Editors Note: This story has been updated from the original to reflect more information gained from documents obtained through a public records request.
LOGAN — A day after Utah State University announced the firing of its head football coach, Blake Anderson, less than 45 days before the beginning of the 2024 season, documents from both sides of the dispute have been released offering more details into the dismisal of Anderson, along with Deputy Athletic Directory Jerry Bovee, senior woman administrator Amy Crosbie and football director of player development Austin Albrecht.
Anderson’s attorney first posted screenshots on social media with some details regarding the 70-page response to Anderson’s termination filed earlier this week. Despite the response, USU went on to fire Anderson on Thursday.
The publicized portion of what will be referred to as the “response letter” includes only roughly three pages (though Mars promised that the “Full response to follow with attached exhibits, which include USU’s termination letter, investigation summary, court records, and witness statements”), but includes several key arguments made by Anderson and his representation in response to allegations made by Utah State in their full statement regarding the firing.
Anderson’s response letter begins by noting Utah State’s right to terminate the contract at any time provided the university pays out the remaining contract, a process commonly referred to as a buyout. According to the terms of Anderson’s contract, that amount is 75 percent of the pro-rated cumulative total of salary remaining on his contract at the time of firing. That full amount remaining on Anderson’s contract — not including any salary already paid for the current year of his contract which began on Jan. 1 — is $6 million. Not including any of the first six months of Anderson’s 2024 salary (a total of $1.425 million), the buyout for the remaining contract would be approximately $4.5 million.
The response letter continues by claiming USU is attempting to “manufacture grounds” to avoid paying the buyout using what it calls a “sham investigation” (the statement putting the word investigation in quotes). The response letter cited multiple cases of what it says are similar situations, including that of former Kansas football head coach David Beaty, who was fired in 2018 and later sued his former employer over failure to pay his $3 million buyout after Kansas supposedly opened an investigation into NCAA violations to avoid paying the amount due.
The investigation that Anderson’s representation referred to as a “sham” was conducted by Husch Blackwell. A seven-page summary of this investigation was obtained by Cache Valley Daily in response to a public records request. Other documents obtained include a July 2 letter from USU sent to Anderson informing him of the university’s intent to terminate his contract and a July 18 email informing Anderson that the university was moving forward with the termination.
Husch Blackwell’s investigation concluded that Anderson violated Utah State policy in multiple ways. Firstly, that Anderson “learned of domestic violence allegations and the arrest of Student Athlete during the Spring 2023 but failed to disclose such information to the Office of Equity or other University administrators outside of the Athletics Department.” And secondly, that Anderson “engaged in investigative efforts himself regarding the domestic violence arrest, including meeting with and collecting written statements from witnesses” and that he also “delayed decisions about suspension of Student Athlete while he engaged in investigative efforts” and even further that he “failed to disclose that he had engaged in his own investigative efforts.”
These findings formed the basis for the termination as outlined by the notice given by Utah State to Anderson.
“While failing to report sexual misconduct alone is a basis for termination, your violations of USU Policy 340 were far more egregious,” the termination letter reads. “As outlined in the Investigation Findings and Conclusions, you acknowledged that in addition to failing to report sexual misconduct, you took it upon yourself to investigate the matter and interviewed not only the student athlete but also the potential victim and a witness to the event that led to the student athlete’s arrest and solicited written statements from these witnesses. In doing so you violated multiple sections of USU Policy 340.”
Amid the claims of failure to report misconduct, the termination letter to Anderson also claims he failed to “manage the team in a manner that reflects the academic values of USU.” According to the termination letter, Anderson had previously been talked to about the Academic Progress Rate (APR) of his team and that it didn’t meet the university’s expectations.
The response letter, sent by Anderson to USU, contends that “While not required to do so, Coach Anderson nonetheless complied with USU policies 339 and 340,” the sections of Utah State policy regarding sexual misconduct and reporting sexual misconduct. In the Husch Blackwell investigation, it reported that Anderson “was not aware he needed to do so given that the altercation occurred off campus and was ‘dealt with by the authorities.'” However, according to USU Policies 339 and 340, Anderson is a mandatory reporting employee, meaning he must report any incident of sexual misconduct “committed against any person by an employee, student, or third party when the incident occurs in an employment or education program or activity in the United States.” USU policy defines “sexual misconduct” to include instances of “dating violence” and “domestic violence” and not just instances of sexual assault, sexual harassment etc.
The point of whether Anderson is required to report is moot, though, considering the claim from Anderson is that he reported the information anyway, which would fulfil the obligations required of him.
“Coach Anderson made a complete, timely report to the Interim AD, who in turn made an appropriate, timely ‘group report’ to USU’s Equity Office,” the response letter says.
A statement released by Bovee backs up this claim from Anderson, saying “Bovee and two other USU employees did in fact report the incident to the USU Office of Equity.”
The clearer point of contention on this point is that Anderson says he reported the information, as does Bovee, and USU and its external review claim neither did the proper reporting.
Anderson’s response to the allegations that he conducted his own investigation was given an explanation by his response letter.
“Coach Anderson did not conduct his own ‘Title IX investigation’ before a report was made to the Equity Office,” the response letter says. “Instead, Coach Anderson had no knowledge that an arrest had occurred for several days, then spent just over a day attempting to find out what his player was arrested for and why to determine whether any report was required.”
The response letter also includes an anecdote claiming a text, intended for Utah State Athletic Director Diana Sabau that was informing her to sign the termination letter for Crosbie, was unintentionally sent to Crosbie herself prior to her even being given notice regarding her termination, (which eventually occurred on July 8).
Utah State continues shake up of athletic department, terminating Senior Woman Administrator Amy Crosbie
Austin Albrecht: ‘saddened’ by termination from USU but wishes best for Cache Valley, USU student-athletes
In another section, the response letter claims Utah State gave Anderson and Bovee “inconsistent, contradictory statements about material findings in USU’s year-long investigation.”
A statement from Utah State on Thursday included a brief comment on the response filed by Anderson and his representatives.
“Anderson’s response failed to acknowledge his responsibilities as a USU employee and as a head coach and instead sought to make excuses and unsuccessfully recast the clear language of USU’s policies,” the statement said.