What Blake Anderson contends about his firing by Utah State

Blake Anderson wants his full buyout and a public apology from Utah State University.

The now-former head coach of the Aggies football program was officially fired with cause by USU on Thursday, following a two-week period during which Anderson was on administrative leave.

Afforded those two weeks to respond to Utah State’s intention to fire him, per his employment agreement, Anderson and his attorney, Tom Mars, submitted a 70-page response to Utah State to argue that he — Anderson — wasn’t in the wrong and thus is ineligible to be fired with cause.

Friday, following Utah State’s decision to go through with its firing of Anderson, Mars released the introductory statement of that 70-page response, pledging to release the full response at a later date, including USU’s termination letter given to Anderson, a summary of the external investigation summary conducted on behalf of Utah State, plus court records and witness statements.

In it, Anderson contends that Utah State “set in motion a sham investigation” sometime last summer, with the hopes of firing him with cause and thus avoiding having to pay his buyout.

“In doing so,” the statement reads, “USU followed a trend that started when the former head football coach at the University of Kansas, David Beaty, was fired for ‘cause,’ followed by other notable examples where schools unsuccessfully attempted to manufacture grounds to fire head coaches to avoid paying them multimillion dollar ‘buyouts.’”

Anderson and his representation contend that USU was negligent “in not seeking to understand the limitations of its own policies, violating every standard that governs professional investigations, and grasping at straws to find ‘cause,’ resulting in the following examples of negligence on the part of the university:”

• “False allegations in Coach Anderson’s termination letter that are contrary to indisputable evidence.”

• “Firing three other USU employees who also did nothing wrong.”

• “Providing Coach Anderson and Jerry Bovee with inconsistent, contradictory statements about material findings in USU’s year-long investigation.”

• “USU’s general counsel mistakenly sending a text to Amy Crosbie that was intended for athletic director Diana Sabau telling Ms. Crosbie to sign her own termination letter (with no prior notice that she was about to be fired).”

• “Relying on alleged violations of USU policies which, on their face, are wholly inapplicable to the single off-campus incident involved here and, therefore, did not require any reporting by anyone.”

• “Falsely accusing — or at least implying — that Coach Anderson and other USU employees were guilty of covering up ‘sexual misconduct’ in violation of Title IX in a highly inflammatory news release that served no purpose other than to falsely portray these loyal employees in a negative light.”

Additionally, Anderson and his representation contend that the external investigation conducted on behalf of Utah State — based on the investigation summary provided to Anderson — may have violated Utah Code “which prohibits persons from conducting private investigations in Utah who are not licensed to do so, with limited exceptions that do not appear to be applicable here.”

In regards to allegations from Utah State that Anderson failed to report a Title IX violation committed by a former USU football player in early April 2023 in a timely manner, and that he conducted his own investigation into the incident prior to reporting it to USU’s Equity Office, the statement contends that Anderson did neither.

“While Coach Anderson had no obligations to report anything as a matter of university policy, this response conclusively shows that 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 statement reads. “This response further establishes that, contrary to the assertions in the Termination letter and investigation summary, Coach Anderson did not conduct his own ‘Title IX investigation’ before a report was made to the Equity Office. 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.”

Furthermore, Anderson and his representation contend that the summary of the external investigation provided to them by Utah State did not include any specific dates for events of note and that USU’s decision to terminate Anderson’s employment “has been more like shooting arrows at a rock wall.”

It is the contention of Anderson and his representation that “USU owes Coach Anderson not only the full amount of his ‘buyout’ but also a retraction of its defamatory press release and a public apology.”

In announcing Anderson’s firing on Thursday, a statement from Utah State reads: “This action is based on significant violations of his contractual obligations related to USU’s employee reporting requirements. These reporting requirements include a prohibition on employees outside the USU Office of Equity from investigating issues of sexual misconduct, including domestic violence. Additionally, Anderson failed to manage the team in a manner that reflects USU’s academic values,” adding later that Anderson in his response to the university’s actions “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.”

Said university President Elizabeth Cantwell: “While I recognize that today’s decision has a significant impact, it is the only one that could be made based on the facts. We are committed to moving forward in building a winning Athletics program grounded in student success and integrity.”