‘Who did the research on his character?’: Basketball players recount instances of alleged misconduct by Cal Poly Humboldt coach
“Coach (Tae) Norwood should not be qualified to be in a leading position at a state-regulated university.”
Those words, originally written in all caps, were the opening sentence of a five-page letter drafted by a player on the Cal Poly Humboldt basketball team who had not previously been interviewed by the Times-Standard. That player, who will be identified as Player F due to a fear of retaliation, reaffirmed the claims of the first article detailing alleged misconduct within the men’s basketball program. In an interview with the Times-Standard, that player also added additional details about the scope of alleged misconduct and the effect it had on the team.
“He bamboozled me to come out here,” said Player F. “He was the one that was causing all the problems. He was the one that had us in mental funks, in depression, in suicidal thoughts.”
The statements from Player F, in addition to comments made by players in previous interviews, will be detailed throughout this article. Given the wide-ranging nature of the allegations, this article presents snapshots of the various instances of misconduct that players mentioned in interviews.
On Tuesday, Cal Poly Humboldt released a statement explaining its response to the ongoing allegations.
RELATED: ‘It’s abusive’: Players detail toxic culture within Cal Poly Humboldt basketball
“In addition to the inquiries being conducted by a number of campus units, including Intercollegiate Athletics, an outside firm is being retained to carry out an independent investigation,” read the opening sentence of the statement.
The university stated the timeline for the investigation was not certain. The university also linked resources for students to seek support.
“Lumberjack Basketball has a strong history of success in the classroom, on the court, and in the community. A focus on the well-being and development of the student-athletes has been a big part of that, and Cal Poly Humboldt is committed to continuing the legacy,” the university stated. “Cal Poly Humboldt values and supports all students, faculty, and staff, and seeks to maintain a positive learning environment for all.”
Norwood did not respond to a request for comment.
‘The presidential suite’
Player F explained that one of the first instances of Norwood’s behavior came on the team’s season-opening road trip to Vancouver, British Columbia. He explained Norwood would frequently stay in suites as opposed to the regular accommodations for the rest of the team.
“Everywhere we went, he had the suite,” said Player F. “He had the presidential suite.”
The player explained how he was dumbfounded when the team went into Norwood’s hotel room for a film session, only to realize the room was filled with smoke from a hookah.
“I vividly remember we went in there and as soon as you open the door, it’s just a cloud that smacks you right in your face,” Player F continued. “It’s like you walk in. You sit down. Your eyes are watering, your chest is getting fumbled up.”
Other players stated the behavior was a constant theme of road trips.
“He just sends the card and stays at the hotel and does his thing,” said Player C. “And smokes his hookah.”
“It was every road trip,” Player F said. “Coach Norwood, because he ain’t hit his hookah, he would be in a mood that was tyrannical. Almost like he needed to hit the hookah to stay functionally sane.”
For the players, it foreshadowed a season filled with questionable behavior. In hindsight, Player F was left wondering how this kind of behavior was allowed at a state university.
“Who did the research on his character?” said Player F. “Who did the research on how he conducts himself off the court?”
Cal Poly Humboldt was asked whether records of expense reports could confirm or refute the reports Norwood stayed in higher-echelon accommodations when the team was traveling. They offered this response in addition to providing references to the Cal State University system travel policy:
“The University requires that all travel expenses for the programs within the athletics department be reviewed through the required campus system to ensure adherence to policies.”
Indifference to tragedy
Near the middle of the season, Player A explained how he had to endure the tragic loss of a close friend back home.
“One of my friends died back home and nobody knew but me,” said Player A. “(Norwood) was just tweaking on everybody and I can remember vividly him telling me basically like, ‘it ain’t s— you can do now, he’s gone.’ “
The response was framed in the context of basketball, the player said, with a total disregard for personal well-being.
“Like, I didn’t talk to him. He found out that my partner died in the morning before that,” Player A continued. “The next conversation that I had with him was basically, ‘I don’t give a f—. You better be ready to play.’”
The response was difficult to comprehend. But the experience is another illustration of the environment that players experienced on a daily basis.
“He just got shot 20 times,” said Player A. “And you’re telling me that, ‘you better be ready to play this game in a couple hours.’ “
Threats of retaliation
The Times-Standard reviewed a recording of an early season meeting in which Norwood attempted to dissuade players from leaving by using an example of a past player, implying he would impede their ability to find a new school.
“I don’t release nobody,” Norwood can be heard saying on the recording, “unless I feel like releasing them.”
“Ask Jacob Washington,” he added, referring to a former player. “I want him to know that, ’cause it ain’t gonna happen.”
“That goes for Berenbaum. That goes for Jaden, and Marlon, and Cam,” Norwood said. “It goes for everybody.”
The comments appeared to be an example of the kind of tactics used to retain players by eliminating the perceived option of leaving the program. It also affirms why many players expressed that they spent the entire season under fear of the threat of retaliation.
Issues with meals
A recurring theme among the players interviewed was the lack of meals on the road. Among many issues was the meal schedule, or lack thereof, as the team would be preparing for key games.
“We can’t be in a Denny’s two hours before a playoff game.” said one player who was not quoted in the first article and will be identified as Player G. He went on to explain how the limit for meals on the road was $12 per player, hardly enough for a team of athletes that are mostly 6-foot-5 or taller and weigh over 200 pounds.
“One of our assistant coaches had to come out of his pocket to give us like a $16 or $18 limit,” Player G continued. “That was our first meal (of the day).”
One player detailed an instance, specifically on the team’s final road trip in late February, when the team did not eat for nine hours while on the road.
“I logged that day because it was outrageous,” said Player D. “We got up at 6 a.m., we ain’t get our first meal until 3 p.m. and we ain’t eat our second meal ’til 12 a.m.”
“We ate no breakfast beforehand,” added Player C. “We went straight to the airport, no food, and then ate lunch at 3 p.m.”
The team explained that the erratic schedule made it difficult to be competitive. Aside from the fact it was a stark contrast to the premise of their recruitment, Player A explained that the issues with meals were similar at home, as the team practiced so late that the dining hall was closed and the team didn’t have access to their meal plan.
“Which is part of our scholarship, that we have to be able to eat,” said Player A. “So then we’re going home at 9, 10 o’clock at night. We don’t eat anything. And then you got a wake up at 6 or 7 in the morning and do it all over again.”
Senior Night
One of the most prominent external signs of dysfunction within the men’s basketball program came in the team’s final home game against Cal Poly Pomona. As is commonplace in the world of college sports, the final home game is a dedicated “Senior Night” where players and their parents are typically recognized in a ceremony prior to the start of the game.
Humboldt’s own athletics website still identifies the Feb. 18 game on the schedule against Pomona as Senior Night.
But there was no ceremony. No honors. No words of gratitude to students or their parents. At the time, it was stated there would be a banquet instead.
“All people want on senior day is to walk out there with their family and friends and be acknowledged,” said Player B. “Not only did the banquet not happen, (Norwood’s) getting mad after the game at the seniors getting gifts from everyone and they’re not in the locker room.”
“That’s an accustomed thing in basketball,” Player B continued. “Everyone does senior night. It was just a complete, blatant disrespect.”
“My mom drove six hours up here to be here for my senior night,” said Player E. “I’ve been in college five years. Like a senior night is supposed to be a special night. Last minute, he tells us we’re not gonna have a senior night.”
Other players had parents fly in from across the country over 2,000 miles away, only to arrive and be told there would be no pregame ceremony or honors of any kind.
The players were further dismayed when they received their senior gifts in an insulting manner.
“(Norwood) said, ‘F— ya’ll, you’re not getting a senior banquet,’” said Player E. “Just hands ’em to us in the film room. That’s exactly as a quote. He said, ‘F— ya’ll. Ya’ll ain’t getting a senior banquet.’ “
“When we got the plaque when we finally got our senior stuff in,” said Player F, “he basically spit in our face.”
Cal Poly Humboldt had this to say about the lack of senior night ceremonies: “Due to unforeseen logistical problems, there was no senior recognition ceremony held before the final home game of the season.”
‘Don’t f— my money up’
At the end of the season, players are given anonymous reports to review their coaches. But multiple players attested to the fact that Norwood would try to sway results with his aggressive tactics.
“We got these anonymous letters,” said Player G. “These anonymous end-of-the-year reports we could write. So you know, all of us was getting to it this year. We were just writing what we wanted to say.”
“He followed me and two of my teammates into the bathroom,” Player G continued. “He saw us from outside the weight room, he came in the weight room. We ducked off.”
“He followed us into the weight room, followed us into the bathroom,” Player G said. “We’re just trying to get out of his way.”
Player G, along with Player A, were both present in the restroom as Norwood allegedly attempted to influence the results of the anonymous review.
“He gon’ pull up to us really like, ‘Hey, you know those end of year reports, they better be good. Make sure you guys write good stuff, ‘ ” said Player G. “He thinks he controls everything.”
“Don’t f— my money up,” Player G added, quoting Norwood.
Cal Poly Humboldt provided this statement regarding the coaching review process.
“All coaches are evaluated following the process outlined in appendix M (https://hraps.humboldt.edu/humboldt-faculty-handbook-appendix-m) and in accordance with their contract. A head coach evaluation requires the coach to provide the following: anonymous evaluations completed by the student-athletes, three letters of evaluation, and a self-evaluation. These documents are reviewed by the athletic director to complete their performance evaluation, where performance highlights, deficiencies, and areas of improvement are discussed. The student evaluations are conducted without the coach and are completely anonymous.”
‘We tried to speak up’
The final sentence in Player F’s letter explains much of why the issues spiraled into public view as the team looked for accountability.
“We tried to speak up more than once and nothing has happened and, personally, I think it should be taken a little more seriously because if nothing happens now, he will continue to mess with students’ mental health, livelihoods and future.”
Player F echoed the sentiments in his interview. He described an instance where he and Player A were pulled aside as Norwood allegedly stated that he doesn’t care about his players or coaches.
“He’ll sit there and tell me and (Player A) everything,” said Player F. “Basically saying that, ‘You think I care about any of these guys? I don’t care about any of these guys. I don’t even care about none of the coaches.’ “
“He said that to us before,” Player F continued. “So how am I supposed to look at you as my coach?”