Report of Investigation

Allegations Made by Players on the

2018-2019 Rutgers University Softball Team

Prepared By:

LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP

May 29, 2020

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1

II. The Allegations....................................................................................................................1

III. Methodology ........................................................................................................................2

IV. Findings ...............................................................................................................................4

A. The Hiring of Kristen Butler and Her Staff .............................................................4

B. The 2019 Season ......................................................................................................8

1. Conditioning Exercises ................................................................................9

2. Conditioning as Punishment ......................................................................12

3. Players Passing Out at Practice..................................................................15

4. Pushing Players from Behind.....................................................................19

5. Hitting Players with Pitches.......................................................................20

6. Balls Hit at Player ......................................................................................23

7. The Trust Fall.............................................................................................24

8. Comments and Conduct by Volunteer Assistant Coach ............................29

9. Family Dynamics .......................................................................................34

10. Player Cell Phones .....................................................................................36

11. Cumulative Effects.....................................................................................39

12. On-the-Field Results ..................................................................................40

C. Player Departures and Scholarship Cancellations .................................................41

1. Voluntary Departures from the Team ........................................................43

2. Players Cut from the Team and Financial Aid Hearings ...........................48

3. Turnover Generally....................................................................................52

D. The University’s Review of and Responses to Player Complaints........................53

-i-
 1. The UEC Investigation ..............................................................................53

2. Player Complaints to Compliance and Compliance’s Response ...............56

3. The Sport Administrator’s Investigation ...................................................60

E. Subsequent Events and the 2020 Season ...............................................................65

V. Recommendations..............................................................................................................66

-ii-
 I. Introduction

Rutgers University (“Rutgers” or the “University”) engaged Lowenstein Sandler LLP

(“Lowenstein”) to conduct an independent review of allegations that University softball coaches

had subjected student-athletes to abusive conditioning as well as emotional abuse. The

University asked Lowenstein to thoroughly investigate the allegations that had been made,

consistent with the highest investigative standards, and provide advice and recommendations to

the University for best practices going forward. This report sets forth the results of Lowenstein’s

investigation.

Part II of this report summarizes the allegations of misconduct that were made. Part III

of the report details the methodology used to investigate those allegations. In Part IV, which

makes up most of the report, we set forth our findings in detail, regarding conduct in connection

with the softball team and the University’s actions in response. Part V then discusses

recommendations concerning issues identified in the course of the investigation.

II. The Allegations

On October 30, 2019, NJ Advance Media reported on a series of allegations made by

seven former players on the University’s softball team. The players directed those allegations

primarily at the team’s head coach, Kristen Butler, and her husband, Marcus Smith, who served

as a volunteer assistant coach. The allegations pertained to actions during the 2018-2019

academic year and the 2019 softball season specifically.

The publicly reported allegations fell generally into the following categories of claims:

 Coach Butler had subjected the players to abusive and unreasonable conditioning
exercises;

 Coach Butler required the players to undertake those conditioning exercises as

punishment for seemingly minor and irrelevant infractions, such as exceeding the
team food budget at Cracker Barrel by $6;

-1-
  Softball practices included other acts of physical abuse, such as Assistant Coach
Brandon Duncan intentionally hitting players with pitches during batting practice,
and Coach Butler hitting rapid-fire ground balls at a defenseless player during
fielding practice;

 Assistant Coach Smith invaded players’ privacy by viewing content on their cell
phones without permission and made inappropriate comments, such as saying the
team bus smelled like “period blood”;

 The coaches subjected the players to emotional abuse by creating a demanding,

stressful, controlling, and punitive atmosphere; and

 Coach Butler made overly aggressive efforts to get players to quit the team and
deprive them of their scholarships.

The players also alleged that senior Rutgers officials, namely, Athletics Director Pat Hobbs and

Deputy Director of Athletics Sarah Baumgartner, failed to take appropriate action after some of

the players and their parents had reported their concerns to them.

III. Methodology

Lowenstein’s investigation team was led by former New Jersey State Comptroller and

federal prosecutor Matthew Boxer, Esq. The other principal members of the investigation team

were Rasmeet K. Chahil, Esq. and Rachel Moseson, Esq., who conducted many of the interviews

and led many of the investigative steps.

Lowenstein personnel independently developed the investigative work plan and executed

it without interference from the University. The University did not determine the content of this

report, beyond initial discussions about the general investigative mandate.

During the course of the investigation, Lowenstein interviewed a total of 46 witnesses.

Most of those interviewed were players on the 2019 softball team; we interviewed every student-

athlete who spent any time on the team. Some of the students interviewed are still on the team,

some have since transferred to other universities, and some remain at Rutgers but are no longer

playing softball there.

-2-
 We also extended interview invitations to players on the 2020 softball team who were not

on the 2019 team. Two of those players accepted our invitation and participated in the interview

process. Consistent with federal privacy parameters regarding student information, and in view

of the age of some of the players during the time at issue, we have not used the names of the

players in this report. Instead, each student-athlete is referenced with a number, such as “Player

1” or “Player 2.”

In addition to player interviews, Lowenstein interviewed Kristen Butler, her two assistant

coaches, Athletics Director Pat Hobbs, and Deputy Director of Athletics Sarah Baumgartner, as

well as many of the other University employees who support the University’s sports teams and

softball specifically. These individuals included the athletic trainer for softball, the assistant

director of strength and conditioning, the academic advisor for softball, the sports nutritionist, the

director of operations, the University’s NCAA faculty athletics representative, and multiple

personnel from Rutgers’ Office of Athletic Compliance. Some of these officials are still

employed by the University and others have moved on to other opportunities since the 2019

season. We also interviewed the University’s chief ethics and compliance officer and the

University president.

To assist in our assessment of the facts, we sought analysis and information from three

nationally recognized collegiate softball experts, none of whom are affiliated with Rutgers. One

is the long-time head coach of one of the top softball programs in the country, the second is an

athletics department official at another university and is a former standout softball player, and

the third is the president of a nationally recognized softball association. We informed those

individuals that we would not use their names in this report in order to ensure candid dialogue

with them.

-3-
 Former volunteer coach Marcus Smith declined to participate in an oral interview with

us. Instead, he offered to answer our questions in writing if we provided written questions to

him. Though written answers do not permit the interactive exchange that assists investigators in

assessing witness credibility and obtaining comprehensive information, we sent him written

questions, viewing it as the best available option. Smith’s answers to our questions are set forth

verbatim in the applicable sections of this report. Smith stated at the outset of his written

responses, “I promise that I am answering these questions truthfully and to the best of my

knowledge.”

Lowenstein conducted the majority of the witness interviews in person. Where

necessary, however, we conducted interviews via videoconference or by telephone. For

example, some of the players on the 2019 team have since transferred to schools in other states,

making in-person discussions difficult. In addition, we abided by state-of-emergency mandates

announced in March and conducted all subsequent interviews by video or telephone.

The investigation also included review of voluminous documents, emails, and text

messages. We also obtained documents and other materials from witnesses interviewed, online

sources, and other third-party sources, some of which was unsolicited. We also viewed video

footage provided to us and listened to relevant sound recordings, as further described herein.

The University, acting through its Office of General Counsel, cooperated fully with the

investigation in all respects.

IV. Findings

A. The Hiring of Kristen Butler and Her Staff

Before the hiring of Kristin Butler, the Rutgers softball (“Softball”) program experienced

several years of losing records. For example, in 2018, the year before Butler was hired, the team

-4-
was 19-31 overall and 4-16 in conference play, which resulted in the team finishing last in the

Big Ten Conference (the “Big Ten”).

After the 2018 season, the contract of the head coach at the time expired. Pat Hobbs, the

University’s athletics director, decided that a new person was needed to lead the Softball

program. While the outgoing coach was, as described by University officials, an admirable

person and a “grandfather type,” he was having trouble maintaining team discipline and some of

the players themselves were getting frustrated because their skills were not improving.

While a head coach search can involve different approaches, in this instance Hobbs asked

Sarah Baumgartner to lead the search process. Baumgartner is the sport administrator for

Softball, which generally entails serving as the liaison between the head coach and the athletics

director and evaluating all facets of the program on an ongoing basis. Baumgartner also serves

as deputy director of athletics and is herself a former collegiate softball player. In addition,

Baumgartner sat on the NCAA Softball Committee at the time of the search and, as a result, was

in regular contact with officials from many different softball programs. Ryan Pisarri, another

University athletics official, joined Baumgartner in the search effort because Baumgartner was

about to begin maternity leave.

Baumgartner made phone calls to other Big Ten coaches and started a list of potential

candidates. During that process, Kristin Butler learned of the opening at Rutgers and sent her

resume to Baumgartner and others at the University. Butler quickly emerged as a finalist for the

position and came to Rutgers for an on-campus interview in early June 2018. She interviewed

with multiple head coaches and other athletics officials, including Hobbs.

Hobbs felt that Butler’s qualifications were strong. She had excelled as a player at the

University of Florida (one of the top softball programs in the county), as an assistant coach, and

-5-
as a head coach in turning around the program at the University of Toledo (“Toledo”), a Division

I school in the Mid-American Conference (“MAC”). In 2018, Butler had been named MAC

Coach of the Year. Hobbs and Baumgartner both viewed Butler as a rising star.

The University offered Butler the position of Softball Head Coach. Butler accepted the

offer and signed a four-year employment contract with a start date of June 14, 2018.

Consistent with typical practice, the University deferred to Coach Butler regarding her

choice of assistant coaches. The University thus extended assistant coach offers to Brandon

Duncan and Rod Radcliffe, both of whom had worked under Butler at Toledo. During her

interview process, Butler had asked Pisarri if it would be possible for her to also bring on her

husband, Marcus Smith, as a volunteer assistant coach. Butler had done research on the issue

and noted that a wife and husband worked together in coaching Rutgers’ field hockey team.

Smith himself had years of experience coaching softball, most recently at Owens

Community College (“Owens”) in Ohio. He also previously played men’s fast pitch softball, and

had played and coached college football.

After looking into the nepotism aspect of the issue, University officials determined that

the rule for spouses coaching together at the University is that one spouse cannot report to the

other. Accordingly, Smith was assigned to report to Baumgartner. There is no indication that

the players on the Softball team were given any instructions regarding that reporting line or how

to proceed should an issue regarding Smith arise.

Similar to the process used for paid assistant coaches, no reference checks are conducted

when a volunteer coach joins the University staff. Instead, Human Resources staff run a criminal

history and similar database check, which in Smith’s case came back with no red flags.

-6-
 As a result, when the University agreed to permit Butler to add Smith to her staff, Rutgers

officials were not aware of a publicly reported controversy involving Smith from his time at

Owens. Based on documents Lowenstein obtained from Owens as part of this investigation,

players at Owens had made 14 allegations against Smith, generally focused on statements Smith

had made to players and his other conduct as a coach. In response to the allegations, Owens had

asked Smith to take a brief leave of absence, conducted an investigation, and then determined

that none of the claims could be confirmed as having merit. The school concluded that most of

the allegations amounted to a disagreement about how Smith was managing the team.

When Baumgartner returned to the University from maternity leave in mid-August 2018,

she met with Smith, in a meeting she described as mutually initiated. Smith volunteered to her

that an allegation had been made against him at Owens. According to Baumgartner, Smith said

the allegation was that two players on his team said that he was homophobic, and Smith gave

Baumgartner his version of what happened. Baumgartner said that he told her he was reinstated

at Owens, completed the season, and subsequently won a coaching award there. Smith told

Baumgartner to feel free to reach out to his athletic director at Owens, but she did not do so.

Baumgartner told us that at the time, nothing that Smith said made her concerned about him

holding an unpaid position at Rutgers.

Baumgartner informed Hobbs that Butler was going to bring her husband on as a

volunteer assistant coach. At some point, Baumgartner also told Hobbs that there had been an

incident at Smith’s previous place of employment, but it was reviewed and he was cleared.

Hobbs could not definitely recall if Baumgartner informed him of that information when she

learned of it in August 2018 or when related issues arose in April 2019.

-7-
 B. The 2019 Season

In addition to meeting with Smith in late summer 2018, Baumgartner also had a pre-

season meeting with Butler. They discussed a variety of topics, including Butler’s emphasis on

strength and conditioning, which Butler had described to Baumgartner as being important to her.

Butler told Baumgartner that she knew the previous head coach did not have the same

philosophy as she did, and she wanted to make sure that Baumgartner understood that. Her goal

at Rutgers was to “flip” the softball program into a successful one, like she had done at Toledo.

Baumgartner told us that she knew that the program would be very different under Butler.

Softball practices started the first week of school, after Labor Day. Fall practices begin

with 8 hours of athletic-related activity per week, then increase to 20-hour weeks, and go back to

8-hour weeks in November, with significant conditioning components. In the spring, the team

had 20-hour practice weeks. Under Coach Butler, in the spring, the first 30 minutes of Tuesday

practices were reserved for conditioning, and Monday was the team’s off day. In-season

competitive games begin in February and, Coach Butler noted to us, the team plays 56 games in

the regular season, the most games of any NCAA sport. The regular season finishes in May, but

if a team qualifies for post-season competition, play continues into June.

The drastic change between Softball coaches came to fruition much as had been predicted

by Baumgartner and Butler. As one player told us, it was a “huge culture shock.” That dynamic

was exacerbated by the fact that all of the players except two had been recruited by the previous

coach, not by Coach Butler. (Coach Butler had recruited the other two players to play for her at

Toledo, and they decided to enroll at Rutgers instead when Butler accepted the job there). As

one of the returning players stated to us, “What [Butler] brought was not what we signed up for.”

The complaints made by players in the ensuing months resulted from a confluence of factors.

-8-
We have grouped those complaints into categories and address them in the sections of the report

that follow.

1. Conditioning Exercises

There was a range of views among the players about whether the conditioning exercises

that took place during Coach Butler’s practices were physically excessive or abusive in some

way. The players’ disparate views on this issue did not always line up as the players themselves

predicted; for example, whether a player was recruited by the prior coach or Coach Butler was

not determinative.

When asked to point to particular circumstances in which the conditioning was excessive,

players discussed four occasions. The first stemmed, according to the players, from having

exceeded their prescribed food budget when traveling for an away game. Players stated that

because they had gone $6 over the total team budget at a Cracker Barrel restaurant, Coach Butler

required them to run six 100-yard sprints (50 yards in one direction and 50 yards back).

However, each sprint only “counted” if the players completed the sprint in the required time.

While there were some discrepancies in the players’ description of the sprints, they described

that there were two or three running groups divided by running ability, with the group of faster

players required to run the sprint in 17 seconds and other groups having 18 or 19 seconds. At

first, if any player did not complete a sprint in the allotted time, that entire group would have to

run the sprint again to get to the total six sprints, though after a while the exercise became

individual rather than group-based. As a result, some players ran the sprint up to 11 or 12 times,

and some after that never completed the exercise because they were getting more tired (and

slower) over time. Players stated that the only break they received was when another group was

running.

-9-
 The second instance players pointed to also was connected to Coach Butler having

concluded that players had broken a team rule, or, in this case, multiple rules. Players stated that

the infractions included a player forgetting to bring her socks to a game, a player wearing

another college’s sweatshirt in the Rutgers Athletic Center, and two players being late for

breakfast. Players recalled that Coach Butler added up the stripes on the missing socks, the

number of letters on the sweatshirt, and the minutes the players were late for breakfast, yielding

the number 36. Based on that number, the conditioning exercise consisted of 360 jump ropes, 36

short sprints, and 36 burpees. Players further explained that they actually only ended up running

15 to 20 sprints because the coaches realized the players were too tired to continue.

The third instance to which players pointed was connected to two players having failed to

attend study hall as required for certain student-athletes under University rules. According to

players, Coach Butler told the team that as a result, the team had to run two “diagonals,” which

consisted of running from home plate to the right field foul pole, to the left field foul pole, to the

center field fence, and back to home plate.

The fourth occasion was a jump rope exercise, in which each team member had to jump

rope for one minute with no mistakes. The exercise continued until all of the players were,

together, able to jump rope for the full minute without errors. While there were differing

recollections, most interviewees said the exercise lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes

before it was accomplished, with some short breaks in between.

In her investigative interview, Coach Butler took issue with the contention that these

exercises were excessive. She stated that the conditioning in her practices at Rutgers was the

same in intensity as at other programs where she has coached, and was less intense than when

she played at the University of Florida. Butler stated that the lengthy and demanding 50-plus

-10-
game softball season requires the players to be in outstanding physical condition. Assistant

Coach Brandon Duncan similarly contended that the conditioning program at Rutgers was no

more intense than that of other programs with which he had been involved. He stated, for

example, that the conditioning program was less intense than what he witnessed as a student-

manager at University of Alabama and as an assistant coach at University of Virginia and at

Georgia Tech.

To obtain an authoritative view on the reasonableness of the conditioning exercises, we

consulted the three experts described in the Methodology section of this report. They noted that

there is a dearth of specific, written standards as to appropriate conditioning for college sports.

However, none of them concluded based on available facts that the exercises at issue were

unreasonable or abusive. One of them noted, for example, that players being divided into

running groups based on their running ability is a reasonable approach. She also noted that

coaches should be pushing female athletes as much as they push male athletes to compete at the

highest level of conditioning. Another expert noted that when there is a coaching transition, it

can be important for the culture the coach is trying to build to start with tough standards.

Coaches can ease standards over time, she said, but it is very difficult to make them more

demanding.

One of the experts echoed Coach Butler’s comments about preconceived notions that

intense conditioning is unnecessary in a sport like softball. She stated that the sport does not

involve constant running, but the long games, long days (the teams often play doubleheaders),

and long season are physically and mentally taxing. She explained that the more fit you are, the

better your mental and physical capacity is going to be during that long season.

-11-
 We also discussed Softball player conditioning with the athletic trainer at Rutgers

assigned to the team during the 2019 season. At Rutgers, consistent with best practices, team

trainers are not employed by the University and do not report to the team coaches. Instead, they

are employees of Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital. The trainer assigned to Softball,

Cara Rapoport, was not able to attend all of the Softball practices in 2019 (an issue discussed

further below), but she stated to us that nothing she witnessed at the practices was excessive or

abusive. She further stated that the conditioning exercises were in fact lesser in intensity than

those of some other sports at Rutgers. Rapoport noted her independence in this regard, stating,

“I don’t owe the coaches anything. If I see things that upset me, I talk to my boss about it.”

Rapoport attributed many of the concerns expressed by the players to them not being in shape

under the previous coach and to the conditioning being a significant change from what they were

accustomed. The assistant director of strength and conditioning at Rutgers said the same, based

on what he had observed at Softball practices.

Players further noted to us, uniformly, that on those occasions when Rapoport did step in

and object to something at practices, Butler was respectful of that and would back off.

2. Conditioning as Punishment

In view of the fact that three of the conditioning exercises players cited as inappropriate

had been tied to alleged rule violations by players, we looked more generally at the issue of

coaches using conditioning as punishment. According to nearly all of the Softball players, in the

spring the team frequently ran as punishment for doing something wrong during the previous

week. Specifically, the players stated that during the Tuesday conditioning sessions, Coach

Butler would reference various infractions by the players as the reason for doing certain drills.

For example, as described above, players stated that they were six dollars over the food budget

-12-
so they had to run six 100-yard sprints in a prescribed time. While most of the players stated that

the coaches never actually used the word “punishment” in this context, among many of the

players themselves Tuesday became known as “punishment day.” Assistant Coach Radcliffe

acknowledged hearing the players refer to Tuesdays as “punishment day.”

Coach Butler acknowledged to us that the Softball team had to do conditioning exercises

as a consequence for breaking team rules. She stated that such a practice is not unusual in her

experience. Butler used the word “consequence” in this context, but objected to using the word

“punishment” as too harsh a word. Butler stated that the conditioning always took place during

the time allotted for a practice; players never had to arrive early or stay late to complete the

conditioning. In addition, Butler stated, the team was already scheduled to do conditioning on

Tuesdays, but she used the conditioning session to discuss team policies and talk to the players

about rules that were broken. Butler stated that she did not view this as “punishment” because

the team would be running that day anyway as part of the scheduled conditioning.

Butler further explained that she was having difficulty getting players to “buy in” to her

program, resulting in, among other things, numerous rule violations by the players, especially

when travelling for away games. She gave as examples a player wearing pajamas and fuzzy

slippers to breakfast, a player being late to breakfast, players going over meal budgets multiple

times, and players ignoring the curfew time. Accordingly, she said that she had multiple

conversations with the players about accountability and following team rules. She told us that

she wanted them to understand that every choice one makes results in either a reward or

consequence.

In July 2019, the NCAA Sport Science Institute issued a series of recommendations in a

document entitled, “Preventing Catastrophic Injury and Death in Collegiate Athletes.” Among

-13-
the recommendations made was that “[p]hysical activity never should be used for punitive

purposes. Exercise as punishment invariably abandons sound physiologic principles and elevates

risk above any reasonable performance award.” While the NCAA issued this publication after

the 2019 Softball season, the recommendation to avoid punitive conditioning is not a novel one.

Earlier examples are found in the 2014-15 NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook and a 2012

consensus statement by the National Athletic Trainers’ Association. See NCAA, 2014-15

NCAA Sports Medicine Handbook 101 (Aug. 2014); Douglas J. Casa et al., The Inter-

Association Task Force for Preventing Sudden Death in Collegiate Conditioning Sessions: Best

Practices Recommendations, 47 Journal of Athletic Training 477, 478 (2012) (“Physical activity

should not be used as retribution, for coercion, or as discipline for unsatisfactory athletic or

academic performance or unacceptable behavior.”).

In his investigative interview, Hobbs stated his opinion that conditioning as punishment

is counterproductive. He stated that a Big Ten athlete should enjoy conditioning, which is a vital

part of an athlete’s preparation. He stated that conditioning as punishment “erodes how a

student-athlete should think about it.” Assistant Coach Radcliffe similarly stated to us that

Butler “should have worded things differently.”

Despite the above, tying conditioning to player misconduct is not unusual in Division I

sports. All three experts we interviewed viewed it as a common, longstanding practice and

declined to say that it is per se inappropriate. The Softball players themselves acknowledged

that even Coach Butler’s “grandfather type” predecessor had employed such punitive

conditioning, specifically using the phrase “punishment runs.”

Thus, Coach Butler employed conditioning in a way that is not a best practice and is

contrary to available guidance and recent NCAA recommendations, but the prevalence of this

-14-
practice cautions against viewing Butler’s acts as wanton or malicious. Additional discussion of

this topic appears in the Recommendations section of this report.

3. Players Passing Out at Practice

During the timed 100-yard sprints described above, Player 1 reportedly passed out on the

field. We therefore took a closer look at those circumstances and, more generally, allegations of

players passing out or becoming sick to their stomach during practices.

In her interview with us, Player 1 said that she passed out while running the sixth sprint.

She said that during the fourth or fifth sprint, she started to black out and was having trouble

seeing. She said that she did not want to stop running because then everyone else would have to

run again, so she did not speak up. She said that at the finish line of the sixth sprint, she lost

consciousness for a few seconds and collapsed. Player 1 stated that Player 2 came over to pick

her up.

Player 2 said that as far as she saw, Player 1’s eyes were always open and she was not

sure if Player 1 ever truly lost consciousness, though she said she may have blacked out briefly.

She said that from her perspective, Player 1 did not collapse involuntarily, but rather dove for the

finish line because she otherwise would not have made her time. Coach Butler similarly stated

that from her perspective, Player 1 did not actually pass out, but rather crossed the line and

immediately fell to her knees. Butler stated that the team previously had done sprints like these

several times throughout the year.

Player 1 stated that Rapoport, the trainer, came over and attended to her. She said that

Butler asked Rapoport if Player 1 could continue to practice, and Rapoport said no. Player 1 did

not return to practice and was sent to be evaluated by a cardiologist.

-15-
 Rapoport told us that Player 1 had “blacked out,” but was fully conscious when Rapoport

got to her. She stated that Player 1 was sitting on the ground. Rapoport said that the “signs were

that she had gone in and out really quick.” Rapoport disagreed with subsequent statements by

the coaches and some of the players that Player 1 had not eaten that day, though she did

reference a medical condition that, Rapoport said, could have contributed to Player 1 fainting.

However, Rapoport said, “No one could say for sure why she passed out.” Another player stated

that the team was running indoors that day for weather reasons and noted that it seemed like it

was more difficult to breathe in an indoor facility. Player 1 told us that she believes she passed

out simply due to the intensity of the conditioning.

Other players described being taken aback by what happened. As one player stated to us,

“It was scary because . . . out of nowhere [Player 1] just fell.” It was notable to them that for the

other players, the conditioning exercise continued after Player 1 went to the ground.

The players generally told us that they were not aware of other instances of players

passing out during conditioning sessions, and Butler said she could not recall any such instances.

There was one other player who reported briefly passing out or blacking out multiple times,

particularly around the finish line of sprints, and there was some witness corroboration of those

assertions.

Players also reported to us, and Coach Butler similarly noted, that several players

vomited during the course of the season’s conditioning exercises. Some of those players

acknowledged that their getting sick was a result of being out of shape or other factors, along

with the conditioning.

An instance discussed by many of the players was when Player 3 vomited when running

sprints at a 6:00 a.m. practice on her birthday, early in the fall conditioning season. After she

-16-
had vomited, when it was Player 3’s turn to run again, Coach Butler encouraged her to get back

on the line to run, referencing how things were done when she was an athlete in college.

According to Butler, she told Player 3, “Let’s go. Let’s get up to the line. Push through. . . .

Straddle your puke and go, you can do it.” Butler explained to us, “I try to make light of difficult

situations.” She said that she did not intend to convey that she did not care about Player 3’s

condition. Player 3 stated that she declined to continue running. She said that Butler made a

comment about her having too many birthday celebrations, but Player 3 said that was not the

case as the practice was in the early morning that day.

Rapoport was not present when Butler made the comment to Player 3 about straddling

her vomit and continuing to run, though she heard about it from another player. Rapoport noted

that she generally was not present for Softball practices in the fall because she was obligated to

cover another sport at Rutgers during those sessions. Rapoport said that if she had been there for

Butler’s comment, she would have put a stop to the situation. She said she would have figured

out what was happening and determined whether the player was able to continue. In

investigative interviews, players referenced such situations where it appeared that a player

needed a break from conditioning or practice (after, for example, having vomited), and the player

was relieved from the exercise after the trainer intervened.

Our three experts generally agreed that while they had heard accounts of players briefly

passing out during conditioning, it is rare and would certainly be a red flag. They noted the

critical role of the trainer in those circumstances.

They made similar comments regarding players vomiting at practice. They stated

unequivocally that a coach telling a player who has vomited to continue running and “straddle

your vomit” is not appropriate. They again noted the vital role of the trainer in those

-17-
circumstances in immediately removing the player from the activity and assessing the situation.

It is clear that regardless of her intentions, Butler’s comment was inappropriate.

In her investigative interview, the Softball trainer said that vomiting happens at many

team practices. She said that she saw Softball players vomit approximately three times, and one

of the occasions was because the player was sick. Rapoport said that on those occasions she

would speak to the player and try to determine why she was throwing up – she would see what

the player ate and when, for example. She stated that there was nothing that happened while she

was present at Softball practices that alarmed her.

Rapoport stated that one clear line in these situations is that it is not appropriate for a

coach to intentionally have players run until someone vomits. In that regard, in our interview

with the Softball team student-manager (a volunteer position held by a Rutgers student), she

described a conversation she had with Volunteer Coach Smith shortly after the team reportedly

exceeded its food budget at Cracker Barrel. She said that Smith said to her, “They’re in for a big

treat,” and that Coach Butler would make them run “until they throw up.”

In the written questions we provided to Smith, we asked: “Did you ever say that the

coaches were going to have the players run until they throw up? If so, please describe what you

said and the circumstances.” Smith responded in writing, “No.”

Coach Butler strongly denied any suggestion that she was running the players with the

intent that one of them would vomit. She also said that she never heard of any of the assistant

coaches make comments along those lines. Butler stated that nothing she did was with an intent

to harm the players. She said that she understood how important her role as a coach was and that

these are people’s children. Butler stated, “In no way was anything I did abusive.”

-18-
 4. Pushing Players from Behind

Lastly on the topic of conditioning, Softball players also alleged that Coach Butler

physically pushed them on their back during sprints to make them run faster. As described by

most of the players, this consisted of Butler running next to them, putting one hand on their back,

and prodding them forward in a way that was less than a shove but with some force. There was a

range of player reactions to this practice, with one of the players saying she found it helpful, but

most players viewed it critically. Their comments ranged from it “seemed dangerous” and it was

“very aggressive to touch people this way” to it was simply “weird.” No one said they viewed it

as malicious. After Butler did this during sprints, the players started doing it to each other as

well.

In her interview with us, Butler acknowledged that she put her hands on players’ backs to

help them make their running times. She said that she when she played softball, she was not one

of the faster players and often needed assistance from coaches or other players to make her

times. Butler stated that she was shown how to do this properly. She said that her purpose was

to encourage the players and show them, “I’m here with you.” Butler said that she ran alongside

the player and put one hand in the middle of the player’s back (between her shoulder blades) to

keep the player at the pace at which Butler was running. She stated that when she saw the

players doing this to each other, she felt that it was building team trust and camaraderie.

Butler said that the players never objected to this or raised a concern with it. She said

that it is a fairly standard practice used to set a pace, and she disputed the notion that she was

shoving the players.

None of our three experts had ever seen a coach employ this practice. One noted that

may be because not many coaches are able to sprint at the speed of the players. Two of them had

seen players do that to each other, and none of them felt the practice was inappropriate. To the

-19-
contrary, they generally seemed supportive of the “no one gets left behind” approach implicit in

it. One of the experts noted that how such an effort would be perceived is likely dependent on

the player’s relationship with the coach, i.e., does the player think the coach is helping her, or

does she think the coach is taking an opportunity to get in another jab?

Rapoport, the trainer, witnessed Butler put her hands on players’ backs while they were

running. She said from her perspective, it was not harmful and was meant to be encouraging.

She said that Butler was not shoving the players, but was trying to help them complete their

sprints within allotted times. She stated that she was not concerned about it from a safety

perspective.

5. Hitting Players with Pitches

Players also raised objections to other perceived aggressive, improper acts by the coaches

during practices. One example was an allegation that Assistant Coach Duncan, who pitched

batting practice for the team, purposely hit players with pitches. Duncan is regarded among the

players as an exceedingly skillful softball pitcher. He has extensive playing experience,

including having played with a well-known barnstorming team called King and His Court, which

Duncan described as the Harlem Globetrotters of fast pitch softball.

One player alleged that there was one time when Duncan ran a drill where players had to

stand in the batter’s box while he pitched at them, and the players were not allowed to move.

Player 4 said that if the batter did move, she would have to do ten burpees (squat thrusts) as

punishment. Player 4 contended that Coach Duncan was trying to hit the players, and that this

was the purpose of the drill. Player 4 said that the players were told to let pitches hit them rather

than move out of the way because if a player is hit during a game, she gets to take first base.

Player 4 said Duncan was pitching approximately 50 to 60 miles per hour.

-20-
 Only two of the other players we interviewed agreed with the perception that Duncan was

intentionally trying to hit batters. One player stated to us that whoever said that is “being

dramatic; he doesn’t intentionally hit people.” The vast majority of the players did believe,

however, that Duncan was intentionally throwing pitches inside as part of the exercise. They

further stated that they were told not to move out of the way if a pitch was going to hit them, and

if a player did move out of the way, Butler and Duncan would require her to do a set of burpees.

One player noted that because of Duncan’s skill level, he could seemingly place the ball

wherever he wanted, and said that it seemed like he would throw more and more inside as the

batter’s turn at the plate continued.

Duncan emphatically rejected Player 4’s allegations, stating, “In my entire coaching

career, I have never pitched at or been asked to pitch at anyone intentionally.” He said that it is

“offensive that this is being put in the national media . . . and it’s 100 percent not true.” Duncan

submitted several emails from softball coaches and players at other universities speaking to his

integrity and his positive conduct in their dealings with him. We received similar submissions

regarding Coach Butler from current players, former players, their parents, and others, taking

varying positions but that were, for the most part, positive towards her. Duncan said to us that he

has heard of other programs that run drills involving intentionally hitting players with pitches,

but that was not done at Rutgers.

Similarly, Butler stated to us, “I have never run a practice or a drill to intentionally harm

or hurt a player,” and said that she has never instructed any of the assistant coaches to do so. She

said that allegations of her running drills where coaches intentionally hit players are “100 percent

false.” Rapoport agreed, based on what she had witnessed. Based on the entirety of available

information, we conclude that Duncan did not intentionally hit players with pitches.

-21-
 We do find that Duncan intentionally pitched inside to prepare players for particular

opposing pitchers. While Duncan initially stated that he has never intentionally pitched inside as

part of a drill, he later said, “I can recreate every pitch. I throw the screwball, which goes inside.

I throw [it] to prepare [the] players for this.” Similarly, Butler acknowledged that there was a

drill where Duncan was throwing pitches to prepare the team for an opposing pitcher who often

throws inside. Butler stated that Duncan has the ability to throw any type of pitch, and he would

often imitate pitches that opposing pitchers might throw. She acknowledged that players were

required to do burpees as a consequence if they did not let themselves be hit by a pitch. She

stated that the goal of practice is to play just like you would play in a game.

None of our three experts had an issue with players being told in practice not to move out

of the way of a pitch (as long as the pitch was not coming at their head). They noted that there

was a rule change in collegiate softball several years ago that enables batters to take first base

any time they are hit, even if they have made no effort to get out of the way. As a result, taking a

free base after being hit has become a strategic part of the game. As one of the experts, a current

coach, stated, she expects her players to hold their position, even in practice. She stated that if

players do otherwise, they will get in the bad habit of moving in the batter’s box, it may affect

their strike zone awareness, and they will lose an opportunity to take a base that is available to

them.

Player 4 also made allegations about getting a hard time from the coaches on one

occasion for moving out of the way of a pitch that was coming at her knee. Player 4 previously

had torn her ACL, which she was attempting to play through, and was wearing a knee brace at

the time. While the details surrounding this incident varied significantly among interviewees,

evidence indicates that there was an occasion when Player 4 moved out of the way of a pitch

-22-
coming at her knee, and the coaches initially criticized her. However, when Player 4 reminded

them her knee was injured, they backed off quickly. Butler told us she said to Player 4, “Oh

yeah, never mind. Good job.”

6. Balls Hit at Player

Player 1 alleged that on one occasion, Butler was hitting ground balls to Player 5, who

was making more fielding mistakes than usual while playing third base. Player 1 said that Butler

started “hitting balls nonstop” so that Player 5 “didn’t get a break.” Player 1 stated that there

was not enough time in between balls that were hit, and that some of the batted balls hit Player 5

as a result. Player 1 said she never spoke to Player 5 about what happened that day, but she

could tell Player 5 was upset because “she was crying by the end of it.”

Player 5, however, disagreed with much of that description. In her interview with us, she

recalled the drill in question, and noted that she was having trouble with it and was not fielding

the ball properly. She stated that Butler took her aside and told her, “You can do better than

this.” She said that Butler then started hitting more balls to her, about five or six at a time.

However, Player 5 said that she was able to field one ball and then field the next one. She stated

that Butler was not trying to hit her with the balls. She noted that Butler told her afterwards that

she did a good job working hard and improving her fielding skills during the drill.

The other players at that practice did not corroborate Player 1’s version of events and did

not see any batted balls hit Player 5. For example, the leftfielder during this drill, who was

playing behind Player 5, said that she did not think that Butler was trying to hit Player 5. She

said that Player 5 had not been fielding balls the correct way, so Butler had her field many in a

row, approximately 15 balls. She stated, however, that Player 5 was able to continuously field

each hit and was not hit with any of the balls.

-23-
 In her interview with us, Coach Butler said that hitting ground balls to a player with

varying speed is a normal drill, as part of improving the player’s fielding skills. She said, “I

would not be hitting balls at a rate that would not be able to be fielded.” She further said that the

rate at which balls were being hit to the player were “well within her ability.”

The allegation that Coach Butler was intentionally hitting ground balls at a player in a

manner that did not enable her to defend herself has not been substantiated.

7. The Trust Fall

In addition to events that occurred at practices and conditioning sessions, many players

expressed concern about circumstances surrounding an early-season team-building exercise they

did known as a “trust fall.” During the exercise, each player stood on a plastic folding table and

fell backwards while a group of other players caught her. The team did two team-building

exercises that day, with the trust fall being the latter of the two.

One player, Player 6, felt forced to participate in the trust fall, despite having voiced her

discomfort with the exercise. Player 6 had a significant knee injury at the time, rendering her

unable to play softball and requiring her to wear a knee brace. Butler was aware of the injury.

Player 6 did not participate in the first team-building activity that day as she was not able to

physically participate. She said that Butler then said that the team was going to do a trust fall,

and that Player 6 was going to do it. Player 6 recalled being in a straight-leg brace and using

crutches at the time, and that she told Butler, “I’m not doing that. I’m on crutches. This isn’t

going to work.” Player 6 alleged that after the other players had done the trust fall, Butler took

her crutches away and directed her teammates to help her get on the table. The team’s trainer

was not present.

-24-
 Player 6 stated that she said that she did not want to participate and that she expressed

that she was concerned about her knee. She said that she was standing on the table, crying and

begging not to do the trust fall. Player 6 said that Butler told her, “I don’t know why you’re

crying. You’re going to have to do it.” Player 6 said that she also told Butler, “This is giving me

anxiety.”

Player 6 said that about three or four minutes after she got onto the table, Smith said to

her, “Jump or I’m going to push you.” She said that Smith was close enough to push her at the

time, and that the table was behind a net, but the net was loose so he could have pushed her

through the net. Player 6 felt that Smith was serious about pushing her, and said that he held his

hands up like he was about to do it.

Player 6 said that Butler then said that if it would make her feel better, Butler would get

on the table and do the trust fall with her. She stated that Butler then got on the table and did the

fall, and then Player 6 did the fall. Player 6 said that she was crying but was also nervously

laughing because she was uncomfortable.

She said that as she was walking out of practice later that day, Radcliffe came up to her

and said, “I just want you to know this is only the beginning, it gets much worse from here.”

Player 6 said that she was terrified after the trust fall and that the incident deeply affected her.

She alleged that she had panic attacks afterwards. She told us that the incident also created a

schism between her and some of her teammates who felt that she was being overly dramatic

about what had happened. Player 6 later transferred to another school.

The other players uniformly stated in their interviews that Player 6 repeatedly expressed

that she did not want to participate in the trust fall and said that her discomfort was evident.

They described that Player 6 was scared and shaking. They said that Player 6 indicated that she

-25-
did not want to do the trust fall due to her injured knee and because of her weight; one player

characterized her as “begging” not to participate. Three players said that Player 6 also indicated

that she was afraid of heights. The players described that Player 6 was on the table for about ten

minutes and was crying before doing the fall. Some of those players felt that Player 6 was forced

to participate.

Seven of the players recalled Smith saying to Player 6 while she was on the table, “If you

don’t fall, I’m going to push you.” However, they did not think that Smith was actually going to

push Player 6; they said that the comment was made in jest. They said that Smith was behind a

net and was not close enough to Player 6 to be able to push her.

In her interview with us, Butler noted that the trust fall is a commonly used exercise in

team and corporate settings. Butler said that Player 6 expressed that she was nervous, but that it

did not seem out of the ordinary to her, as it is normal for a person to be uneasy before doing a

trust fall. She stated that she did not believe that Player 6 had been forced to participate. Butler

said that Player 6 had watery eyes but was not hysterically crying.

Butler did not recall any comments made by Smith during the exercise. She said that she

did not hear anything from the other coaches as they were behind netting and were not near the

table. Butler said that everyone was cheering during the exercise.

Duncan and Radcliffe recalled that Player 6 did not want to participate in the trust fall

and that she said she was scared. Radcliffe recalled that Player 6 was shaking, crying, and

visibly uncomfortable. Duncan stated that Player 6 was crying during the exercise, but described

it as a combination of laughing and crying, rather than substantial crying. Both assistant coaches

recalled that the team was cheering on Player 6 and encouraging her. They stated that the

-26-
purpose of the event was team bonding and it was important for the whole team to participate

together.

Duncan stated that he did not feel uncomfortable about Player 6 doing the trust fall. In

fact, he recorded a portion of it on his cell phone to have a record of Butler’s participation, which

he felt was a nice display of camaraderie.

We obtained and reviewed the recording. The video is only 11 seconds long and shows

only Player 6 and Butler falling backwards, not the events leading up to it. Due to the short

length of the video, we were not able to discern anything of significance about Player 6’s

demeanor or the actions of others during the event.

Our experts were split in their reactions. One of them stated that she had her team do a

similar trust exercise and she had a player who was experiencing anxiety, but she encouraged the

player to participate so that she would ultimately feel a sense of togetherness with her

teammates. She noted that there is a fine line in pushing a player too much, but said it is

beneficial to have every player participate. Another expert similarly stated that the trust fall is

about doing the exercise together, and that if the whole team does not do it, then it is not as

meaningful. However, in terms of evaluating the coach’s conduct, she said she would need to

see for herself what happened. The third expert said that it is important for a coach to know her

student-athletes and know who can be pushed and who cannot. She stated that if a player does

not feel comfortable doing a trust exercise, the coach should be prepared with an alternative. She

stated, “Pushing you to do a trust exercise doesn’t build trust.”

The weight of the evidence indicates that while a trust fall is a generally accepted and

appropriate exercise, Butler should have been more perceptive of what Player 6 was

experiencing. Though we understand the benefit of having the entire team participate, there are

-27-
times when an individual’s situation or personal reaction to an exercise like this warrants

excusing the player or providing an alternative. This is particularly important when a player’s

injury or state of mind is the reason the player is unwilling to participate. In this regard, it should

be noted that the team’s athletic trainer told us that Player 6 had, unbeknownst to the coaches at

the time, pre-existing circumstances that may have exacerbated the situation.

In the written responses he provided to us, Smith denied telling Player 6 that he was

going to push her off the table during the trust fall exercise. However, in addition to the many

players who heard this, both Duncan and Radcliffe heard it as well. Perhaps most significantly,

Smith was asked about this in a previous investigation conducted by University investigators

(described in detail below), and when interviewed by them, he acknowledged that he said to

Player 6, “Hey, I’m going to push you.” Accordingly, Smith’s written denial to us was not

credible. This comment by Smith was not appropriate, particularly given the fact that Player 6

was already exhibiting fear and the comment was likely to add to an already tense situation.

While Smith was behind a net and some distance away from the players, and did not seem to be

serious about pushing Player 6, it was wholly inappropriate to threaten any type of physical

contact in this type of situation. Regardless of Smith’s intent, this statement could be interpreted,

and was interpreted, by the listener as coercive.

Radcliffe did not remember speaking to Player 6 after the trust fall, and no one else heard

him make a comment to her along the lines of “this is only the beginning, it gets much worse

from here.” Such a comment, if understood in a threatening way, appears inconsistent with

Radcliffe’s general demeanor. Radcliffe was generally credible in his interview and was willing

to say things that were critical of himself and the other coaches, lending credence to his

-28-
assertions here. We conclude that either Radcliffe did not make this comment or did not mean it

in the threatening way that Player 6 perceived.

8. Comments and Conduct by Volunteer Assistant Coach

The comment made by Coach Smith at the trust fall was only one of a series of comments

that the players claimed he made that were inappropriate. Players reported that these comments

became routine and made them uncomfortable. Some examples of these alleged comments

follow.

Nine different players told us that when sitting on the team bus, they heard Smith say that

the bus “smells like period blood.” In addition, while the team’s athletic trainer did not witness

that on the bus, she recounted to us another occasion when Smith used a similar phrase.

Rapoport stated that she, Smith, and Player 2 were in the indoor practice bubble and Rapoport

was discussing a previous bout of stomach flu. According to Rapoport, Smith then said, “I got a

better gross story. I was a volunteer coach for a team; did you know that women sync up? One

time we were on the bus and it all just smelled like period blood. We even stopped at a gas

station and got a bunch of air freshener.” Player 2 corroborated that exchange, as did Player 3,

who overheard it.

In response to our written question, “Did you ever say to the players that something

smelled like ‘period blood?’ If so, please describe the circumstances,” Smith answered simply,

“No.” However, it is hard to believe that so many people could have misheard or confused the

comment or be making it up. Some of the players’ accounts of the comment were detailed,

moreover, including an explanation by one player of where she and Smith were each sitting at

the time. Players also noted that they recalled the comment because it was so bizarre.

-29-
 Seven players stated that they heard Smith say about a pitcher on another team that she

looks like she “ate her thyroid.” Other players referenced other weight-based comments directed

at opposing teams. One of the players stated to us that it was not good for female athletes to hear

those comments because it could lead players to wonder what the coaches thought about their

bodies. Lowenstein sent Smith a written question, asking, “Did you ever make comments about

the weight of a player (or coach) on the team or on an opposing team? Did you ever say that a

player on another softball team looked like she ate her thyroid? If so, please describe the

circumstances.” He answered:

Yes, one time I did say that the pitcher from Maryland “was as big as the
circle. Look they don’t even have to draw the circle. She is the circle.” I
am a big guy. The comment was intended to be in jest. I understand now
how it can be heard as insensitive and not funny.

When Sarah Baumgartner approached me about the comment, I admitted

to her that I did make the comment. We had a helpful discussion about it.
During which, I explained to Sarah that in all my years coaching I have
never heard of a term, “body shaming.” I told Sarah I have never made
any weight-related comments to or about our players. I never made any
further comments about the appearance of any opposing team or anyone
for the rest of the year.

I never made a comment about a thyroid.

Seven players and the team trainer stated that Smith also made comments about guessing

players’ sexual orientation, and two players referenced a general comment he made about their

preferences as to their partner’s race. Our written questions to Smith asked, “Did you ever say

that you try to guess the players’ sexual orientations? If so, please describe the circumstances.”

He answered, “No.”

The student-manager for the team recalled an occasion when the team was warming up

before a game and people were putting on sunscreen. Smith allegedly said to the student-

manager, “I didn’t know people of your color (or people like you) got sunburned.” She

-30-
understood this to mean people with darker skin. She said that she felt awkward because this

was a reference to her race and she just responded, “Yeah, we do.” Multiple players and the

athletic trainer (who said she heard it and found it inappropriate) corroborated those comments,

though some said they heard it as “you people” and not “people of your color” or “people like

you.” Lowenstein asked Smith, “Did you ever say to the team’s student manager something like

‘I didn’t know you people got sunburns?’ If so, please describe the circumstances.” He

responded in writing, “No.”

In her interview, Coach Butler stated that she did not hear Smith say the above alleged

comments. As to the remark about “period blood,” she noted that she has a rule that the male

coaches and staff cannot be on the bus without female adults on the bus. As a result, the males

are always the last ones to get on the bus, Butler stated. She also said that the male coaches sit in

the front of the bus. Butler said that, accordingly, there would not have been an opportunity for

Smith to make such a comment on the bus without other staffers hearing it.

Butler further said that she never heard Smith make an inappropriate comment to the

student-manager or make comments about sexual orientation. She said that Smith never made a

weight-related comment about any of the Rutgers players, but he made a comment about an

opposing player, which he admitted. Butler said that the players never told her that Smith said

something to them that they felt was inappropriate. The players’ reluctance to do so is discussed

later in this report.

Players also alleged that during the jump rope exercise discussed above, when the players

were having trouble successfully completing the exercise, Smith and Butler went to Player 8, one

of the leaders on the team, and encouraged her to chastise the players who were making

mistakes. Three players alleged that Smith said, regarding Player 7, words to the effect of

-31-
“Doesn’t this just make you want to punch her in the face? Aren’t you that mad that you just

want to hit her?” Lowenstein asked Smith, “When the team was doing an exercise requiring

jumping rope for a minute without making any mistakes, did you tell one of the players that if

you were her, you would be yelling at your teammates or punching them in the face? If so,

please describe what you said and the circumstances.” Smith responded:

After multiple times of different players making a mistake and not

completing the one minute team jump rope exercise, I walked over to
[Player 8] and I said, “when I was an athlete and when I played, I would
be yelling at my teammates. I would say to them, if you don’t get it right,
I’m going to punch you.”

In that moment, I was trying to encourage her to be a leader who would

bring her team into a huddle and get them focused to finish the exercise. I
was trying to spark a deeper level of determination and competitiveness.

This statement was an analogy to football that was intended to fire her up.
I understand how it looks and reads out of this context. I was not directing
her to punch anyone.

I saw the team struggling and that is when a leader needs to step in and
rally the team to accomplish the goal in front of them. It happens on the
field in games. This jump rope exercise was simulating that kind of
pressure and the need to work together to get the job done. This was one
way I was trying to encourage [Player 8] to step up into that leadership
role.

In her interview, Butler similarly explained that Smith’s intent was not that Player 8 actually hit

someone; rather, she and Smith wanted Player 8 to act as a leader during the drill.

The players generally said that Smith’s repeated comments, some of which are described

above, were not said with malice. They said he simply did not filter himself. While players said

Smith made comments about guessing sexual orientation, none of the players told us that they

believed any player received different treatment on account of her sexual orientation. Regardless

of intent, Assistant Coach Radcliffe acknowledged that Smith said “things that he shouldn’t say.”

-32-
 The players similarly did not allege that Smith ever made sexual advances towards them

or was inappropriate in that way. They did, however, describe one alleged incident that they said

made them uncomfortable. Specifically, nine players and the student-manager described an

occasion when the players were changing into their uniforms on the team bus before a game,

because there was not a better place to change at the field where they were playing. The players

described that all of the coaches exited the bus for the players to change into their uniforms.

Several minutes later, while the players were changing, Smith allegedly came back on the bus to

quickly get something that was on the bus. Smith apologized, said he had forgotten something,

and then exited the bus again. The players were in various stages of undress when Smith came

on the bus, and there were differing accounts of whether Smith had announced himself before

coming back on the bus. In any event, players reported to us feeling uncomfortable about what

happened. As one player stated in her interview, “They all said they were leaving so we could

change, so why was anyone coming back on the bus?”

Players stated that Coach Butler was walking to the field at the time and would not have

known that Smith got back onto the bus. The team’s athletic trainer and Assistant Coach Duncan

told us that Butler had put rules in place about males being on the bus (referred to earlier), and

had been careful in trying to avoid those kinds of uncomfortable situations.

Lowenstein asked Smith the following: “Did you ever get back on the team bus, after

initially getting off the bus, while the players were still changing their clothes? If so, please

describe the circumstances.” He answered:

No.

I never went on the bus unless there was another adult already there. As
the head coach and a female, Kristen was the first coach to get on the bus,
always.

-33-
 I have a 22-year-old daughter, so I see this situation through the eyes of a
parent and what I would expect for my own child. As a male coach of
female athletes, this kind of allegation is offensive to me because of what
it suggests. Never have I or would I ever walk onto a bus, into a locker
room, or any area where players might be changing their clothes.

9. Family Dynamics

In response to questions about whether they complained to Butler about Smith, the

players said they did not and that they did not feel comfortable doing so because the two are

married. The student-manager said the same and further said their relationship made her

reluctant to raise her complaints with others at the University as well, for fear of it getting back

to Butler. One player said she was simply “too scared” to say anything to Coach Butler, noting

that Smith often made a point of reminding the players that he is the coach’s husband.

Even the Athletics Department’s director of operations, who coordinated with Smith on

things like arranging meals at away games, told us that she did not feel comfortable going to

Butler about issues regarding Smith because they were husband and wife. The team’s trainer

said the same. She also observed that their husband/wife relationship had a psychological impact

on the players, in that Butler was holding her players to a very high standard of behavior, but the

players perceived that her husband was engaging in such bad behavior right in front of them.

Our investigation revealed that there are significant examples, both at Rutgers and at

other major universities, where husband and wife coaching teams have worked out well. It is

clear that was not the case here. Even Assistant Coach Radcliffe concluded that in this case it

was “not a good situation” and it “didn’t work.” He noted that the spousal relationship created

issues even among the assistant coaches. For example, if Butler made a decision, the other

assistant coaches could not challenge her, but Smith could “since they do that at home.”

-34-
 The awkward family dynamic that players and staff described was compounded by the

fact that the couple’s two young children travelled with the team. Butler and Smith paid

Radcliffe’s wife, who also travelled with the team, to watch the children on the trips.

Radcliffe cited the presence of the children as “another reason it’s not good to have a

husband and wife coaching.” He said that the players did not complain about the children and

the kids were not distracting during games, but that he did not think it was a good idea to have

them there, as children crying could make the bus louder when the players were trying to rest.

Even Assistant Coach Duncan, who in his interview rarely said anything negative towards

Butler, acknowledged that “it was a little bit of a distraction” as there would be “two small kids

on the bus.” He said that it took “away from what we were trying to do.” Rapoport similarly

noted the noise and other issues that would result from any young children on late night bus

rides. Rapoport said that Butler could not give her full attention to the athletes, but, more

importantly, “The athletes have to feel comfortable and not like they’re in their family mess.”

Not surprisingly, no one complained to Butler about the issue.

According to the expert we asked about this, some schools have a policy that children are

not allowed on trips, but others allow it. She said that it can sometimes have a beneficial effect

of humanizing the coach in the eyes of the players, who get to see that the coach is a mom or dad

too.

Butler properly raised this issue with Baumgartner before the season started and sought

her approval. Baumgartner then worked on it with the University’s Business and Human

Resources offices, who determined that no University rule precluded the practice. So

Baumgartner gave Butler the approval she had requested.

-35-
 Hobbs was unaware that such approval had been sought or granted, or that Butler was

bringing her children to games. He said the practice historically has been discouraged at Rutgers

and, in his opinion, it is not advisable.

10. Player Cell Phones

While Butler and Smith had their nuclear family at games, the players faced strict rules

about interacting with their own families who came to games. The players were more upset,

though, by limits on using their cell phones to interact with family and friends.

At the beginning of the year, Coach Butler put in place a policy under which the players

had to turn in their phones to the coaches at curfew time the night before an away game. Butler

said that the purpose of the policy is to ensure that the players’ focus is on the game and that they

are getting ample rest. She was looking to avoid a situation where the players were staying up

late distracted by their phones, particularly since there are players from California, whose friends

are in a time zone three hours earlier. She said that this is a potential distraction for both the

player and her roommate.

Butler had approached Sarah Baumgartner about implementing the phone rule. Butler

did not tell Baumgartner for how long the players would be unable to use their phones, but noted

that implementing a phone policy was important to her. Baumgartner was not familiar with such

a policy (she noted to us that players did not have cell phones when she played softball), but she

did not express any objection. Baumgartner told us that she did not become aware until much

later that the Softball coaches were taking the phones away from the players, as opposed to

leaving them turned off in the players’ possession.

In addition to having this conversation with Baumgartner, Butler included a provision in

the Softball team rules that refers to “turning in of cell phones” when traveling “and do not use

-36-
them after curfew.” An employee in Baumgartner’s office is responsible for reviewing proposed

team rules and flagging potential issues for Baumgartner. The phone issue was not flagged as a

problem and Baumgartner approved the rules. Each Softball player was provided with the rules

and signed off on them. The University maintains a record of those sign-offs, which were

provided to us.

The players turned their phones in to either Butler, Smith, or the team manager the night

before a game, would typically get them back briefly at breakfast the next day, and then would

hand them in again until the games were over for the day. There were occasions, though,

particularly when there was an early game, when the players would not get their phones back at

breakfast. As a result, players described that there were times they went approximately 20 hours

straight without their phones. Some described seemingly getting more time with their phones

when they were winning games, or when another official from the Athletics Department

travelled with the team.

As a result of not having their phones, players described being out of touch with their

families during that time, not being able to use the notification function on their phone as a

medication reminder, being late to breakfast because they use their phones as an alarm and hotel

wake-up calls sometimes failed to come, and feeling a loss of control. Many described

significant frustration about the policy, with one player stating, for example, “We’re not kids, we

are adults.”

There is no NCAA rule that precludes the collection of cell phones from student-athletes.

Rutgers’ Office of Athletics Compliance personnel told us that it is common practice for coaches

to require players to turn off their phones for games and practices, but stated that physically

collecting phones and players going without their phone for as long as was the case here, is

-37-
unusual. However, our experts described to us examples of other coaches requiring that phones

be turned in for extended periods. Radcliffe similarly stated that this is particularly prevalent at

the “top programs,” though he said that he personally does not agree with the policy and has

argued with Butler about it. As one of our experts noted, there is a fine line between eliminating

distractions and ensuring that the players feel “connected” and “safe.”

The phone policy resulted in one particularly controversial episode. One night, in

accordance with their practice, the student-manager collected the phones and brought them to

Smith in his hotel room. She handed them to him one by one. According to the student-

manager, as Smith was taking one of the phones, he asked, “Whose phone is this?” The student-

manager said that she did not know. A message had popped up on the notification screen (which

showed the content of the message) and Smith was looking at it for a while and said, “Oh

interesting.” The student-manager told us that it was Player 4’s phone and that it looked like a

message from her boyfriend, as she saw emojis in the message. Player 4 evidently had not

turned her phone off before handing it in. The student-manager later told Player 4 what she had

seen.

The resulting discussions among the players were compounded by, as players allege,

receiving their phones back turned on when they recalled having turned them off before passing

them in. Five players reported to us that this happened to them, which, if true, is difficult to

attribute to an accident.

Our written questions to Smith included the following: “Did you ever read messages or

notifications on players’ phones after the players handed their phones in at curfew? If so, please

describe the circumstances.” He responded:

-38-
 No.

On an away trip, our team manager collected the players’ phones and
brought them to Kristen’s and my room. The players were instructed to
turn off all cell phones every night. The phone that was on top was left
on. That phone received several consecutive messages. I commented,
“She is getting blown up,” which was a reference to the noise made by the
phone receiving that many text messages at once. Kristen asked the
manager to turn off the phone.

I never looked at or read any messages.

Butler told us that she saw the student-manager handing the phones to Smith that night. She

stated that the last phone that was turned in, Player 4’s phone, was lighting up with 8 to 10 text

notifications within 30 seconds. She said that Smith said, “Wow, somebody’s getting blown up.”

Butler said that neither she nor Smith looked at the messages.

The controversy over whether anyone was improperly viewing content on the phones

ended only when the coaches later purchased and used a locked box in which the players put

their phones after they were collected.

11. Cumulative Effects

The circumstances described above had a cumulative effect over time that, according to

some of the players, began to affect their mental health. They “panicked” about the conditioning

that awaited them on Tuesdays, particularly for small mistakes they had made on the field, or

rules they had violated (e.g., being late to breakfast), or conditioning goals they did not meet, for

which they knew the entire team would have a consequence. Some reported to us feeling unease

with being encouraged by the coaches to hold their teammates accountable for each other’s

mistakes, which led them to scold each other, which some of them said was contrary to their

nature. The pressure became greater when some players were let go from the team or benched

during the season.

-39-
 Players reported that these issues and the players’ resulting mental “exhaustion” were

compounded by bluntly critical comments Butler would make to them individually about their

skills or their role on the team going forward. To get an impartial firsthand view on those

comments, we discussed this issue with the team’s trainer. Rapoport stated that Butler’s

language with the players was at times blunt and harsh. Rapoport said that Butler was

“constantly pushing” the players and “they were very beaten down from it.” She said that Butler

should have had a better idea where the players were mentally and could have backed off a bit

and given them some reassurances.

Approximately five of the players went to see the University psychologist who works

with the sports teams at Rutgers. Though Rapoport said that number is “more than typical for a

sport their size,” the expert we asked opined that with increasing societal focus on mental health,

that number is not unusual in a competitive athletic and academic program.

While Rapoport stated that Butler could have handled her dialogue with the players

better, Rapoport never concluded that Butler’s conduct was at a level that she would consider to

be abusive. Rapoport mentioned to her supervisor how Butler was speaking to the players, but

determined there were no grounds for further action. Rapoport also stated to us there seemed to

be unusual sensitivity on the part of the players themselves. She said part of the reason may

have been the contrasting laid back style of the previous coach, and the fact that only two of the

players had been recruited by Butler and affirmatively signed on to her tutelage.

12. On-the-Field Results

The team finished the 2019 season with a winning record of 29-26. With much of the

same roster as the previous season, the team went from last in the Big Ten to sixth out of

fourteen teams, with a conference record of 11 wins and 12 losses. One of our experts noted that

-40-
she was impressed with Rutgers having finished in the top half of the conference in Coach

Butler’s first year, after the program had struggled for many years. Similar if not greater praise

was expressed by the academic advisor for athletics assigned to work with the Softball team,

who previously worked as an assistant basketball coach. In crediting the strides that the team

made in the 2019 season, she compared Butler to the renowned Women’s Basketball Head

Coach at Rutgers, C. Vivian Stringer, describing them both as “very strong women who are good

at instructing.”

C. Player Departures and Scholarship Cancellations

At the end of the season, Butler held exit meetings with each of the Softball players.

Conducting end-of-year meetings is a common practice among collegiate coaches and provides

an opportunity to give the players feedback and discuss expectations for next season.

At Butler’s request, Duncan recorded about half of the meetings using his cell phone; the

coaches recorded meetings where they thought the player might not receive her evaluation well.

Duncan viewed this as a protective measure for the coaches. The players were informed that the

meetings were being recorded. Lowenstein received two of the recordings from Duncan; the rest

of the recordings could not be retrieved from his phone. In addition, Radcliffe took handwritten

notes of each meeting, and sometimes typed the notes afterwards if they needed to be provided to

Baumgartner or others at the University for any reason. Radcliffe provided all of his handwritten

and typed notes to us.

Information provided to players during exit interviews (or at other times) may lead the

player to leave the team or transfer to another institution where, for example, she might receive

more playing time. A coach may also communicate during an exit meeting that the player is

being cut or removed from the team. NCAA bylaws govern when a player’s athletic scholarship

-41-
may be revoked in such circumstances. On October 15, 2018, the NCAA Transfer Portal was

implemented, a departure from the previous model, known as “permission to contact.” Under

“permission to contact,” when student-athletes wanted to transfer, they had to ask their coach for

permission to contact other schools and the coach could deny that request. Players who did not

receive permission still could transfer, but could not receive athletics-based aid at the new

school. Under the new model, known as “notification of transfer,” student-athletes now have

greater control over the decision to transfer. The trade-off, however, is that once a student-

athlete provides written notification of an intent to transfer, her current institution can cancel or

reduce her aid, regardless of whether the student-athlete actually transfers. Specifically, NCAA

Rule 15.3.5.1(f) states, “Institutional financial aid based in any degree on athletics ability may be

reduced or canceled during the period of the award . . . if the recipient . . . [p]rovides written

notification of transfer . . . .”

Rutgers’ Office of Athletic Compliance (“Compliance”) uses a form titled “Notification

of Transfer – Student-Athlete Request Form” for student-athletes to provide written notification

of an intent to transfer. The form states, in part, “By giving my notification of intent to transfer,

I also understand that if I am on athletic scholarship, this scholarship may be cancelled by

Rutgers University at the conclusion of the current semester, or immediately if this request is

occurring during the winter or summer vacation period.” Compliance goes over this form with

players who request to transfer and explains that aid may be cancelled as a result of signing it.

Rule 15.3.5.1 provides that a student-athlete’s scholarship may also be cancelled if the

recipient: (i) “Voluntarily (on his or her own initiative) withdraws from a sport at any time for

personal reasons;” (ii) “Engages in serious misconduct warranting substantial disciplinary

penalty;” or (iii) “Violates a nonathletically related condition outlined in the financial aid

-42-
agreement or violates a documented institutional rule or policy (e.g., academics policies or

standards, athletics department or team rules or policies).” If none of the criteria of the rule are

met, a coach may remove a player from the team, but the player retains her financial aid.

Another Compliance form, titled “Removal from Roster Form,” is used by Rutgers to

remove a player from a sport’s roster. The completed form indicates the reason for the

departure. The form contains a portion for student-athletes who have “voluntarily left the team”

to sign and thereby agree that they made this decision voluntarily and that they understand how

this will affect their financial aid.

1. Voluntary Departures from the Team

Some of the Softball players alleged that Butler prodded them during their exit meeting to

“voluntarily” leave the team or transfer so that Butler could repurpose their scholarships for her

own, new recruits. As softball is an “equivalency sport” as opposed to a “headcount sport” under

NCAA rules, instead of a certain number of student-athletes receiving a full scholarship, the

coach can divide the total amount of pre-set scholarship funds among the players how she

wishes. As noted above, a student-athlete’s financial aid may be cancelled if she voluntarily

leaves the team or provides notification of transfer, and her scholarship may then be provided to

another player.

Players reported to us feeling pressure to transfer when Butler told them during their exit

meeting that they would have little or no playing time the following year; they described Butler’s

conduct as aggressive. Other players noted that they simply made the decision to leave the team

on their own after their exit meeting, for individual reasons including playing time.

Player 9 said that Butler told her at her exit meeting that she would likely not play in

games the following season and that it might be better if she left the team. Butler made an offer

-43-
to Player 9 that she could keep her scholarship going forward, but not be on the team. However,

Player 9 decided to return to the team, and Butler allowed her to do so if she agreed to have a

good attitude about it, with the understanding that she would not see playing time in games and

would instead be a “practice pitcher.”

Several players also felt pressured when, as they alleged, Butler told them to meet with

Compliance after their exit meetings to initiate the transfer process, or told them to sign transfer

paperwork while in her office. For example, Player 10 alleged that when Butler told her she

would not be getting significant playing time, she told Butler she was not sure if she wanted to

stay on the team and needed to speak to her parents about it. She alleged Butler then walked her

to the Compliance office and told staff there that Player 10 wanted to transfer. Player 10 then

signed transfer paperwork with Compliance. Player 11 and Player 12 stated that during their exit

interviews, Butler presented them with what they understood to be transfer paperwork, which

they felt like they had to sign. Player 11 said she understood at the time that her scholarship

would be revoked upon signing the paperwork.

Butler stated to us that her intent was to have honest and transparent conversations with

the players about their expected playing time, not to pressure them to quit. She said that she told

bench players honestly and directly that they would not see much playing time the following

year so that they could make decisions accordingly. Butler said that her intent was not to recoup

players’ scholarships for new recruits, but to ensure that she had players who enjoyed playing for

her, as opposed to having unhappy players. She said that the decision ultimately was up to the

players – those who would not see much playing time were told that if they were content with

that role and would have a good attitude about it, they could return to the team. Butler also told

players that she would make calls to other schools to help them if they wanted to transfer (and

-44-
she did so). Butler said that, ultimately, the coaches removed two players from the team

(described in the next section), but the others left of their own accord. Butler stated, for

example, that Player 10 voluntarily decided in her exit meeting that she would be leaving the

team.

Duncan and Radcliffe similarly said that Butler did not act aggressively in exit meetings

or push players to leave. They said that the coaches were simply being upfront with players

about playing time and that Butler presented them with their options. Duncan stated to us, “If

Butler had done something I felt like was an injustice, my parents raised me better, I would have

walked away.”

Butler stated that she never gave transfer paperwork to players at the exit meetings; she

said that Compliance administers that paperwork. She said that she did not have access to the

Notification of Transfer form, but that she kept the Removal from Roster form available during

the meetings in case a player wanted it. Duncan recalled that some players were presented with

paperwork at the meetings, but did not know if the paperwork was from Compliance or if it was

Butler’s own paperwork. Radcliffe said that any paperwork specifically regarding transferring

would have come from and been completed at the Compliance office, and that Butler did not

have players complete transfer paperwork during exit meetings.

There is no specific NCAA guidance on what constitutes a player “voluntarily”

withdrawing from a sport under Rule 15.3.5.1(d), nor pre-set parameters that state how forceful a

coach can be in encouraging a player to transfer. Our experts were in agreement that in general

it is best for coaches to be honest and blunt with players about playing time. They stated that

these types of discussions are very common among Division I sports teams. This information

allows the player, the experts said, to make an informed decision about whether she will stay at

-45-
the institution. They said it is best for coaches to provide this information early on, prior to the

next season starting, so that a player has an opportunity to transfer if she wants to, rather than be

disappointed and stuck when she finds that she is not playing.

Rutgers Compliance personnel we interviewed did not recall providing Butler with copies

of any transfer paperwork, though they said Butler could have obtained copies of the forms on

her own. They were not aware of Butler presenting Compliance documentation such as the

Removal from Roster form at exit meetings. They said that while it is not impermissible for a

coach to do so, it is in their view not a best practice. Along those lines, the outside expert we

consulted who is a current coach stated that she does not provide any such paperwork at exit

meetings, but refers players to compliance personnel to initiate that process.

One of the players who felt that she was pushed to leave the team “voluntarily” during

her exit meeting was Player 13. She felt as though the coaches were severe and forceful in doing

so. She said that Butler said that they were not going to have her back on the team the following

year. Because Player 13 knew that her scholarship could not be revoked unless she violated

team or University rules or left voluntarily, she responded that she wanted to stay on the team.

Player 13 said that Butler then asked what she would do if she could keep her scholarship money

and not be on the team. Player 13 said that she replied that she needed to discuss it with her

family.

Player 13 said that after speaking with her parents, they decided it would be best for her

to leave the team if she could keep her scholarship. Player 13’s father spoke to Sarah

Baumgartner to relay the decision they had made. However, when Baumgartner then spoke to

Butler about it, Butler told her that there had been a misunderstanding and that she had not

-46-
intended to convey that Player 13 could keep her scholarship if she left the team (unlike the offer

Butler had made to Player 9).

We listened to the recording of Player 13’s exit meeting, which was one of the two

recordings that could be retrieved from Duncan’s phone. It is easy to see how she came away

with the understanding that she could leave the team and keep her scholarship. For example, at

one point Butler asks her, “So if I were to tell you, we’re not going to have you on the team but

you can keep your scholarship, would you still go to school here? . . . [Because] you could still

be here, still be with your team, but you’d get to go to school here and you still get to be with

everybody, you’re just not on the team.” Butler stated in her interview with us that she was

trying to give hypothetical examples to help Player 13 see bigger picture issues. Butler later said

in the recorded meeting, when discussing the possibility of Player 13 remaining on the team, “If

you do it with any type of complaining, or I see an attitude, I will ask you to leave the team. You

can keep your money. I’m not taking your money away. You did nothing wrong for me to take

your money away.”

Baumgartner determined that the matter would be decided in favor of the student and she

could keep her scholarship despite not being on the team. Butler stated that after she and

Baumgartner discussed it, she told Baumgartner she had no objection to Player 13 keeping her

scholarship. Player 13 kept her scholarship and remains a student at Rutgers.

We agree with Player 13 that the coaches’ tone in her exit meeting would be received by

a player as direct and forceful. We offer recommendations in the last section of this report to

guard against coercive conduct resulting in “voluntary” loss of scholarship.

-47-
 2. Players Cut from the Team and Financial Aid Hearings

As referenced above, the Softball coaches cut two of the players from the team during

their exit interviews, Player 12 and Player 4.

Player 12 alleged that in her end-of-year meeting, Butler told her that she was being cut

from the team because of her actions. Radcliffe’s notes of the meeting similarly indicate that

Player 12 was being let go as a result of off-the-field conduct. The coaches previously had met

with Player 12 about this subject, though Player 12 disputes having done anything wrong. Player

12 alleged that Butler then gave her transfer papers and told her to sign them, without Player 12

knowing exactly what they were. She said that she believed at the time that Butler was able to

cut her from the team despite the fact that she had a scholarship. Player 12 said that she signed

the forms because she was “in shock” and did not know what to do. She recalled that Butler did

tell her that once she signed the forms, her scholarship would be revoked.

Butler stated to us that Player 12 had violated team rules and University policies, which

had been documented. She said that the only form Player 12 would have signed in her office

was the Removal from Roster form. Butler stated that Player 12 may be misremembering and

perhaps went to Compliance after the exit meeting to sign other paperwork. Radcliffe’s notes

state in this regard that Butler indicated, “I need you to sign this paper that you are dismissed

from the roster. You can go to Jake (Compliance) now and he can help you with the transfer

portal.” Available records indicate that four days later, Player 12 executed a document to permit

her to enter the Transfer Portal. That document notes that execution of the document will result

in scholarship cancellation. She subsequently transferred to a different school, where she now

plays softball.

Player 4 similarly said that during her exit meeting, Butler stated the coaches did not

want Player 4 back on the team, citing team rules that she had broken and lack of good attitude

-48-
and effort. According to Player 4, the coaches told her to go to Compliance to sign transfer

papers. Butler told Player 4 her scholarship would be taken away. Following the exit meeting,

Player 4 said she went to speak to Compliance, and the Compliance personnel told her not to

sign anything until she was sure she wanted to leave the team. Accordingly, Player 4 did not

sign the transfer paperwork.

The coaches told us that Player 4 was asked to leave the team due to a pattern of

academic issues and poor behavior, and complaints from her teammates about her attitude.

Player interviews we conducted corroborated that Player 4’s teammates had raised significant

objections about her conduct. Butler stated that at one point, Player 4 formally apologized to the

team; however, Player 4’s behavior did not improve and Butler later suspended Player 4 for a

game.

With Player 4 having declined to leave the team or enter the Transfer Portal voluntarily,

the cancellation of her scholarship had to be proposed by the head coach and approved by the

sport administrator. We were provided with a Reduction, Cancellation or Nonrenewal of

Athletic Aid Form for Player 4, cancelling her financial aid after summer 2019. That form

provides a space for a “summary explanation of the reason for the reduction or cancellation,”

where Butler listed two bullet points: “Team rules” and “Missed study hall.” Butler and

Baumgartner signed the form. Compliance reviews the aid cancellation form and sends it to the

Office of Financial Aid, which sends an aid cancellation letter, but Compliance does not have

any involvement other than processing the form.

Baumgartner said that there is usually more detail in the body of this form, but stated that

in this case she and Butler verbally discussed the reasons for removing Player 4’s aid.

Baumgartner said that Player 4 was an outstanding softball player, but had a poor attitude and

-49-
was bad for the team’s culture. She stated that Player 4 was not complying with team rules and

missed required study hall hours. In connection with Player 4’s ensuing financial aid appeal

hearing (discussed below), more detailed documentation regarding the reasons for her aid

cancellation was provided to the appeal committee.

After receiving the letter stating that her financial aid was cancelled, Player 4 appealed

the cancellation. In accordance with NCAA rules, such appeals are heard by the University’s

Financial Aid Committee on Athletics Appeals, which is chaired by the University’s faculty

athletics representative (“FAR”). At Rutgers, the FAR is Professor Thomas Stephens of the

Department of Spanish and Portuguese. The committee consists of five voting members: four

faculty/staff members chosen by the FAR and one representative from the Office of Financial

Aid. Compliance personnel typically attend the appeal hearing, but only to answer any questions

about the governing NCAA rules.

At appeal hearings, the student-athlete and the coach each present their arguments as to

why aid should be maintained or revoked. Both sides typically submit documents to the

committee as well. The hearings at Rutgers are not recorded or transcribed (though the players

will sometimes record them for their own purposes), no voting record is logged, and no internal

notes are maintained. No explanation is provided regarding the committee’s reason for a

decision; the student-athlete is simply told via email whether her appeal was upheld or denied.

The financial aid appeals committee typically convenes approximately one to three hearings per

year total.

Stephens stated to us that NCAA Rule 15.3.5.1 could create an incentive for a coach to

pressure a player to voluntarily leave the team in order to reclaim her scholarship. He similarly

said that the implementation of the Transfer Portal and related rules on scholarship cancellation

-50-
may cause coaches to push players to enter the portal as a way to recoup scholarships. However,

Stephens said that in this case, he did not see any indication that Butler was applying pressure to

get players to leave so she could revoke their scholarships and reapply them to her own recruits.

For Player 4’s hearing, the primary issue before the committee was whether she had

violated “a documented institutional rule or policy (e.g., academics policies or standards,

athletics department or team rules or policies).” Butler submitted to the committee a document

of notes of meetings with Player 4, a spreadsheet of Player 4’s weekly meetings with the Softball

team’s academic advisor, Kathleen Shank, and a warning issued to Player 4 by Shank for not

completing her study hall hours during the week of April 7, 2019. Shank confirmed during her

interview with us that this was the only academic warning that Player 4 received during the

2018-2019 academic year. Shank said that in her opinion, one academic warning by itself is

insufficient grounds for scholarship removal.

Stephens stated that the committee that heard Player 4’s appeal was not convinced that

Butler had proven that Player 4 had broken team rules to the extent that scholarship cancellation

was warranted. He said the fact that Player 4 had been injured and still played throughout the

season held significant weight with committee members. Player 4 won her appeal and kept her

scholarship, though she is no longer on the Softball team.

One other Softball player, Player 1, also appealed the cancellation of her financial aid,

despite having provided notification of transfer. The coaching staff had been surprised when

Player 1 completed her transfer paperwork. They said that she had not expressed any concerns

during the season and her exit meeting had gone well. The coaches wanted her to return to the

team. When they received Player 1’s transfer paperwork a few days after the exit meeting, they

-51-
were not expecting it. Player 1 acknowledged to us that the coaches did not push her to leave the

team; she just chose to leave.

After seeing that Player 4 had successfully appealed the cancellation of her scholarship,

Player 1 decided to request an appeal hearing as well. The hearing focused on the fact that

Player 1 had voluntarily entered the Transfer Portal, and that there is a bright-line rule that if a

player enters the portal, her aid can be cancelled. Stephens said that Butler said that Player 1 was

a good player, and that she did not want Player 1 to leave the team. Player 1’s appeal was denied

by the committee. She subsequently transferred to another university, but is not playing softball

there.

3. Turnover Generally

Due to the large number of players who left the Softball team – 10 out of the 22 players,

with 8 entering the Transfer Portal – we also looked more generally at whether this level of

turnover was itself an indication of misconduct within the Softball program. We found that this

rate of turnover is not unusual when there is a new coach.

Stephens and Shank both stated that with a change in coaching staff, large-scale

departures from a team, as occurred here, are not unusual. Stephens stated that the numbers

themselves in this case are not an indication of something improper. The outside experts we

consulted similarly said that for a new coach’s first year, 10 out of 22 players leaving a team is

not unusual and is not itself a reason for concern.

Assistant Coach Duncan opined that the recent introduction of the Transfer Portal has

contributed to turnover rates, as it has given players more control over their ability to transfer.

Along those lines, we received comparative data from Compliance for schools identified as

having similar rates of player turnover in the 2019 season (with or without a coaching change).

-52-
That data shows that for softball, San Jose State University had 11 players enter the portal,

Mississippi State University had 9, University of Oregon had 9, University of Missouri had 8,

University of Louisiana – Lafayette had 7, and University of South Carolina Upstate had 7,

compared to Rutgers’ 8. Compliance also provided comparative Transfer Portal data for baseball

teams, which have a roster size similar to that of softball. The University of Tennessee –

Knoxville had 13 players enter the portal, Virginia Tech. had 13, California State University –

Northridge had 11, St. Mary’s College of California had 11, Wichita State University had 11,

and West Virginia University had 10.

D. The University’s Review of and Responses to Player Complaints

In addition to allegations of abusive conduct by the Softball coaches, players contended

that inadequate action was taken in response to their ensuing complaints to University officials.

Our findings on this topic are set forth in the sections that follow.

1. The UEC Investigation

The first complaint made to University officials regarding the Softball coaches was made

by the mother of Player 6, in an email to Sarah Baumgartner on October 27, 2018. Player 6’s

mother followed up with a similar email to Hobbs shortly thereafter. Her allegations focused on

how Player 6 had been treated by Butler and spoken to by the coaches during the trust fall. The

allegations also included Butler having made critical comments to Player 6, as well as academic-

related allegations pertaining to Player 6.

Baumgartner received the email on a Saturday, and spoke by phone on Monday to the

parent, who reiterated what she said in her email. Baumgartner offered to have Player 6 and her

parent come in for a meeting with Baumgartner and Butler to discuss the issues, but the parent

declined the meeting, explaining she did not want to put her daughter through additional stress.

-53-
Baumgartner spoke to Butler about the email; according to Baumgartner, Butler seemed shocked

to hear that Player 6 had these concerns.

Baumgartner and Hobbs referred the matter to the office of University Ethics and

Compliance (“UEC”), led by Timothy Fournier. UEC is an independent office within Rutgers

that adopted much of its structure and function following the firing of former Rutgers basketball

coach Mike Rice. In his interview with us, Fournier described the mission of his office as to

work with clients throughout the University to protect the campus community, foster an ethical

environment, ensure adherence to regulations and law, and track down the facts when things go

wrong. UEC is a busy operation that investigates dozens of complaints each year, most of which

come from departments other than athletics. As described by Fournier, UEC will handle any

complaint that does not have a better home in the University’s other various investigative or

oversight offices. Fournier said that determining whether UEC or another University office will

review a complaint is often an informal and verbal process, and not the product of strict written

rules on UEC jurisdiction.

Fournier recalled that when the trust fall complaint came in, there were discussions about

whether the matter should be handled by UEC or by athletics Compliance staff. Athletics

Compliance at Rutgers, which reports to Hobbs, generally focuses on compliance with NCAA

and Big Ten rules and regulations, such as recruiting rules, standards for player academic

eligibility, and requirements regarding providing meals while travelling. Fournier said that most

of the allegations made in this case did not fall specifically under those rules. He and

Compliance ultimately decided that UEC would handle the investigation, with assistance from

the lead Compliance official at Rutgers at the time, Paul Perrier.

-54-
 UEC conducted its investigation through January 2019. Fournier led most of the

interviews himself, in some instances joined by Perrier. Fournier reported that no one from the

University pressured him to render any particular conclusions or findings. UEC interviewed four

Softball players, Player 6’s mother, Butler, Smith, Radcliffe, Duncan, Rapoport, and Zachary

Kinninger, who was the University’s assistant director of strength and conditioning. Fournier

stated that despite his repeated attempts to talk to Player 6 herself, her parent strongly objected to

that and Fournier was not able to conduct that interview. As a result, UEC never received

firsthand information from the complainant, which Fournier found to be an obstacle and source

of frustration throughout the investigation.

While the UEC report was in the process of being drafted and before all interviews had

been completed, Player 6 transferred to another university. Fournier’s view at that time based on

the evidence compiled was most of the claims presented to him had not been substantiated, with

two exceptions. First, Fournier had concluded that Smith had made an inappropriate comment at

the trust fall about pushing Player 6. Fournier noted that a comment like that, even if made in

jest and with no objective likelihood of actually pushing Player 6, had the potential to cause

emotional harm. Second, Fournier concluded that the Softball coaches had violated an NCAA

rule by exceeding the number of permitted practice hours, as a result of the coaches having

deemed certain activities as voluntary that could not be categorized as such under applicable

rules.

With Player 6 having transferred without having sat for an interview, Fournier decided

not to complete the report he was writing. The University made a disclosure to the NCAA about

the practice hours issue and reduced subsequent Softball practice hours as required. Fournier

told us that he updated Hobbs about his findings, then spoke to Butler about the hours issue and

-55-
about Smith’s comments at the trust fall. Fournier said that Butler reacted well to the feedback

and agreed with what he was saying.

In her interview with us, Butler stated that her recollection of the UEC investigation was

that the practice hours issue had been substantiated (and was then remedied), and there were no

substantiated issues beyond that. Hobbs similarly recalled that he did not come away from the

investigation thinking that there were systemic issues with the Softball program. Fournier

acknowledged to us that in retrospect, UEC should have completed and finalized its written

report as a way to formally “close the loop” on the matter.

2. Player Complaints to Compliance and Compliance’s Response

Following the UEC’s investigation, during the spring 2019 season, the Softball players

made complaints to Compliance regarding other issues. As noted above, Compliance primarily

handles issues involving NCAA bylaws and Big Ten regulations, reporting violations to the

NCAA, and ensuring that any resulting penalties are carried out. Compliance personnel also

hold rules education sessions with players, coaches, and staff. If Compliance receives a

complaint that falls outside of its purview, Compliance refers the allegations to the appropriate

person or office at the University. The Compliance office at Rutgers has seven full-time staff

members, who divide oversight of the sports played at the University. Last year, the Compliance

liaison for Softball was Jake Cunningham, who has since transitioned to another university upon

receiving an opportunity to obtain a promotion.

Many of the Softball players’ complaints to Compliance centered on the cell phone issue

described previously. At the outset of the season, Player 3 and Player 14 spoke to Cunningham

about players’ phones being collected at night when the team was travelling. They felt that the

policy was too restrictive. Cunningham told them that this policy did not violate any NCAA

-56-
rules, but that he would tell Baumgartner about the issue. University records show that

Cunningham emailed Baumgartner to inform her about the players’ concern, noting that “[t]he

cellphone issue is not an issue of permissibility,” but that he wanted to bring it to her attention.

It is common for Compliance to send these types of issues to the sport administrator.

In April 2019, Player 3 and Player 14 again spoke to Cunningham and alleged that Smith

had looked at content on players’ phones (as discussed above). While this issue again did not

bear on compliance with an NCAA rule, Cunningham worked with Baumgartner and Butler to

address the complaint. Cunningham noted that while he could not say that Smith had looked at

the phones, he deemed the complaint serious enough that he brought it to Baumgartner’s

attention. After being told about the allegation, Butler decided to change the method of phone

collection to alleviate any privacy concerns. Smith then purchased a toolbox with a padlock to

be used as a lockbox to hold the phones. Smith subsequently texted Cunningham a photo of the

toolbox to inform him of the new process for phone collection.

The next weekend when the team travelled, Butler began to use the lockbox and left the

box in a player’s room while Butler kept the key. Butler stated that she also spoke with two of

the seniors and told them regarding the allegation that content on phones had been viewed,

“That’s never happened.” Butler said that she told them that it was a misunderstanding and that

she hoped they would help relay that message to the rest of the team. The student-manager

similarly stated that when the team was at a restaurant during the weekend that the lockbox was

implemented, Smith told her that they had to use the box “because some people want to say

things that didn’t happen.”

Players alleged that when discussing the implementation of the lockbox with the entire

team, Butler made a sarcastic comment about the players having made a complaint to

-57-
Compliance about the issue. While players’ accounts of exactly what Butler said varied, it was

generally along the lines of, “Since you guys think we’re looking through your phones, we have

to use this now.” Players also indicated that Butler said she knew players had gone to

Compliance about the issue. Some of the players felt that Butler’s comment was meant to

discourage them from going to Compliance, and made the players feel uncomfortable about

making further complaints.

Butler admitted during her interview with us that she “showed [her] frustration” when

discussing the lockbox with the players. She said she was frustrated because the players went to

Compliance about the issue rather than talk to her about it. Butler noted that there was no

consequence, such as burpees or running, for anyone having gone to Compliance. She also noted

that she owned up to making the comment when later discussing the situation with Baumgartner

(discussed in the next section of this report).

Seven of the players alleged that Butler made condescending comments about players

making complaints to Compliance on at least one other occasion. They stated that after players

had in one instance said something to Compliance about practices going over the allotted time,

Butler made it a point to end practice on time and said something like, “I know you guys go to

Compliance.” One player recalled that Butler said, “For those of you who are the Compliance

police, I’m not doing anything wrong, so keep trying.” Another player recalled that on a

separate occasion, after a complaint was made to Compliance about players’ per diem money not

being distributed during spring break, Butler made a comment like, “You guys always go to

Compliance for any little thing.”

Some of the seniors on the team allege that they went to Compliance about a number of

other issues, such as the team’s conditioning being too difficult, budget limits when ordering

-58-
food while travelling that were lower than the University’s limits, and inappropriate comments

by Smith, including the “period blood” comment and comments related to players’ sexual

orientation. Player 14 estimated that she went to Compliance ten times.

Cunningham did not dispute that Player 14 may have been in the Compliance office ten

times during the course of the season, but said that she did not raise substantive issues each time,

as student-athletes visit Compliance for many different reasons including financial aid issues.

Cunningham did not recall players making allegations that Smith had done or said something

inappropriate, and he said that players never told him about any “period blood” comment. He

stated that no one complained to him about Softball conditioning being excessive, though players

did mention that they were running more and working harder than they had previously, without

providing specifics. Cunningham said that this did not seem out of the ordinary due to the

change in coaching staff. He also said that this type of complaint is not specifically within

Compliance’s realm. It is possible that from the players’ perspective, they felt like they were

making a complaint about excessive or abusive conditioning, when to Compliance personnel

these seemed like typical statements from student-athletes about not liking their conditioning

requirements.

The Compliance office does not have any documentation regarding complaints made by

the Softball players other than memos from fall 2018 regarding a practice hours issue that was

addressed and documentation regarding the cell phone issue. As a result, we were unable to

determine definitively if complaints about conditioning and comments from Smith were in fact

made to Compliance. Compliance personnel stated that a memo to file is not created every time

a player comes into the Compliance office; for example, when a player merely asks a question

rather than raises a substantive complaint, it would not be documented. Compliance personnel

-59-
explained that they see a large volume of students, with up to 60 students coming to the office

per day, making individual file memos or other logging practices difficult. They further stated

that the Compliance office is not the correct avenue for many of the complaints they do receive,

which instead most often fall under the sport administrator’s purview.

The complaints that the Compliance office did receive regarding the cell phone issue

were not passed along to Hobbs, but rather were addressed by Compliance, Baumgartner, and the

coaches. Hobbs stated to us that he does not recall being aware during the season of any

complaints that the players’ phones were looked at by the volunteer coach.

Based on the available evidence, Compliance handled the substantive complaints that

were squarely brought to its attention, even when those complaints were not within

Compliance’s specific area of responsibility. Compliance elevated issues to the sport

administrator as appropriate and worked with Baumgartner to ensure significant concerns were

addressed, such as the allegations regarding the content on players’ phones. Suggestions

regarding Compliance are addressed in the Recommendations section of this report.

3. The Sport Administrator’s Investigation

Following the UEC investigation and into the spring semester, the understanding that

Baumgartner and Hobbs had was that any issues involving the Softball program had been

resolved. It was not until Player 1’s mother contacted Baumgartner directly that other issues

relating to Softball came to their attention.

On March 29, 2019, Player 1’s mother reached out to Baumgartner, and Baumgartner met

with her in person that same day. During the meeting, the parent raised concerns regarding

Softball conditioning, specifically that conditioning was being used as punishment and was

excessive, to the point where her daughter had passed out one day. Baumgartner then emailed to

-60-
Fournier and Perrier a synopsis of the allegations and on April 1, 2019, the three of them

discussed how to address the concerns. They decided that based on the nature of the allegations,

it would be best for Baumgartner to conduct a review of the Softball program. This complaint

differed from the prior one that UEC had investigated in the fall, which encompassed a variety of

issues, some of which fell outside of the athletics department. In contrast, the concerns raised by

Player 1’s parent focused on conditioning and team culture, an area more within the sport

administrator’s area of expertise. Baumgartner noted in this regard that dealing with conflict

resolution is part of her job description, and that would include the resolution of a complaint

against a coach. However, she said that she does not have any particular investigative training.

On April 1, Baumgartner informed Hobbs about the new complaint. Baumgartner told

Hobbs she had spoken with Fournier and Perrier and they had agreed on an approach, and that

Baumgartner was going to conduct a review. That approach made sense to Hobbs, who felt that

the players would be comfortable speaking to Baumgartner and sharing any concerns with her.

Hobbs said that which office a particular complaint gets referred to at the University depends on

the situation, but he was confident in Baumgartner’s ability to look into issues of this nature. He

stated regarding Baumgartner, “I never have any doubt that the welfare of our student-athletes is

at the top of her mind.” Baumgartner conducted a review and memorialized her investigative

efforts in typed-up notes that she maintained.

Baumgartner interviewed five Softball players, which included players recommended by

Player 1 and a cross section of other players from different class years that Baumgartner selected

independently. She also interviewed the team’s athletic trainer, Cara Rapoport, and the strength

and conditioning liaison, Zachary Kinninger, who both said that while the conditioning was more

intense than it was previously, it was not abusive and did not cross the line of appropriateness.

-61-
 Players who were interviewed by Baumgartner told us that Baumgartner initiated

meetings with them framed as “check-ins,” and while they did not know what prompted those

meetings, they discussed among themselves what to tell Baumgartner. Those players described

Baumgartner as approachable and said they were comfortable sharing their concerns with her,

including the concern that many players shared regarding Smith’s comments.

There were three main issues that Baumgartner identified as a result of her interviews.

The first was that conditioning was being used as punishment for violating team rules (such as

being late to team breakfast, not completing study hall hours, and not staying within meal

budgets), which Baumgartner was not aware of prior to her review. She stated during her

interview with us that to her knowledge using conditioning as punishment is not unusual.

Baumgartner noted that the prior coaching staff did not consistently hold the players accountable

to team standards and expectations, so Butler’s enforcement of the rules was a drastic change for

the players.

The second concern players raised was a fear of retaliation for making complaints to

Compliance, due to comments that Butler had made regarding player communications with

Compliance. Lastly, Baumgartner stated that the most concerning finding from her review was

that Smith was making players uncomfortable due to inappropriate comments. She also received

feedback from a Big Ten representative that Smith’s conduct with an umpiring crew had not

been consistent with his assigned role. Baumgartner noted that the team trainer (who did not

indicate any concern about conditioning) was particularly emphatic regarding Smith’s behavior,

and after speaking with her, Baumgartner decided that Smith should no longer be associated with

the Softball program. She told us she did not conclude that Smith’s conduct reflected poorly on

-62-
Butler; however, their relationship made it difficult for the players to go to Butler with

complaints.

In late April, Baumgartner met with Butler to discuss her findings. Baumgartner told us

that Butler was receptive to the constructive feedback. She stated that it is important to her that a

coach is willing to correct missteps, and Butler was willing to own up and do so. Baumgartner

said that she discussed with Butler that she needed to work on her communication with the

players, as Butler’s direct style was not sitting well with them, and the players wanted a more

personal relationship with Butler. Baumgartner said that Butler admitted to making a sarcastic

comment about players going to Compliance on the cell phone issue, agreed that was not right

and might create fear for the players, and said that she would not do it again. Baumgartner also

discussed with Butler that Smith was making players uncomfortable due to inappropriate

comments and jokes. Accordingly, she told Butler that Smith should resign as volunteer coach.

Baumgartner stated that Butler understood and did not argue the issue with her.

Baumgartner also separately discussed her findings with Smith himself and told him that

it would be best if he did not return to coach the Softball program. There were two weeks left in

the season when Baumgartner spoke with Smith and he did not attend practices for those two

weeks, though he attended the remaining games. Baumgartner said Smith’s separation from the

program was at her initiation, but that Smith agreed that he should step back.

In Butler’s interview with us, she described this decision differently. She said that it was

a family decision that Smith would no longer coach the Softball team. She said that they have

two young children and that they no longer wanted to pay for costly childcare or deal with the

logistics of getting their son to school. Butler said that they had talked to Baumgartner about this

previously. Butler stated that from her perspective, the University did not tell them that Smith

-63-
should no longer coach the team, as they had already independently made that decision. But she

noted that perhaps the University would have made the decision for them if they had not made it.

In any event, Smith did not return as a volunteer coach for the 2020 season.

Baumgartner did not prepare a formal written report, but had a close-out conversation

with Player 1’s parent and also provided Hobbs with a verbal summary. Specifically, following

her interviews, when Hobbs and Baumgartner travelled to Milwaukee together for an event in

late April, Baumgartner updated Hobbs on her findings. She told Hobbs that the players were

divided on the issue of conditioning; some players felt it was fine, while others thought it was

excessive. However, she told Hobbs that it was clear that Smith had made inappropriate

comments and that he should no longer be involved with the Softball program.

Hobbs requested that Baumgartner provide Butler with a copy of the University’s hazing

policy, though Hobbs made clear to us that he had not made any conclusion that hazing had

taken place. Hobbs also asked Baumgartner to discuss with Butler alternatives to punishment

runs, such as rewarding good behavior rather than punishing bad behavior, and Baumgartner did

so. Hobbs stated that Baumgartner described Butler as very coachable and said that Butler was

willing to implement the necessary changes.

Hobbs said that he was confident that the concerns had been addressed, specifically with

Smith no longer involved with the program. He understood from Baumgartner that rather than

simply deny the problems, Butler appreciated the issues and understood that adjustments needed

to be made. He contrasted Butler’s response to that of other Rutgers personnel he has dealt with

in previous circumstances.

Hobbs met with Butler in July for her end-of-year review and discussed with her some of

the issues identified by Baumgartner and the challenges of being a first-year coach. He also

-64-
briefed the University president, who left the conversation with comfort that the matter was

being handled responsibly by those charged with dealing with those issues. Similar

conversations with President Barchi had taken place in the fall in connection with the UEC

investigation.

While each investigator – Fournier, Baumgartner, and Compliance – made decisions that

with the benefit of hindsight can be second-guessed, they acted in good faith in their efforts.

When issues arose, they were addressed quickly, and investigations were conducted by both

Baumgartner and UEC. Baumgartner noted in her interview that looking back, she is not sure

she was right person to conduct the review of Player 1’s complaint and that perhaps someone

with investigative experience should have conducted it. Nonetheless, as the sport administrator

and a former softball player herself, it was understandable that Baumgartner was chosen to

address issues such as conditioning and communication within the Softball program. Our

investigative recommendations are discussed in the final section of this report.

E. Subsequent Events and the 2020 Season

While multiple efforts had been made at the University to investigate allegations and take

remedial action where officials felt it was warranted, from the perspective of many of the

Softball players, no significant action had been taken. They were not aware of the results of

Baumgartner’s investigation. That compounded the frustration resulting from their perception

that they had discussed complaints with Compliance, but did not see many changes in response.

In July 2019, an attorney retained by Player 1 wrote a letter to the University setting forth

many of the allegations described above. Player 1, who transferred this past summer, told us that

after she had spoken to Baumgartner and did not perceive any changes, she wanted to send the

letter to see if that would change anything. She said that she later heard that Smith had stopped

-65-
coaching the team, for family reasons. The next fall, negative media accounts appeared based on

discussions with many of the players, with Lowenstein being engaged by the University

thereafter to conduct this review.

Near the end of her interview with us, Coach Butler stated, “We all grow and change and

learn.” She said, “You can absolutely say it was a learning year.” That sentiment was supported

by players on the 2020 team, whose season unfortunately was recently cut short by the Covid-19

pandemic. They described Butler as being very different in her coaching and her relationship

with the players this year, resulting in less anxiety and players no longer afraid to go to practices.

Coach Radcliffe similarly reported there being a different culture around the team this year,

perhaps because of the change in coaching personnel.

The two new players on the team that we interviewed reported that there have been no

instances when the team has had to do conditioning as punishment for breaking team rules, no

one passed out or vomited at a practice this year, and they did not perceive any abusive or

inappropriate conduct. Players reported that in general Butler had less of a role in conditioning

this year, deferring many of those responsibilities to the strength and conditioning liaison

assigned to the team. In addition, Butler changed the team’s cell phone policy such that while

there are still phone usage rules in place, the team no longer is required to turn in their phones at

curfew. The changes made in 2020 were sufficiently drastic that returning players use the

phrases “Old Butler” and “New Butler” to refer to the differences from last year.

V. Recommendations

Based on the findings set forth above, we recommend the following, which we have

divided into general topic areas.

-66-
 1. Communicating Expectations. Rutgers staff we interviewed noted a difference in

approach at the University since it joined the Big Ten, in that expectations for its athletes have

increased significantly. A culture of participating has changed to a culture of winning, while the

resulting difference in intensity, we were told, has not always been clearly communicated

upfront to the athletes themselves. Particularly where a new coach is hired, and the differences

with the prior coach are as drastic as they were in the case of the Softball team, such

conversations are of critical importance. The University should consider having a more formal

informational session for the players in such circumstances, to help prepare them for potential

changes in training regimen, team rules, and coach expectations, and delineate the resources

available to them.

The same type of dialogue should take place with a new coach and assistant coaches.

That dialogue could include, for example, making sure new coaches understand that with a

change in coaching staff, some transition time is to be expected and may in some ways be

measured in months or even years, as opposed to weeks. The University should ensure that it

has in place a sufficiently robust on-boarding process for coaches including topics such as

treating student-athletes with respect, effective communication with student-athletes, student-

athlete health and wellness standards, and NCAA compliance.

2. Conditioning and the Athletic Trainer. Conditioning-related controversies and tragic

events at other universities recently have cast a spotlight on the vital role the athletic trainer has

at team practices, including the responsibility to intercede in conditioning exercises where

warranted. One of our outside experts noted that at her university any time team conditioning is

taking place, a trainer is required to be present.

-67-
 During the 2019 Softball season, however, the trainer assigned to the team also was

assigned responsibility for the field hockey team. Because time commitments for the two sports

conflicted, she focused her efforts on the sport with games taking place in that season. As a

result, she attended field hockey practices in the fall and typically did not attend Softball

practices, while the opposite was true in the spring.

The Softball players expressed to us discomfort with that arrangement, and we noted

instances where, for example, a player allegedly blacked out at a Softball practice and the trainer

was not there that day. The University should make every effort to ensure that trainers have the

time needed to devote to their assigned sport. Along those lines, Rapoport informed us that as of

January 2020, Rutgers divided up softball and field hockey such that each sport now has its own

athletic trainer assigned. Players confirmed that the trainer has been consistently present at

Softball practices this year.

Relatedly, the University should consider broader guidance to its head coaches on

conditioning issues, including the concept of conditioning as punishment. While, as noted

above, the conditioning-as-punishment concept appears to still be prevalent at many universities,

it clearly is not a best practice and is contrary to recent NCAA guidance. Our outside experts

and Hobbs himself discussed with us sound alternatives to conditioning as punishment; these

issues are worthy of further exploration and discussion within the University. Rutgers should

ensure that it is a leader among universities in protecting the health and well-being of its student-

athletes.

3. Family Issues. Rutgers should revisit the subject of spouses coaching the same team

and consider if additional controls need to be put in place where such arrangements are

permitted. The University’s policy on Employment of Relatives currently provides, in part,

-68-
“Members of the same family or household may not be selected for faculty or staff positions if

selection would . . . have the potential for creating an adverse impact on work performance . . . .”

Rutgers Policy 60.1.1. There are strong examples of the wife/husband coaching dynamic

working well, both at Rutgers and at other major universities. On the other hand, the

circumstances described in this report demonstrate potential pitfalls of allowing the practice. As

Coach Radcliffe stated to us based on his experience, “it would take a very unique couple” to

make such an arrangement work.

In cases in which the University decides to permit such an arrangement, we recommend

that the vetting process for the spouse being brought on as an assistant be more intensive than

that for other assistant coaches, not less. It is important, moreover, that University officials

explain clearly to the players on the team the steps they are to take if they encounter an issue

with the head coach’s spouse. Lastly on the subject of family issues, the University should

consider the options among policies regarding coaches bringing their children to athletic events,

in view of the negative consequences described by Rapoport, the players themselves, and other

witnesses we interviewed.

4. Athlete Complaints. The University would also benefit from more formality and

prescription in the manner that it handles student-athlete (and parent) complaints. Understanding

that there may be reluctance for the University to bind itself in terms of how it handles a given

situation, we suggest drafting a policy that addresses at least considerations to govern who will

handle an internal review, how the review is to be conducted, and what is to be produced as an

end product. One option in this process would be to have a single person or group serve as a

clearinghouse for all complaints regarding a particular sport. Another aspect of the complaint

process to consider is providing greater feedback to players about results after a complaint has

-69-
been investigated or reviewed (or not reviewed). Players we interviewed were disheartened by

what they perceived to be a lack of action in response to their concerns. That perception might

have been avoided through more communication about investigative jurisdiction and

investigative results.

Lastly on this topic, Compliance should review its procedures for documenting when

complaints are made. Whether a player has lodged a particular complaint alleging significant

misconduct by a coach should not be a matter of dispute.

5. Cancellations of Athletic Scholarships. The cancellation of a student’s scholarship is,

for obvious reasons, of tremendous importance both for student and parent. The University

should review its current practices and consider requiring a Compliance official to personally

sign off on any form that, once filed, will result in the athlete losing their scholarship. The form

should require the official to acknowledge that their signature on the form means that they have

taken steps sufficient to determine that there is an appropriate basis for the cancellation. The

University should consider having the sport administrator sign off on any such form as well, and

giving direction to coaches about which forms are the exclusive province of Compliance

personnel. This would help avoid undue influence being placed upon a student-athlete to

relinquish scholarship aid.

The University should also consider implementing a short holding period before a

Compliance official enters a student-athlete into the NCAA Transfer Portal after the student has

completed the requisite paperwork. This would provide an opportunity for the student to rescind

the form after, for example, speaking with a parent about it and having second thoughts. For

those cases where the student appeals his or her loss of scholarship, the University should

-70-
consider creating a record of some kind of the hearing, at least where the student is also

recording it.

6. Sport-Specific Meetings. We recommend that on a periodic basis, such as monthly, the

sport administrator convene a meeting of the relevant personnel for their sport, including the

Compliance liaison, academic liaison, the coaches, trainer, the strength and conditioning coach,

and, where warranted, the NCAA faculty athletics representative. The goal of these meetings

would be for relevant personnel to discuss any issues of concern or opportunities for

improvement. Certainly, for example, by the time a second, unrelated parent had complained

about Softball in a vociferous way, a concerted effort to determine root causes was warranted.

These meetings could be used as an opportunity to allocate responsibility for dealing with any

pending issues and to discuss who has the time needed to devote to the issue. For example, in

the case of the Softball program, Baumgartner, while serving as the University’s deputy director

of athletics and sport administrator for two sports, as of April 2019 was also conducting a time-

intensive investigation into significant allegations of coach misconduct. These meetings could

help ensure that necessary resources are available for such efforts.

-71-