3.0 3.7 3.3 2.4
UMD (17)
Seniors
2.9 2.7 3.6 2.9 2.3
UMD (19)
97
The first row of this chart (numbers bolded and underlined) shows the
average answers for each question (on a scale of 0.5 to 5) for the other 32 football
teams that RealRecruit tested with identical questions. The remaining rows show
the Maryland players’ responses, first in the aggregate, and then broken down by
class.
Maryland fared poorly against the comparative team data. It ranked 29th out
of 33 in terms of “Overall Experience.” On the Culture/Values question, Maryland
ranked below all but one of 32 teams.96 Maryland was somewhat better in Team
Chemistry, ranking 25th out of 32 teams. Coach Durkin ranked 28th out of 29
compared to how other teams ranked the effectiveness of their head coaches. He
ranked somewhat better, 25th out of 29 on the “net promoter” scale. “Net
promoters” are those who gave Coach Durkin extremely high marks, and hence are
considered “promoters” of the program. The “net promoter” score was based on
this question: “How likely are you to recommend Coach Durkin to a recruited
friend?” Coach Durkin’s rating on “Coaching Style” was 2.7, which was 0.9
below the average from other schools.
Coach Court’s scores were extremely poor by any standard: significantly
worse than the program as a whole and worse than the scores given to Coach
96
Not all teams were asked every ranking question that the Maryland team was asked. This
is why there are not comparisons for all 32 teams for each question.
98
Durkin or his staff. The players provided a much higher score for team chemistry
(3.9) than culture (3.0), and this difference may help describe the impact of Coach
Court on the players’ overall assessment of the program.
Seniors97 provided the harshest assessments overall, and freshmen held the
most positive views of the program, on average. Yet even here the results were
mixed, with juniors providing Coach Durkin with his highest ranking amongst the
classes. This data tracks to some degree with our interview data. The players
almost uniformly stated that the 2016 season was much more difficult and
challenging than 2017. Moreover, most of the specific allegations against Coach
Court described conduct that occurred in 2016. Some players noted that the 2017
atmosphere was much more conducive to football and player improvement, and
that the early 2018 atmosphere even more so, but scars lingered from Coach
Court’s abusive language and conduct during his first season.
We also broke down the data by Offense/Defense/Special teams.98 The
differences in attitudes amongst these groups were modest.
97
This included both fourth and fifth year seniors.
98
How did we do this if the survey was anonymous? RealRecruit, Inc., the surveyor, coded
the players by certain criteria, such as class, position, and ethnicity when it compiled the data.
RealRecruit kept all this information on its side of the “virtual wall,” however, so the
Commission could not identify any individual player’s responses.
99
DJ
Rick Court
Position Overall Team Durkin
Culture/Values (vs. assistant
Group Experience Chemistry (vs. Head
coaches)
Coaches)
Offense
3.1 2.9 3.8 2.9 2.4
(46)
Defense
3.2 3.2 4.0 3.3 2.1
(40)
Special
Teams 3.4 3.3 3.7 2.9 2.9
(8)
Ethnicity is not a large factor. African-Americans and other non-Caucasians
were more supportive of the program and of Coach Durkin than Caucasians, but
were harsher in their assessments of Coach Court.
DJ
Durkin Rick Court
Overall Team
Ethnicity Culture/Values (vs. (vs. assistant
Experience Chemistry
Head coaches)
Coaches)
Non-
Caucasian 3.2 3.1 3.9 3.1 2.2
(66)
Caucasian
2.9 2.9 3.7 2.9 2.6
(28)
Whether a player was a starter or not was also not a significant factor. As
shown by the data below, it is difficult to discern any comparable trends among the
various surveyed issues.
100
DJ
Rick Court
Playing Overall Team Durkin
Culture/Values (vs. assistant
Time Experience Chemistry (vs. Head
coaches)
Coaches)
Starters
3.2 2.8 3.7 3.1 2.6
(22)
Significant
Playing 3.2 3.0 3.7 3.0 2.6
Time (20)
Little
Playing 3.1 3.2 4.0 3.0 2.1
Time (52)
The 2018 survey results not only starkly contrast with other football teams’
survey results, but with the prior years’ surveys taken by the Maryland football
team. Why did the attitudes of the Maryland football team change so dramatically
between when the 2017 survey was sent out on December 7, 2017, and September
9, 2018, when the Commission conducted its own survey? We cannot say with
certainty what made so many players change their views about the Maryland
football program, but the following factors provide possible explanations:
 The 2016 and 2017 surveys had substantially lower
participation rates (48 and 20 players, respectively) compared
to the 2018 survey (94 players). It is possible that in prior
surveys those with negative views did not participate.99 The
surveys were conducted anonymously using a third-party
99
More than one of the players associated with the criticisms in the August 11, 2018 ESPN
article participated in the 2016 survey.
101
vendor, but the players still might have feared repercussions.
For our 2018 survey, the players were advised repeatedly that
their participation would be anonymous and that there would be
no reprisals for participation. Thus, the players may have
expressed themselves more freely than in prior surveys, and
those players who typically do not complete surveys did so here
because they were a captive audience for the half-hour
period.100
 Jordan McNair died tragically between the dates of the 2017
and 2018 surveys. This might cause players to view the same
events, as well as cast their overall impressions of the football
program, in a very different light. It is quite understandable
how the tragic death of a teammate and friend might color some
players’ perspectives on the program.
 We have heard reports from multiple sources that media,
lawyers, and Maryland coaching staff lobbied players after
Jordan McNair died in attempts to shape the narrative to fit
their particular agendas. Both “pro-Durkin camps” and “anti-
100
Some student-athletes still declined to participate in the survey, as we received 94
responses out of the full roster of 112.
102
Durkin camps” were rumored to have been involved in quiet
campaigning.
 The players took this survey on a Sunday afternoon, after
returning from a road win against Bowling Green the night
before. The success they were enjoying (2-0 at that point in the
season, including an upset win over Texas in the season opener)
may have impacted the players’ views.
 Many players commented that they had not personally observed
abusive behavior, but had read the ESPN articles or heard about
those stories. Some freshmen and sophomores commented
about anecdotes that occurred before they were members of the
team. Accordingly, there may have been an “echo chamber”
effect that influenced some views.
D. Representative Feedback from Current and Former Players,

Parents, Coaches, and Staff
Regardless of the factors that led to the attitudinal changes reflected in the
September 9, 2018 survey, the findings are of great value to the Athletics
Department and football program. Bill Gates advises: “Your most unhappy
customers are your greatest source of learning.”101 Another business expert shares,
101
http://smartbusinesstrends.com/bill-gates-quotes/.
103
“Our secret weapon for building the best culture is open and honest feedback.”102
Leaders are well advised to listen to those they lead.
In that spirit, set forth below are selected statements from the 94 players
surveyed, 55 current or former players, 24 parents, and 60 Athletics Department
staff (including football coaches and staff), with whom we spoke. These are the
people who know the program best.
1. The culture of the Maryland football program
As with virtually every question we posed to the stakeholders in the football
program, our questions about the program’s culture elicited a broad spectrum of
views. Many we interviewed shared criticisms of the program:103
 “It is a somewhat a toxic culture. It is an alpha male one. And
if you don’t buy in to what they are saying they find a way to
weave you out. They use humiliation and talk down to players.
Some coaches are good though and show the players mutual
respect.” (Current Player)
102
Gina Lau, https://blog.enplug.com/37-company-culture-quotes.
103
For written communications such as text messages and survey comments, we have taken
the liberty of removing typographical errors, recognizing the informal method of communication
and the issues with typing on a cell phone or iPad. We have not, however, changed the
substance of any message. Where we obtained the statement through an interview, we have done
our best relying on notes (no interviews were recorded), and we are confident in each instance
that we have accurately given voice to the speaker.
104
 “I certainly have witnessed a mentality where everything is
hyper-aggressive and there was no room for players to show
weakness. The situation that occurred this summer was a clear
culmination of that with someone who didn’t look out for
himself when he didn’t feel well because he felt the pressure
from around him to not look like a ‘failure.’ Beyond that, I
don’t know much because my time here has been short. But I
can see where the environment is not suitable for players to be
comfortable and feel that everyone is looking out for them at all
times.” (Current Player)
 “There is no real culture; I feel like there is no fan base and the
school isn’t really into it.” (Current Player)
 “It’s been toxic because everyone was new and didn’t know
how to run a program but it has gotten better over the years.”
(Current Player)
 “I have heard players and myself called “p******” for being
unable to complete workouts and the constant foul language has
become accustomed to our culture. It has been incorporated
into how we spoke to our teammates and coaches, but it isn’t
105
seen as a negative because we are so numb to it now.” (Current
Player)
 “[The culture was] miserable. I was very miserable the whole
time. I was depressed, tired, and most importantly, I hated
football. I felt like all the other players hated it as much as me.
I felt like several position coaches hated it as well. No one was
enjoying it for the two seasons I was here under Durkin it
seemed like.” (Player Survey)
 “Appreciation for everyone is a very important thing, which
was the case at [last school] but isn’t here. At [last school],
people noticed [the staffer] and how hard people worked, and
that was really important to be there for people. You’re around
these people more than you’re around your own family, so you
should be able to get to know each other and have respect and
admiration for people there.” (Current Staffer)
 “I don’t know about toxic culture really or verbal abuse. But
they would say things that you don’t say to another grown man.
Not respectful. P**** a** b****. . . . You can’t call another
grown man that. If I were to call you or your family that, it
would be an issue. I’d be punished. You can yell at me; you
106
would do that in front of my parents. But certain things you
wouldn’t call another grown man. Fighting words. Especially
when you know the intent behind the words. It’s not your
friends joking around with you. Guys fight over that in
practice.” (Former Player)
 “I know that other programs have similar intensity with
workouts and conditioning. I don’t think that level of
humiliation is common. I don’t think that the abuse is common.
The pejorative language regarding masculinity is going beyond
that and you become a bully and a coward. Words like a
P-word and B-word, it becomes bullying. Right under the N
word [because it] is a word [relating to] a kid’s masculinity.”
(Parent of Current Player)
 “I think it was ‘over the top’ in the beginning. It goes
overboard because the coaches are trying to get the players to
‘buy in.’ Perspectives are different based on when the players
came in. Guys under Edsall probably hated it. As years went
on, people’s experiences got better. That’s why you don’t see a
mass exodus. All that ESPN stuff was the first year . . . they
were going overboard.” (Assistant Coach)
107
 “The thing I’ve always told our staff is that we don’t have kids
from [parts of the South] who have to go to the [NFL]. They
deal with cussing, foul language. Up here, you can’t do that.
Kids’ parents are successful, and there is not the same push to
go to the [NFL] to be successful in life. Kids in the South don’t
live like they do up here, and they need to go to the [NFL] for
their families. It’s a different mindset. But up here, kids might
react to being called a p****. Parents might be more educated
and react differently.” (Assistant Coach)
Others had far more positive comments to make:
 “The culture is one that promotes competition and those who
work hard are rewarded. That is the way it should be. In the
real world when you do not perform well, you get fired. The
same principle is necessary in football. If not, you will not
succeed.” (Current Player)
 “[The culture was] intense but supportive and players were
always given an opportunity to improve.” (Current Player)
 “[The culture was] hard and tough but loving.” (Current Player)
 “I truly believe that every coach and staff cares about every
player and will do everything they can to help them out. The
108
coaches help players do things that they couldn’t do by
themselves. Durkin is a really good guy and really cares about
everyone and wants what’s best.” (Current Player)
 “I can’t speak for past actions by staff, but during my time here,
I’ve been treated with the utmost kindness. All throughout,
I’ve never had any animosity from anyone.” (Current player)
 “The Maryland program is more personal and cares more than
Penn State or Miami [other schools the individual was
knowledgeable of]. Maryland created a supportive, family
environment, which a lot of families believe in. The Maryland
staff and coaches were always positive when [this parent]
stopped by unannounced, and the coaching staff even helped
son with preparation of academic reports for parents. There
was nothing toxic about the Maryland football culture, and if
there had been, [this parent] and several other parents would
have picked up on it.” (Parent of Current Player)
 “I enjoyed my last year with Durkin. The good parts of the
culture, the expectation of winning, not always the demand of
it, knowing we are getting better as a team. . . Durkin coming
109
from big programs, myself and other players thought, ‘this is
the way a program should be run.’” (Former Player)
Others commented on the focus Coach Durkin gave to the development of
players off the field. The Commission heard positive recollections about “Real
Life Wednesdays,” which was a program implemented by Coach Durkin within a
month after starting at UMD. This involved the coaching staff inviting a guest
speaker to talk to the team about their story and experiences, with the aim of
teaching the student-athletes how to prepare for life after football. These
discussions frequently focused on how to be a good man and a good husband and
father, in addition to talks about financial well-being and planning for the future.
Many individuals the Commission spoke with expressed a belief that the
UMD football program possessed a similar intensity level as other Division I
football programs around the country.
 “I’ve talked with guys at other schools, and I think that what
UMD is doing is not far off what other programs are doing.
This is D1 football.” (Current Player)
 “UMD is one of the hardest working groups. I think the players
spend more time in their football facility than anyone in
America. There is some f***ed up s*** that happens other
places though.” (Current Player)
110
 “Using harsh language is standard for any team. It’s a bunch of
alphas, dog eat dog.” (Former Player)
 “UMD is not at all different. I feel like it was just magnified
because of the situation with Jordan. I know people who
played elsewhere in Division I. Coaches yell at you, dog you,
etc. That’s just the culture of football. Even with little league.
Not saying that it’s right, but it’s part of the culture of football.
I don’t think football at Maryland was any different.” (Former
Player)
 When asked if a player witnessed unduly harsh language or
verbal abuse: “I don’t know how to tell what’s wrong and right.
That’s normal all over the country. Curse words and words like
p**** everyone uses. I don’t see it as demeaning. I don’t
know honestly if it’s demeaning or just regular.” (Current
Player)
 “There is nothing that is taking place that is uniquely Maryland,
there would be similar things happening anywhere else. If
Maryland’s culture is toxic then all D1 schools’ culture would
be toxic.” (A Source Close to the University)
111
2. Comments about Coach Durkin
Coach Durkin received many texts and emails from players, parents, and
others after the tragic events of May 29, 2018. Nineteen players and 14 parents
wrote to Coach Durkin, reaffirming their confidence in his leadership. The
overwhelming majority of these communications occurred after Coach Durkin was
placed on leave on August 11, 2018. In addition, seven former Maryland players
and three high school coaches whose student-athletes went on to play at Maryland
sent notes of approval and encouragement.104 Following Coach Durkin being put
on leave, he received a number of text messages in support. A sampling of these
are included in Appendix 16.
A source close to the University who interacts with and counsels players on
a regular basis and who has worked with other college and NFL teams discussed
how Coach Durkin emphasized that he “really want[s] and desire[s] that our
coaches develop relationships with players, so the relationship starts with knowing
their family life, aspirations, and building the strong relationships.”
104
Numerous former players and colleagues from Mr. Durkin’s time at Stanford University
and the University of Florida, including Richard Sherman of the San Francisco 49ers and Dan
Quinn of the Atlanta Falcons, described Mr. Durkin as a high-energy coach, but one who had his
players’ best interests at heart. See R.J. Abeytia, Former Stanford Players And Colleagues
Discuss DJ Durkin, September 21, 2018,
https://247sports.com/college/stanford/LongFormArticle/Former-Stanford-Players-And-
Colleagues-Discuss-DJ-Durkin-Dan-Quinn-Johnson-Bademosi-Eric-Lorig-Toby-Gerhart-Erik-
Lorig--121516300/#121516300_1.
112
The September 9, 2018 survey of 94 current players included over 1,000
comments. The comments included a broad array of perspectives. Many
statements about Coach Durkin were either mixed or described ways he could
improve as a coach. Set forth below are representative comments made by current
players on September 9:
 “If you’re not a superstar he doesn’t really care about you. You
are just a number on the roster. He needs to learn how to
control his staff and become a decent human being. He should
not be our head coach.”
 “His greatest strength is his energy and intensity that he brings
to a coaching spot, he needs to put himself more into the
position of the kids and handle them more as if they were his
own kids.”
 “He is a young coach learning how to be a head coach. He is
very passionate about his job and cares about his players.”
 “Extremely smart coach who knows what he is talking about in
all facets of the game. Great when getting one on one coaching.
When it comes to being a head coach he does not know how to
manage his players health and well-being. Definitely not the
ideal head coach.”
113
 “His greatest strength is how much he cares about his players.
An area he needs to improve on at times is being able to
understand each player better.”
 “If he didn’t want you to start he would do everything for you
to quit and make you look bad to make you think you suck.”
 “He loves the game, and loves our team. It is not his fault the
training staff didn’t take proper care. He would never have
allowed that. He cares for us. He deserves to be back, was not
in the wrong. Never threw food at anybody or used physical
harm. Coach Durkin is innocent.”
 “Durkin tried to discredit everything I have done up to this
point in my time here and called me a backstabber for trying to
fight for my job. There was language that crossed the line and
was pretty degrading.”
 “Coach Durkin has given me tremendous opportunity. I have
been able to work while being a member of the team to help my
future career after football. I have the utmost respect for him,
he has always been a great coach to me.”
114
 “The medical staff tried to comply to Durkin and not to what
they were taught to practice. Many players played hurt and
were forced to play when they shouldn’t have.”
 “He needed to get Rick Court out, because a lot of the things he
did was without Coach Durkin’s knowledge.”
 “He cares about the individual. He always promotes life after
football and drives our education into us as the most important
thing about being at the University of Maryland. He has an
open door policy. I know many of the players say our team
periods of practice are too long but that’s all.”
 “His greatest strength is that he was honest and passionate
about everything he did but it overtook his sight of how his
players were actually doing mentally and physically. I don’t
think that he was healthy for this team and the greatest
improvement that could be made is for him to understand that
we can’t do everything he was asking and work with us to make
sure we feel good and can play to our best potential.”
Many people interviewed had negative views of Coach Durkin:
 “It’s bulls*** that Durkin is on paid administrative leave. . . . I
don’t think Durkin should be paid, and he should never get
115
another coaching job. What he put us through is disgusting.
I’m not happy with less than a firing.” (Former Player)
 “No, I didn’t think they had the players’ best interests in mind.
They had their own best interests in mind. It was clear that
Durkin didn’t care for the players. Some of the starters he
might have cared for. But if you were someone they brought
in, it would be different.” (Former Player)
 “Shady s*** ever since Durkin stepped through the door.
Everyone knew that this isn’t right. The program was based on
fear. What was in ESPN article summed it up, but it didn’t do
it justice. You’d have to see it.” (Former Player)
 “I heard from a friend that people would go into Durkin’s office
to complain about stuff that Court was doing, and he didn’t do
anything about it. He wasn’t hearing it.” (Current Player)
 According to a player, Mr. Durkin told him “[n]obody likes
you; why don’t you just leave,” in a profanity-laced reprimand
after he missed class. (Former Player)
Yet the views about Coach Durkin were quite diverse. Many others we
interviewed had praise for Coach Durkin:
116
 “Durkin ran his program well. There were weekly academic
meetings and the team’s personnel were monitoring all aspects
of the players’ lives at school. Depending on the circumstances
some student athletes might receive a reprimand, but there was
never a meeting where I would have been uncomfortable if it
has been my son sitting in there.’” (Current Staffer)
 “Knowing Durkin on a personal level, it was heartbreaking. I
know he cares about his players. I know he had a lot invested
in those guys.” (Former Player)
 “When I tell you that Durkin loves my son, he loves my son. We
have had deep conversations about where my son should be. I
know pretty much all the parents that came in with the Class of
2020 and some of the junior, senior parents, some freshman
parents. There are a lot of protective parents, so if any of us
thought that Durkin was putting our kids in jeopardy, ‘it would
have been a wrap.’” (Mother of Current Player)
 “I’m proud to be able to play with him and proud to call him
coach. I feel the same towards the staff.” (Current Player)
 “Coach Durkin gave everyone their opportunity to play and
treated everyone equally. It was a competitive culture, and if
117
you didn’t like to compete you wouldn’t have fun there, but if
you wanted to compete you could prove yourself.” (Former
Player)
 “Nobody is as dedicated to the program or as compassionate
and caring as DJ Durkin. While [a prior coach] ran the program
like a business, Durkin gained the trust of the players and their
parents. He brought structure to the program that did not exist
before.” (Football Staff Member)
 “Coach Durkin is intelligent, motivating, detailed on what he
wants to accomplish. He will put his arm around you
afterwards if there is an issue on the practice field. He’ll ask
you how math class is going, how are mom and dad. He has
players’ best interests at heart. He knows people handle things
differently.” (Football Staff Member)
3. Comments about Coach Court
In speaking with current and former players and others who interacted with
the S&C program, many had strong feelings about how they were treated by Coach
Court. As shown by the anonymous survey results described above, the current
players’ perception of Coach Court was far inferior to that of Coach Durkin and
the program as a whole. The team rated Coach Court as a 2.3, and Coach Durkin
118
as a 3.0. Other Division I schools surveyed using RealRecruit gave assistant
coaches an average rating of 4.2, and head coaches a 3.8.
Several assistant coaches commented about Coach Court. He was described
as one of the hardest working coaches around, and “passionate” about his job. As
do many strength coaches, Coach Court used a Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale
to assist athletes in self-regulating their training intensity. See Appendix 17. But
Coach Court was not only demanding of his players, he also demeaned and
degraded them at times. One coach viewed Coach Court’s use of profanity as
“verbal abuse,” commenting that “[i]f I were a parent and I watched that on a daily
basis, what took place in the weight room, on the field, I wouldn’t let my kid play
for that program.” Other criticisms of Coach Court included the following:
 “Court’s favorite words were p**** b****, calling people fat,
bringing people’s family into it, every curse word you can think
of was used by Durkin, Court and their minions.” (Former
Player)
 “We were lifting and practicing way longer than we were
supposed to. I was forced to do things I couldn’t do. Too much
weight was put on the bar for me to lift. When I couldn’t lift it,
[Court] bashed me with horrible language.” (Former Player)
119
 “Court said to a player, he’s a waste of life. He should go
ahead and kill himself, kind of in a joking tone. ‘You should
just f****** kill yourself.’” (Former Player)
 “I think they got out of control. Strength and training staff.
Rick. . . . There were times when you could visually see a kid
was struggling, and they would tear him down instead of
bringing him up. They berated the kid. Knocked him down.
Would have liked to see more encouraging the guy to say they
believed in him rather than calling him a p****.” (Former
Player)
 “I’d be midway through a workout, and they would throw over
100 more pounds on. Then Court would get on his hands and
knees screaming, calling you a p****. Court was just throwing
weights on until someone couldn’t lift the bar off of his chest.
This was a normal thing for them to throw weights on, and if
you couldn’t do it, you were the lowest of the low human
being.” (Former Player)
 “Unduly harsh language? Yes. Rick would be on the bad side
of the line. I think Rick just opened his mouth and whatever
came out came out.” (Medical Staff Member)
120
 “I kind of regret not saying it to Durkin, but the kids hated
Rick. Rick is the most talented person I've ever been around in
my life, but he can’t shut his mouth. I regret not talking to
Durkin. The kids wanted Rick out of their lives.” (Football
Staff Member)
 “I know Coach Court had developed a type of arrogance to him
where he couldn’t see himself from a player’s perspective. As a
player you can feel the lack of respect.” (Football Staff
Member)
This may have been a change from Coach Court’s prior conduct at
Mississippi State, as one of Coach Court’s former colleagues on the athletics staff
there reported that he was “very surprised to hear about Rick Court” because he
“never had any issues with him at MSU.” Coach Court told us that he developed
guidelines concerning how much rest a player needs between periods of exertion,
though others claimed that Coach Court violated his own rest requirements.
One player tweeted a picture of the progress he had made between June
2016 and July 2017 in getting stronger, stating “[t]his is what happens when you
give your heart to @courtstrength every day. #Trusttheprocess.”105 Other players
105
@courtstrength is Mr. Court’s twitter handle.
121
also viewed Coach Court’s approach as effective at motivating players to build
strength and endurance:
 “Court may have yelled and cursed a lot, but Court is a ‘tough
love type of guy.’ He was never inappropriate, and Court
pushed players only so they would be better and so he could get
the most out of them.” (Current Player)
 “Court was probably too extreme with his language and crossed
the line sometimes, but weightlifting and conditioning is
supposed to be difficult. Some players didn’t want to work
hard, which is why they may have had a problem with Court.”
(Current Player)
 “Court treated me well. I’m fond of Court, he helped me when
I was struggling with stuff. He wouldn’t belittle me or call me
those names. He would have conversations with me about
improving. He was a good guy to me. I had a better
relationship with Court than with Durkin.” (Former Player)
 Regarding the allegations of Coach Court throwing weights: “I
saw that as a tool of motivation to not give up. Coach Court
would never hit a player with anything, but he was trying to
motivate.” (Former Player)
122
 “Court is knowledgeable on the means to build a great team in
terms of strength and conditioning. He’s a strong motivator.
He cares a lot about the team. I wouldn’t say he’s any different
than other strength coaches. He pushes you to be your best.”
(Football Staff Member)
 “Rick Court was my guy. He was part of why I committed to
Maryland. Every time I visited, he took time to talk to me
about weightlifting. He would ask about my family. I really
like him.” (Johnny Jordan, Current Player).106
 “Court had a good approach with me. He would do anything he
could to make sure my rehab process went smoothly. Even if it
meant some days if I had a sore knee, Court would cut down
my reps to make sure I was healing properly.” (Current Player)
 “Court never attacked me in any way. If I was doing something
wrong, Court would come and tell me how I was doing things
wrong. He was never in my face. I honestly believe this is
because I tried to always get my stuff done. He was relatively
more calm to the people that got their stuff done as opposed to
the people that needed a push. There are players that need that
106
Mr. Jordan’s name is used with his consent.
123
extra push, that extra motivational start. And it worked.”
(Current Player)
 “Coach Court used profanity. The profanity was seldom
directed at a specific individual. When Court directed profanity
towards a person, he was trying to motivate, not to humiliate.
Court did not use profane terms as a weapon.” (Current Player)
 “Coach Court took my son under his wing. He really cared for
him. The whole training staff spent an enormous amount of
time with him and working with him to get stronger. Court told
my son last spring that as long as he was there he would be
advocating for him. He was very positive and encouraging. I
met him only a few times, but Court would have my son over
for dinner and was really caring of him.” (Mother of Current
Player)
E. Perspectives of Other Coaches
The Commission also contacted prominent high school programs in the
Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia area that regularly send players to Maryland.
Because of the potential for communication among high school and college players
and their coaches, the Commission surmised that candid impressions of
124
Maryland’s football program may have filtered back to high school coaches and
athletic administrators at these premier feeder schools.
We reached out to 13 coaches and administrators, seven of whom responded
and agreed to be interviewed. With two exceptions, their overall impressions of
the Maryland football program were positive.
One coach said he has never heard a current or former player say a negative
word about their experience at Maryland. He heard no reference to a toxic culture
or environment, nor had he heard anything negative about Mr. Durkin. This coach
had never received any reports that the coaching staff was out of line or that
players had been abused. He knew of no students at his high school who crossed
Maryland off their list because of a bad reputation.
Other coaches expressly shared their support for Mr. Durkin and the
Maryland program. For example, Andy Stefanelli, the head football coach at Our
Lady of Good Counsel High School (Olney, Maryland) says he would not hesitate
to send his players to Maryland under Mr. Durkin.107 He relayed his view that
firing Mr. Durkin now would set the program back at a critical time when the
program is making real progress. With respect to Mr. Court, Mr. Stefanelli states
that Mr. Court was a highly demanding strength coach who employed more
stringent mental toughness techniques than his peers. Mr. Stefanelli did not
107
Mr. Stefanelli’s name is used with his consent.
125
believe that Mr. Court abused his players or demanded too much from them.
Although he acknowledged that Mr. Court would use coarse language, Mr.
Stefanelli did not believe he crossed a line.
The Commission, however, heard about two troubling incidents second-
hand. An athletic administrator recalled a conversation he had with a former
Maryland assistant coach who had left Maryland. When the high school
administrator asked why the coach left Maryland, that coach responded he had to
“get out of there because the verbal abuse of players was worse than at any other
place he had been.” According to this administrator, a coach at a peer high school
told him that the Maryland football program had a culture problem and was
abusive to the players. This statement by the high school coach was made prior to
the August 10, 2018 ESPN article.
VII. Injuries
A. Data Comparing Injuries Suffered During Mr. Durkin’s Tenure

with the Year Preceding his Inaugural Season
Dr. Klossner was hired as Associate AD for Athletics Performance in 2013.
Dr. Klossner and football trainer Wes Robinson established an injury database so
they could analyze trends and identify strategies to decrease injuries.
The chart they developed for football for a three-year period is displayed
below. During the first year, 2015, Randy Edsall and Mike Locksley served as the
head football coach (Locksley succeeded Edsall in October 2015). Mr. Durkin
126
served as head coach in 2016 and 2017. Both Mr. Robinson and Dr. Klossner state
that the methodology and protocols (such as when to order an MRI) remained
consistent, so that these injury reports are “apples to apples” comparisons. We
have recreated this chart verbatim below.
2015 2016 2017

August August August
Season Season Season
Camp Camp Camp
Total Injuries
83 208 63 157 43 153
Recorded
Time Loss
13 35 7 21 13 26
Injuries
Concussions 3 7 3 5 3 4
Total Illnesses
22 70 24 59 20 57
Recorded
Time Loss
3 8 4 4 0 4
Illnesses
X-rays 4 33 1 17 5 18
MRIs 5 31 1 19 3 19
Disorders 6 18 2 5 2 10
Surgeries 2 6 0 5 0 6
IV Fluids 8 9 6 5 5 7
Rx Meds 60 149 48 137 37 118
MD Consults 126 475 105 246 57 235
Post Season
n/a 9 n/a 4 n/a 5
Surgeries
As shown above, the total number of injuries has been trending downward
since 2015, with 208 total injuries in 2015, 157 in 2016, and 153 in 2017.
Concussions, illnesses, medical consults, MRIs, X-rays, and postseason
127
injuries also trend positively. The data shows a team that was healthier during Mr.
Durkin’s two full years of coaching than the prior to his tenure.108
Mr. Robinson cites changes in weightlifting techniques and improvements in
nutrition as two factors that have contributed to the decreasing trend in injuries.
Mr. Court agrees with the reasons cited by Mr. Robinson, and adds several others:
1) deleting Olympic-style free weight sets (e.g., dead lifts); 2) more extensive
warm-ups; 3) restricting exercises or range of motion for injured players;
4) utilizing sleep monitors; and 5) the presence of a massage therapist.
B. Anecdotal Evidence
Although the decrease in injuries speaks positively to the performance of the
athletic training staff, players, and parents have nevertheless shared troubling
anecdotes about the handling of specific injuries by the football coaching and
training staffs. The details of these incidents are obscured to protect the identities
of the injured players. Because most players insisted on anonymity, we did not ask
the trainers or others potentially involved or seek to corroborate or test the
accuracy of these allegations. Without revealing the players’ identities, we raised
each of these allegations with Wes Robinson and gave him the opportunity to
comment.
108
We requested data for years prior to 2015, but this data was not available.
128
1. Player #1
Former player Gus Little shared a story about the coaching and training
staffs’ handling of an injury that took place away from the field and away from
campus. Because the trauma took place outside of school, Mr. Little sought the
advice of a medical professional who was not part of Maryland’s football
program. That professional provided diagnosis and treatment protocol to this
player for an injury. Mr. Little says that members of the training staff were angry
when they learned of this outside medical opinion. In fact, he was explicitly told
that he should not have sought the medical advice or diagnosis of someone outside
Maryland’s staff.
On another occasion, this time on the football field, Mr. Little sustained full
body cramping after what he described as a particularly demanding practice
session. While receiving an IV treatment at Gossett, Mr. Court allegedly called
him a “p**** b****.” Mr. Court was not apprised of the identity of the player, but
firmly denies that he ever addressed a player in this manner while a player was
receiving medical treatment.
Mr. Robinson assures the Commission that he would never have told a
player not to seek medical advice from someone outside of Maryland; in fact, he
has specifically arranged for student-athletes to receive care from outside doctors.
As to the IV treatment allegation, Mr. Robinson told the Commission that he does
129
not recall the incident taking place, and moreover, only physicians—not athletic
trainers—could inject student-athletes with IVs. If they had played any role at all,
the training staff would have assisted with preparing the IV, but a physician would
have been present anytime an IV was used.
2. Player #2
A parent of a player stated that, during a practice, the player experienced
head trauma during a play and “didn’t feel right.” The player came off the field to
seek medical attention, but, before he could get to a trainer, the player’s position
coach intercepted him and sent the player back on the field. Two plays later, the
player was knocked unconscious on the field. Only then did the training staff
initiate the concussion protocol.
The parent also told us that his son sustained another injury later that
season. After the season, the player obtained an appointment with the leading
specialist in Maryland for this particular injury. According to the parent, the same
position coach would not let the player attend the appointment because it coincided
with the first day of spring practice.
Regarding the alleged concussion incident, Mr. Robinson denies seeing
anything of that nature take place. He adds that if something like that happened, he
would remember it. Mr. Robinson also did not recall a player being prohibited or
130
discouraged from attending a scheduled medical appointment because of football
obligations.
3. Player #3
A player reported that he tore ligaments in a joint during a game. According
to the player, Mr. Robinson told the player that he had to play despite these
injuries. The player replied that he could play but probably should not. The player
continued playing.
The player also shared that he was given an incorrect diagnosis by Mr.
Robinson and the training staff. Mr. Robinson told him that he had a less severe
injury than ultimately turned out to be the case. The player now says that he has
chronic pain and nerve damage.
Mr. Robinson tells the Commission that he does not recall this incident, and
he further states that physicians, not trainers, are involved with evaluation and
diagnosis. As a trainer, his role during games is to get players off the field and to a
physician to be evaluated, as well as to communicate to coaches about which
players are available and which are not. Per Mr. Robinson, treatment during
games is almost always administered by a physician, not a medical trainer.
4. Player #4
A player reported that he suffered a significant injury. The training staff
gave him a pain reliever, and he was cleared to practice the very next day—in full
131
pads and participating in hitting drills. In workouts following his injury, the player
was unable to do certain exercises. Nevertheless, because the player was
instructed to continue practicing, and because he perceived that other players were
practicing with similar injuries, he continued to practice. The player says that he
thought that he was pushed back onto the field before he was ready, but he also
thought that was part of football. The player eventually discontinued his football
career because of his injuries.
Mr. Robinson states that he did not recall the incident. He further explains
that if a pain reliever other than an over-the-counter medicine (such as Ibuprofen or
Tylenol) was administered, then it would have had to be prescribed by a physician,
not a member of the training staff.
5. Player #5
A player reported that he was pressured to resume practice just five months
after reconstructive joint surgery. The player did in fact resume practice, in full
pads, with the clearance of Mr. Robinson. A doctor ultimately intervened and told
the player that he should not be practicing. The player continues to feel that the
training staff mishandled his injury.
In response to this allegation, Mr. Robinson explains that when a student-
athlete undergoes reconstructive surgery, Mr. Robinson cannot clear him to play
football. That clearance can only come from a doctor. Mr. Robinson states that it
132
is possible that a doctor cleared the player for practice, but, based on the player’s
struggles or pain, the doctor would have reevaluated at a follow-up appointment
and decided the player could not participate. Mr. Robinson could not specifically
recall an instance in which that happened, but he says that it is possible. But he,
himself, could never clear a player to return to practice after reconstructive
surgery. According to protocols, any such clearance would have come from a
doctor, but due to HIPAA restrictions, we have been unable to confirm that a
doctor provided such clearance.
6. Player #6
A player suffered a foot injury and reports that he felt rushed back to
practice in the spring to prepare for the spring practice intra-squad scrimmage.
The player questions the decision to return him to practice, particularly because it
was just a scrimmage. The player says that he was not physically ready, but he
played anyway.
The player also comments on the interplay between football athletic trainers,
notably Mr. Robinson, and physicians: “Wes would try to speak to doctors on
behalf of you instead of you telling the doctor how you felt.” The player also feels
that Mr. Robinson “stepped out of his realm” and did not properly execute his role
as an athletic trainer.
133
Mr. Robinson states that at no time during his tenure has he prohibited a
player from talking to a doctor. Although he did not recall the incident
specifically, Mr. Robinson did say that he would at times speak with a physician
before a player was seen, just to give the physician a preview of what to expect.
Mr. Robinson would stay with the player while he was being seen by the
physician, or he would leave if the player did not want him there.
7. Player #7
A source close to a player stated that Mr. Robinson “downplayed” the
player’s injury. The source claims to have been told that the player had a mere
joint sprain; in fact, the player later learned that the joint was dislocated. The
source felt that the injury was misdiagnosed, and the source further questioned
whether Mr. Robinson “know[s] what he’s doing.”
Mr. Robinson did not recall this incident, and he further states that the
allegation was too vague for him to formulate a response. Dr. Azar of our
Commission reviewed the MRI of the player’s joint and does not believe it was
dislocated.
8. Player #8
A mother of a current player told us that her son was feeling joint pain, and a
surgery was scheduled. The surgery went well, and the family was very pleased
with the attention and care shown by the surgeon and training staff. A trainer from
134
the football staff was assigned to the player for the day of the surgery, and he came
to the surgery center and stayed with the player until discharge that evening. The
trainer made the family feel like the player’s well-being was a priority, and he did
everything he could to make the player more comfortable.
This player has had numerous surgeries while playing at UMD, and this
level of care was reflective of the attention paid to the player each time. He
received daily treatments and rehab after each surgery. Mr. Durkin also came to
visit the player in the surgery center.
9. Player #9
A parent recalled discussing with Coach Durkin whether the parent’s son
would play in a particular game. During the week preceding the game, the player
was cleared by medical staff to play. Mr. Durkin remained concerned, however,
according to the parent. Ultimately, Mr. Durkin and the parent agreed that the son
would not play. The son was unhappy with the decision; he wanted to play.
C. General Attitudes About the Handling of Injuries by Training

Staff and Others
1. Positive attitudes
Many players expressed approval with the handling and treatment of
injuries. Indeed, we received numerous comments from players and staff opining
that Mr. Robinson was being unfairly scapegoated, and that he was dedicated to the
player’s health. For example, one player reports that he was handled with great
135
care by the training staff as he recovered from joint surgery. Another player lauds
the training staff for helping him to rehab from a muscle injury, leaving it up to the
player to return when he was ready. Another player reports that he was treated
“pretty well” and that he came back faster than he expected because “trainers took
good care of [him].” Still another player comments that the negative attention
directed at the training staff “seemed unfair” based on the player’s experience with
being treated for his injuries.
Coaches and other staff also offered positive comments about the training
staff. One assistant coach states, with strong conviction, that he had never seen
anything about Mr. Robinson that gave him any concern when it came to taking
care of the players. Another member of the coaching staff recalls an instance
where a player who was injured was held out of practice in anticipation of the
spring intra-squad game. According to a physician involved with the program, his
recommendations were never countermanded by the football coaches or the S&C
staff, and the physician never observed any players being rushed back from injury.
Athletic trainers also made sure that they understood which athletes had
physical challenges such as the sickle cell trait. Each student-athlete received a
laminated card, which was regularly updated, outlining whether the player had
conditions such as the sickle cell trait, asthma, or other physical conditions that
were worth noting. This information was also kept in a chart that each trainer
136
could see. Trainers closely monitored student-athletes with these special
conditions.
2. Negative attitudes
Several players and parents express frustration with the way their injuries (or
their sons’ injuries) were handled or the approach to injuries generally. As one
player anonymously comments: “under Durkin, you weren’t allowed to be injured.
. . . You weren’t injured unless you couldn’t walk.” Another player states that it
was “never an option” not to practice and that Mr. Robinson would often assume
that players were “faking it.” Still another player feels that players played injured
in order to show that they “bought in” to the coaches’ mentality. A fourth player
believes that the training staff should do more to evaluate player complaints and
injuries instead of simply telling players to “push through it.” A fifth player labels
Mr. Robinson “the worst f***ing trainer I have ever seen.”
Several other players and parents reports that members of the training staff
downplayed injuries and/or rushed players back before they were truly ready. One
staff member notes that, although Mr. Robinson is capable and effective in his role,
some of the longer-tenured players believe that Mr. Robinson changed his
demeanor to match the intense styles of Mr. Durkin and Mr. Court when they
arrived. That sentiment was echoed by some of the players, parents, and coaches.
137
Players and parents also comment about what is referred to as “the pit.” As
described by Mr. Robinson and others, the pit was an area off to the side of the
practice field where players completed conditioning drills when they could not
practice due to injury. The parent of one player claimed that the player rehabbed
privately, refusing to complain to trainers and coaches, for the purpose of avoiding
“the pit.”
The pit is an area including gravel and grass. Players who are not
participating in drills, or whose participation is limited because of injuries, are
directed there for a variety of conditioning alternatives while they await rejoining
practice. These activities include stationery bikes, strength equipment, running
drills, and the like. Adjoining areas to practice fields like “the pit” are customary
throughout college football programs.
The players’ and parents’ opinions about the quality of health care are
sharply divided. Moreover, we do not have the means to independently verify the
integrity of the injury data for the years 2015–17. Nor can we verify or refute the
claims of improper medical treatment recounted above; between health privacy
restrictions and the players’ desire to maintain anonymity, this is an impossible
task.
But if the injury data are accurate, as Robinson maintains, this serves as
significant data that the S&C regime employed during 2016 and 2017 made
138
players healthier, on average, compared to 2015. None of this, of course, mitigates
the tragic death of Mr. McNair, nor the mistakes relating to Mr. McNair’s
treatment, as documented by Mr. Walters. Nor does it excuse the other complaints
of medical mistreatment, if these complaints are well-founded.
Yet the mere fact that Maryland had established a robust injury-tracking
program strongly suggests that the Athletics Department was working diligently to
seek to minimize injuries and better safeguard player health. It was in the coaching
and training staff’s interests to do so, not only to fulfill their obligations to the
players, but also because injuries can be a key determinant in a football team’s
win/loss record.
We acknowledge that the relationship between football and injuries remains
fraught with hazards. Doug Williams—former Super Bowl winning quarterback
and football coach and staff member in both college and professional football—has
seen these issues for over forty years in both college and professional football. He
says:
There are many incentives to play hurt, or for staff to declare a player
fit to play in borderline situations. Players wouldn’t be in this game
unless they are extremely competitive. They want to play and win,
even when their bodies tell them they shouldn’t. The players are also
worried about keeping their jobs. They’ve seen players start because
of an injury to another player, play well, and take away the starting
job of the injured player they replaced. And the players don’t want to
let their teammates down by sitting during a big game. So I’ve seen
many players demand to play when they had no business being on the
field.
139
Coaches and staff want their best players to be on the field for the
same reasons. You keep your job in this game by winning. So
they’re under pressure, too. That’s why it is so important that the
decision about ability to play be solely in the hands of the medical
staff.
VIII. Player Academic Progress Under Mr. Durkin
Important to an evaluation of an athletic program is the academic progress of
its student-athletes. There are three measures—federal graduation rate (FGR),
graduation success rate (GSR), and academic progress rate (APR)—that
universities typically use to assess how they are doing, both over time and against
their peer schools. APR and GSR data are provided by Maryland to the NCAA
pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 14.01.6. As part of the investigation, the Athletics
Department provided the Commission with reports from 2012 to 2017. For two of
the three metrics (FGR and APR), Mr. Durkin presided over a slight decline after
several years of modest improvement. The program’s GSR has seen small, steady
progress including during Mr. Durkin’s early tenure. Each of the yardsticks is
calculated differently, the details and results of which are discussed in the
subsections below.
A. Federal Graduation Rate (FGR) and Graduation Success Rate

(GSR)
The federal government mandates that all colleges and universities that offer
athletic scholarships monitor and publish its FGR, which measures the percentage
of students who complete a degree within six years from the school where they
140
originally matriculate.109 Only students who receive athletics-based financial aid
and only students who enroll in the fall semester are counted for the purposes of
this statistic; walk-on students are not counted. A student is credited with
graduation only if they complete a degree at the school where they began; some
students who transfer, as well as students who turn professional, hurt a university’s
FGR score.
How a school’s FGR is calculated differs from how GSR is scored in a
couple respects. First, transfer students who leave a university in good academic
standing are not counted against the school they leave; instead, they are included in
the calculation of the GSR of the school to which they transfer.110 In addition,
GSR, unlike FGR, includes the graduation rate of students who enroll in either the
fall or spring semesters.
The chart below provides the FGR and GSR for the University of Maryland
football program from 2013 through 2017:111
109
See
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/How%20is%20grad%20rate%20calculated_nov_2015.pdf
.
110
See
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/How%20is%20grad%20rate%20calculated_nov_2015.pdf
.
111
As of the date of this report, the 2018 statistics were not yet available.
141
2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17
Federal
Graduation
63 64 63 67 62
Rate
(FGR)
Graduation
Success 73 74 75 78 79
Rate (GSR)
As this table illustrates, during Mr. Edsall’s tenure, Maryland’s FGR and
GSR both saw a general, albeit modest, increase. Under Mr. Durkin, the FGR
dipped five points (from 67 to 62), while the GSR increased by a point. The
difference is likely explained by the fact that transfer students do not count against
GSR, but they do impact a school’s FGR, and nine football players transferred out
of the University of Maryland during the 2016–17 school year.
Since joining the Big Ten, Maryland’s football program has landed near the
middle compared to other Big Ten programs on both FGR and GSR, and that did
not materially change during Mr. Durkin’s first full season:112
112
See https://web3.ncaa.org/aprsearch/gsrsearch.
142
FGR GSR
2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17
Northwestern Northwestern
93 92 92 97 97 99
University University
University of University of
70 73 75 85 86 85
Nebraska Nebraska
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
State 69 66 69 State 81 80 84
Indiana Indiana
65 69 69 76 79 84
Purdue University of
65 66 66 69 71 83
University Minnesota
63 66 66 72 79 82
Michigan Michigan
University of Rutgers
63 67 62 83 82 82
Maryland University
University of Purdue
58 64 61 76 81 81
Wisconsin University
53 56 61 75 78 79
Minnesota Maryland
56 59 60 70 70 77
Iowa Illinois
Rutgers University of
60 58 58 71 74 76
University Iowa
53 55 57 71 73 74
Illinois Wisconsin
Michigan Michigan
State 47 50 56 State 66 71 72
Ohio State Ohio State
64 57 48 81 74 69
143
B. Academic Progress Rate (APR)
APR is the newest metric for tracking the academic progress of student-
athletes. It is a team-based score that accounts for the eligibility and retention of
each student-athlete for each academic term. For the purposes of calculating APR,
a school can obtain eligibility points for each student-athlete who receives financial
aid and remains academically eligible and in school through the end of the
semester. A team’s total points are divided by the total possible points and then
multiplied by 1,000.
Each institution has an annual APR and a rolling four-year APR. If a
program’s four-year APR score falls below 930, it is subject to a postseason ban.
This chart lists the Maryland football program’s APR for the last five years:
2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17

Single-
977 991 990 978 965
Year APR
Four-Year
950 973 977 984 981
APR
Maryland’s four-year APR peaked during the 2015–16 season, with a team
score of 984. That number dipped slightly during Mr. Durkin’s first full year to
981, and the single-year APR fell to 965.
144
The chart below compares Maryland’s multi-year APR to other Big Ten
programs since Maryland joined the conference:113
2014–15 APR 2015–16 APR 2016–17 APR

Northwestern
992 995 997
University
University of
989 993 990
Michigan
University of Illinois 982 984 986
University of
992 990 986
Wisconsin
University of
992 992 983
Minnesota
Ohio State
971 975 982
University
University of
977 984 981
Maryland
Pennsylvania State
960 969 980
University
University of
981 977 980
Nebraska
Indiana University 979 982 976
Rutgers University 972 973 973
University of Iowa 971 971 970
Purdue University 968 971 960
Michigan State
978 974 952
University
113
See https://web3.ncaa.org/aprsearch/aprsearch.
145
Since joining the Big Ten, Maryland’s APR climbed into the top half of
conference programs, and even with the slight dip in 2016–17 during Mr. Durkin’s
first season, it remained there, placing seventh overall in the Big Ten.
IX. UMD Internal Controls Designed to Ensure that the Athletics

Department and Football Program Comply with Rules and Policies
A. UMD Processes and Oversight to Ensure Sound Management of

the Athletics Department
Maryland recognizes that “[a]n intercollegiate athletics program can
significantly contribute to the learning and the public service components of the
campus mission.”114 Because “[t]he importance of faculty involvement and
influence in the institutional control and operation of an excellent athletics program
cannot be overestimated,” Maryland has developed its own athletic governance
standards to ensure NCAA and Big Ten compliance.
For example, the AD is “accountable [to the President] for year-end results
of annual goals identified via the institution’s annual Performance Review and
Development (“PRD”) process,” which is “a detailed performance assessment tool
designed to provide a level of specificity and accountability for University
employees, including the Director of Athletics and other ICA staff.”115 As part of
its investigation, the Commission reviewed performance evaluations for
approximately 28 staff members. It is important to note, however, that no such
114
University of Maryland Institutional Standards, October 23, 2014, at 1.
115
146
evaluations are conducted for the football coaching staff. They have historically
been treated as on par with tenured professors, who also are not subject to the PRD
process.
Institutional organizations also help Maryland “develop and maintain the
best possible intercollegiate athletics program consistent with the academic
integrity of the institution and the academic and social development of student-
athletes.”116 For example, the Athletic Council (which consists of faculty, staff,
student-athletes, and student government leaders) formulates, recommends, and
advises the President on policies that affect intercollegiate athletics. “The Council
is also charged with monitoring the activities of the Department of Intercollegiate
Athletics to make sure that they are in compliance with Big Ten, NCAA, university
bylaws and regulations, as well as all relevant state and federal laws and
regulations.”117 Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 6.1.4, Maryland maintains a “Student
Athlete Advisory Committee” that serves as a liaison between the university and
the NCAA.
Within the Athletics Department, the Athletics Compliance Office is
“charged with coordinating, monitoring, and verifying compliance with all NCAA,
Big Ten Conference, and institutional rules and regulations, and with serving to
116
117
147
educate the various internal and external constituencies of the University about
these rules and regulations.”118 For example, the Compliance Office consults with
a designated “sports supervisor” who is responsible for managing the coaches’
contracts, student-athletes, and the sport’s financial budget. The Compliance
Office also hosts annual and monthly meetings with coaches wherein they discuss
recruiting, student-athlete eligibility, NCAA legislative changes, and recent NCAA
and Big Ten violations. Student-athletes also receive education regarding NCAA
and Big Ten Compliance issues on a regular basis throughout the year via “tip
sheets,” social media alerts, and email reminders.
B. The Athletics Department’s Specific Internal Controls to Ensure

Compliance with NCAA and Big Ten Mandates
The Athletics Department maintains a number of specific internal controls to
ensure NCAA and Big Ten compliance. For example, Article 6.3 of the NCAA
Constitution requires “[t]he institution’s director of athletics, senior woman
administrator or designated representatives” to “conduct exit interviews in each
sport with a sample of student-athletes . . . regarding the value of the students’
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-athletes’ specific sports.” As part of the
118
148
investigation, the Athletics Department provided the Commission with surveys
completed by Maryland football players from 2016 and 2017. These surveys were
conducted to fulfill the mandates of Article 6.3. See Section VI and Appendices 9
and 10.
The NCAA requires each member school to “limit its organized practice
activities, the length of its playing seasons and the number of its regular-season
contests and/or dates of competition in all sports” pursuant to NCAA Bylaw
17.01.1. To satisfy this requirement, the Athletics Department maintains a
“Countable Athletically Related Activities” (“CARA”) report for each football
player, which tracks the amount of time spent on athletics-related activities.
During the investigation, the Athletics Department provided the Commission with
football players’ CARA reports from January 2016 to August 2018.
To address student-athlete health, the Athletics Department requires all
student-athletes to complete a Maryland Sports Medicine “Tryout Student-Athlete
Checklist.” In this packet, student-athletes are provided with a number of
educational materials and medical forms, including: documentation of a physical
exam, sickle cell education form, “Big Ten injury and illness reporting
acknowledgement form,” and an ADD/ADHD education sheet and medical
exception notification form.119 Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 12.7.3, the Athletics
119
Maryland Sports Medicine Tryout Student-Athlete Checklist.
149
Department requires each student-athlete to sign a “Drug-Testing Consent Form”
in which the student-athlete “consents to be tested for the use of drugs prohibited
by NCAA legislation.”120
The Athletics Department also maintains sports medicine policies that are
distributed to staff and student-athletes. For example, the 2017–18 Sports
Medicine Staff Manual outlines emergency action plans, clinical management
guidelines, mental health services, nutritional care services, student-athlete
administrative guidelines, and staff administration and management procedures.”121
Likewise, student-athletes are provided with a Sports Medicine Handbook that
details “specific . . . policies and procedures governing the comprehensive services
offered by an industry leading sports medicine team” and outlines drug testing
policies and procedures of the Big Ten and NCAA.122
The NCAA and Big Ten provide that the President has “ultimate
responsibility and final authority for the conduct of the intercollegiate athletics
program.” Accordingly, the University System of Maryland – Office of Internal
Audit submits to the President and other designated personnel a compliance and
operational audit report that determines whether sports programs are “in
compliance with NCAA, State, and University policies.”123 During the
120
NCAA Division I Manual at 78.
121
2017–18 Sports Medicine Manual E-Book and Staff Administration E-Book.
122
Sports Medicine Handbook at 1.
123
Football and Basketball Audit (5.10.17) at 1.
150
investigation, the Athletics Department provided us with compliance audits of
Maryland’s football program from 2015 to 2017, and the University’s responses
thereto. The internal audits did not reveal any remarkable findings.
A number of University policies govern student-athletes’ conduct.
Specifically, the 2017–18 Athletic Council Policy Manual provides that “a student-
athlete shall immediately notify his or her head coach and the sports supervisor
when he or she has been charged with a criminal offense, or [has committed] a
violation of the Conference Sportslike Policy, the University’s Code of Student
Conduct, Code of Academic Integrity, or Drug Testing Policy.” See Appendix 18.
The manual also provides student-athletes with information regarding the penalties
for violating these policies.
C. Maryland’s Newly-Developed Athletic Resources in Response to

the McNair Tragedy
Recently, Maryland has made a number of enhancements which were
“informed by the preliminary observations of the external review,” including: (1)
increasing the number of medical training staff; (2) adding on-site cooling stations;
(3) increasing the number and length of recovery breaks; (4) expanding the use of
cold tub/ice immersion therapy to include conditioning sessions and workouts
during the summer; (5) increasing the frequency of Athletics Department staff
training across all sports-related health matters, and (6) providing additional
support measures for student-athletes, which include the launch of “an online
151
portal called Terps Feedback, which allows student-athletes to share concerns or
report issues securely and in real time.”124
X. Conclusions
A. The Players Who Spoke Up—Both Initially and in Response to

Our Investigation—Should be Commended
Several players expressed their concerns to the media about the conduct and
culture of the football program, which were first reported in ESPN’s articles of
August 10, 2018. We interviewed most of these players—both anonymous and
named sources—and 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
experiences, enabling us to evaluate the program with vital insights from those
most closely involved with, and affected by, the football program.
124
See https://www.umd.edu/commitment/taking-action.
152
Some have criticized players for thwarting the longstanding sports axiom,
“[w]hat happens in the locker room, stays in the locker room.” We feel strongly
that this mindset is misguided. Many athletics directors contacted by the
Commission, in fact, insist a “speak up” 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.
B. During Mr. Durkin’s 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 Department’s operations
during this period as “chaos and confusion.” A former coach compared the
department’s dysfunction to “Washington [politics].” 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
relative to its own 2016 scores, in the second survey. Jewel Washington, the
153
University’s Chief of Human Resources, stated “[h]ere [in Maryland athletics],
there is no structure. That is not normal.”
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 Maryland’s 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 AD 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 Department’s 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
Anderson and AD Damon Evans, both during Mr. Evans’s time as Deputy
154
AD/Football Sports Administrator and his time as Interim AD. According to
official University calendars and multiple corroborated accounts, the Department’s
oversight of the football program was sporadic and inadequate. In contrast, many
athletics directors at “Power 5” 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.
C. Mr. Court, on Too Many Occasions, Acted in a Manner

Inconsistent with the University’s 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 “beyond the
call” 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
155
(“S&C”) 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 “attacking” in nature. This included challenging
a player’s 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.
D. 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. Court’s reporting lines. Mr. Durkin claims that it was not his
responsibility to supervise Mr. Court, but it was, by Mr. Durkin’s 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.
Court. It is a head coach’s responsibility to establish and maintain a healthy,
positive environment for his players, and to hire coaches and staff who support
156
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. Durkin’s failure to adequately address Mr. Court’s behavior. As a first-time
head coach, Mr. Durkin heavily modeled his program after coaches for whom he
previously worked—most notably, Urban Meyer and Jim Harbaugh—who 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 Department’s disarray. Mr. Court’s contract designated
the head football coach as Mr. Court’s direct report. Mr. Evans and Maryland’s
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
Associate AD, Dr. David Klossner. Dr. Klossner denies this, but also states he did
supervise the S&C coach during Randy Edsall’s tenure as head coach. Mr. Court
157
was not certain to whom he reported. Organization charts reviewed by the
Commission were inconsistent regarding Mr. Court’s 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
University’s standards. This confusion diluted Mr. Court’s accountability.
E. 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 President’s Office
became involved in 2016 and engineered Mr. Anderson’s 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. Anderson’s 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.
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
158
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.125
F. The Maryland Football Team did not have a “Toxic Culture,” but
it did have a Culture Where Problems Festered Because Too
Many Players Feared Speaking Out
Toxic means “extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful.”126 By definition,
Maryland’s football culture was not toxic.
There was no uniform rejection of Maryland’s 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. Court’s
level of profanity was often excessive and personal in nature. In light of our
conclusion that Maryland’s football culture was not “toxic,” we do not find that the
culture caused the tragic death of Jordan McNair.
If the culture had been “malicious or harmful,” Mr. Durkin would not have
earned the loyalty and respect of many of his student-athletes and coaches. Many
125
See NCAA Bylaw 6.1.1 (“A member institution’s 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.”).
126
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/toxic.
159
players interviewed by the Commission felt Mr. Durkin’s and Mr. Court’s
coaching tactics reflected those of a “big time football program.” 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 son’s employer
said Coach Durkin’s 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
players’ 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 “open door” policy, but many players and
assistants felt this did not extend to those whose opinions did not align with Mr.
Durkin’s. Some coaches feared sharing criticisms about Mr. Court. They feared
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 “[w]hen you’re at the mercy of leadership, you don’t want to be at the mercy
of their mistakes . . . I needed to get out.” Several dissenting coaches explained
160
they prefer a more “nurturing” approach with players. Others didn’t mind “tough
love,” but cited the need for counterbalance. “If you get on a player for doing
something wrong,” one coach opined, “you have to go back later . . . and put a
hand on his shoulder and let him know you care. I don’t think DJ did that.”
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 Maryland’s 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
“the same person.”
G. Maryland Should Institute a Strong “Medical Model” for

Student-Athlete 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
161
report and the Walters, Inc. report of September 21, 2018, to accomplish that
objective.
H. 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. In the next section, we
provide recommendations to help accomplish that.
XI. Recommendations
A. Strength and Conditioning Recommendations
1. Background
Strength and conditioning coaches have been a fixture in collegiate athletics
programs since the 1970s.127 Today, these coaches play a critical role in training
and conditioning college athletes across all major sports, and nowhere is that more
true than in football. Strength and conditioning coaches wield enormous influence
127
See http://www.cscca.org/about.
162
over players, so much so that one former coach referred to them as the “head
coaches of the off-season.”128 Consequently, they wield enormous influence with
head coaches and power over student-athletes.
The specific duties of S&C coaches vary among programs but generally
consist of not only managing and administering exercise and weight training to
improve and optimize performance, but also monitoring player health metrics to
ensure they are ready to compete on the field.129
S&C coaches’ domain is a unique one, where profanity is often
commonplace and the sight of objects being slammed and weights being hurled is
not entirely unexpected.130 What would be deemed unacceptable in most
workplace environments is the norm in many weight rooms, particularly during
128
Brian Costa et al., The Wall Street Journal, “Strength Coaches in College Football Have
Become Strongmen,” August 18, 2018 (quoting Rick Neuheisel as stating “[t]hey get
indoctrinated into this ‘head coach of the off-season’ society, and then the strength coach
basically hands the team over to the head coach.”), https://www.wsj.com/articles/strength-
coaches-in-college-football-have-become-strongmen-1534506902.
129
Brian Costa et al., The Wall Street Journal, “Strength Coaches in College Football Have
Become Strongmen,” August 18, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/strength-coaches-in-
college-football-have-become-strongmen-1534506902.
130
See, e.g., YouTube videos featuring Scott Cochran, football strength coach at the
University of Alabama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVFl0j8mwPs;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynt6UCzkdcc. Mr. Cochran is also known for slamming
and destroying a second-place trophy to motivate the team before the 2018 national title game.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4McW2_-j9g. Other YouTube videos feature
University of Oregon Strength and Conditioning Coordinator Aaron Feld:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB45uARFxNs; and University of Pittsburgh Strength and
Conditioning Coach Dave Andrews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwLyi7agYGo.
Recently, one of the strength coaches at Louisiana State University (commonly known as
LSU) was featured on ESPN for head-butting an LSU football player who was wearing a helmet,
while the coach was not wearing a helmet, during an in-conference home game. See
https://www.facebook.com/ESPN/videos/lsu-strength-coach-goes-wild/2276130299127345/.
163
football training periods. Many feel this is part of a process that makes
student-athletes “tougher,” pushing them to (and beyond) their limits, so they may
thrive as individuals and teammates. But ultimately, this mindset is subjective, and
has been called into question during our investigation.
Football coaches and athletics directors have increasingly come to see
strength coaches as essential to successful programs. This has led to head strength
coaches earning up to $675,000 per year.131 With increased compensation comes
increased pressure.
Commission member Doug Williams is familiar with this issue, as a college
football player and head coach, and as a NFL player and front office executive:132
Strength coaches are always looking for an edge in an incredibly

competitive environment. Games can often come down to a single
man on man competition, where a block made or a tackle broken can
decide a game. It’s the strength coach’s job to make sure those
competitions are decided in his player’s favor. So the strength
coach’s job is to make his players stronger, faster and tougher than his
opponent’s players. That means pushing his players to their limits,
and increasing those limits. A strength coach has to be tough and
relentless: but he must also do this in a manner that is not demeaning
or dehumanizing.
131
See http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/strength.
132
Mr. Williams was the first African-American to start a Super Bowl at quarterback, in
Super Bowl XXII. He was named the game’s most valuable player. See
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/doug-williamss-super-bowl-win-30-years-ago-changed-
the-game-for-black-quarterbacks/2018/01/30/6a5f2d06-05f0-11e8-b48c-
b07fea957bd5_story.html?utm_term=.22fcae2486e5.
164
Pushing the human body to its limits has been part of sport since time
immemorial. The marathon’s distance of 26.2 miles celebrates the run of a soldier,
who (legend has it) ran that distance to Athens in 490 B.C., announced the
Athenians’ defeat of the Persians at the Battle of Marathon, and then collapsed and
died.133
Football is a “gladiator sport” where pushing to and through exhaustion is
celebrated. But it has not been without consequence. From 2000 to 2016, a tragic
total of 33 college football players died during training.134 Only six of those deaths
resulted from player-to-player collisions.135 Those who choose to play in the most
competitive environments imaginable, like Doug Williams and Bob Ehrlich in
football, Tom McMillen in basketball, and Bonnie Bernstein in college gymnastics,
recognize that pushing their bodies to their limits is part of the commitment needed
to compete at that level. But from their experiences, all concur that this effort
should be accompanied by positive, not degrading, motivation, and that training
should be informed by the best practices currently available. This means adhering
to established guidelines and limits on the methods that S&C coaches may use to
train and inspire student-athletes in their charge.
133
See https://www.livescience.com/11011-marathons-26-2-miles-long.html.
134
See https://www.wsj.com/articles/strength-coaches-in-college-football-have-become-
strongmen-1534506902?mod=hp_lead_pos10.
135
See https://www.wsj.com/articles/strength-coaches-in-college-football-have-become-
strongmen-1534506902?mod=hp_lead_pos10.
165
2. Strength and conditioning rules and guidance
General mandates are set forth in the NCAA Division I Manual (the
“Manual”), which states that “[i]t is the responsibility of each member institution
to protect the health of, and provide a safe environment for, each of its
participating student athletes.”136 The Manual also affirms that it is the duty of
“each member institution to establish and maintain an environment that fosters a
positive relationship between the student-athlete and coach.”137
More specifically, S&C coaches must be certified in cardiopulmonary
resuscitation and first aid.138 If a member of the sports medicine staff is present
during a workout, that individual “must be empowered with unchallengeable
authority to cancel or modify the workout for health and safety reasons.”139 Also,
S&C coaches “shall be certified and maintain current certification through a
nationally accredited strength and conditioning certification program.”140 The
Commission has identified at least 11 qualifying certification programs and
standards, a few examples of which are described below.141
136
2017–18 NCAA Division I Manual 2.2.3.
137
138
2017–18 NCAA Division I Manual 13.11.3.8.2.
139
2017–18 NCAA Division I Manual 13.11.3.8.2.
140
141
See http://postemaperformance.com/strength-and-conditioning-certifications-coach/.
166
a) CSCCa-SCCC certification and CSCCa guidance
One example is the Collegiate Strength & Conditioning Coaches
association’s (“CSCCa’s”) Strength and Conditioning Coach Certified (“SCCC”)
program.142 To obtain this certification, an individual must be a full-time
collegiate or professional S&C coach, have a bachelor’s degree from an accredited
institution, complete a CPR/AED/First Aid course, pass additional written and
practical exams, and have either 12 years of full-time experience with a collegiate
or professional athletic team or complete a 640-hour CSCCa-approved
internship.143
The CSCCa also requires SCCC certificate holders to adhere to its Code of
Conduct, which requires coaches to:
 Comply and adhere to all institutional policy and procedures

(collegiate or professional franchise—NCAA, NBA, NFL,
MLB, etc.).
 Treat and train every athlete with the utmost care and to the
highest level of professional competence, not discriminating on
the basis of race, color, sex, age, religion, or national origin.
 Train athletes only as their medical conditions warrant,

maintaining confidentiality of the athlete’s personal medical
information.144
142
See http://postemaperformance.com/strength-and-conditioning-certifications-coach/.
143
See http://www.cscca.org/certification/sccc/not_fulltime;
http://www.cscca.org/certification/sccc/12_years_fulltime.
144
CSCCa Code of Conduct, available at
http://www.cscca.org/missionstatement/csccacodeofconduct.
167
The CSCCa has also published on its website a compilation of
recommendations and best practices for football S&C coaches.145 These standards
expressly state that “training programs should take into account the level of
conditioning of each athlete, as well as any medical problems or conditions that
might predispose the individual to be adversely affected during conditioning
activities.”146 The CSCCa also recommends that special care be taken with athletes
who have spent significant time away from training:
Studies have shown that extended periods away from training reduce
an individual’s physical condition, occurring within as little as four
weeks. One study showed that after an 8-week break in training that it
can take as many as 20 weeks to get an athlete back to his peak level
of conditioning. In spite of significant time constraints and immense
pressure to have athletes at peak levels of performance, it is the
responsibility of the strength and conditioning staff to thoroughly
evaluate the level of conditioning of all returning athletes and to
properly prescribe the appropriate volume, load, and intensity of
training, as well as sufficient recovery, to protect the health and safety
of the student athlete. We feel this requires more consistent and on-
going supervision.147
It is also recommended that S&C coaches, in collaboration with trainers and
medical personnel, adopt measures to address the risks of athletes training in the
heat:
For a variety of reasons, some athletes return un-acclimated to the

heat. It is the responsibility of the strength and conditioning coach to
help the athlete adapt to the physical demands of the climate in a
145
“Football Strength and Conditioning: CSCCa Recommendations and Best Practices,”
available at http://www.cscca.org/educationalresources/healthandsafety.
146
“Football Strength and Conditioning: CSCCa Recommendations and Best Practices” at 1.
147
168
responsible manner. Heat stroke deaths are preventable if the training
sessions are closely monitored and if athletes have been properly
acclimated. Fluids should be readily available and actively
encouraged throughout practice and conditioning training sessions.
Athletes and coaches, alike, should be educated on effective strategies
to ensure proper hydration and reduce the risk for heat illnesses.
Strength and Conditioning Coaches, Athletic Trainers, and Medical
Personnel should share in the responsibility of monitoring and
protecting the athlete from the dangers of heat exhaustion and heat
stroke.148
b) NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook
Another set of relevant guidelines are contained in the NCAA Sports
Medicine Handbook (“NCAA Handbook”). It also emphasizes “safe performance”
and underscores the importance of accounting for nutrition and injury prevention in
devising training and conditioning regimens.
The first step to safe performance is thorough and competent training

of strength and conditioning coaches. Strength and conditioning
professionals apply scientific knowledge to train athletes for the
primary goal of improving athletic performance. They conduct sport-
specific testing sessions, design and implement safe and effective
strength training and conditioning programs, monitor facilities for
safety, and convey principles of nutrition and injury prevention as a
member of the performance team. Recognizing that their area of
expertise is separate and distinct, strength and conditioning coaches
can consult with and refer student-athletes to other athletics health
care professionals when appropriate.149
148
149
2014–15 NCAA Handbook at 30–31.
169
c) Big Ten Conference standards
Similarly, the Big Ten Conference Standards for Safeguarding Institutional
Governance of Intercollegiate Athletics (the “Big Ten Standards”) require member
institutions to “[a]ssure that medical and athletic training staff who provide
medical services to student-athletes are able to exercise their best professional
judgment in caring for student-athletes.”150 Specifically, each institution shall
design standards that:
 Prevent coaches from (i) having direct responsibility for, or

exercising undue or improper influence over, the hiring or
supervision of any member of the medical or athletic training
staff who works with the coach’s own team, and (ii) attempting
to influence inappropriately any member of the medical or
athletic training staff regarding the medical treatment of a
student athlete.
 Allow for effective implementation of and adherence to

institutional policies, procedures, and/or protocols regarding
student-athlete concussions.
 Place priority on the student-athlete’s health over other

considerations.151
In addition to the above requirements, the Big Ten Standards recommend
“that the Director of Sports Medicine Services should report to an academic or
medical administrator outside the Athletics Department, either exclusively or as a
dual report to the administrator and the Athletics Director.”152 The Big Ten
150
Big Ten Standards at 6.
151
152
170
Standards are distinctive insofar as they not only prescribe substantive guidelines
concerning risks and best practices, but also contain specific recommendations for
reporting and oversight. Together, these standards emphasize the importance of
S&C coaches (and indeed all coaches and members of the Athletics Department)
seeking and respecting the independent judgment of medical and training staff.
d) University of Maryland Internal Standards
In addition to having guidance from the NCAA and Big Ten, the University
of Maryland has published its own Maryland Athletics Policy and Procedures
(“MAPP”) manual.153 According to the MAPP, “[s]trength staff members are
expected to treat student-athletes with dignity and respect at all times. Although
the risk of confrontational situations exist in the physical training environment,
strength coaches must behave in a professional manner, despite the
circumstances.”154 The MAPP additionally provides that “the strength and
conditioning unit will prepare a manual as a training guide to all members of the
strength and conditioning staff, including full time, part time, and intern
coaches.”155
153
MAPP Section 8.
154
MAPP at 92.
155
MAPP at 92.
171
e) Other Strength and Conditioning Guidance
In 2012, the Journal of Athletic Training published a set of Best Practices
Recommendations by the Inter-Association Task Force for Preventing Sudden
Death in Collegiate Conditioning Sessions (“2012 Task Force Best Practices”).156
The 2012 Task Force Best Practices encourage, among other recommendations,
that collegiate S&C personnel:
 Acclimatize Progressively for Utmost Safety. “Conditioning

periods should be phased in gradually and progressively to
encourage proper exercise acclimatization and to minimize the
risk of adverse effects on health.”
 Do Not Use Exercise and Conditioning Activities as

Punishment. “Physical activity should not be used as
retribution, coercion, or as discipline for unsatisfactory athletic
academic performance or unacceptable behavior.”
 Be Cognizant of Medical Conditions. “The likelihood of

preventing problems is enhanced when [S&C coaches], sport
coaches, and the medical staff are aware of the athlete’s
medical history, supplement use, medications, conditioning
status, and acute illnesses, as well as other predisposing risk
factors.”
 Administer Strength and Conditioning Programs. “Ideally,

a sport coach should not serve as the primary supervisor for an
athletic health care provider or for [a S&C coach], nor should
he or she have sole hiring or firing authority over those
156
Casa et al., The Inter-Association Task Force for Preventing Sudden Death in Collegiate
Conditioning Sessions: Best Practices Recommendations, Journal of Athletic Training, August
2012; 47(4), 477–80.
172
positions. The [S&C coach] should work closely and
cooperatively with the sports medicine staff.”157
Finally, the United States Army has published standards that govern physical
training of soldiers for military combat, many of which are remarkably consistent
with the above. According to the Department of the Army’s Field Manual No. 21-
20:
Leaders should not punish soldiers who fail to perform to standard.

Punishment, or especially excessive repetitions or additional [physical
training], often does more harm than good. Leaders must plan special
training to help soldiers who need it.158
Field Manual No. 21-20 also emphasizes the need for leaders to understand
soldiers as individuals and to motivate them to put forth their personal best:
To foster a positive attitude, unit leaders and instructors must be

knowledgeable, understanding, and fair, but demanding. They must
recognize individual differences and motivate soldiers to put forth
their best efforts. However, they must also emphasize training to
standard. Attaining a high level of physical fitness cannot be done
simply by going through the motions. Hard training is essential.159
Overall, the applicable rules and available guidelines collectively place a
number of duties on S&C coaches, including the responsibility to: (1) maintain
positive and healthy relationships with student-athletes; (2) understand and account
for athletes’ physical and medical conditions as well as the environmental
157
Casa et al., The Inter-Association Task Force for Preventing Sudden Death in Collegiate
Conditioning Sessions: Best Practices Recommendations, Journal of Athletic Training, August
2012; 47(4), 477–80.
158
Field Manual No. 21-20 at 1-1.
159
Field Manual No. 21-20 at 1-2.
173
conditions in which they are training; (3) work with health care professionals to
ensure that athletes are training safely; and (4) honor and ultimately accede to the
independent judgment of medical and training staff. Other recommended practices
include refraining from the use of extra physical training as punishment and
providing oversight of the S&C coach outside of the head football coach. Scott
Stricklin, the AD at the University of Florida, said that S&C staff and athletic
trainers report to athletics department officials to ensure independence from
coaching influences.
3. Recommendations concerning strength and conditioning
Based upon its investigation, the Commission concludes there are significant
deficits in the performance and perception of the S&C program at Maryland.
Remedying this facet of Maryland’s football program should be a key priority for
the University. The Commission recommends changes to oversight and
governance, formal adoption and codification of best practices, greater public
transparency of training and exercise regimens in the weight room and on the field,
and regular and successive audits and surveys to monitor and evaluate progress.
The Commission’s recommendations include:
 Maintain new reporting structure where strength and

conditioning coaches report directly to an associate AD, not the
head coach of the football program. We have discussed this
reporting arrangement with several athletics directors who
employ it, and all endorse its effectiveness.
174
 Prevent S&C coaches from influencing medical and training
staff.
 Adopt and incorporate recommendations and best practices

developed by CSCC for football strength and conditioning, as
well as the 2012 Task Force Best Practices.
 Install video cameras in weight rooms and increase public access

to team practices and individual training.
 Authorize a qualified, independent third party to conduct audits

every two years of the strength and conditioning program.
 Establish improved methods of conducting anonymous student

surveys.
In late September 2018, Maryland AD Damon Evans announced that the
football program’s S&C coach would report to the Associate AD for Sports
Performance instead of the head coach.160 Before this, the Commission heard
disagreement and confusion among players and staff about who reported to whom.
Lines of supervisory responsibility should be explicit and clear. The
Commission recommends maintaining the adopted model where the Associate AD,
not the team’s head coach, supervises and is responsible for the work of the S&C
coach. A recent survey of athletics directors shows a strong, emerging best
practice of S&C coaches reporting to a senior administrator. Finally, shifting
160
See Rick Maese & Roman Stubbs, Motivation or abuse? Maryland confronts football’s
fine line as new allegations emerge, Washington Post, September 30, 2018, available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/motivation-or-abuse-maryland-confronts-
175
oversight would help ensure that S&C programs are aligned with the University’s
overall commitment to the health and safety of its student-athletes, giving senior
administrators a direct line to convey and reinforce that message.
The Commission also recommends that the University put in place guidance
that precludes S&C coaches from influencing or interfering with the decisions of
medical and training staff. Big Ten Standards already call for this in principle.
Formalizing and emphasizing this with respect to the S&C coaching staff is critical
given the central role these coaches perform in the weight room and on the field.
The Commission recommends the installation of video cameras in the
weight room, available for regular review by coaches, University administrators,
and medical and training staff. Transparency and access will ensure a level of
public accountability that has been absent, as well as a safeguard against verbal
and physical abuse.
In addition, the Commission recommends greater public access to team
practices. The program can impose conditions on access that respect the privacy of
the student-athletes and account for the competitive nature of collegiate sports.
Although there are legitimate reasons to conduct team activities away from the
public, the occasion to do so should be the exception, not the rule. Mr. Evans has
advised the Commission that this may be done without jeopardizing team strategy.
Opening up what happens during preseason and regular season practices will
176
prevent potential abuse in the short term and significantly enhance public trust and
accountability in the long run.
This Commission was convened in the wake of tragedy, exposing a number
of concerns. The University’s commitment to addressing these issues cannot be
limited to what comes of this single effort. It must be prepared to diagnose and
tackle new challenges head-on, and confront deficiencies that, despite the
Commission’s good faith efforts, may have escaped our analysis. The Commission
therefore recommends that, once every two years, the University authorize a
qualified, independent third party to conduct reviews of the S&C program. We
feel this would convey the level of unwavering commitment student-athletes, their
parents, and the University community deserve, and guarantee that lingering issues
will not be swept under the rug. These recommendations will empower Maryland
Football to reinvent itself with the goal that its governance and best practices will
become the “gold standard” in college football.
The Commission also recommends that, in order to ensure trustworthy input
from student-athletes, the University establish better methods of conducting
anonymous surveys among players with greater participation rates. One ACC
school, for example, has been able to consistently obtain 100% participation by
bringing the entire football team into a single room, having players complete the
anonymous, online survey on their phones, and not allowing them to leave until
177
they show on their phone that they have completed the survey. (This is similar to
how we conducted the September 9, 2018 survey). Questions cover many topics
including academics, coaches, central administration, S&C, training, and physical
abuse and sexual conduct, and ask for scaled 1 to 5 responses that allow
administrators to focus on coaches who are consistently performing outside the
normal range. The Commission finds the failure to conduct consistent exit
interviews and low survey participation among current players has hamstrung the
ability of the football program to appreciate the breadth and depth of certain issues.
B. Independent Medical Care Model Recommendation
1. Background
Competing in the hyper-competitive world of Division I football requires
athletes to be at the peak of their physical capabilities at all times. An injured
player who returns to play too soon raises serious risks of exacerbating previous
injuries, becoming newly injured, or even suffering a serious injury that ends a
player’s athletic career. Extreme injuries can cause life-long consequences and
impairment. These concerns are ever-present in the minds of athletes and those
who coach and train them.
The National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research publishes an
annual survey of football injuries; one of the co-authors of the 2018 report was
Dr. Klossner. During the 2017 season in high school and college football, there
178
were four fatalities caused by brain or spinal injuries resulting directly from
participating in football games and practices, and nine fatalities caused by systemic
failure due to overexertion during football activities.161
Given these serious risks, a program’s medical personnel are placed in a
difficult position of having to approve or deny permission for players to return to a
game or practice. Coaches typically want their players back on the field as soon as
possible. Players frequently feel the same way. For a medical provider to forbid
the player from returning to the field takes both substantial confidence and
assurance that this will not reflect negatively on their position.
2. Health and safety rules and guidance
a) NCAA Rules
The NCAA recognizes the vital importance of ensuring student-athletes
receive prompt medical attention, with their health as the primary concern. The
NCAA has instructed that universities:
should establish an administrative structure that provides independent

medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of
primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic
trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play
decisions related to student-athletes.162
161
NCCSIR Report at 5, available at https://nccsir.unc.edu/files/2013/10/Annual-Football-
2017-Fatalities-FINAL.pdf.
162
See http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/athletics-health-care-administration-best-
practices-0.
179
This care is intended to focus—first and foremost—on the athletes. “The
foundational approach for independent medical care is to assume an ‘athlete-
centered care’ approach . . . which refers to the delivery of health care services that
are focused only on the individual patient’s needs and concerns.”163 The NCAA
releases extensive sports medicine guidelines to guide medical providers in their
treatment of athletes.164
To best address each individual athlete’s needs, the NCAA has advanced ten
guiding principles to assure independent, objective medical care for
student-athletes, which we recommend UMD adopt:
1. The physical and psychosocial welfare of the individual student-

athlete should always be the highest priority of the athletic trainer
and the team physician.
2. Any program that delivers athletic training services to student-

athletes should always have a designated medical director.
3. Sports medicine physicians and athletic trainers should always

practice in a manner that integrates the best current research
evidence within the preferences and values of each student-
athlete.
4. The clinical responsibilities of an athletic trainer should always

be performed in a manner that is consistent with the written or
verbal instructions of a physician or standing orders and clinical
management protocols that have been approved by a program’s
designated medical director.
163
practices-0.
164
See http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/MD15.pdf.
180
5. Decisions that affect the current or future health status of a
student-athlete who has an injury or illness should only be made
by a properly credentialed health professional (e.g., a physician
or an athletic trainer who has a physician’s authorization to make
the decision).
6. In every case that a physician has granted an athletic trainer the

discretion to make decisions relating to an individual student-
athlete’s injury management or sports participation status, all
aspects of the care process and changes in the student-athlete’s
disposition should be thoroughly documented.
7. Coaches must not be allowed to impose demands that are

inconsistent with guidelines and recommendations established
by sports medicine and athletic training professional
organizations.
8. An athletic trainer’s role delineation and employment status

should be determined through a formal administrative role for a
physician who provides medical direction.
9. An athletic trainer’s professional qualifications and performance

evaluations must not be primarily judged by administrative
personnel who lack health care expertise, particularly in the
context of hiring, promotion and termination decisions.
10.Member institutions should adopt an administrative structure for

delivery of integrated sports medicine and athletic training
services to minimize the potential for any conflicts of interest that
could adversely affect the health and well-being of student-
athletes.165
The linchpin of this system is that the medical personnel’s decision is
entirely autonomous from coaching decisions. The NCAA Sports Medicine
165
practices-0;
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017SSI_IndependentMedicalCare_20170626.pdf.
181
Handbook’s Guideline 1B charges athletics and institutional leadership to “create
an administrative system where athletics healthcare professionals—team
physicians and athletic trainers—are able to make medical decisions with only the
best interests of student-athletes at the forefront.”166
b) Football Practice Guidelines
Football practice guidelines also undergo routine updates in order to create
the safest environment possible for these athletes to train. With greater attention to
concussions and other health issues facing football players, these practice
guidelines have undergone enhanced scrutiny in recent years. The NCAA updated
its recommendations in January 2017 in an effort to enhance player safety:
 Preseason:
 Discontinue two-a-day practices. (A second session may

include walkthroughs or meetings but no helmets, pads or
conditioning.)
 Extend the preseason by one week.
 Reduce live tackling or thud practices from four to three a

week.
 Ensure three noncontact or minimal contact practices per week.
 Ensure noncontact or minimal contact practices are held the day

after a scrimmage.
 Implement one day per week without practice.
166
practices-0.
182
 In season:
 Permit only one live contact tackling practice per week.
 Permit only one live contact thud practice per week.
 Implement three or more noncontact or minimal contact

practices per week.
 Postseason:
 If more than two weeks elapse between the final regular-season

or conference championship game and a bowl or postseason
game, then allow up to three practices per week of live contact
(including two thud); add three days of noncontact or minimal
contact practices per week; and ensure the day preceding and
after live contact tackling practices should be noncontact or
minimal contact.
 Spring season:
 Hold a noncontact or minimal contact practice every day after a

live scrimmage.167
We recommend that the University adopt these guidelines as required
standards for the football program.
3. Recommendations concerning an independent medical care

model
When a player experiences or shows signs or symptoms of trauma or reports
suffering a serious injury during a game or practice, he should receive immediate
medical attention. Regardless of whether this player believes he can return to the
167
See http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/football-practice-guidelines-
updated.
183
field, an appropriate medical provider should provide a full examination of the
possible injury and should not allow the player to return without the approval of
the medical provider. In order to enhance accountability, this authorized medical
provider should be identified before each game and practice.
Mandatory medical examinations should be passed before allowing an
athlete to participate in football practices or games. These examinations should
occur before each season begins, requiring documentation of this examination and
approval to practice and play from medical personnel. The medical provider who
performs these examinations should not report to football coaches.
Where a player believes he is ready to return to the field but the medical
personnel disagrees, under no circumstance should the player be allowed to return
to the field. Only when the medical provider believes that the player is ready to
return should the player be allowed to return to a game or practice.
UMD should retain the authority to decide who employs the medical
personnel overseeing the football program. Options include UMD itself, the
University of Maryland, Baltimore, or a third-party.
Finally, all health care providers and staff with sports performance
responsibilities should meet regularly to holistically discuss student-athlete health
and well-being. This team should work collaboratively to adopt new best practices
184
as they emerge and share insights regarding specific student-athlete health
concerns.
The May 19, 2017 memorandum from Mr. Anderson to Dr. Loh advocated
for enhanced collaboration between UMD and the University of Maryland,
Baltimore, along with the implementation of a new integrated program in sports
medicine. This program was not adopted due to cost concerns and a lack of
coordination with athletic trainers. However, this type of cooperation between
institutions to achieve NCAA best practices in sports medicine reflects a desirable
goal that should be pursued.
C. Improving Accountability in the Athletics Department
Best practices in the area of Athletics Department organizational compliance
are evolving. Accordingly, these recommendations are general in nature, and we
would expect the governance of the Athletics Department to evolve as
intercollegiate athletics practices evolve. These recommendations seek to address
the most significant areas for improvement that we observed:
Management by Walking Around. There is no replacement for being
present. The physical attendance of senior athletic administrators and sport
supervisors at practices and team events sends a strong signal to student-athletes
and other members of the athletics community that they are important and valued.
The AD and sport supervisors should spend more time on the sidelines, in the
185
stands, the weight room, or otherwise observing team practices and participating in
team activities.
Organizational Structure and Position Descriptions. Athletics
Department leadership should analyze and, as warranted, revise the organizational
structure of the Athletics Department and clearly define lines of authority,
responsibility, and reporting relationships. The compliance function of the
Athletics Department should have a reporting relationship to the University’s
Office of General Counsel (“OGC”), as well as the AD. Many universities are
moving toward a centralized compliance function. Were the University to do that,
the Chief Compliance Officer could be substituted for the OGC. The Athletics
Department should maintain on its intranet site a current organizational chart
depicting the structure of the department. To the extent not already in existence,
the department should establish position descriptions for each non-student-athlete
athletics community member.
Comparative Analysis. The University should compare the University’s
athletics compliance unit to that of its peers for purposes of evaluating the
adequacy and appropriateness of its current staffing level and resources.
Code of Conduct. The Athletics Department should consider adopting a
code of conduct for all Athletics Department staff. This code of conduct would
complement any other written standards of conduct applicable to the broader
186
University community. It should reflect the Athletics Department staff’s
commitment to comply fully with applicable policies, procedures, and rules put in
effect by the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference, require the Athletics Department
staff to report suspected violations of those organizations’ rules and of the
University’s own policies and procedures, and affirm the right of Athletics
Department staff to report suspected violations, anonymously if desired, free from
threat or fear of retaliation, and with the knowledge that their reports will be
maintained in confidence to the extent practicable and permissible by law.
Promptly upon adoption of such a code of conduct or of newly joining the
Athletics Department staff, and annually thereafter, each member of the Athletics
Community should certify in writing that he or she has received, read, understood,
and will abide by the athletics code of conduct. Promotion of, and adherence to,
the code of conduct may be considered in performance evaluations.168
Accountability Certification. The Athletics Department should adopt a
process whereby each head coach would annually certify in writing to the AD and
Athletic Council that his or her team has adhered to and been compliant with the
policies, procedures, and rules put in effect by the NCAA and the Big Ten
Conference, as well as other applicable University policies, procedures, and
168
Examples of similar codes of conduct include those of the Pennsylvania State University
and Indiana University, available respectively at
https://universityethics.psu.edu/sites/universityethics/files/revised_code_of_conduct_11.16.12.pd
f and https://iuhoosiers.com/sports/2015/4/1/GEN_201401017.aspx.
187
standards of conduct including, if adopted, the athletics code of conduct. The
certification should include an exceptions list that notes any secondary violations
attributed to the team during the certification period and how those violations were
identified. It is important for the Athletics Department staff to understand that
discovering and self-reporting compliance violations are indicators of a healthy
compliance environment. Head coach certifications, in turn, should be presented
to the AD for review in support of that official’s own written certification to the
Athletic Council and University President that, other than as described in the
exceptions list, the Athletics Department has substantially complied with
applicable NCAA, Big Ten, and University rules and standards of conduct. The
Athletic Council should take immediate steps to address any lapses in or efforts to
constrain or condition the certification process and to report such action to the
OGC and University President, as warranted.
Training and Education. The Athletics Department should devise an
educational module that specifically addresses principles regarding institutional
control, responsibility, ethical conduct, and integrity. The Athletics Department
staff should be required to complete the course promptly upon hiring and annually
thereafter, and to certify, in writing, that he or she has received and understands the
training. The Athletics Department should maintain records demonstrating
188
completion of these requirements for reporting and performance evaluation
purposes.
Onboarding. As suggested by the head of UHR, new coaches should be
provided an orientation program tailored to their position and experience. The
onboarding program should emphasize the mission and core values of the Athletics
Department, NCAA, Big Ten and University policies, procedures, and rules that
apply to their work and best practices for complying with them, and the larger
culture of which they are now a part. The program should identify key points of
contact throughout the Athletics Department and wider University, the resources
available to help them succeed in their role and fulfill their responsibilities, and
channels to report concerns and seek advice.
Performance Management Program. The Athletics Department should
establish a performance management system that evaluates at least annually all
Athletics Department staff (specifically to include all coaches), without exception.
The AD should collaborate with the Head of UHR to devise a framework for
conducting performance evaluations and for interpreting and acting upon their
results. The University should consider integrating the Human Resources function
in the Athletics Department with the UHR unit.
Channels of Communication/Complaint Tracking. The Athletics
Department should devise and implement a formal reporting and complaint
189
tracking program, administered by compliance personnel. The program should
include a hotline that individuals may use to seek guidance about their
responsibilities under, or report suspected violations of, NCAA, Big Ten
Conference, and University policies and procedures. The hotline should be
accessible through a variety of mechanisms (e.g., telephone, online, email),
anonymously if desired, and free from the threat or fear of retaliation. Hotline
communications should be documented and tracked through resolution in a log that
includes a summary of each report or request for help, the status of internal review
and its outcome, and a description of any corrective or remedial actions taken.
Compliance personnel should regularly share information concerning all athletics-
related complaints with the Athletic Council, which should be empowered to
escalate matters to the AD, OGC/Head of Compliance, and University President,
as warranted. Records generated in connection with any hotline communication
should be maintained in confidence to the extent practicable and permissible by
law. The hotline should be promoted in the student-athlete handbook, through
communications from coaches and administrators, and on posters prominently
displayed throughout campus in common areas where student-athletes congregate.
This program is not intended to replace any existing process or procedure, which
may be expanded to fulfill the spirit of this recommendation.
190
The University recently implemented “Terps Feedback,” an online portal
that allows members of the University community to report concerns and ask for
help. This mechanism may be appropriate to use as one of the channels of
communication recommended here.
Exit Interviews. The University should endeavor to capture the
perspectives of at least 50% of departing senior student-athletes, student-athletes
who are transferring, and all Athletics Department staff who are leaving the
University. The information obtained through these exit interviews should be
documented and presented in summary fashion to the Athletic Council for its
consideration on how to further improve the Athletics Department.
University-Issued Cell Phones. UMD employees should not be
corresponding with other individuals associated with the University about
University-related matters on their personal phones. Use of personal phones
significantly hinders efforts to conduct investigations and reviews of past
correspondence. All employees who are expected to communicate remotely,
including football coaches who are frequently out on practice fields or away at
games, or recruiters that travel to talk with high school students, should be
provided with University-issued cell phones and instructed to use them for all
University business.
191
When an employee’s University-issued phone is returned to the University,
such as when the employee leaves the University, the employee should be advised
to not erase any data prior to surrendering it, and the University should backup the
entire phone. This will allow the University to then wipe the phone and reissue it
to another employee, while still maintaining the phone’s data from the previous
user.
XII. Acknowledgments
This report is the result of over a thousand hours of work by the individuals
named on its cover. However, their efforts would have been for naught if not for
the tireless attention of their colleagues who were instrumental in making this
report possible. It has been less than two months since the Board of Regents
announced the composition of this eight-person commission on August 24, 2018.
It took the effort of the entire team to compile this report. The Commission
extends its deepest thanks and appreciation to Terri Dunn, Allison Palmere, Dawn
Kuhrmann, James O’Neill, and Wes Reichart, all of DLA Piper LLP (US), for their
extensive and tireless contributions.
192
App. 1
App. 2
Statement of Kevin Anderson
My 7 years at the University of Maryland were challenging, but

successful. I inherited, and we were able to manage through the
discovery of, severe budget deficits, potential NCAA violations and
academic challenges in Football and Men’s Basketball. We had many
coaching searches, most if not all had degrees of success. We were able
to manage through a process that eliminated 7 sports with minimal
adverse impact. We were recognized as a top 20 athletic department in
the country. We improved fundraising and made a successful transition
from the ACC to the Big10, thereby increasing the visibility of the
University. The move strengthened the University’s academic profile,
benefited staff and faculty and energized the athletic department. While
some people predicted that the conference change would damage the
competitive nature of the athletic department and the Big 10, by the
time of my departure, we had won 25 Big10 Conference championships,
the most in the Big10 Conference during my tenure, as well as 7
National Championships. Over 7 years we also showed a distinct
improvement in our academic profile team-by-team.
I believe I am demanding, but I also believe I am fair. I hold people

accountable. I was leading and managing a multimillion-dollar business
that provides the opportunity for student athletes to pursue their
dreams and aspirations both academically and athletically.
I am most proud that we developed outstanding young people and gave

them the support and opportunity to be great global citizens.
{00962681.DOCX;2 }
App. 3
I left the University of Maryland with my head held high knowing that I
abided by the rules and regulations of the University and the NCAA at all
times. I also know that I left the athletic department and institution in a
far better overall position than I found it. I would be remiss if I did not
share with you the extreme disappointment in the manner in which the
University’s leadership horribly mishandled my departure. The way I
was treated was undeserved, the process was a disgrace, my reputation
has been permanently damaged and my family has suffered terribly. I
believe there was and continues to be a calculated and orchestrated
effort to damage my character and marginalize my leadership. It is also
abundantly clear that the instability and void in leadership that was
created by my abrupt departure lead to a serious lack of institutional
control. It is my sincere belief that the instability within the athletic
department that began in September 2017 led to the devastating
tragedy in May 2018. How the University leadership has handled the
events of this past year will have a lasting effect on this University for
years to come.
{00962681.DOCX;2 }
App. 4
App. 5
App. 6
Athle&c Director
Damon Evans
Deputy AD
Colleen Sorem
ACADEMICS & PUBLIC

INTERNAL

RELATIONS EXTERNAL FUNDRAISING
STUDENT ADMINISTRATION Sr. Associate AD
Sr. Associate AD OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS DEVELOPMENT/ Strategic Chief Development
Sr. Associate AD INTERIM SWA Sr. Associate AD Communica7ons & Sr. Associate AD
TBD Officer
TBD Sr. Associate AD
Media Rela7ons Carrie Blankenship
Cheryl Harrison
Dr. Sue Sherburne Zack Bolno

ACADEMIC DIGITAL MEDIA STEWARDSHIP &

BUSINESS INFORMATION FACILITIES, OPS SUPPORT & SPORT COMPLIANCE Associate & CREATIVE MARKETING
OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY & EVENTS ADMINISTRATION Assistant ALUMNI DEVELOPMENT
CAREER Associate AD Director SERVICES Assistant AD RELATIONS Sr. Associate AD
Assistant AD Director Associate AD DEVELOPMENT Associate AD Director Sr. Associate AD
Kristen Brown KrisD Giddings DusDn Associate AD Jordan Looby Don Miller
Associate AD Rose DiPaula Troy Wainwright
Eric Reinke Gus Sam Josh Kaplan
Chris Uchacz
Semonavick Nick Lofaro
STUDENT- SPORTS MARYLAND ANNUAL FUND /

HUMAN TICKET MAJOR GIFTS
EQUIPMENT RESOURCES ATHLETE PERFORMANCE
Assistant SPORTS
Assistant PROPERTIES OPERATIONS Associate AD
Assistant AD Director DEVELOPMENT Director
Associate AD Anna LaBonte General Manager Associate AD Brian Thornburg
Jason Baisden Assistant AD Sean Ellenby
Debbie Russell David Klossner Keith Weldon MaM Monroe
TBD
M CLUB
Assistant Assistant Director
Taylor Smyth Keith Sneddon TBD
App. 7
From: for theathletes <fortheabused@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 8:37 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Bcc: kevina@umd.edu
Subject: stop the abuse
Maryland Football Awards Celebration
How about adding this to your agenda:
One of Kevin Anderson’s 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.
Mr. Anderson, please answer these questions:
Why are you and the University allowing Coach Durkin to place so much importance on his personal needs as an adult and
professional to be successful over the needs and well-being of the athletes?
What have you done and what do you plan on doing to address his abusive coaching methods? Durkin is a coach with
power and he is using it to bully. Is he bullying you too?
Winning and all that it means to him is more important than the mental health and happiness of
Those he is supposed to be guiding. Is this your motto, Anderson? A coach who does not win, gets fired, right? Is your job
on the line too; is this why you allow this behavior?
Durkin is orchestrating valorous suffering on the football athletes. Do you care? Does the Compliance Department of
Athletics care? Does the NCAA care?
Durkin is pressuring players to play with injuries and concealing the extent of their injuries. Why are you allowing this to
happen?
He is abusing the players mentally by threatening to take scholarships away from them. Why is there no regard for NCAA
guidelines?
App. 8
Durkin consistently thwarts NCAA time limits by describing activities as voluntary. He knows he can’t deem them
mandatory, but it is expected and players are punished otherwise. We know that you and his staff know this and you pretend
to be blind to it. He makes the players sign off on the required forms that would be audited by the NCAA. You’re okay with
this, Anderson? Durkin should be placed on probation for practice and training violations.
Why are you not enforcing Durkin to realize that college athletes are not professionals like those in the NFL? Why isn’t
respect and fair treatment given to players who are not interested in pursuing the sport after college, but want the
opportunity to play football and to exceed academically for their chosen career path after college?
Durkin intentionally targets players and makes it his goal to make their lives so miserable that they leave on their own
accord. How would you feel if someone were doing this to one of your loved ones?
Are you even aware of the number of athletes under Durkin that have completely extinguished the joy that the sport of
football had once held for them? Many of them have even lost their trademark enthusiasm or passion for practice. Do you
have any idea how many of the players didn’t even want to win the Rutgers game because of the abuse they will have to be
subject to for the upcoming Bowl game?
Why do you allow him to use brain-washing methods to keep the athletes he is responsible for quiet? He is a master
manipulator, so the athletes won’t stand up. He may have many of them brain-washed in to thinking he is the guy to go to in
order to achieve success, but the thing that trumps that is our job of keeping the athletes safe; agreeing that standing up to an
abuser and reporting him is a sign of great strength. How very unfortunate that the majority of these young men no longer
value themselves enough to even look him in the eyes and tell him that they will no longer allow him to mistreat them the
way he has because they value themselves too much. You’re okay with this?
Durkin does not create a feeling of personal safety on the team. Why?
Why would you hire a coach that does not understand that coaching is about doing what’s best for the kids?
Why doesn’t Durkin generate mutual respect? Why does he not leave his athletes feeling good about themselves?
Why is Durkin allowed use hard, extreme, physical conditioning inappropriately?
Where are the rules that govern Durkin’s conduct?
Why does Durkin get away with disrespecting the athletes, parents, and the other professionals that have to work alongside
him for the sake of job security?
How are any us to trust a self-centered, misguided, destructive individual like Durkin? Is he your definition of a positive role-
model to your student athletes?
Are any of you aware or do you even care about the number of student athletes suffering from severe emotional distress
because of the abusive actions of Coach Durkin? His actions are extreme and outrageous; intentional and reckless, and the
sole cause of the emotional distress.
How do you think the parents feel, turning their friends/loved ones over to a coach with questionable methods and an
Athletic Director who does nothing about it? “Like they have made a deal with the devil”.
Why isn’t enhancing self-esteem, being a good role model and building character in the athletes under his guidance
important?
Why does Coach Durkin have no interest in building healthy relationship’s with his athletes?
Why are you allowing Coach Durkin and his staff to treat these athletes like Lab Rats? Abusing them to the point of passing
out, sustaining injuries, vomiting, by working them to the point of near death and keeping track of it through all the testing
to see what their limits are? How would Durkin feel if his son was tortured like this?
It would be much more effective to go directly to the media so this is out of the coach’s and school’s hands. Is this how we
should proceed from here? No doubt that Twitter can help stop this insanity and also provide an opportunity to invite others
to jump in and build it further; and also get as many other individuals in the community to get involved as well. Are we not
in agreement that today’s athletes don’t have to and won’t take abusive coaches anymore? THE MORE VOICES A CAUSE
HAS, THE MORE EFFECTIVE IT CAN BE!
DURKIN SHOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE! Immediately.

Football 2016
2016-17 Student Athlete Survey -- All Sports
October 1, 2018 3:37 PM EDT
Q20 - Name:
Name:
App. 9
Showing records 1 - 48 of 48
Q21 - Sport:
Football
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
# Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation Variance Count
1 Sport: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 48
# Field Choice Count
1 Football 100.00% 48
Showing Rows: 1 - 1 Of 1
Q22 - Academic Year Enrolled at Maryland
2016 - 2017
2015 - 2016
2014 - 2015
2013 - 2014
2012 - 2013
2011 - 2012
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
1 Academic Year Enrolled at Maryland 2.00 6.00 3.04 1.07 1.15 47
Choice
# Field
Count
1 2016 - 2017 38.30% 18
2 2015 - 2016 34.04% 16
3 2014 - 2015 14.89% 7
4 2013 - 2014 10.64% 5
5 2012 - 2013 2.13% 1
6 2011 - 2012 0.00% 0
47
Q1 - Coaching:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
The overall quality of the head coaching I received was adequate and approp...
The overall quality of the assistant coaching I received was adequate and a...
My coach(es) are concerned about my athletic, academic and personal issues.
My head coach and assistant coaches work well together.
My coaching staff prepares the team for competition.
Practices were well organized and worthwhile.
I was subject to inappropriate physical contact.
I was subject to inappropriate verbal communication and/or mental/emotional...
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Std
# Field Minimum Maximum Mean Variance Count
Deviation
The overall quality of the head coaching I received was adequate

1 3.00 5.00 4.51 0.61 0.38 47
and appropriate.
The overall quality of the assistant coaching I received was

2 3.00 5.00 4.45 0.65 0.42 47
adequate and appropriate.
My coach(es) are concerned about my athletic, academic and

3 3.00 5.00 4.57 0.61 0.38 46
personal issues.
4 My head coach and assistant coaches work well together. 3.00 5.00 4.45 0.58 0.33 47
5 My coaching staff prepares the team for competition. 3.00 5.00 4.59 0.61 0.37 46
6 Practices were well organized and worthwhile. 2.00 5.00 4.40 0.76 0.58 47
7 I was subject to inappropriate physical contact. 1.00 6.00 1.83 1.02 1.03 47
I was subject to inappropriate verbal communication and/or

8 1.00 6.00 2.04 1.15 1.32 47
mental/emotional stress.
Strongly Strongly Not

# Field Disagree Neutral Agree Total
Disagree Agree Applicable
The overall quality of the head

1 coaching I received was 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 6.38% 3 36.17% 17 57.45% 27 0.00% 0 47
adequate and appropriate.
The overall quality of the

assistant coaching I received
2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 8.51% 4 38.30% 18 53.19% 25 0.00% 0 47
was adequate and
appropriate.
My coach(es) are concerned

3 about my athletic, academic 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 6.52% 3 30.43% 14 63.04% 29 0.00% 0 46
and personal issues.
My head coach and assistant

4 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 4.26% 2 46.81% 22 48.94% 23 0.00% 0 47
coaches work well together.
My coaching staff prepares

5 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 6.52% 3 28.26% 13 65.22% 30 0.00% 0 46
the team for competition.
Practices were well organized
6 0.00% 0 2.13% 1 10.64% 5 31.91% 15 55.32% 26 0.00% 0 47
and worthwhile.
I was subject to inappropriate

7 46.81% 22 31.91% 15 17.02% 8 2.13% 1 0.00% 0 2.13% 1 47
physical contact.

8 verbal communication and/or 38.30% 18 36.17% 17 14.89% 7 6.38% 3 2.13% 1 2.13% 1 47
Q10 - Please indicate any other concerns you may have regarding this section.
Please indicate any other concerns you may have regarding this section.
None
Showing records 1 - 1 of 1
Q2 - Academic Support & Career Development:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
My academic success was a priority for my coaches.

As a student-athlete, I have been given the freedom to pursue the academic ...
My athletic game, practice, and travel schedules were balanced appropriatel...
I feel that Academic Support & Career Development Unit (ASDCU) encourages a...
I received adequate and appropriate tutorial support and the ASCDU facility...
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Std
Deviation
1 My academic success was a priority for my coaches. 2.00 5.00 4.36 0.78 0.61 42
As a student-athlete, I have been given the freedom to pursue

2 2.00 5.00 4.33 0.75 0.56 42
the academic major of my choice while at Maryland.
My athletic game, practice, and travel schedules were balanced

3 2.00 6.00 3.95 0.95 0.90 42
appropriately for my academic obligations.
I feel that Academic Support & Career Development Unit
4 (ASDCU) encourages and provides helpful guidance in the pursuit 3.00 5.00 4.43 0.66 0.44 42
of my education.
I received adequate and appropriate tutorial support and the

5 1.00 6.00 4.21 0.95 0.91 43
ASCDU facility met all of my needs as a student-athlete.

My academic success was a

1 0.00% 0 4.76% 2 4.76% 2 40.48% 17 50.00% 21 0.00% 0 42
priority for my coaches.
As a student-athlete, I have
been given the freedom to
2 0.00% 0 2.38% 1 9.52% 4 40.48% 17 47.62% 20 0.00% 0 42
pursue the academic major of
my choice while at Maryland.
My athletic game, practice,

and travel schedules were
3 0.00% 0 7.14% 3 23.81% 10 38.10% 16 28.57% 12 2.38% 1 42
balanced appropriately for my
academic obligations.
I feel that Academic Support &

Career Development Unit
4 (ASDCU) encourages and 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 9.52% 4 38.10% 16 52.38% 22 0.00% 0 42
provides helpful guidance in
the pursuit of my education.
I received adequate and

appropriate tutorial support
5 and the ASCDU facility met all 2.33% 1 4.65% 2 6.98% 3 44.19% 19 39.53% 17 2.33% 1 43
of my needs as a student-
athlete.
No Data
Q3 - Compliance:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Compliance Staff members were available and helpful to answer specific ques...
I was informed of pertinent NCAA rules surrounding amateurism/ agents, elig...
I am aware of NCAA Violations by myself, my coaches, members of my team, an...
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 5 10 15 20 25
Std
Deviation
Compliance Staff members were available and helpful to answer

1 3.00 5.00 4.20 0.62 0.38 45
specific questions, when needed.
I was informed of pertinent NCAA rules surrounding amateurism/

agents, eligibility, financial aid/ scholarships, extra benefits and
2 2.00 5.00 4.29 0.72 0.52 45
playing/ practice seasons (countable hours/20 hour rule, etc.) and
sports wagering by the Compliance Staff.
I am aware of NCAA Violations by myself, my coaches, members

3 1.00 6.00 4.11 1.04 1.08 45
of my team, and boosters or supporters of my team.

Compliance Staff members

were available and helpful to
1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.11% 5 57.78% 26 31.11% 14 0.00% 0 45
answer specific questions,
when needed.
I was informed of pertinent
NCAA rules surrounding
amateurism/ agents,
eligibility, financial aid/
2 scholarships, extra benefits 0.00% 0 2.22% 1 8.89% 4 46.67% 21 42.22% 19 0.00% 0 45
and playing/ practice seasons
(countable hours/20 hour rule,
etc.) and sports wagering by
the Compliance Staff.
I am aware of NCAA Violations

by myself, my coaches,
3 members of my team, and 4.44% 2 2.22% 1 11.11% 5 46.67% 21 31.11% 14 4.44% 2 45
boosters or supporters of my
team.
No Data
Q4 - Sports Performance:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
My experience with the medical/training staff was positive and met my needs...
I am pleased with the level of care I received from sports medicine physici...
I am pleased with the level of care I received from athletic trainers.
I am confident in the knowledge and expertise of my strength & conditioning...
My experience with the sports nutrition staff was positive.
I received adequate nutrition counseling from the sports dietitians.
There are adequate services available to meet my mental health needs.
My health privacy has been maintained to my expectations.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Std
Deviation
My experience with the medical/training staff was positive and

1 2.00 5.00 4.27 0.68 0.46 45
met my needs.
I am pleased with the level of care I received from sports

2 3.00 5.00 4.31 0.59 0.35 45
medicine physicians.
I am pleased with the level of care I received from athletic

3 2.00 5.00 4.25 0.77 0.60 44
trainers.
I am confident in the knowledge and expertise of my strength &

4 3.00 5.00 4.51 0.58 0.34 45
conditioning coach.
5 My experience with the sports nutrition staff was positive. 3.00 5.00 4.44 0.58 0.34 45
I received adequate nutrition counseling from the sports

6 3.00 5.00 4.42 0.58 0.33 45
dietitians.
There are adequate services available to meet my mental health

7 3.00 6.00 4.44 0.68 0.47 45
needs.
8 My health privacy has been maintained to my expectations. 3.00 6.00 4.40 0.68 0.46 45

My experience with the

1 medical/training staff was 0.00% 0 2.22% 1 6.67% 3 53.33% 24 37.78% 17 0.00% 0 45
positive and met my needs.
I am pleased with the level of

2 care I received from sports 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 6.67% 3 55.56% 25 37.78% 17 0.00% 0 45

3 care I received from athletic 0.00% 0 4.55% 2 6.82% 3 47.73% 21 40.91% 18 0.00% 0 44
trainers.
I am confident in the
knowledge and expertise of
4 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 4.44% 2 40.00% 18 55.56% 25 0.00% 0 45
my strength & conditioning
coach.
My experience with the sports

5 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 4.44% 2 46.67% 21 48.89% 22 0.00% 0 45
nutrition staff was positive.
I received adequate nutrition
6 counseling from the sports 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 4.44% 2 48.89% 22 46.67% 21 0.00% 0 45
dietitians.
There are adequate services

7 available to meet my mental 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 6.67% 3 46.67% 21 42.22% 19 4.44% 2 45
health needs.
My health privacy has been

8 maintained to my 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 8.89% 4 44.44% 20 44.44% 20 2.22% 1 45
expectations.
No Data
Q5 - Facilities:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Practice and game facilities (e.g., gymnasiums, fields, maintenance, etc.) ...
The locker room met our team needs.
The weight room(s) my team utilized met our needs.
The athletic training room(s) my team utilized met our needs.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Std
Deviation
Practice and game facilities (e.g., gymnasiums, fields,

1 2.00 6.00 4.36 0.79 0.63 45
maintenance, etc.) were adequate and appropriate for my sport.
2 The locker room met our team needs. 1.00 6.00 4.40 0.80 0.64 45
3 The weight room(s) my team utilized met our needs. 3.00 6.00 4.49 0.58 0.34 45
4 The athletic training room(s) my team utilized met our needs. 2.00 6.00 4.42 0.68 0.47 45

Practice and game facilities
(e.g., gymnasiums, fields,
1 maintenance, etc.) were 0.00% 0 4.44% 2 4.44% 2 44.44% 20 44.44% 20 2.22% 1 45
adequate and appropriate for
my sport.
The locker room met our team

2 2.22% 1 0.00% 0 4.44% 2 44.44% 20 46.67% 21 2.22% 1 45
needs.
The weight room(s) my team

3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 2.22% 1 48.89% 22 46.67% 21 2.22% 1 45
utilized met our needs.
The athletic training room(s)

4 my team utilized met our 0.00% 0 2.22% 1 2.22% 1 48.89% 22 44.44% 20 2.22% 1 45
needs.
No Data
Q6 - Equipment:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
The equipment issued met my team's needs.

My experience with the Athletic Equipment Staff was positive.
The equipment staff was available for my team's needs.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Std
Deviation
1 The equipment issued met my team's needs. 3.00 5.00 4.48 0.58 0.34 44
My experience with the Athletic Equipment Staff was

2 3.00 5.00 4.48 0.58 0.34 44
positive.
3 The equipment staff was available for my team's needs. 3.00 5.00 4.45 0.62 0.38 44

The equipment issued met my

1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 4.55% 2 43.18% 19 52.27% 23 0.00% 0 44
team's needs.

2 Athletic Equipment Staff was 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 4.55% 2 43.18% 19 52.27% 23 0.00% 0 44
positive.
The equipment staff was

3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 6.82% 3 40.91% 18 52.27% 23 0.00% 0 44
available for my team's needs.
No Data
Q8 - Media & Marketing:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
My team's information was timely and accurately displayed on www.umterps.co...

I received appropriate support from the Media Relations staff in preparatio...
I am pleased with the Athletic Marketing staff's advertisement and promotio...
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Std
Deviation
My team's information was timely and accurately displayed on

1 2.00 6.00 4.18 0.74 0.55 45
www.umterps.com
I received appropriate support from the Media Relations staff in

2 3.00 6.00 4.24 0.67 0.45 45
preparation for my interactions with members of the media.
I am pleased with the Athletic Marketing staff's advertisement

3 2.00 6.00 4.16 0.76 0.58 45
and promotion of my team (e.g., poster, schedule card,etc.).

My team's information was

timely and accurately
1 0.00% 0 2.22% 1 11.11% 5 55.56% 25 28.89% 13 2.22% 1 45
displayed on
www.umterps.com
I received appropriate support

from the Media Relations staff
2 in preparation for my 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.11% 5 55.56% 25 31.11% 14 2.22% 1 45
interactions with members of
the media.
I am pleased with the Athletic
Marketing staff's
3 advertisement and promotion 0.00% 0 2.22% 1 13.33% 6 53.33% 24 28.89% 13 2.22% 1 45
of my team (e.g., poster,
schedule card,etc.).
No Data
Q9 - General:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
I received the amount of playing time I expected this year.

I am satisfied with the athletic performance my team achieved this year.
My travel experience has been positive.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Std
Deviation
1 I received the amount of playing time I expected this year. 1.00 6.00 3.70 1.16 1.34 44
I am satisfied with the athletic performance my team achieved

2 1.00 6.00 3.18 1.25 1.57 45
this year.
3 My travel experience has been positive. 2.00 6.00 4.38 0.90 0.81 45

I received the amount of

1 playing time I expected this 4.55% 2 9.09% 4 27.27% 12 34.09% 15 20.45% 9 4.55% 2 44
year.
I am satisfied with the athletic

2 performance my team 8.89% 4 22.22% 10 31.11% 14 20.00% 9 15.56% 7 2.22% 1 45
achieved this year.
My travel experience has been

3 0.00% 0 2.22% 1 13.33% 6 37.78% 17 37.78% 17 8.89% 4 45
positive.
No Data
End of Report
Football 2017
2017-18 Student Athlete Survey -- All Sports
August 14, 2018 11:46 AM EDT
Q20 - Name:
Name:
Showing Records: 1 - 18 Of 18
App. 10
Q21 - Sport:
Football
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
1 Sport: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 20
# Field Choice Count
1 Football 100.00% 20
Q22 - Year in school:
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate Student
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Year in school: 1.00 5.00 2.40 1.32 1.74 20
Choice
# Field
Count
1 Freshman 35.00% 7
2 Sophomore 25.00% 5
3 Junior 10.00% 2
4 Senior 25.00% 5
5 Graduate Student 5.00% 1
20
Q1 - Coaching:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
The overall quality of the head coaching I received was adequate.

The overall quality of the assistant coaching I received was adequate.
My coach(es) are concerned about my athletic issues.
My coach(es) are concerned about my academic and personal issues.
My coach(es) care about my physical well-being.
My coach(es) care about my mental well-being
My head coach and assistant coaches work well together.
My coaching staff prepares the team well for competition and provides us wi...
The Time Management Plan (TMP) calendar provided by my coaches clearly deta...
The TMP was adhered to throughout the season and sufficient notification (e...
I was subject to inappropriate physical contact.
I was subject to inappropriate verbal communication and/or mental/emotional...
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Std
Deviation
1 The overall quality of the head coaching I received was adequate. 3.00 5.00 4.50 0.69 0.47 18
The overall quality of the assistant coaching I received was

2 2.00 5.00 4.28 0.93 0.87 18
adequate.
3 My coach(es) are concerned about my athletic issues. 1.00 5.00 4.11 0.99 0.99 18
My coach(es) are concerned about my academic and personal

4 1.00 5.00 3.94 0.91 0.83 18
issues.
5 My coach(es) care about my physical well-being. 2.00 5.00 4.11 0.81 0.65 18
6 My coach(es) care about my mental well-being 1.00 5.00 3.89 1.05 1.10 18
7 My head coach and assistant coaches work well together. 2.00 5.00 4.00 0.88 0.78 18
My coaching staff prepares the team well for competition and

8 3.00 5.00 4.28 0.65 0.42 18
provides us with the resources necessary to be competitive.
The Time Management Plan (TMP) calendar provided by my

coaches clearly detailed all team-related activities throughout
9 1.00 6.00 4.00 1.41 2.00 18
the year (e.g. practices, games, community service, media &
marketing shoots, etc.).
The TMP was adhered to throughout the season and sufficient

10 notification (e.g. at least 24 hours) was given for non-weather 2.00 6.00 4.11 1.20 1.43 18
related changes to the calendar.
11 I was subject to inappropriate physical contact. 1.00 6.00 2.00 1.60 2.56 18
I was subject to inappropriate verbal communication and/or

12 1.00 4.00 1.65 0.84 0.70 17

The overall quality of the head

1 coaching I received was 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.11% 2 27.78% 5 61.11% 11 0.00% 0 18
adequate.
The overall quality of the

2 assistant coaching I received 0.00% 0 11.11% 2 0.00% 0 38.89% 7 50.00% 9 0.00% 0 18
was adequate.

3 5.56% 1 0.00% 0 11.11% 2 44.44% 8 38.89% 7 0.00% 0 18
about my athletic issues.

4 about my academic and 5.56% 1 0.00% 0 11.11% 2 61.11% 11 22.22% 4 0.00% 0 18
personal issues.
My coach(es) care about my

5 0.00% 0 5.56% 1 11.11% 2 50.00% 9 33.33% 6 0.00% 0 18
physical well-being.
My coach(es) care about my

6 5.56% 1 5.56% 1 11.11% 2 50.00% 9 27.78% 5 0.00% 0 18
mental well-being
My head coach and assistant

7 0.00% 0 5.56% 1 22.22% 4 38.89% 7 33.33% 6 0.00% 0 18
coaches work well together.
My coaching staff prepares

the team well for competition
8 and provides us with the 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.11% 2 50.00% 9 38.89% 7 0.00% 0 18
resources necessary to be
competitive.
The Time Management Plan
(TMP) calendar provided by
my coaches clearly detailed
all team-related activities
9 5.56% 1 11.11% 2 16.67% 3 27.78% 5 22.22% 4 16.67% 3 18
throughout the year (e.g.
practices, games, community
service, media & marketing
shoots, etc.).
The TMP was adhered to

throughout the season and
sufficient notification (e.g. at
10 0.00% 0 11.11% 2 22.22% 4 22.22% 4 33.33% 6 11.11% 2 18
least 24 hours) was given for
non-weather related changes
to the calendar.

11 55.56% 10 27.78% 5 0.00% 0 5.56% 1 0.00% 0 11.11% 2 18
physical contact.

12 verbal communication and/or 52.94% 9 35.29% 6 5.88% 1 5.88% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 17
Q10 - Please share why you agree or disagree with any of the above statements in this
section.
Please share why you agree or disagree with any of the above statements in...
I think I had one of the best head coaches in high school football last season. It would have been nice to see his staff put the in the time that he did tho
Had no complaints
I like our coaching staff a lot academic and career support
Q2 - Academic Support & Career Development:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
My academic success was a priority for my coaches.

As a student-athlete, I have been given the freedom to pursue the academic ...
My athletic game, practice, and travel schedules were balanced appropriatel...
I feel that Academic Support & Career Development Unit (ASDCU) provides hel...
I received adequate tutorial support from the ASCDU staff.
The ASCDU facility met all of my needs as a student-athlete.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Std
Deviation
1 My academic success was a priority for my coaches. 4.00 5.00 4.35 0.48 0.23 17
As a student-athlete, I have been given the freedom to pursue
2 4.00 6.00 4.47 0.61 0.37 17
the academic major of my choice while at Maryland.
My athletic game, practice, and travel schedules were balanced

3 3.00 5.00 4.18 0.51 0.26 17
appropriately for my academic obligations.
I feel that Academic Support & Career Development Unit

4 (ASDCU) provides helpful guidance in the pursuit of my 3.00 6.00 4.35 0.68 0.46 17
education.
5 I received adequate tutorial support from the ASCDU staff. 3.00 6.00 4.29 0.75 0.56 17
6 The ASCDU facility met all of my needs as a student-athlete. 3.00 6.00 4.29 0.67 0.44 17

My academic success was a

1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 64.71% 11 35.29% 6 0.00% 0 17
priority for my coaches.
As a student-athlete, I have
been given the freedom to
2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 58.82% 10 35.29% 6 5.88% 1 17
pursue the academic major of
my choice while at Maryland.
My athletic game, practice,

and travel schedules were
3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 70.59% 12 23.53% 4 0.00% 0 17
balanced appropriately for my
academic obligations.
I feel that Academic Support &

Career Development Unit
4 (ASDCU) provides helpful 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 58.82% 10 29.41% 5 5.88% 1 17
guidance in the pursuit of my
education.
I received adequate tutorial

5 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 52.94% 9 29.41% 5 5.88% 1 17
support from the ASCDU staff.
The ASCDU facility met all of

6 my needs as a student- 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 64.71% 11 23.53% 4 5.88% 1 17
athlete.
section.
Coach Scott helped every kid individually to make sure that we were successful
Q3 - Compliance:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Compliance Staff members were helpful to answer specific questions, when ne...
I was informed of pertinent NCAA rules surrounding amateurism/agents, eligi...
I am aware of NCAA Violations that occurred by me, my coaches, members of m...
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Std
Deviation
Compliance Staff members were helpful to answer specific

1 4.00 6.00 4.88 0.76 0.57 17
questions, when needed.
I was informed of pertinent NCAA rules surrounding

amateurism/agents, eligibility, financial aid/scholarships, extra
2 3.00 5.00 4.29 0.67 0.44 17
benefits and playing/practice seasons (countable hours/20 hour
rule, etc.) and sports wagering by the Compliance Staff.
I am aware of NCAA Violations that occurred by me, my coaches,

3 1.00 6.00 4.12 1.41 1.99 17
members of my team and/or boosters/supporters of my team.

Compliance Staff members

were helpful to answer
1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 35.29% 6 41.18% 7 23.53% 4 17
specific questions, when
needed.
I was informed of pertinent
NCAA rules surrounding
amateurism/agents, eligibility,
financial aid/scholarships,
2 extra benefits and 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 47.06% 8 41.18% 7 0.00% 0 17
playing/practice seasons
(countable hours/20 hour rule,
etc.) and sports wagering by
the Compliance Staff.
I am aware of NCAA Violations

that occurred by me, my
3 coaches, members of my team 5.88% 1 11.76% 2 5.88% 1 35.29% 6 23.53% 4 17.65% 3 17
and/or boosters/supporters of
my team.
section.
Never communicated with anybody from compliance so I just answered the questions the best I could
Q4 - Sports Medicine:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
I believe that the medical staff made health decisions in my best interest.
My health privacy has been maintained to my expectations.
The informational materials (insurance, concussions, health issues, injury ...
I am satisfied with the information I received regarding my injury, treatme...
The overall atmosphere, cleanliness, and quality of the medical facilities ...
My experience with the sports medicine physician was positive this season.
I am pleased with the level of care I received from sports medicine physici...
My experience with the athletic trainer services was positive this season.
I am pleased with the level of care I received from athletic trainers.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Std
Deviation
I believe that the medical staff made health decisions in my best

1 3.00 5.00 4.29 0.67 0.44 17
interest.
2 My health privacy has been maintained to my expectations. 4.00 5.00 4.41 0.49 0.24 17
The informational materials (insurance, concussions, health

3 issues, injury procedures, drug testing, etc.) I received at the 3.00 5.00 4.24 0.64 0.42 17
beginning of my season was beneficial.
I am satisfied with the information I received regarding my injury,

4 3.00 5.00 4.24 0.64 0.42 17
treatment plan, medications and/or follow-up care.
The overall atmosphere, cleanliness, and quality of the medical

5 4.00 5.00 4.47 0.50 0.25 17
facilities met my expectations.
My experience with the sports medicine physician was positive

6 3.00 5.00 4.24 0.64 0.42 17
this season.
I am pleased with the level of care I received from sports

7 2.00 5.00 4.06 1.00 1.00 17
My experience with the athletic trainer services was positive this

8 3.00 5.00 4.29 0.67 0.44 17
season.
I am pleased with the level of care I received from athletic

9 3.00 5.00 4.29 0.75 0.56 17
trainers.

I believe that the medical staff

1 made health decisions in my 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 47.06% 8 41.18% 7 0.00% 0 17
best interest.
My health privacy has been
2 maintained to my 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 58.82% 10 41.18% 7 0.00% 0 17
expectations.
The informational materials

(insurance, concussions,
health issues, injury
3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 52.94% 9 35.29% 6 0.00% 0 17
procedures, drug testing, etc.)
I received at the beginning of
my season was beneficial.
I am satisfied with the

information I received
4 regarding my injury, treatment 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 52.94% 9 35.29% 6 0.00% 0 17
plan, medications and/or
follow-up care.
The overall atmosphere,

cleanliness, and quality of the
5 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 52.94% 9 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
medical facilities met my
expectations.

6 medicine physician was 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 52.94% 9 35.29% 6 0.00% 0 17
positive this season.

7 care I received from sports 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 11.76% 2 35.29% 6 41.18% 7 0.00% 0 17

8 athletic trainer services was 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 47.06% 8 41.18% 7 0.00% 0 17

9 care I received from athletic 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 17.65% 3 35.29% 6 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
trainers.
section.
Wes Robinson and staff do a great job
Q53 - Strength & Conditioning:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
My experience with the strength & conditioning coach was positive.

I am confident in the knowledge and expertise of my strength & conditioning...
The overall atmosphere, cleanliness, and quality of the strength facilities...
My strength program has produced positive results.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Std
Deviation
My experience with the strength & conditioning coach was

1 4.00 5.00 4.41 0.49 0.24 17
positive.
I am confident in the knowledge and expertise of my strength &

2 3.00 5.00 4.41 0.60 0.36 17
conditioning coach.
The overall atmosphere, cleanliness, and quality of the strength

3 3.00 5.00 4.41 0.60 0.36 17
facilities met my expectations.
4 My strength program has produced positive results. 4.00 5.00 4.47 0.50 0.25 17

1 strength & conditioning coach 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 58.82% 10 41.18% 7 0.00% 0 17
was positive.
I am confident in the
knowledge and expertise of
2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 47.06% 8 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
my strength & conditioning
coach.
The overall atmosphere,

cleanliness, and quality of the
3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 47.06% 8 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
strength facilities met my
expectations.
My strength program has

4 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 52.94% 9 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
produced positive results.
section.
My strength coach has worked with many athletes and all results have been positive
Coach court and staff are great
Q54 - Sports Nutrition:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
My experience with the sports nutrition staff was positive.

I received adequate nutrition counseling from the sports dietitians.
The nutritional information (newsletters, twitter, Instagram, team meetings...
The fueling station items was beneficial and met my sports expectations.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Std
Deviation
1 My experience with the sports nutrition staff was positive. 3.00 5.00 4.18 0.71 0.50 17
I received adequate nutrition counseling from the sports

2 2.00 5.00 4.12 0.83 0.69 17
dietitians.
The nutritional information (newsletters, twitter, Instagram, team

3 3.00 5.00 4.12 0.76 0.57 17
meetings, tastings, etc) I received was beneficial.
The fueling station items was beneficial and met my sports

4 3.00 5.00 4.24 0.73 0.53 17
expectations.

1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 17.65% 3 47.06% 8 35.29% 6 0.00% 0 17
nutrition staff was positive.
I received adequate nutrition

2 counseling from the sports 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 11.76% 2 47.06% 8 35.29% 6 0.00% 0 17
dietitians.
The nutritional information

(newsletters, twitter,
3 Instagram, team meetings, 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 23.53% 4 41.18% 7 35.29% 6 0.00% 0 17
tastings, etc) I received was
beneficial.
The fueling station items was

4 beneficial and met my sports 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 17.65% 3 41.18% 7 41.18% 7 0.00% 0 17
expectations.
section.
We didn’t have one
Q55 - Sports Psychology:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
My experience with the clinical/sport psychologist was positive this season...

The clinical/sport psychologist is easily accessible.
I feel comfortable reaching out to the clinical/sport psychologist for supp...
I received services from the clinical/sport psychologist in a timely manner...
I am pleased with the level of care I received from the clinical/sport psyc...
Team workshops provided by the clinical/sport psychologist were beneficial.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Std
Deviation
My experience with the clinical/sport psychologist was positive

1 3.00 6.00 4.76 1.06 1.12 17
this season.
2 The clinical/sport psychologist is easily accessible. 1.00 6.00 4.47 1.29 1.66 17
I feel comfortable reaching out to the clinical/sport psychologist

3 2.00 6.00 4.47 1.14 1.31 17
for support for myself and/or teammates.
I received services from the clinical/sport psychologist in a timely

4 3.00 6.00 4.82 1.04 1.09 17
manner.
I am pleased with the level of care I received from the

5 3.00 6.00 4.82 1.04 1.09 17
clinical/sport psychologist.
Team workshops provided by the clinical/sport psychologist were

6 3.00 6.00 4.76 1.06 1.12 17
beneficial.


1 clinical/sport psychologist was 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 35.29% 6 17.65% 3 35.29% 6 17
The clinical/sport psychologist

2 5.88% 1 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 29.41% 5 29.41% 5 23.53% 4 17
is easily accessible.
I feel comfortable reaching out

to the clinical/sport
3 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 11.76% 2 35.29% 6 23.53% 4 23.53% 4 17
psychologist for support for
myself and/or teammates.
I received services from the

4 clinical/sport psychologist in a 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 29.41% 5 23.53% 4 35.29% 6 17
timely manner.

5 care I received from the 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 29.41% 5 23.53% 4 35.29% 6 17
clinical/sport psychologist.
Team workshops provided by

6 the clinical/sport psychologist 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 35.29% 6 17.65% 3 35.29% 6 17
were beneficial.
section.
We didn’t have one
I don't even know who the sports psychologist is so all questions are Irrelavent
Q5 - Facilities:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Practice and game facilities (e.g., gymnasiums, weight rooms, fields, equip...
The locker room and training facilities met our team needs.
The weight room(s) my team utilized met our needs.
The athletic training room(s) my team utilized met our needs.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Std
Deviation
Practice and game facilities (e.g., gymnasiums, weight rooms,

1 fields, equipment, maintenance, etc.) were adequate for my 2.00 5.00 4.29 0.82 0.68 17
sport.
2 The locker room and training facilities met our team needs. 3.00 5.00 4.35 0.68 0.46 17
3 The weight room(s) my team utilized met our needs. 2.00 5.00 4.29 0.82 0.68 17
4 The athletic training room(s) my team utilized met our needs. 2.00 5.00 4.31 0.77 0.59 16

Practice and game facilities
(e.g., gymnasiums, weight
1 rooms, fields, equipment, 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 5.88% 1 41.18% 7 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
maintenance, etc.) were
adequate for my sport.
The locker room and training

2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 41.18% 7 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
facilities met our team needs.
The weight room(s) my team

3 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 5.88% 1 41.18% 7 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
utilized met our needs.
The athletic training room(s)

4 my team utilized met our 0.00% 0 6.25% 1 0.00% 0 50.00% 8 43.75% 7 0.00% 0 16
needs.
section.
Everything was to small to really help and fit everyone on our team
Cole Field House is insanely hot. No AC, gets super muggy/humid (especially on a rainy day)
Q6 - Equipment:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
The equipment issued met my team's needs.

My experience with the Athletic Equipment Staff was a positive.
The equipment staff was available for my team's needs.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Std
Deviation
1 The equipment issued met my team's needs. 3.00 5.00 4.24 0.73 0.53 17
My experience with the Athletic Equipment Staff was a

2 3.00 5.00 4.35 0.68 0.46 17
positive.
3 The equipment staff was available for my team's needs. 3.00 5.00 4.35 0.59 0.35 17

The equipment issued met my

1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 17.65% 3 41.18% 7 41.18% 7 0.00% 0 17
team's needs.

2 Athletic Equipment Staff was 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 41.18% 7 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
a positive.
The equipment staff was

3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 52.94% 9 41.18% 7 0.00% 0 17
available for my team's needs.
section.
We had good equipment and we had a coach assigned to just be the equipment manager
Q8 - Media & Marketing:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
My team's information was timely and accurately displayed on www.umterps.co...

I received appropriate support from the Media Relations staff in preparatio...
I am pleased with the Athletic Marketing staff's advertisement and promotio...
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Std
Deviation
My team's information was timely and accurately displayed on

1 3.00 6.00 4.18 0.78 0.62 17
www.umterps.com
I received appropriate support from the Media Relations staff in

2 3.00 6.00 4.88 0.96 0.93 17
preparation for my interactions with members of the media.
I am pleased with the Athletic Marketing staff's advertisement

3 3.00 5.00 4.18 0.71 0.50 17
and promotion of my team (e.g., poster, schedule card,etc.).

My team's information was

timely and accurately
1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 17.65% 3 52.94% 9 23.53% 4 5.88% 1 17
displayed on
www.umterps.com
I received appropriate support

from the Media Relations staff
2 in preparation for my 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 5.88% 1 35.29% 6 23.53% 4 35.29% 6 17
interactions with members of
the media.
I am pleased with the Athletic
Marketing staff's
3 advertisement and promotion 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 17.65% 3 47.06% 8 35.29% 6 0.00% 0 17
of my team (e.g., poster,
schedule card,etc.).
section.
It’s no one’s fault, but I personally am disappointed in the student section at our games. I understand more people would come if we were a 8-4 team,
but still, comin from an SEC area and growing up around college football my entire life, I believe we have the worst student section in all of college
football (or at least the big ten). I have no ideas how this can be fixed, and no suggestions. It’s just disappointing to me and I am embarrassed when I
have guests from home come to my games.
Q62 - Brand U:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
I was made aware of Brand U career, leadership and persona development prog...
My coaches, ASCDU staff and Athletic Administration encourage my preparatio...
I have gained important leadership knowledge and skills.
I learned the information and skills necessary to enhance my professional d...
I would encourage teammates and future Terps to participate in Brand U prog...
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Std
Deviation
I was made aware of Brand U career, leadership and persona

1 2.00 5.00 3.76 0.94 0.89 17
development programs and opportunities.
My coaches, ASCDU staff and Athletic Administration encourage

2 3.00 5.00 4.35 0.68 0.46 17
my preparation for life after sport.
3 I have gained important leadership knowledge and skills. 3.00 5.00 4.18 0.71 0.50 17
I learned the information and skills necessary to enhance my
4 3.00 5.00 4.18 0.71 0.50 17
professional development (resume writing; networking, etc).
I would encourage teammates and future Terps to participate in

5 3.00 5.00 4.24 0.81 0.65 17
Brand U programming.

I was made aware of Brand U

career, leadership and persona
1 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 23.53% 4 41.18% 7 23.53% 4 0.00% 0 17
development programs and
opportunities.
My coaches, ASCDU staff and

Athletic Administration
2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 11.76% 2 41.18% 7 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
encourage my preparation for
life after sport.
I have gained important

3 leadership knowledge and 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 17.65% 3 47.06% 8 35.29% 6 0.00% 0 17
skills.
I learned the information and

skills necessary to enhance
4 my professional development 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 17.65% 3 47.06% 8 35.29% 6 0.00% 0 17
(resume writing; networking,
etc).
I would encourage teammates

5 and future Terps to participate 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 23.53% 4 29.41% 5 47.06% 8 0.00% 0 17
in Brand U programming.
section.
Coaching staff doesn't tlk about brand u so I really don't know a lot about it
Q9 - General:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
I received the amount of playing time I expected this year.

I am satisfied with the athletic performance my team achieved this year.
My team travel experience has been positive.
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Std
Deviation
1 I received the amount of playing time I expected this year. 1.00 6.00 3.82 1.15 1.32 17
I am satisfied with the athletic performance my team achieved

2 1.00 5.00 2.71 1.23 1.50 17
this year.
3 My team travel experience has been positive. 3.00 6.00 4.41 0.97 0.95 17

I received the amount of

1 playing time I expected this 5.88% 1 5.88% 1 17.65% 3 47.06% 8 17.65% 3 5.88% 1 17
year.
I am satisfied with the athletic

2 performance my team 17.65% 3 35.29% 6 11.76% 2 29.41% 5 5.88% 1 0.00% 0 17
achieved this year.
My team travel experience has

3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 17.65% 3 41.18% 7 23.53% 4 17.65% 3 17
been positive.
section and/or share any additional concerns not addressed in this survey.
Q24 - Were you recruited?
Yes
No
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
1 Were you recruited? 4.00 5.00 4.20 0.40 0.16 5
Choice
# Field
Count
1 Yes 80.00% 4
2 No 20.00% 1
Q23 - Major
Major
Business
Family Science
Technology
Economics
Q25 - What factors led to your decision to attend the University of Maryland?
What factors led to your decision to attend the University of Maryland?
The football and academic side of the things really fit what i was looking for. I knew when i graduated i would have the exposure of playing in the big10
so my chances of being drafted would be higher and my degree would mean something. The coaching staff is also filled with great people that will do
everything u need to succeed
Opportunity to get a great education as well as my sports performace
Football and school
Home state, good school
Q26 - Given your experience at Maryland, would you do anything differently if you had the
chance? If yes, please explain.
Given your experience at Maryland, would you do anything differently if you...
No i think that i made the right decision for my future
No
No
Tried more academically
Q27 - What personal traits and/or characteristics have you gained from your athletic
experience that can assist you in achieving your future goals?
What personal traits and/or characteristics have you gained from your athle...
I have learned how to over come difficult times and how to get people to go through them with me and not give up
Meeting new people and building relationships with CEO's
Leadership
Leadership, grit
Q28 - How many hours per week, on average, would you estimate that you engaged in
athletically related activities during the season?
How many hours per week, on average, would you estimate that you engaged in...
About 25 hours
20+
20
30
Q29 - How many hours per week, on average, would you estimate that you engaged in
athletically related activities out of season?
How many hours per week, on average, would you estimate that you engaged in...
15
10+
25
Q30 - Do you feel this amount of time was:
Adequate?
Not Enough?
Too Much?
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1 Do you feel this amount of time was: 1.00 2.00 1.25 0.43 0.19 4
Choice
# Field
Count
1 Adequate? 75.00% 3
2 Not Enough? 25.00% 1
3 Too Much? 0.00% 0
Q31 - Was your practice and competition schedule ever a hindrance to you:
Academically?
Socially?
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Choice
# Field
Count
1 Academically? 66.67% 2
2 Socially? 33.33% 1
Q32 - If you selected either answer to the above question, please describe why.
If you selected either answer to the above question, please describe why.
We had a lot of games that were far far away so getting worked turned in was difficult sometimes but we always figured it out and socially the area we
lived in lableded us as losers because we didn’t win as many games as we should have and they didn’t take in to account that we play one of the
hardest schedules in the country
Need more time for academics
Q33 - Was this:
Rare?
Occasionally?
Often?
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
1 Was this: 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2
Choice
# Field
Count
1 Rare? 0.00% 0
2 Occasionally? 100.00% 2
3 Often? 0.00% 0
Q34 - Was the coaching staff understanding when your academic obligations conflicted
with your athletic commitment? If not, please explain.
Was the coaching staff understanding when your academic obligations conflic...
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Q35 - Were your experiences as a varsity athlete at Maryland what you expected them to
be? If not, please explain.
Were your experiences as a varsity athlete at Maryland what you expected th...
N/a
Yes
Yes
For the most part
Q36 - If you could change anything about your sport, what would it be?
If you could change anything about your sport, what would it be?
Why people played the sport
Nothing
No
Make it safer
Q37 - Did your coach(es) and the institution fulfill the commitments made to you in the
recruiting process? If not, please explain.
Did your coach(es) and the institution fulfill the commitments made to you...
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Q38 - What type of changes do you feel would be beneficial for the overall intercollegiate
athletics program?
What type of changes do you feel would be beneficial for the overall interc...
Nothing
None
Make it less of a business
Q39 - Do you feel you reached your athletic potential while enrolled as a student-athlete?
Please explain why or why not.
Do you feel you reached your athletic potential while enrolled as a student...
Im never satisfied with where i am so no
Yes i learned alot and being taught well by the coaches
Yes
No, was never given genuine opportunities
Q41 - Did the coaching staff treat you as an individual? If not, please explain.
Did the coaching staff treat you as an individual? If not, please explain.
Yes because they knew i was the leader of the team and a lot of the season rested on me so i was treated with a different level of respect
Yes
Yes
Yes
Q42 - Were the athletic administrators available to you if you needed them? If not, please
explain.
Were the athletic administrators available to you if you needed them? If no...
My head coach was
Yes
Yes
Yes
Q44 - Please comment on the support you received from the Sports Performance Staff
(i.e. athletic training, strength & conditioning, nutrition, etc.).
Please comment on the support you received from the Sports Performance Staf...
Our strength and conditioning coach would sometimes travel to games with us even tho he wasn’t part of the school. He would stretch us out before
games
Great
Great support
Q45 - Please comment on the support you received from the Academic Support and
Career Development Staff.
Please comment on the support you received from the Academic Support and Ca...
Great
N/a
Q46 - Please comment on the support you received from the Equipment Staff.
Please comment on the support you received from the Equipment Staff.
Anything we needed for games he got us
Great
Great support
Q47 - Please comment on the support you received from the Facilities Staff.
Please comment on the support you received from the Facilities Staff.
Our game field was also kept in perfect condition
Great
Great support
Q48 - Please comment on the support you received from the Marketing, Media Relations
and Digital Media Staffs.
Please comment on the support you received from the Marketing, Media Relati...
Great
Great support
Q49 - To the best of your knowledge, did you fully understand and abide by NCAA,
Conference and Institutional regulations?
Yes
No
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Std
Deviation
To the best of your knowledge, did you fully understand and

1 23.00 23.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 3
abide by NCAA, Conference and Institutional regulations?
Choice
# Field
Count
1 Yes 100.00% 3
2 No 0.00% 0
Q50 - To the best of your knowledge, did your teammates fully understand and abide by
NCAA, Conference and Institutional regulations?
Yes
No
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Std
Deviation
To the best of your knowledge, did your teammates fully

1 understand and abide by NCAA, Conference and Institutional 23.00 23.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 3
regulations?
Choice
# Field
Count
1 Yes 100.00% 3
2 No 0.00% 0
Q51 - To the best of your knowledge, did your coaches fully understand and abide by
NCAA, Conference and Institutional regulations?
Yes
No
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Std
Deviation
To the best of your knowledge, did your coaches fully understand

1 23.00 23.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 4
and abide by NCAA, Conference and Institutional regulations?
Choice
# Field
Count
1 Yes 100.00% 4
2 No 0.00% 0
Q52 - Did you or another student-athlete you know participate in gambling activities during
your careers as a student-athlete at Maryland? If yes, please explain.
Did you or another student-athlete you know participate in gambling activit...
No
No
Casino
Q53 - How can the athletics department assist you in your career objectives?
How can the athletics department assist you in your career objectives?
The athletic department has many connections and if they could share those connections with me in order to help me be successful it would be
awesome
None
Career fairs
Q58 - What was the best part of your student-athlete experience at Maryland?
What was the best part of your student-athlete experience at Maryland?
N/a
Football
The good times
Q59 - What was the worst part of your student-athlete experience at Maryland?
What was the worst part of your student-athlete experience at Maryland?
N/a
Nothing
Time management
Q60 - If you could change one thing about your student-athlete experience at Maryland
what would it be?
If you could change one thing about your student-athlete experience at Mary...
N/a
Nothing
Play more
Q56 - Please feel free to provide feedback on any aspect of your experience that was not
addressed in the questions above.
Please feel free to provide feedback on any aspect of your experience that...
None
Q57 - Please share the best contact information (personal email address, cell phone,
permanent address) for us to keep in contact with you post-graduation.
Please share the best contact information (personal email address, cell pho...
Hmd29@georgetown.edu 7035778902
410-830-0387
End of Report
0120324105 6789

)*+,-./012345567628449:;55 <=>?@92A?9B4C92?D;76EF
GHIJKLMNOPQRQSTOUVNOWVUX
O +Ô)_
àbcdefdgbcfhijkcilcmchindocopqhpjbcmhcrmjkqmegcliihsmqqG
YZKLT[K1OPQRQSTOUUNO\1]XO O
tuvwx y z {u

67897|

}~~G~G~GGGG~GG~~G~GG~G~GG~~G
GG~G~G~GGGG~~G~~G~GGG~GG~
~GGG
GGGG~GG~~G~G~G ~GGGG¡G~GG¢~G~
~GG£¤GGGGG~~~G~GGGGGG
~GG~GG~~G~~~GG¥}¦G~~G§GG~G~GG~~G~~GG~
GGGGG~~~GG£¨G~~~G~G~G~GGG
©~G~GG~~G~~GG~GG~G~G~~G~GG~GGG
~G~GGG~G~GG¥}¦GG~G~G~GGG~G
GGªG«GGG~GGGG~GGGG¡£¬GGG~
~GG~G®
~~GGGG~~G~GG~GGḠG~G~~GG~GGG~
~GGG~~GG~G~G~GGGGGGGG~G~GG~G~G
~GG~G°~G~~GGG~G~GG~G~G«GG
~G~GGG~~GG~GGḠG~G~~GG~G
~G~GG~G~GG~GG~GGGG~GG~GGG~~G

¥~~G~G~GG~GG~G¦~G~G~G~G~GG~¤~G~~
~GGG~GG~G~G~G~GG~~GGGG~GGG~~
©~G~GG~~G~G~GGGGG
«~G~G~~G~G~GGG~GG~±GG~~GG~GG~
G~GG~~GG~GG~GGG
~G¥}¦G~²~~G~~GGGGG~G~GGG~GG
~GG~GG~GG~G~~GG§G~GG³~G~GG
G~G~~GGG~GGG~G~~G~G~G~GG~G~~G~~³
G~G~G~~G~
G~GG~~~¤~GGG¤~~~G~G~GGG~~G
G~GG~G~~GGGG¥}¦GGG~GGG~~~~G~GG
~~G~~~G~G~G~GG~GG~GG~G~GG~~GG~
G~G~G~GG~~G~~GG~G~GG~GG~G~GG~G
G
G~GGG~~G®G³¯GG~~G~~G~~GGGGG~G~G~~³
G~G~G~GGG~G~GG~~GG~G~G~GG~G~G~~G~~G
~GGGGGGGG³~G~GG~GGG~~GG~³G~
G³´~G~G~ G~~GGG~GG~~G~GGG~GG~
GG~~GGG~G~~GG~GGG~GG~~G~G~GGGGGG~~G~~GG
GGGGGGGGGGGG³
!"22###
!
2!2!$%4&'&411( App. 11 023
0120324105 6789

<=>?@ABC@D>?C@EFBE>@GH@BD@IBJCKBLMN@DFGO>@KFP?@QQ@RDSH@J?BKKC@TFJ?@DFGO>@D>BL@RD@RH@KFP?N<@FL?@UFJT?J@VKBC?J@HBRMW
)*+,)-./.0*1*234-3/.*51).0*,6*+.1/*160*76-78701-7,6*1-*91/:4160;
XYZ[@J?\G?HD?M@DF@RLD?JPR?A@]GJ^RL@BLM@_FGJDN@`GD@BD>K?DRE@M?VBJDT?LD@FUURERBKH@M?EKRL?M@DF@TB^?@D>?T
BPBRKB`K?W@=>?@GLRP?JHRDC@RHHG?M@BL@RLRDRBK@HDBD?T?LD@?BJKR?J@aJRMBC@`?UFJ?@BLLFGLERLO@RDH@V?JHFLL?K@M?ERHRFL@D>BD
J?BMHb@<=>?@BKK?O?M@`?>BPRFJH@JBRH?M@RL@D>?@XYZ[@HDFJC@BJ?@DJFG`KRLO@BLM@LFD@EFLHRHD?LD@ARD>@FGJ@BVVJFBE>@DF@D>?
EFBE>RLO@BLM@M?P?KFVT?LD@FU@FGJ@HDGM?LD@BD>K?D?HW@YGE>@BKK?OBDRFLH@MF@LFD@J?UK?ED@D>?@EGKDGJ?@FU@FGJ@VJFOJBTW@c?
BJ?@EFTTRDD?M@DF@HARUDKC@?dBTRLRLO@BLM@BMMJ?HHRLO@BLC@HGE>@J?VFJDH@A>?L@D>?C@BJ?@`JFGO>D@DF@FGJ@BDD?LDRFLW<
Y>FJDKC@`?UFJ?@IE[BRJSH@M?BD>@BLM@A>RK?@>?@J?TBRL?M@>FHVRDBKRe?MN@IBJCKBLM@EFBE>?H@>?KM@B@D?BT@T??DRLO
MGJRLO@A>RE>N@BEEFJMRLO@DF@HFGJE?HN@VKBC?JH@EJRDRERe?M@D>?@T?D>FMH@GH?M@`C@_FGJD@BLM@]GJ^RLW@]GJ^RL@ABH
RLRDRBKKC@J?E?VDRP?@DF@D>?RJ@EFLE?JLHN@HFGJE?H@HBRMW@ZKBC?JH@BLM@FD>?J@D?BT@HFGJE?H@HBRM@PFKGLDBJC@AFJ^FGDH@RL@KBD?
fGL?@BLM@fGKCN@BUD?J@IE[BRJSH@M?BD>N@K?HH?L?M@RL@RLD?LHRDCW@gGD@A>?L@IBJCKBLM@FV?L?M@VJ?H?BHFL@DJBRLRLO@EBTV
hGOW@iN@D>?@AFJ^FGDH@BLM@FP?JBKK@EKRTBD?@BJFGLM@D>?@VJFOJBT@KBJO?KC@J?DGJL?M@DF@>FA@D>?C@A?J?@`?UFJ?@IE[BRJSH
M?BD>N@D>?@HFGJE?H@HBRMW@YRLE?@D>?@TRMMK?@FU@D>RH@A??^N@>FA?P?JN@D>?J?@>BH@`??L@TFJ?@BDD?LDRFL@VBRM@DF@VKBC?JH
A>F@H>FA@UBDROG?@FJ@MRHDJ?HHW
<[FA@D>BD@A?@O?D@DF@EBTVN@RD@jGHD@H??TH@KR^?@J?OGKBJ@`GHRL?HHN<@B@EGJJ?LD@VKBC?J@HBRMW@<=>BDSH@A>?L@k@HDBJD?M@DF@O?D
GVH?D@`?EBGH?@k@U??K@KR^?@LFD>RLOSH@J?BKKC@E>BLO?MW@lBP?@D>?H?@OGCH@K?BJL?M@D>?RJ@K?HHFLm<
XdBEDKC@A>BD@>BVV?L?M@MGJRLO@D>?@IBC@no@AFJ^FGD@BLM@DF@IE[BRJ@RH@`?RLO@RLP?HDROBD?M@`C@pFM@cBKD?JHN@B
GLRP?JHRDCQ>RJ?MN@UFJT?J@KFLODRT?@EFKK?ORBD?@BD>K?DRE@DJBRL?JW@cBKD?JHS@J?VFJD@RH@?dV?ED?M@DF@`?@J?K?BH?M@Y?VDW@qrW
IE[BRJSH@VBJ?LDH@>BP?@>RJ?M@D>?@gBKDRTFJ?@KBA@URJT@FU@IGJV>CN@aBKEFL@s@IGJV>C@DF@RLP?HDROBD?@BH@A?KKW
IBJCKBLMSH@HDBD?T?LD@aJRMBC@BKHF@BMMJ?HH?M@D>?@cBKD?JH@RLP?HDROBDRFLb@<c?@ARKK@`?@B`K?@DF@HV?B^@RL@OJ?BD?J@M?DBRK
A>?L@D>?@J?PR?A@RH@EFTVK?D?@BLM@H>BJ?M@ARD>@D>?@VG`KREW@tGJ@EFLHGKDBLD@>BH@AFJ^@DF@MF@DF@URLRH>@D>RH
!"22###
!
2!2!$%4&'&411( 423
0120324105 6789

)*+,-.)/0.)1*234,35)663.07,30889189)0.,30:.)1*35;,*35,3;0+,3.;,3<=663>,.0)6-23?=93.;1=/;.-39,@0)*35).;3A19>0*
B:C0)9D-3<0@)6EF3<9),*>-30*>3.,0@@0.,-2G
B:C0)9D-3<0.;,9F3B09.)*F3>,:6)*,>30*3)*.,9+),539,H=,-.3I=.3-0)>31<3;)-3-1*J3GK-3@=:;30-3L3@)--3@E3-1*F35;0.3L
9,066E3@)--F3L3@)--3I,)*/303<0.;,923L3@)--3.;0.3<0.;,96E30>+):,31<F3DM153)-3E1=935,,73/1)*/ND3O*>)*/303:06635).;3DL
61+,3E1=2D32223P;0.D-35;0.3L3@)--3@1-.23P;0.D-3.;,3,@8.E3+1)>3<193@,39)/;.3*152G
OQRC39,819.,>3S9)>0E3.;0.3.;,351971=.3)*35;):;3B:C0)93809.):)80.,>3I,/0*30.3TJUV382@231*3B0E3WXF30*>3;,30*>
1.;,936)*,@,*35,9,3*,093.;,3,*>31<3.;,)93-89)*.3-,.35;,*3B:C0)93-.09.,>3;0+)*/3>)<<):=6.),-F30::19>)*/3.13@=6.)86,
-1=9:,-23B:C0)93<0@)6E30..19*,E3Y)66E3B=98;E3.16>3OQRC31*3P;=9->0E3.;0.3B:C0)93;0>303-,)Z=9,30.30I1=.3V
82@2F3<16615)*/303-89)*.2
[
L351=6>3*,+,9F3,+,9F3,+,93066153@E3:;)6>3.13I,3:10:;,>3.;,9,2
\]^_àbca^deafgehi^jkell^bcbmca
G?=939,0>)*/31<3.;,3@,>):0639,:19>-30*>3.;,3XUU3:0663B09E60*>3@0>,3.13.;,3OBP3.13:1@,3.13.;,3<),6>39,+,063.;0.
TV3@)*=.,-3)*.13.;,3890:.):,F3;,3;0>3:1*+=6-)1*-30*>303-,)Z=9,31*3.;,3<),6>FG3B=98;E3-0)>F3G0*>3.;,3XUU3:066
9,<6,:.-3,@,9/,*:E38,9-1**,63*1.,>3B:C0)93;0>3,n8,9),*:,>303-,)Z=9,2G
K3XUU3:06639,:19>)*/31I.0)*,>3IE3OQRC3-;15-3.;0.30.3VJVo382@2F30*3=*)>,*.)<),>3@0*3>,-:9)I,>3B:C0)930-
G;E8,9+,*.)60.)*/30<.,93,n,9:)-)*/30*>3=*0I6,3.13:1*.9163;)-3I9,0.;2G
B=98;E3:066,>3.;,31*,p;1=93.)@,3/083I,.5,,*3B:C0)93-;15)*/3>)-.9,--30.30I1=.3V382@230*>3.;,3XUU3:0663I,)*/
@0>,3G0*3=..,93>)-9,/09>31<3.;,3;,06.;31<3.;)-3860E,9F30*>35,309,3,n.9019>)*09)6E3:1*:,9*,>3.;0.3.;,3:10:;,-3>)>
*1.39,0:.30889189)0.,6E3.13;)-3)*q=9E2G
B:C0)93>),>30.3r156,E3Q;1:73P90=@03r,*.,93)*3Y06.)@19,31*3A=*,3Us2
B09E60*>31<<):)06-3-0)>3)*3.;,)93-.0.,@,*.J3GK.3*1381)*.3I,<19,3193>=9)*/3.;,3,n.,9*0639,+),53;0-303-.=>,*.p
0.;6,.,F30.;6,.):3.90)*,93193:10:;39,819.,>303-,)Z=9,31::=99)*/30.3V382@2G
Q,+,9063:=99,*.3<11.I0663860E,9-30*>38,186,3:61-,3.13.;,3891/90@3-0E3.;0.3I,:0=-,31<3.;,3891/90@D-3:=6.=9,F
860E,9-35,9,30663I=.3<19:,>3.13.9E3.13:1@86,.,35;0.,+,9351971=.3:0@,3.;,)9350E2
GL.3-;15-303:=6.=9063891I6,@3.;0.3A19>0*37*,53.;0.3)<3;,3-.188,>F3.;,E351=6>3:;066,*/,3;)-3@0*;11>F3;,351=6>
I,3.09/,.,>FG31*,31<3.;,3:=99,*.3860E,9-3-0)>23GM,3;0>3.13/13=*.)63;,3:1=6>*D.2G
Q,+,9063:=99,*.3860E,9-30*>38,186,3:61-,3.13.;,3891/90@3>,-:9)I,>303-=-.0)*,>380..,9*31<3+,9I0630I=-,30*>
)*.)@)>0.)1*31<3860E,9-23K3<19@,93-.0<<3@,@I,93-0)>3G+,9I0638,9-1*0630..0:7-31*37)>-G31::=99,>3-131<.,*3.;0.
,+,9E1*,3I,:0@,3*=@I3.13.;,@2
G4,30650E-3.067,>30I1=.3<0@)6EF3I=.35;1-,3<0@)6E3.067-3.13E1=36)7,3.;0.F3:066-3E1=3038pppE3IppppNG303.;)9>3<19@,9
-.0<<,93-0)>23GP;,9,309,3-13@0*E3)*-.0*:,-2G
S19@,93B09E60*>3>,<,*-)+,36)*,@0*3B06)73A1*,-F35;13.90*-<,99,>30<.,9360-.3-,0-1*3<91@3B09E60*>3.13P16,>1F
-0)>3;,3;0>30*306.,9:0.)1*35).;3t=97)*30<.,93t=97)*3.1173,n:,8.)1*3.13A1*,-D3-@)6)*/3>=9)*/303.,0@3@,,.)*/2
t=97)*30*>3A1*,-35,*.3.130*1.;,93911@30*>F30::19>)*/3.13A1*,-F3t=97)*30::=-,>3;)@31<3GI0>p@1=.;)*/3.;,
891/90@G30*>3,*:1=90/,>3;)@3.136,0+,2
!"22###
!
2!2!$%4&'&411( '23
0120324105 6789

)*+,-*.-/-+).-0*1
23456789:7;;<5=>?59@5A<5B7:4C5D785E>9@?9@=5F985B9@=4G59@5A<5B7:457@H5:7;;9@=5A454IE;9:9?5@7A4857@H5?F9@=85>B5?F7?
@7?JG4C25879H5K>@48C5DF>57EE47G4H59@589I5=7A485;78?58478>@5B>G5L7G<;7@HM52NOA5@>?5=>9@=5?>5;4?575=J<56J;;<5A4M5MMM
345:7;;4H5A45756PPPP57@H58?JBB5;9Q45?F7?M5NOA5@>?5=>9@=5?>5?>;4G7?45?F7?M2
R5B>GA4G58?7BB5A4A64G5G4:7;;4H575?9A45DF4@5>@45E;7<4G5D7859@575?47A5A44?9@=5D9?F5B>>H5>@575E;7?4564:7J845F4
D785GJ8F9@=5BG>A575A47;5?>5=4?5?>5?F45A44?9@=C57@H5S>JG?58A7:Q4H5?F45E;7?45>B5B>>H5>J?5>B5?F45E;7<4GO85F7@H8C
<4;;9@=57?5F9AM
2N?5D7854A67GG7889@=C25?F4584:>@H5B>GA4G58?7BB4G5879HM52N?5D785?F45J;?9A7?45>B54A67GG788A4@?M2
345H48:G964H5S>JG?5785275T4G<57==G4889T4C59@P<>JGPB7:4C5A7??4GP>BPB7:?25:>7:F5DF>52D>J;H5J8457@<5;7@=J7=45F4
H44A4H57EEG>EG97?45?>5=4?575G48E>@845>G5A>T45<>JG5@44H;4M2
234O85UJ8?57567;;5>B5?48?>8?4G>@457;;5?F45?9A4C25>@45:JGG4@?5E;7<4G5879HM5234O85G47;;<59@5<>JG5B7:4M534O;;5:7;;5<>J
V4IE;4?9T48WC5F4O;;5:F7;;4@=45<>J59@5?F45D49=F?5G>>AM534O;;5EJ?5A>G45D49=F?5>@5?F4567G5?F7@5<>J5:7@5H>C54T4G5H>@4
9@5<>JG5;9B4C57@H54IE4:?5<>J5?>5H>59?5AJ;?9E;45?9A48M534O;;589@=;45E4>E;45>J?5F45H>48@O?5;9Q4C5DF9:F598575:>AA>@
EG7:?9:45F4G4M5XJ<857G45GJ@5>BBM5YF4<O;;5F7T45?F4A5H>58E4:9B9:5B9@98F4857?5?F454@H57@H5H>5F7GH4G5D>GQ>J?85>G5A>G4
D>GQ>J?85UJ8?5?>5A7Q45?F49G5;9T485A984G76;45F4G4M534O85Q9@H5>B5ZJGQ9@O85?>>;5?>57::>AE;98F5?F7?M534O85?F45=J<
E4>E;45F7?4C57@H5?F7?5D7<5ZJGQ9@5H>48@O?5F7T45?>5?7Q45?F456;>D5B>G59?M5XJ<85:7@O?58?7@H5S>7:F5S>JG?M2
K>@485879H5F45D9?@4884H584T4G7;52G7@?857@H5>J?6JG8?825BG>A5S>JG?M
2YF4<5H9H5=>56<5?F45EF9;>8>EF<5>B567;;85?>5?F45D7;;C25K>@485879HM52[J8F5?>5?F454I?G4A4\5YF7?5D7857@54T4G<H7<
?F9@=M5NOT45844@5F9A5=4?5EF<89:7;5D9?F5=J<858>A4?9A48C5?FG>D5>6U4:?857?5=J<858>A4?9A48C58A7;;5D49=F?8C57@<?F9@=
!"22###
!
2!2!$%4&'&411( &23
0120324105 6789

)*+),-+./+).0+),/-+,1+1)*+1.2*3+4+-5/61+1)./7+)*+8,0+19:./;+15+./1*/1.5/,<<:+).1+1)*2=+>?1+4+7/58+@59+,+@,A1+)*
B?9B50*<:+1)9*8+1)*2+./+1)*.9+-.9*A1.5/3C
D/51)*9+@592*9+B<,:*9+,<<*;*-+1)*+01,@@+2,-*+,/+./E?9*-+B<,:*9+-5+,+1?;F5@F8,9+A52B*1.1.5/+,;,./01+1)*+8)5<*
-*@*/0.G*+>,A7+?/.13
H
I*+,9*+*J19,59-./,9.<:+A5/A*9/*-+1),1+1)*+A5,A)*0+-.-+/51+9*,A1+,BB95B9.,1*<:+15+).0+./E?9:3
KLMNOPPQMRSTUVQWMXYYZT[\QM]ZTM^ZT_X[MRàXOTbcM]XdOPQ
Ce)*:+2,-*+).2+-5+.1+8.1)+5/*+),/-=C+)*+0,.-3+Cf5,A)+f5?91+A,<<*-+).2+,+BFFFF+,@1*9+)*+-.-/61+8./3+g/*+hB<,:*9i
8,0+-5./;+,+1?;F5@F8,9+333+,/-+)*+B,00*-+5?13+333+4+0,8+).0+>5-:+0<58<:+;.G./;+,8,:=+,/-+1)*+019*/;1)+A5,A)+8,0
<.7*=+6j**B+B?<<./;=+7**B+B?<<./;k6+333+l*+A5<<,B0*-+5/+1)*+;95?/-3+l*+<557*-+,1+).2+<.7*=+6m5?+n?.1+5/+1)*+1*,236+41
8,0+9*,<<:+>,9>,9.A3C
o3e3+p*/1?9,=+,+@592*9+0,@*1:+8)5+B<,:*-+@952+qrst+15+qrsu+?/-*9+@592*9+v,9:<,/-+A5,A)+w,/-:+x-0,<<+,/-
y?97./=+0,.-+1)*+85975?10+8*9*+B,91.A?<,9<:+./1*/0*+1)*+@.901+0*,05/+?/-*9+y?97./3+y?97./+A,2*+15+v,9:<,/-
@952+v.A).;,/=+8)*9*+)*+8,0+1)*+-*@*/0.G*+A559-./,159+,/-+<./*>,A7*90+A5,A)3+l*+8597*-+?/-*9+o.2+l,9>,?;)
,1+v.A).;,/+,/-+z1,/@59-=+,/-+@59+g).5+z1,1*+A5,A)+{9>,/+v*:*9+,1+|58<./;+}9**/+,/-+~<59.-,3
v,9:<,/-+8,0+1)*+@.901+15+).9*+y?97./+,0+,+)*,-+A5,A)=+,/-+)*+.22*-.,1*<:+8,/1*-+15+B?1+).0+01,2B+5/+1)*
B95;9,23+y?97./60+01,@@+),0+;5/*+1)95?;)+0.;/.@.A,/1+A),/;*=+,0+5/<:+@5?9+59.;./,<+,00.01,/10+@952+qrs+9*2,./=
,/-+0*G*/+),G*+0./A*+-*B,91*-+f5<<*;*+,973+v59*+1),/+qr+B<,:*90+),G*+<*@1+1)*+1*,2+./+1)*+B,01+q+:*,903
Ce)*:+8*9*+19:./;+15+8**-+5?1+B<,:*90=C+p*/1?9,+0,.-3+Ce)*:+,A1?,<<:+A,<<*-+052*+B<,:*90+61).*G*06+@59+>*./;+5/
0A)5<,90).B+,/-+/51+>*./;+G*9:+;55-3+y?9./;+052*+5@+1)*+85975?10=+1)*9*+8*9*+7.-0+8)5+8*9*+9*,<<:+019?;;<./;=
,/-+f5,A)+f5?91=+)*6-+7**B+5/+:*<<./;3+l*+85?<-+?0*+B95@,/.1:+,+<51=+19:+15+B?0)+7.-0+8)*/+1)*:+9*,A)*-+1)*.9
<.2.1+-?9./;+85975?103
C4@+,+7.-+85?<-+015B+59+;5+5/+1)*+;95?/-=+).2+,/-+1)*+2*-.A,<+01,@@+85?<-+19:+15+-9,;+B<,:*90+?B+,/-+;*1+1)*2+15
9?/+,@1*9+1)*:6-+,<9*,-:+9*,A)*-+1)*.9+<.2.13+e)*:+-*@./.1*<:+>?<<.*-+?0+15+2,7*+0?9*+8*+7*B1+5/+;5./;3C
e*,2+05?9A*0+0,.-+1)*+G*9>,<+>,99,;*0+@952+f5?91+),G*+A5/1./?*-+1).0+25/1)+./+B9*0*,05/+A,2B3
y?97./+2,-*+f5?91+5/*+5@+).0+@.901+01,@@+).9*0+./+y*A*2>*9+qrs=+,BB5./1./;+).2+15+<*,-+v,9:<,/-60+019*/;1)+,/-
A5/-.1.5/./;+B95;9,23+e)*+185+@.901+8597*-+15;*1)*9+,1+|58<./;+}9**/+./+1)*+2.-Fqrrr03+e)*+I,0)./;15/+501
9*B591*-+1),1+f5?91+8,0+1)*+@.901+A,<<+y?97./+2,-*+,@1*9+<,/-./;+1)*+v,9:<,/-+E5>3
<,:*90+,/-+51)*9+05?9A*0+A<50*+15+1)*+1*,2+0,.-+y?97./+,/-+f5?91+8*9*+,<.;/*-+./+,<<+*<*2*/10+0?995?/-./;
85975?10+,/-+019*/;1)+19,././;3
Ce)*:69*+E5./*-+,1+1)*+).B=C+5/*+05?9A*+0,.-3+Ce)*:69*+1)*+0,2*3+e)*:+?0*+1)*+0,2*+<,/;?,;*+,/-+1)*+0,2*
A<,00.@.A,1.5/3C
D--*-+,+A?99*/1+B<,:*9+Ce)*:+?0?,<<:+1,9;*1+,/-+B.A7+,+A5?B<*+B*5B<*+1)*:+1)./7+,9*+05@1+,/-+;5+,@1*9+1)*23+333
hy?97./+,/-+f5?91i+@**-+5@@+5@+*,A)+51)*93+4+85?<-+0,:+f5?91+.0+,0+2?A)+9*0B5/0.><*+@59+1)*+A?<1?9*+,0+y?97./3C
D+@592*9+01,@@+2*2>*9+0,.-+f5?91+.0+y?97./60+CA5/@.-,/13C
e)*+A?<1?9*+A9.1.A.02+A*/1*90+5/+y?97./+,/-+f5?91+>?1+,<05+-9,80+./+I*0+w5>./05/=+1)*+e*99,B./06+)*,-+,1)<*1.A
19,./*93+e)5?;)+y?97./+,/-+f5?91+A,2*+./+15;*1)*9+,@1*9+1)*+qrs+0*,05/=+w5>./05/+),0+0*9G*-+./+).0+B50.1.5/
0./A*+qrr=+8597./;+8.1)+B9*G.5?0+v,9:<,/-+A5,A)*0+w,<B)+~9.*-;*/+,/-+x-0,<<3+g/*+@592*9+01,@@+2*2>*9+8)5
8597*-+8.1)+w5>./05/+,1+v,9:<,/-+-*0A9.>*-+).2+,0+C2**7+,/-+2.<-F2,//*9*-3C
!"22###
!
2!2!$%4&'&411( (23
0120324105 6789

*+,-./0-/1./20-3,42-5467,00869/1:*-/-76;4<=-764>,4-0</77,4-<61?-@ABCD
E=60,-.=6-=/3,-F96.9-G6H89069-764->/92-2,/40-/I4,,?:-H;<->;1<851,-764>,4-0</77,40-0/8?-=,-J=/9I,?-=80-<,964
<6->/<J=-K;4F89L0-/9?-<=,-,938469>,9<-<=/<-K;4F89-06;I=<-<6-J4,/<,-/46;9?-<=,-546I4/>D
*M<-?8?-0,,>-18F,-=,-./0-<4289I-<6-H,J6>,-06>,69,-=,-4,/112-./09L<:*-<=,-<=84?-764>,4-0</77->,>H,4-0/8?D-*ML>
0;4,-=,-546H/H12-7,1<-/-J,4</89-/>6;9<-67-54,00;4,-746>-KN-M-<=89F->60<-<4/89,40-546H/H12-?6:-H;<-M-<=89F-O,0
>/2-=/3,->645=,?-89<6-/-5,4069/18<2-<=/<-=,L0-4,/112-96<D-M-<=6;I=<-=,-./0-,PJ,11,9<-/<-=80-Q6HD*
R;1<851,-06;4J,0-0/8?-<=/<-/7<,4-RJC/84-78980=,?-=80-ST<=-05489<-.=81,-<.6-6<=,4-51/2,40-=,1?-=8>-;5:-G6H89069
2,11,?:-*K4/I-=80-/00-/J4600-<=,-78,1?U*
A/8?-<=,-7840<-764>,4-0</77,4-67-G6H89069L0-/55/4,9<-J=/9I,-89-/5546/J=V-*B1/2,40-/4,9L<-<=,-6912-69,0-.=6-J/9-H,
H;118,?D*
W;44,9<-/9?-764>,4-51/2,40-/9?-6<=,4-06;4J,0-?,0J48H,?-/-546I4/>-F96.9-/0-<=,-W=/>58690-W1;H-<=/<-./0
J4,/<,?-H2-K;4F89-<6-4,./4?-51/2,40-.=6->,<-,P5,J</<8690-764-.64F6;<0:-/J/?,>8J0:-<4/8989I-</H1,-/9?-6<=,4
/4,/0D-B1/2,40-.=6-J6;1?-96<-J6>51,<,-.64F6;<0-480F,?-H,89I-4,>63,?-746>-<=,-W=/>58690-W1;H-764-0,3,4/1
.,,F0-64->69<=0D-X-764>,4-0</77->,>H,4-0/8?-<=,-J1;H-H,J/>,-/-08I9878J/9<-5689<-67-548?,-764-<=,-51/2,40D
*X0-0669-/0-26;-08<-6;<-/-4;9:-26;-7,,1-/-18<<1,-?8YY2-64-18I=<Z=,/?,?:-26;L4,-96<-89-W=/>58690-W1;H-/92>64,:*-/
764>,4-51/2,4-0/8?D
W;44,9<-/9?-764>,4-51/2,40-/106-?,0J48H,?-0,3,4/1-89J8?,9<0-.=,4,-0</77->,>H,40-</4I,<,?-51/2,40-H,J/;0,-67
.,8I=<-800;,0D-A6;4J,0-0/8?-/-764>,4-677,9083,-189,>/9-.=6>-<=,-0</77-?,,>,?-63,4.,8I=<-./0-764J,?-<6-./<J=
.64F6;<0-.=81,-,/<89I-J/9?2-H/40-/0-/-764>-67-=;>818/<869D-X96<=,4-764>,4-E,44/5890-51/2,4-0/8?-=80-89/H818<2-<6
I/89-.,8I=<-4,0;1<,?-89->,>H,40-67-<=,-0<4,9I<=-/9?-J69?8<86989I-0</77-08<<89I-.8<=-=8>-/<->,/10-<6->/F,-0;4,-=,
/<,D
*E=,2-.,4,-<4289I-<6->/F,->,-I/89-.,8I=<-4,/112:-4,/112-7/0<:*-0/8?-<=,-51/2,4:-.=6-1,7<-<=,-546I4/>D-*E=/<
893613,?->,-63,4,/<89I-/-16<:-06>,<8>,0-,/<89I-;9<81-M-<=4,.-;5D-E=,2-/1./20-=/?->,-J6>,-H/JF-764-,P<4/->,/10D
[9J,:-M-./0-08<<89I-?6.9-,/<89I-.8<=-/-J6/J=:-/9?-=,-H/08J/112->/?,->,-08<-<=,4,-;9<81-M-<=4,.-;5D-+,-0/8?-<6-,/<
;9<81-M-<=4,.-;5D-M-./0-?689I-.=/<-<=,2-/0F,?->,-<6-?6:-<4289I-<6-I/89-<=,-.,8I=<:-H;<-/<-<=,-<8>,:-M-Q;0<-J6;1?9L<
I/89-<=,-.,8I=<:-/9?-M-I;,00-<=,2-.,4,9L<-;9?,40</9?89I-<=/<D*
RJC/84L0-?,/<=-=/0-546>5<,?-51/2,40-/9?-5,651,-J160,-<6-<=,-546I4/>-<6-05,/F-;5D
*M-.6;1?L3,-9,3,4-<=6;I=<-/-F8?-.6;1?-5/2-<=,-;1<8>/<,-548J,:*-<=,-<=84?-764>,4-0</77->,>H,4-0/8?D-*M-?69L<-F96.:
>/2H,-.,-.,4,-/11-H189?-<6-.=/<-./0-H,89I-?,3,165,?-<=,4,D-M-?69L<-F96.D-M-Q;0<-=65,-8<-?6,09L<-=/55,9-/I/89D*
[9,-J;44,9<-51/2,4-<61?-@ABC-<=/<-;983,408<2-1,/?,40=85:-89J1;?89I-/<=1,<8J-?84,J<64-K/>69-@3/90-/9?-54,08?,9<
O/11/J,-\6=:-=/?-*/-1/JF-67-/J<869*-89-<=,84-4,05690,-<6-RJC/84L0-?,/<=D
*O,-=/?-/-F8?-?8,D-DDD-M<-<66F-/11-0;>>,4-764-;0-<6-,3,9-I,<-/-<=84?Z5/4<2-893,0<8I/<869-<6->,,<-.8<=:-/9?-<=,
<8>89I-]67-<=60,-89<,438,.0^-80-/H061;<,12-=644,9?6;0:*-<=,-51/2,4-0/8?D-*E=80-80-/-=;I,-546H1,>-/<-R/421/9?D*
@ABC-4,_;,0<,?-<6-89<,438,.-\6=:-G6H89069-/9?-@3/90:-H;<-;983,408<2-6778J8/10-?,J189,?-<6->/F,-<=,>-/3/81/H1,D
XJJ64?89I-<6-/-R/421/9?-6778J8/1:-@3/90-/??4,00,?-<=,-<,/>-69->;1<851,-6JJ/08690:-89J1;?89I-/-5483/<,->6>,9<
67-4,71,J<869-69-N;9,-S`-=,1?-89-RJC/84L0-=6964-<=/<-<=,-/<=1,<8J-?,5/4<>,9<-64I/98Y,?-764-/11-0<;?,9<Z/<=1,<,0-/9?
0</77D-@3/90-./0-/106-89-/<<,9?/9J,-/<-/-N;9,-S->,,<89I-89-.=8J=-<=,-<,/>-4,J,83,?-/->,?8J/1-;5?/<,-69-RJC/84:
/-N;9,-Sa-<,/>->,,<89I:-/9?-/-N;9,-bS->,,<89I-764-5/4,9<0D-\6=-.,9<-<6-<=,-=6058</1-/9?-7;9,4/1-/9?-*89<,4/J<,?
.8<=-51/2,40-/<-H6<=:*-/JJ64?89I-<6-6778J8/10D
E=,-<.6-J;44,9<-51/2,40-.=6-056F,-.8<=-@ABC-/9?-6<=,4-06;4J,0-J160,-<6-<=,-546I4/>-0/8?-<=,2-/4,-J69J,49,?
/H6;<-=6.-O/1<,40L-893,0<8I/<869-80-H,89I->/9/I,?D
!"22###
!
2!2!$%4&'&411( )23
0120324105 6789

)*+,-./01+20340.-35.60-+.*,07.48031-9.0398-047703408--30:931096;-/39<+34./0460=5<>0?@03:402+,/0A-74.-031-079./3
B.-/-+/460:4.C453>0=0/9<6D5B0/1--30:+/0B4/3-2046031-04779E-0244.0470F+/460G+9/2-6@031-03-+8H/0+//9/3+630+31*-39E
29.-E34.074.07443A+**04B-.+3946/0+620-I59B8-63>0J--396</0344C0B*+E-096031-0477-6/9;-0/3+77H/08--396<0.448096031-
K4//-330L443A+**0M-+80N45/->
OM1-,03.9-20340963-.;9-:0B*+,-./0+3031-084/3096E46;-69-630398-@0960K4//-33@0A+/9E+**,0.9<1309607.4630470P5.C96H/
4779E-@O046-047031-0E5..-630B*+,-./0/+92>
OG+/9E+**,0+6,A42,0E+60:+*C0A,@0+6,0E4+E104.0:14-;-.0.-+**,0:+63/0340E+60:+*C0A,0+620/--0:140/9<6-205B0+62
/--0:14H/03+*C96<034031-096;-/39<+3946@O031-0431-.0E5..-630B*+,-.0/+92>0OM1-,H.-0/96<*96<05/04530-;-6084.-0:1-6093H/
/5BB4/-20340A-0+60+646,845/096;-/39<+3946>O
M1-0B*+,-.0/+92031+30-+E108--396<0:+/0/E1-25*-2074.046*,0?Q089653-/>0)*+,-./0:-.-0+/C-20:1+3031-,0:+63-2034
/1+.-0+A453031-0J+,0RS0:4.C4530+620:-.-0+2;9/-20340/--0E456/-*4./>
OT30:+/0+0U4C-@O031-0/+8-0B*+,-.0/+92>
V69;-./93,04779E9+*/0E4679.8-2031-.-0:+/0+0/9<6D5B0/1--30B4/3-20A53029/B53-2031-0+**-<+3946031+30930:+/6H30+6
+646,845/0B.4E-//>0=EE4.296<0340+0569;-./93,0/B4C-/B-./46@0B*+,-./0:-.-0+*/40+**4:-20340/9<605B0A,03-W3
8-//+<-@031-,0:-.-0;-.A+**,0.-8962-20A,031-0E4+E1-/0340B+.39E9B+3-@0+6201+2031-0O4BB4.35693,0340:+*C0960+6,
398-0+646,845/*,>O
OM1-.-0:-.-085*39B*-0:+,/0/352-63D+31*-3-/0E45*20;4*563--.0B+.39E9B+3946096031-0-W3-.6+*0.-;9-:@096E*5296<
E46792-639+**,08--396<0:9310E46/5*3+63/0340477-.09674.8+39460:9314530A-96<092-63979-2@O0/+920569;-./93,
/B4C-/B-./460X+39-0Y+:/46>0OM1-,0:9**0/39**01+;-031-04BB4.35693,0340240/4>O
=0/45.E-0/+92031+3096;-/39<+34./0+.-0-WB-E3-20340.-35.60340E+8B5/06-W30:--C0340963-.;9-:084.-07443A+**0B*+,-./>
0
0
Z
!"22###
!
2!2!$%4&'&411( 323
6 questions/ part 1 of 6
Overall
Please answer these questions according to the coaching staff that was
in place prior to August 10th. Your anonymous response will not be
visible to anyone other than the Independent Football Commission
(IFC) Members. The IFC members will see your responses but not know
your identity.
You have already reviewed these coaches
Select another coach to review
I am done reviewing assistant/position coaches
1.
Rate your overall experience as a member of the University of
Maryland football program.
Add additional comment
+ Comment
App. 12
2.
Do you believe that the football staff has the players’ best
interests in mind, regarding athletic and/or personal
development? Why or why not?
3.
If you’ve been injured at any point, did the staff and coaches
treat you appropriately? Were you rushed back to the field, or
allowed sufficient time to heal?
4.
How would you describe the culture of the University of
Maryland football Program?
5.
Do you feel that the football coaching staff has treated you
properly (in your view) and as you expected? If so, why? If not,
why?
6.
How likely are you to recommend the University of Maryland
football program to a recruited friend?
0 10
Not at all likely Highly likely
Please select a rating
Why?
Next
6 required questions need responses

Click here to scroll
Team
your identity.
1. Rate the quality of your coaching staff
+ Comment
2. Rate the quality of your team's chemistry

+ Comment
3. Rate the quality of your team's culture and values
+ Comment
4. Rate the quality of your team's strength and conditioning
+ Comment
5.
Rate the quality of your team's athletic training/sports
medicine
+ Comment
6. Rate your individual improvement as a player this year
+ Comment
Next

Alleged Misconduct
In recent weeks, there have been numerous public allegations of
misconduct regarding the UMD Football Program. Your anonymous
response will not be visible to anyone other than the Independent
Football Commission (IFC) Members. The IFC members will see your
responses but not know your identity.
1.
Have you heard of food being used to humiliate a player? If so,
what did you hear? Did you witness anything personally?
2.
Have you heard of any objects being thrown near players? If so,
what did you hear? Who threw them? Were they thrown at or
just near a player? Did you witness anything personally?
3.
Have you heard of harsh language being used that has no place
on a football field or in Gossett? If so, what did you hear? Did
you witness anything personally?
4.
Have you heard of physical or emotional abuse of a player? If
so, what did you hear? Did you witness anything personally?
5.
Have you heard of any punishments imposed on players that
you felt were inappropriate? If so, what did you hear? Did you
witness anything personally?
6.
Have you heard of players being pushed to play hurt or beyond
their physical limits in an unhealthy way? If so, what did you
hear? Did you witness anything personally?
7.
Have you ever made any complaints to anyone (coaches, staff,
University of Maryland administrators) about any alleged
misconduct? Have you heard of teammates raising such
complaints?
Next

Head Coach
your identity.

Coach Durkin
1.
How likely are you to recommend Coach Durkin as a coach to a
recruited friend?
0 10

Why?
2.
Do you approve of the way Coach Durkin handled the job as
head coach of the University of Maryland football team? If this
has changed in recent years, please feel free to add a comment.
Select answer
Yes
No
+ Comment
3.
Rate Coach Durkin's ability to communicate effectively with you
+ Comment
4. Rate the effectiveness of Coach Durkin's coaching style
+ Comment
5. Rate Coach Durkin's honesty
+ Comment
6. Rate Coach Durkin's knowledge of your sport
+ Comment
7. Rate Coach Durkin's character
+ Comment
8. Rate Coach Durkin's care for you outside of your sport
+ Comment
9.
Rate Coach Durkin's fairness and communication with you
regarding playing time
+ Comment
10. Rate Coach Durkin's management of your health
+ Comment
11.
Rate Coach Durkin's support of your academic and career goals
+ Comment
12.
What are Coach Durkin's greatest strengths and areas for
improvement?

Next
Position / Assistant Coach
Your anonymous response will not be visible to anyone other than the
Independent Football Commission (IFC) Members. The IFC members
will see your responses but not know your identity.

Coach Court
1.
How likely are you to recommend Coach Court as a coach to a
recruited friend?
0 10
Why?
2. Rate the effectiveness of Coach Court's coaching style
+ Comment
3. Rate Coach Court's management of your health
+ Comment
4.
Rate Coach Court's ability to communicate effectively with you
+ Comment
5. Rate Coach Court's knowledge of your sport
+ Comment
6.
Did Coach Court use inappropriate language towards the
players? If so, what did you hear?
Next

Final Thoughts
your identity.
1.
Do you believe that the University of Maryland football
program treats its players differently than other collegiate
football programs? Why or why not?
2.
Are there any coaches or staff other than Coach Durkin and
Coach Court that you’d like to discuss?
3.
Is there anyone else you think has relevant information with
whom we should speak?
4.
Is there anything else that you would like to share with the
Independent Fooball Commission that could improve your
student-athlete experience?
5.
If you would like your responses to this survey to not be
anonymous, please enter your name. This is entirely optional.
6. Would you like to schedule an in-person meeting?
Yes
Please select the administrator with whom you would like to
meet...
Independent Football Commission
Next

App. 13
Rudo, Harry
From: Scheeler, Charles

Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 3:59 PM
To: vereen2469@aol.com
Cc: Benson Legg; Alexander Williams
Subject: FW: Elijah and Elisha Jennings
Attachments: 081418-Jennings-UMD Athletics Lawsuit.pdf
Dear Mr. Vereen:
Your letter to Dr. Loh of August 13 (attached) has been forwarded to us. As you may have seen in the media, my
colleagues, Judges Legg and Williams, and myself have been appointed to an independent commission to investigate the
conduct of the football program.
In connection with this investigation, we would welcome the chance to speak to you and your clients about their
allegations regarding Coaches Durkin and Court and the conduct of the football program. We would welcome the
opportunity to learn whatever information you might have that might be relevant to our investigation.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Charlie Scheeler
1
App. 14
App. 15
Text Messages Sent to Coach Durkin
 August 11, Current Player: “Keep your head up coach, I got your back man,
love you coach”
 August 11, Current Player: “I love you coach. You’re not just a coach but
like a father to us since day one. You’ve always taught us how to be tough .
. . I’ll never forget what you did for me and my family.”
 August 11, Former Player: “I wanted you to know that my senior year being
a part of that team and culture completely changed my life for the better.”
 August 11, Mother of Current Player: “Hey DJ, I just want you and your
family to know that you are in my prayers….You are a great man, father,
and coach. A little tough love never hurt no one. I can never imagine in a
million years that you or your staff would do anything that would hurt any
child.”
 August 12, Mother of Current Player: “Coach, we just wanted to say we love
you and have always trusted you and your staff with one of our most
previous treasures (our son). Please know that we are thinking of you and
your family and you will always have our support.”
 August 13, Former Player: “I really appreciated how you gave me a fair
opportunity and supported me throughout the season. I learned a lot from
you, just in the way you led the team and were always accountable.”
App. 16
App. 17
ÿ
0123425ÿ789
8 ÿ
ÿ

ÿ

ÿ
ÿ
()*+,-.ÿ0,1ÿÿ2-3,*4ÿ-.ÿ(+56).+78+93)+)(:ÿÿ*;,<,.83ÿ*98;=)(ÿ8.6ÿ
*-.>,*+,-.(?ÿ8.6ÿ>,-38+,-.ÿ-@ÿ+9)ÿ5.,>);(,+4ÿ*-6)ÿ-@ÿ(+56).+ÿ
*-.65*+ÿ8.6ÿ*-6)ÿ-@ÿ8*86)<,*ÿ,.+)=;,+4Aÿ(+8+5(ÿ-@ÿ=;8.+7,.78,61ÿ
ÿ
BCÿ (DEFGHD78DIJGDGKLÿ6EDMÿDNÿ.NDOPMQÿÿBÿRRÿSTUÿÿVWXRÿXRRÿ
SYYVSRZÿ S!ZÿXSÿÿXÿXVÿT TXÿVÿXÿ[ ÿ[\S ÿ]XÿXÿÿ
XÿXÿ^ÿTX_Vÿ]SXÿÿTSYSRÿ!!ÿÿÿ\SRSÿ!ÿXÿ !Tÿ
`[ RSaÿb RSTZÿÿXÿcS\SZdÿ Vÿ!ÿ`Vÿ VTUÿ Vÿ!ÿeTVYSTÿ
B_SZUÿÿf_ÿgS_ÿb RSTZCÿhSRÿÿ S!ZÿXÿXVÿTTXÿVÿXÿ[ ÿ
[\Sÿ]SRRÿRÿSÿ[[[SÿVYSSS\ÿTSUÿ]XSTXÿXRRÿ^ÿ
VYSVÿ^ZÿXÿfSTÿ!ÿeXRSTÿV$ÿXSÿVS_Cÿ
BBCÿ eVVSSRRZUÿZÿ[ÿYZÿ!ÿÿÿY ÿVWXRijÿ[TVÿ!ÿ
\SRS_ÿZÿR]UÿXÿ !Tÿ`[ RSaÿb RSTZUÿÿXÿcS\SZdÿ Vÿ!ÿ
`Vÿ VTUÿ Vÿ!ÿeTVYSTÿB_SZUÿf_ÿgS_ÿb RSTZUÿÿ`VW
eXRÿ Vÿ!ÿ VTCÿÿb ÿYaS_ÿTXÿ!RÿÿkSVÿÿ[\SVÿ
S!YSÿ[SÿÿXÿTÿÿTZÿX_X ÿXÿS\S_Sÿ!ÿXÿ
RR_SCÿ
BBBCÿ gXÿf[Zÿefÿ!ÿBRÿl[Sÿ\ÿÿTRS_X ÿ!ÿTS[ÿVÿ
S_ÿ !ÿS!YSÿS\R\S_ÿRR_Vÿ\SRSÿ !ÿXÿR]UÿXÿ !Tÿ
`[ RSaÿb RSTZUÿ ÿXÿcS\SZdÿ Vÿ !ÿ`Vÿ VTUÿ Vÿ !ÿ
eTVYSTÿB_SZUÿf_ÿgS_ÿb RSTZUÿ ÿ`VWeXRÿ Vÿ !ÿ VTÿ
!YÿXÿl!!STÿ !ÿ`Vÿ VTUÿcS\SZÿmRXÿUÿcnbÿb RSTUÿ
bSTÿo _dÿ Zÿb RSTUÿV$ÿRRÿXÿ_TSÿÿ TCÿÿÿ
BpCÿ gXÿf[Zÿefÿ!ÿBRÿl[Sÿ[\SVÿ STÿ!ÿXÿRR_VÿTSYÿÿ
\SRSÿÿXÿS\R\VÿVWXRdÿXVÿTTXÿVÿXÿ[[RST^Rÿ[ ÿ
[\SCÿÿBÿXÿ\ÿXÿXÿf[Zÿefÿ!ÿBRÿl[SÿSÿXÿ
TTVÿVWXRdÿ[ ÿ[\S Uÿ]Sÿ STÿ!ÿXÿRR_VÿTSYÿÿ
\SRSÿ]SRRÿ^ÿ[\SVVÿRZÿÿXÿS\R\VÿVWXRdÿXVÿT TXCÿ
pCÿ gXÿTTVÿVWXRdÿXVÿT TXÿVÿ[ ÿ[\S ÿYÿÿVSTÿ
XÿRR_Vÿ\SRSijÿVUÿ]XÿTZUÿT VTÿÿ\S]ÿ !ÿXÿ
RR_S$TX_Cÿÿÿ
pBCÿ qXÿ[[[SÿV$ÿTZUÿXÿ[ ÿ[\S ÿ]SRRÿ[\SVÿÿYYZÿ
!ÿXÿ\S]ÿÿXÿVWXRÿVÿÿXÿf[Zÿefÿ!ÿBRÿl[SCÿÿ
eÿXÿSYUÿXÿVWXRÿ]SRRÿ^ÿ_S\ÿÿ[[ SZÿÿ[ VÿÿXÿ
S!YSÿTSVÿSÿXÿYYZCÿ
pBBCÿ qXÿ[[[SÿV$ÿTZUÿXÿf[Zÿefÿ!ÿBRÿl[Sÿ]SRRÿSÿ
ÿ[\SVÿXÿS!YSÿÿcS\SZdÿl!!STÿ!ÿ`Vÿ VTÿV$ÿR]ÿ
!TYÿX SSCÿ
ÿÿ!ÿ"#$%%$%#ÿ
ÿ ÿ &'ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
App. 18
ÿ
0123425ÿ789
8 ÿ
ÿ

ÿ

ÿ
ÿ
()))*ÿ +,ÿ-./.ÿ01ÿ/ ÿ !ÿ234,.5ÿ/ÿ6.-7ÿ/ÿ/8ÿ22/ÿ8ÿ4 ÿ
46.ÿ8.2ÿ4 .,ÿ83...6ÿ2.ÿ9*5*7ÿ4,:.5ÿ8ÿ42.2ÿ
7ÿ4.ÿ!3ÿ3ÿ2.6..7ÿ8.3.,ÿ!3ÿ/ÿ37ÿ233.:ÿ
6.2;ÿ8ÿ3<ÿÿ2338.ÿÿ/ÿ=.2ÿ!ÿ+/,.2ÿÿ/.ÿ8.57ÿ
-/ ÿ-.,,ÿ/ÿ82.8ÿ-/ÿ83...6ÿ2.ÿ-.,,ÿ>ÿ.34 87ÿ>?2ÿÿ/ÿ
!,,-.5ÿ.2.@ÿÿÿ
ABÿDEFGHÿIJÿKFILHMNHOPHEFIQRÿSEQTÿUJJHMRHÿ
%*ÿ)2,8ÿ/ÿ!,,-.5@ÿ
*ÿ+ÿ2.3ÿÿÿ!/ÿ.ÿV:,8ÿ+ 8ÿ 8ÿ.3.,ÿW-ÿ+*ÿXÿ
%0Y%"%ÿ9;ÿ9Z"%Z;ÿ9/.!ÿ!8ÿÿÿÿ[.3ÿ!ÿ(.,2\;*ÿ
>*ÿ+ÿ85ÿ!!ÿ/ÿ2.ÿÿ!,:ÿ8ÿV:,8ÿ,-ÿÿ]*^7ÿ
_8,ÿW-7ÿ.2,8.57ÿ>ÿ ÿ,.3.8ÿ7ÿ!,:ÿ!!ÿÿ!/ÿ.ÿ
V:,8ÿ+ 8ÿ 8ÿ.3.,ÿW-ÿ+*7ÿ`.,ÿaÿbcdefcgghiÿ
kldmhfcnoÿpnqoeldrhosÿtfhorfuveucdosÿldiÿcewhfÿpnqoeldrhoÿ9Z"%Z;ÿ
9/.!ÿ!8ÿÿÿ[^.ÿ=5ÿx!!\;*ÿ
2*ÿ+ÿ2.3ÿ.ÿ /ÿ?.8.2.ÿ/ÿ- ,8ÿ>ÿ2,.!.8ÿÿÿ.3ÿ!ÿ
(.,2ÿÿ^.ÿ=5ÿx!!ÿ.!ÿ233.8ÿ.ÿV:,8*ÿ
Z*ÿ)!ÿ2/58ÿ-./ÿ:ÿ!ÿ/ÿ> 67ÿÿ8Y/,ÿ/,,ÿ>ÿ488ÿ
.338.,:ÿ!3ÿ,,ÿ4,:.5ÿ8ÿ42.2ÿ4.6.,5*ÿ
yÿ`/.ÿ4.ÿ-.,,ÿ3.ÿ.ÿ!!2ÿÿ,ÿ.,ÿ!.,ÿ8.4 ..ÿ!ÿ
/ÿ8Y/,zÿ2ÿ,ÿ8ÿ.,ÿ.!3.ÿ.ÿ/ÿ
2,,:ÿ-ÿ6.-ÿ!ÿ/ÿ4.*ÿ
{*ÿ)!ÿÿ8Y/,ÿ.ÿ2 6.28ÿ ÿ4,8ÿ5.,:ÿÿ9()));9|;9%;9;9.;Y9...;ÿ
> 67ÿ/$/ÿ/,,ÿ>ÿ8.3.8ÿ43,:ÿ!3ÿ/.$/ÿ3*ÿÿ
0*ÿ)!ÿÿ8Y/,ÿ4,8ÿ ÿ2ÿ ÿ2.6ÿ4>.ÿ>!ÿ
?853ÿ!ÿ:ÿ!ÿ/ÿ!!ÿ.ÿ9()));9|;9%;9;9.;Y9...;ÿ> 67ÿ/ÿ4 ÿ
46.ÿ8ÿ/8ÿ22/ÿ3<ÿÿ2338.ÿÿ/ÿ=.2ÿ!ÿ
+/,.2ÿ ÿ/.ÿ8.5ÿ58.5ÿ/ÿ8Y/,zÿ4,:.5ÿ8ÿ
42.2ÿ*ÿ
}BÿALLÿU~HEÿDEFGHRÿ
%*ÿ)!ÿÿ8Y/,ÿ.ÿ!8ÿÿ/6ÿ558ÿ.ÿ85ÿ8.<.57ÿ/ÿ
!,,-.5ÿ3..33ÿ4,.ÿ-.,,ÿ>ÿ.34 8@ÿ
*ÿ_.ÿx!!ÿ
ÿÿ!ÿ"#$%%$%#ÿ
ÿ ÿ &'ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0123425ÿ789
8 ÿ
ÿ

ÿ

ÿ
ÿ
%'ÿ()*ÿ+!!,-ÿ!ÿ.)ÿ )-ÿ/-0 /ÿ)-,1ÿ
2'ÿ30ÿ0)ÿ--0ÿ)ÿ4 ÿ45, ÿ6ÿ7,0ÿ0ÿ)80/1ÿ
9'ÿ30ÿ)80/ÿ7,//ÿ:ÿ4/-)ÿÿ6ÿ4:,ÿ,/ÿ0$0ÿ
-0ÿ/;/ÿ),<,;ÿ;ÿ ÿ,ÿ ÿ/;ÿÿ)80/ÿ
=70,-05ÿ-6ÿ!,'1ÿÿ30ÿ0)ÿ- -0ÿÿ4 ÿ45, ÿ7,//ÿ
45,)ÿ7,ÿ ,!,-,ÿ !ÿ6ÿ4:,ÿÿ)80/1ÿÿ
30,ÿ ,!,-,ÿ0//ÿ,-/)ÿÿ6ÿ;),;ÿ4 ,/ÿ
4,ÿ!ÿ!ÿ!!1ÿ
:1ÿ.-)ÿ+!!ÿ
%'ÿ()*ÿ>,5,*ÿ?/0ÿÿ-/,;1ÿ
2'ÿ30ÿ)80/ÿ0//ÿ:ÿ4))ÿ!6ÿÿ4-ÿ=%"@'ÿ!ÿ
0,$0ÿ,8 ÿ-64,,1ÿ
'ÿ.4,ÿ7,//ÿ--ÿ/*ÿ,ÿ-64,,ÿ0ÿÿ- ,))ÿ
A-:/Bÿ)ÿCDDÿ/ÿ=,11Eÿ ÿF0,:,,Eÿ-,66;Eÿ
8-064,0,4ÿ;6ÿ-64,,'Eÿ:ÿ0//ÿ 07,ÿ
:ÿ,64 )ÿ,66),/*1ÿ
:'ÿG!ÿÿ)80/ÿ,ÿ4))ÿ)ÿ0,ÿ-,ÿ ,)ÿ
0,$0ÿ4 Hÿ-064,0,4ÿ;6Eÿ0ÿ4,ÿ7,//ÿ:ÿ
44/,)ÿÿ0ÿ:;,,;ÿ!ÿ0ÿFÿ-064,0,4ÿ;61ÿ
-'ÿG!ÿ%"@ÿ !ÿ,8 ÿ-64,,ÿ/ÿ,ÿÿ!-,Eÿ0ÿ
4,ÿ7,//ÿ:ÿ))ÿ) 7ÿÿ0ÿFÿ70 /ÿ6:ÿ!ÿ
!-,ÿ:7ÿ1"%ÿ8ÿ1IJÿ:ÿ7,//ÿ:ÿ))ÿ4ÿÿ0ÿFÿ
70 /ÿ6:ÿ!ÿ!-,ÿ:7ÿ1K"ÿ8ÿ1JJ1ÿ
9'ÿ30ÿ)80/ÿ7,//ÿ/ ÿ:ÿ4/-)ÿ ÿ6ÿ4:,ÿ,/ÿ
0$0ÿ-0ÿ/;/ÿ),<,;ÿ;ÿÿ,ÿ ÿ/;ÿÿ)80/ÿ
=70,-05ÿ-6ÿ!,'1ÿÿ30ÿ0)ÿ- -0ÿÿ4 ÿ45, ÿ7,//ÿ
45,)ÿ7,ÿ ,!,-,ÿ !ÿ6ÿ4:,ÿÿ)80/1ÿÿ
30,ÿ ,!,-,ÿ0//ÿ,-/)ÿÿ6ÿ;),;ÿ4 ,/ÿ
4,ÿ!ÿ!ÿ!!1ÿÿDÿ-4*ÿ!ÿ0ÿ7,ÿ ,-ÿ7,//ÿ:ÿ
45,))ÿÿ0ÿ4 ÿ45, ÿ)ÿ0ÿL,-ÿ!ÿD0/,-1ÿ
I'ÿ.-0 /0,4ÿ)-,ÿÿ--//,ÿ,ÿ4 ,:/1ÿ
-1ÿ.:Mÿ+!!ÿ
ÿÿ!ÿ"#$%%$%#ÿ
ÿ ÿ &&ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0123425ÿ789
8 ÿ
ÿ

ÿ

ÿ
ÿ
%(ÿ)*ÿ+,*-ÿ*--ÿ.ÿ/++ÿ!0ÿÿ++11-ÿÿ
/2ÿ3%"4(ÿ!ÿ*1$*ÿ1,ÿ20/115ÿ
(ÿ6/1ÿ71--ÿ22ÿ-8ÿ1ÿ20/11ÿ*ÿÿ2 1++ÿ
92.-:ÿ+ÿ;<<ÿ-ÿ3155=ÿ ÿ>*1.11=ÿ2100?=ÿ
,2*0/1*1/ÿ?0ÿ20/11(=ÿ.ÿ*--ÿ *71ÿ
.ÿ10/ +ÿ100+1-85ÿ
.(ÿ@!ÿÿ+,*-ÿ1ÿ/++ÿ+ÿ*1ÿ21ÿ 1+ÿ
*1$*ÿ/ Aÿ2*0/1*1/ÿ?0=ÿ*ÿ/1ÿ71--ÿ.ÿ
//-1+ÿÿ*ÿ.?11?ÿ!ÿ*ÿ>ÿ2*0/1*1/ÿ?05ÿ
2(ÿ@!ÿ%"4ÿ !ÿ1, ÿ20/11ÿ-ÿ1ÿÿ!21=ÿ*ÿ
/1ÿ71--ÿ.ÿ++ÿ+ 7ÿÿ*ÿ>ÿ7* -ÿ0.ÿ!ÿ
!21ÿ.7ÿ5"%ÿ,ÿ5BCÿ.ÿ71--ÿ.ÿ++ÿ/ÿÿ*ÿ>ÿ
7* -ÿ0.ÿ!ÿ!21ÿ.7ÿ5D"ÿ,ÿ5CC5ÿ
E(ÿ62* -*1/ÿ22--1ÿ1ÿ-1F-85ÿ
E5ÿ@!ÿÿ+,*-ÿ1ÿ2*?+ÿ1ÿ8ÿ-2-ÿ71*ÿÿGH@$GI@ÿ+$ÿ!ÿ
8ÿ+?$-2* -$2*012-ÿ1?=ÿ*ÿ+,*-ÿ*--ÿ.ÿ/++ÿ
!0ÿÿ/2ÿ3%"4(ÿ!ÿ*1$*ÿ1, ÿ20/115ÿ
5ÿ6/1ÿ71--ÿ 22ÿ -8ÿ1ÿ20/11ÿ*ÿÿ21++ÿ
92.-:ÿ+ÿ;<<ÿ-ÿ3155=ÿ ÿ>*1.11=ÿ2100?=ÿ ,
2*0/1*1/ÿ?0ÿ20/11(=ÿ.ÿ*--ÿ*71ÿ.ÿ10/ +ÿ
100+1-85ÿ
.5ÿ@!ÿÿ+,*-ÿ1ÿ/++ÿ+ÿ*1ÿ21ÿ 1+ÿ*1$*ÿ
/ Aÿ2*0/1*1/ÿ?0=ÿ*ÿ/1ÿ71--ÿ.ÿ//-1+ÿÿ*ÿ
.?11?ÿ!ÿ*ÿ>ÿ2*0/1*1/ÿ?05ÿ
25ÿ@!ÿ%"4ÿ!ÿ1,ÿ20/11ÿ-ÿ1ÿÿ!21=ÿ*ÿ/1ÿ
71--ÿ.ÿ++ÿ+ 7ÿÿ*ÿ>ÿ7* -ÿ0.ÿ!ÿ!21ÿ.7ÿ
5"%ÿ,ÿ5BCÿ.ÿ71--ÿ.ÿ++ÿ/ÿÿ*ÿ>ÿ7* -ÿ0.ÿ!ÿ!21ÿ
.7ÿ5D"ÿ,ÿ5CC5ÿ
+5ÿ<++11-ÿGH@$GI@ÿ2*?ÿ+$ÿ!-ÿÿ/121/ÿ1ÿ
+?$-2* -$2*012-ÿ1?ÿ08ÿ-ÿ1ÿ++11-ÿ21ÿ
312-+1?ÿ.ÿ ÿ-101+ÿÿ-ÿ!ÿ2* -*1/ÿ+$ÿ/1ÿ!0ÿ
--ÿ0ÿ21J11ÿ!ÿÿ8(5ÿÿ62*ÿ++11-ÿ21ÿ*--ÿ.ÿ
+01+ÿ!ÿ*ÿ/ ÿ/J1 ÿ+ÿ*+ÿ22*ÿ0Fÿÿ
2 00+1ÿÿ*ÿG12ÿ!ÿ<*-12ÿÿ*1ÿ+1?=ÿ7* ÿ71--ÿ
*ÿ+21+ÿ7*ÿ+121/-18ÿ21ÿ71--ÿ.ÿ10/ +5ÿ
ÿÿ!ÿ"#$%%$%#ÿ
ÿ ÿ &'ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0123425ÿ789
8 ÿ
ÿ

ÿ

ÿ
ÿ
()ÿ*!ÿÿ+,-.ÿ/ÿ0-1+ÿ2/-ÿÿ0/3ÿ ÿ./+ÿ/ÿ45***64764%6464/6,4///6ÿ
ÿ45***647648646ÿÿ496ÿ9 :;ÿ-ÿ< ÿ<:/ ÿ+ÿ-+ÿ00-ÿ-..ÿ
3=ÿÿ033+/ÿÿ-ÿ>/0ÿ !ÿ?-./0ÿ ÿ-/ÿ+/1ÿ
1+/1ÿÿ
)ÿ-ÿ<,+/< //ÿ<.@/1ÿ+ÿ<0/0ÿÿ!ÿ-ÿ+,-.Aÿ
+ÿ
9)ÿ-ÿ< ,+/< //ÿ<.@/1ÿ+ÿ<0/0ÿÿ!ÿ-ÿ+,-.)ÿ
BCÿEFGHFIFJKHLÿMFNOKLFNHPÿNIÿLQRÿBNSRÿNIÿELTSRHLÿBNHSTJLÿNUÿBNSRÿNIÿ
VJKSRWFJÿXHLRGUFLYÿ
%)ÿ*0.+ÿ-ÿ!..2/1Zÿ
)ÿ?@ÿ!!ÿ/+/!/+ÿ9@ÿ-ÿ[!!/0ÿ!ÿ\+ÿ +0ÿÿÿ< /.ÿ
11:+ÿ:/./ÿÿ+!/+ÿ/ÿ]ÿ486ÿ!ÿ-ÿ +ÿ!ÿ\+ÿ
+0)ÿ
9)ÿ?ÿ:/./ÿ!ÿ]ÿ^;ÿ\0/ÿ46ÿ-1-ÿ416ÿ!ÿ-ÿ_/:/@`ÿ +ÿ
!ÿ\+ÿ +0;ÿ./1ÿ/ÿÿ!.ÿÿÿa+/0/.ÿ9 +)ÿ
0)ÿ?ÿ0+ÿ:/./ÿ!ÿ-ÿ +ÿ!ÿ?0+3/0ÿ*1/@;ÿ./1ÿ/ÿÿ
!.ÿÿÿ- ÿ9 +)ÿ
8)ÿ*!ÿ0-1+ÿ2/-ÿ@ÿ!ÿ-ÿ9 :;ÿÿ+,-.ÿ-..ÿ9ÿ<++ÿ
/33+/.@ÿ!3ÿ..ÿ<.@/1ÿ+ÿ<0/0ÿ</:/.1)ÿ
bÿc-/ÿ</ÿ2/..ÿ3/ÿ/ÿ!!0ÿÿ.ÿ/.ÿ!/.ÿ+/< //ÿ!ÿ
-ÿ+,-.`ÿ0ÿ.ÿ+ÿ/.ÿ/!3/ÿ/ÿ-ÿ
0..@ÿ2ÿ:/2ÿ!ÿ-ÿ</)ÿ
()ÿ*!ÿÿ+,-.ÿ+3/ÿ< /9/./@ÿ ÿ/ÿ!+ÿ< /9.ÿ!ÿÿ
:/./ÿ!ÿ-ÿ +ÿ!ÿ\+ÿ +0ÿÿ +ÿ!ÿ?0+3/0ÿ*1/@;ÿ
-/$-ÿ<.@/1ÿ+ÿ<0/0ÿÿ-..ÿ9ÿ+3/+ÿ9@ÿ-ÿ!/.ÿ
0/ÿ/3< +ÿ+ÿ-ÿ<<./09.ÿ0+)ÿ
dCÿeLQRUÿMFNOKLFNHPÿNIÿLQRÿBNSRÿNIÿELTSRHLÿBNHSTJLÿNUÿBNSRÿNIÿVJKSRWFJÿ
XHLRGUFLYÿ
ÿÿ!ÿ"#$%%$%#ÿ
ÿ ÿ &'ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0123425ÿ789
8 ÿ
ÿ

ÿ

ÿ
ÿ
%(ÿ)!ÿÿ*+,-ÿ.ÿ/,0*ÿ1.,ÿÿ2.-.ÿ!ÿ,ÿ *ÿ!ÿ3*ÿ
*/ÿÿ *ÿ!ÿ4/*5./ÿ)0.6ÿ ÿ-.*ÿ.ÿ787%878+7/89ÿ: 29ÿ
,ÿ; ÿ;2.ÿ*ÿ,*ÿ//,ÿ,--ÿ5<ÿÿ/55*.ÿÿ,ÿ
=./ÿ!ÿ4,-./ÿÿ,.ÿ*.0ÿ0*.0ÿ,ÿ;+*.; ..ÿ;-6.0ÿ
*ÿ;/./ÿÿ!ÿ,ÿ*+,-(ÿ
>(ÿ)!ÿÿ*+,-ÿ*5.ÿ; .:.-.6ÿ ÿ.ÿ!*ÿ; .:-ÿ!ÿÿ
2.-.ÿ!ÿ,ÿ *ÿ!ÿ3*ÿ */ÿÿ *ÿ!ÿ4/*5./ÿ)0.69ÿ
,.$,ÿ;-6.0ÿ*ÿ;/./ÿÿ,--ÿ:ÿ*5.*ÿ:6ÿ,ÿ!.-ÿ
/.ÿ.5; *ÿ*ÿ,ÿ;;-./:-ÿ/*(ÿ
)?(ÿ 4ÿ ÿÿ;/./:-9ÿ,ÿ; ÿ;2. ÿ;;ÿÿ1.ÿ5ÿ!ÿ,ÿ
*5...2ÿ/.ÿ,ÿ1.--ÿ:ÿ.5; *9ÿ./-*.0ÿ,ÿ*ÿ*ÿ.5ÿ-*ÿ
ÿ/,ÿ*5...2ÿ/.9ÿ*ÿ;2.*ÿ,ÿ5ÿÿ,ÿ*+,-(ÿ
?(ÿ @,ÿ;;;.ÿ*$ÿ/69ÿ,ÿ=./ÿ!ÿ4,-./ÿÿ,.ÿ*.0ÿ
56ÿ!1*ÿ.!5.ÿ*./ 2*ÿ*.0ÿ,ÿ2.1ÿÿ,ÿA.2.6BÿC!!./ÿ!ÿ
3*ÿ */ÿ*$ÿ-1ÿ!/5ÿ, ..(ÿ
?)(ÿ DEFGHIEJKELMHEHÿOPQLEÿRSÿKTTHUMÿ
4(ÿV.-.ÿ!ÿ,ÿA.2.6ÿ!ÿW6-*ÿ=0ÿX.0ÿY -./6ÿ56ÿ:ÿ;;-*ÿ
,0,ÿ,ÿ;;-ÿ;/ÿ-.*ÿ.ÿ,ÿ; -./6(ÿÿÿ
Z(ÿ[ ÿ--0*ÿ2.-.ÿ !ÿ,ÿ-19ÿ,ÿ !/ÿ3; -.<ÿY -./69ÿ ÿ
A.2.6ÿ; -./.ÿ,ÿ,ÿ,ÿ=0ÿX.0ÿY -./69ÿ.!ÿ,ÿ*+,-ÿ
*.0ÿ1.,ÿ,ÿ/ÿ !ÿ/.9ÿ,$,ÿ56ÿ;;-ÿÿ,ÿ[/-6ÿ
4,-./ÿ\;.2ÿÿ7ÿÿ,ÿA.2.6Bÿ=./ÿ!ÿ3*ÿ */ÿ.!ÿ
,ÿ[/-6ÿÿ4,-./ÿ\;.2ÿ.ÿ2.-:-8ÿ.ÿ1..0ÿ1.,.ÿ#>ÿ, ÿ
!ÿ/.2.0ÿ!5ÿ,ÿ; ÿ;2. ÿ,ÿ1.ÿ556ÿ!ÿ,ÿ-ÿ!ÿ
,ÿ2.1ÿ*ÿ,ÿ1.ÿ5ÿ!ÿ*./.;-.6ÿ5ÿ,ÿ1.--ÿ:ÿ
.5; *ÿ7.!ÿ,ÿ556ÿ*ÿ5ÿÿ ÿ;2.**ÿÿ,ÿ*+
,-ÿÿ,ÿ5ÿ.59ÿ,ÿ*+,-ÿ5ÿ:5.ÿ,.$,ÿ;;-ÿ
1.,.ÿ#>ÿ, ÿ!ÿ/.2.0ÿ,ÿ/*ÿ!ÿ,ÿ1 8(ÿÿÿ
%(ÿX,ÿ*+,-Bÿ1.ÿ]ÿ!ÿÿ;;-ÿ5ÿ^;-.ÿ1,ÿ.ÿ
,ÿ556ÿ !ÿ,ÿ-ÿ !ÿ,ÿ2.1ÿ.ÿ./ /ÿ*$ÿ, 1ÿ,ÿ
/55**ÿ*./.;-.6ÿ5ÿÿ ÿ,,(ÿ
>(ÿX,ÿ*+,-Bÿ1.ÿ]ÿ!ÿÿ;;-ÿ5ÿ./-*ÿ6ÿ*ÿ
--ÿ-2ÿ;; .0ÿ* /5.(ÿ
_(ÿX,ÿ[/-6ÿ4,-./ÿ\;.2ÿ7ÿ,ÿA.2.6Bÿ=./ÿ !ÿ
3*ÿ */ÿ.!ÿ,ÿ[/-6ÿ4,-./ÿ\;.2ÿ.ÿ2.-:-8ÿ1.--ÿ
;2.*ÿÿ/;6ÿ!ÿ,ÿ*+,-Bÿ1.ÿ]ÿ!ÿ;;-ÿÿ,ÿ
ÿÿ!ÿ"#$%%$%#ÿ
ÿ ÿ &'ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿ
0123425ÿ789
8 ÿ
ÿ

ÿ

ÿ
ÿ
((()ÿ( ÿ(*) ÿ+ÿ,ÿ-(.ÿ!ÿ/,0)1ÿ2)00ÿ3ÿ4)*ÿ
ÿ(( )5ÿÿ( +ÿÿ,ÿ+6,07ÿ)8ÿ
:8ÿ;+)4ÿ,ÿ!)0ÿ 1.ÿ !ÿ,ÿ((0<ÿ5ÿ+.)))*ÿ1)ÿ
)+)!)+ÿ(ÿÿ=1)ÿ>6?ÿ3 *ÿ2)00ÿ3ÿ).( +ÿ@)88<ÿ,ÿ
+.)))*ÿ1)ÿ2)00ÿ ÿ3ÿ(++ÿ+)4ÿ,ÿ((0ÿ(1A8ÿÿÿ
8ÿ>!ÿÿ()10ÿ*)0)ÿ ÿ !!ÿ)44ÿ,ÿ).( ))ÿ !ÿÿ.))..ÿ
+)1)(0)5ÿ.ÿ.++ÿ35ÿB)*)5<ÿ !1ÿÿC//ÿ( 0)15<ÿ
,ÿ()10ÿ+)1)(0)5ÿ.ÿ1 ÿ3ÿ((0+ÿ,4,ÿ,)ÿ(18ÿÿ
D,!<ÿ)!ÿÿ+6,0ÿ((0ÿ,ÿ).( ))ÿ !ÿÿ.++ÿ
+)1)(0)5ÿ.<ÿ,ÿ( )ÿ!ÿ,ÿ((0ÿ())4ÿÿ,ÿ+)1)(0)5ÿ
.ÿ2)00ÿ3ÿ+).)+ÿ)..+)058ÿ
-8ÿE),)ÿ%"ÿ10+ÿ+5ÿ!ÿ1)*)4ÿ,ÿFÿ!ÿÿ((0<ÿ,ÿG105ÿ
/,0)1ÿH()*ÿ2)00ÿ+ÿÿ+1))ÿ+ÿ )!5ÿ,ÿ+6,0ÿ
!ÿ,ÿ+1))ÿ)ÿ2))48ÿÿD,ÿ+1))ÿ)ÿ!)0ÿ+ÿ1 ÿ3ÿ((0+8ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ!ÿ"#$%%$%#ÿ
ÿ ÿ &'ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ

Report On The University of Maryland Investigation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report On The University of Maryland Investigation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report On The University of Maryland Investigation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT TO THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND

OF AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FOOTBALL PROGRAM

Frederick M. Azar, M.D. Harry P. Rudo

Matthew Porter Legg

October 23, 2018

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

an independent commission (the “Commission”) to investigate allegations reported

(“UMD,” “Maryland,” or the “University”) football program. At a press

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

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

recommending or deciding whether any University employees should be retained

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 improve the program.

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

“Athletics Department” or “Athletics”), honored that pledge.

B. How We Conducted the Investigation

all major constituencies of the football program:

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

 Current and former Athletics Department staff, including coaches: 60

 Other people with college football expertise, and miscellaneous

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

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

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

players participated, and many provided extremely thoughtful comments.

We have chronicled events illustrating the dysfunction of the Athletics

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

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

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

Commission unanimously found the following:

1. The players who spoke up—both initially and in response to

August 10, 2018. We interviewed most of these players—both anonymous and

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

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

Commission, in fact, insist a “speak up” culture is critical in cultivating a thriving

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

2. During Mr. Durkin’s tenure, the Athletics Department lacked a

effectively fulfill its responsibilities. University ombudsman and assistant to

President Loh, Cynthia Edmunds, described the Athletics Department’s operations

department’s dysfunction to “Washington [politics].” The University conducted a

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

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

University’s Chief of Human Resources, stated “[h]ere [in Maryland athletics],

there is no structure. That is not normal.”

The mismanagement of the Athletics Department had adverse effects on the

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

Department were blurred and inconsistent. Assistant AD for Football Sports

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

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

during his tenure at Maryland. The Athletics Department’s compliance office

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

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

official University calendars and multiple corroborated accounts, the Department’s

once a week, particularly in season.

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