​When college athletes suffer fatalities that occur during practice or as a result of pre-existing health conditions, coaches are rarely criminally charged. A new lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania’s attorney general could change that dynamic. On Monday, Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Freed charged former Bucknell football strength and conditioning coach Mark Kulbis in connection with the 2024 death of Bucknell football player CJ Dickey Jr., who collapsed after a summer workout. Kulbis, who maintains his innocence, faces felony counts of aggravated hazing and several misdemeanor charges, including involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and hazing.
Experts and attorneys contacted by Front Office Sports say the criminal nature of these charges makes the case unusual within the college athletics arena. Regardless of the outcome, the case could have far-reaching implications for the college coaching profession, prompting increased scrutiny of how practices are conducted and how coaches interact with players.
Elizabeth Allan, the director of the Hazing Prevention Research Lab at the University of Maine and principal of StopHazing, told FOS that public awareness about hazing is shifting and suggested the Bucknell case might signal broader cultural changes within sports organizations.
Dickey and Bucknell freshmen football players were due to begin their first practice on July 10, 2024, under Kulbis’s supervision. Kulbis had previously worked on coaching staffs at Dartmouth, Ohio State, and Austin Peay. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) requires testing for sickle-cell trait, a condition that can heighten the dangers of intense exercise, yet the AG’s office alleges that Dickey was compelled to perform extensive calisthenics—more than 100 up-downs—despite direction from other coaches that such exercises were unsafe or inappropriate for training. Dickey, who reportedly had sickle-cell trait, visibly struggled during the session and was rushed to the hospital after collapsing; he died two days later.
The AG’s office stated that the intensity and nature of the drills occurred even though Bucknell was aware of Dickey’s condition and despite safety concerns. The university reportedly did not have certain protections in place that the NCAA requires, such as a trainer being present during practice and established emergency action plans (EAPs). Dickey’s parents filed a civil lawsuit against Bucknell in 2025, alleging negligence and wrongful death; the case remains ongoing. They contend that the coaching staff should not have permitted Dickey to participate in these activities given his sickle-cell trait, and they argue that Bucknell lacked adequate safety measures, including on-site medical staff and properly executed EAPs. The civil complaint indicates that Kulbis, who left Bucknell in January 2025, was known for conducting “annual hazing of freshman football players by causing, coercing, or forcing them to endure brutality of a physical nature in the form of an unreasonable and excessive number of intense and rigorous calisthenic exercises, including up-downs, as punishment and for the purpose of being” indoctrinated or conditioned in a harsher environment.
The case marks a potential turning point in how college athletic programs respond to dangerous training practices and player safety concerns. If the investigation results in a conviction or settlement, it could prompt universities to reexamine their practice routines, supervision standards, and the disciplinary processes surrounding hazing and conditioning. It also raises broader questions about accountability for coaches and administrators when preventable harm occurs during athletic activities, particularly in high-contact sports where the line between tough training and dangerous hazing can be thin.