Highlighting some of the most notable information revealed in the report.
PISCATAWAY -- The report released Wednesday on the investigation of Rutgers coach Kyle Flood's improper contact with a professor was full of intriguing details that explain why Flood was hit with a three-game suspension and $50,000 fine.
You can read the entire 21-page report, but there's a lot to digest. Here are some of the key points that stand out:
* On or about May 18, final grades were posted. At that time, Barnwell and the academic support staff knew the junior cornerback would be ineligible for the 2015 season.
* On May 18, Barnwell emailed the professor, explained that he would be ineligible and asked if there was a way for him "to work something out." The professor replied, with a copy to an academic advisor and the chair of the professor's department, stating "I'm ... very sorry that your grade will cause problems for you. However, I cannot change your grade."
* On May 20, an academic advisor notified Flood that Barnwell would be ineligible for the 2015 season. Flood and the advisor agreed it was a "lousy situation and that the publicity was going to be difficult because the student was considered a top recruit."
* On May 28, an academic advisor reiterated to Flood that Barnwell would be ineligible. On June 5, Flood requested that Barnwell draft a letter to the professor explaining (redacted) the last semester. The letter was not sent at that time.
* On July 26, Flood forwarded a revised version of the June 5 email from Barnwell to the professor. In the email, Flood said he sent the message from his personal gmail account to the professor's personal account "to ensure there will be no public vetting of the correspondence." In the July 26 email, Flood said he fully supported the professor if the final grade stood, but he also asked if there was any extra work to be done to earn a grade change.
RELATED: Kyle Flood releases statement on suspension
* In the footnotes of the report it stated that in the fall of 2014, Flood visited the professor's class to introduce himself because a number of football players regularly registered for the class.
* During the interview with investigators, Flood said this was the first time that he had ever contacted a professor regarding a student's grade.
* On July 30, the professor replied to Flood, stating she didn't know how to change a grade so long after it had been submitted. Flood, who was in Chicago at the time for Big Ten media days, asked if he could meet the professor in person the next week. Between July 30 and Aug. 3, Flood wrote four additional emails to the professor scheduling the date, time and place of the requested meeting.
* On Aug. 3, Flood called an academic advisor's cell phone and they spoke for 3-4 minutes. The advisor said Flood asked about how a grade change works and said he used his private email to contact the professor so it wouldn't be subject to an OPRA (Open Public Records Act) request. The advisor said he/she told Flood that he couldn't have contact with a professor, especially regarding grades or eligibility. The advisor said Flood said the conversation "stays between you and me." The advisor said, "I want no part of this."
During Flood's interview about the conversation, he said he asked about how a grade change works, said he may have mentioned using his personal email to avoid an OPRA request and said he may have requested the conversation stay between them because he was worried about leaks. Flood said the advisor did not tell him it would be a problem to have direct contact with the professor.
* On Aug 5, Flood met with the professor for about 50 minutes outside of the Princeton Public Library. Flood said he didn't tell anyone on the athletics staff or Barnwell that he planned to meet with the professor. Flood told the professor he purposely didn't wear any Rutgers apparel so he wouldn't be recognized in public meeting with the professor.
During the meeting Flood again reiterated that he supported the professor in keeping the initial grade or allowing an opportunity for extra work. Flood and the professor discussed the unspecified "personal and academic struggles" Barnwell was facing. Flood explained that they were assigning a new mentor to work closely with Barnwell. The professor agreed to give Barnwell a chance to do extra work.
* The professor said Flood was "low key and collegial" in their meeting and his words weren't intimidating. But the professor said Flood's position as head coach "and as an important person for the university did have an intimidating effect." The professor said he/she felt unable to resist the implied pressure from Flood so he/she felt uncomfortable not agreeing to an additional assignment to allow Barnwell to become eligible.
PLUS: Robert Barchi says firing Kyle Flood "was on the table"
* On Aug. 6, the professor emailed Barnwell and gave him an assignment: to watch a video and write a paper on it. On Aug. 7, Flood emailed the professor asking when a grade change can be made in the system.
* On Aug. 11, Barnwell sent Flood a draft of his paper and then sent a revised version on Aug. 12. Flood did not read the paper until the morning of Aug. 16. Flood reviewed the paper with Barnwell and suggested some "minor grammar and punctuation changes." Barnwell made the changes and filed the paper in an email to the professor at 12:46 p.m. on Aug. 16. An hour later, Flood emailed the professor to confirm the professor had received the paper.
*On Aug. 12, President Robert Barchi was notified about Flood's potential violation after an academic advisor contacted their supervisor. On Aug. 13, the university retained an outside law firm to conduct the investigation. On Aug. 14, the professor was contacted by the university and informed that the issue had been reported.
* On Aug. 24, Barnwell emailed the professor asking if he/she received the paper. On Aug. 25, the professor emailed an academic advisor stating that Barnwell's grade won't change. The same day NJ Advance Media reported that the university was investigating Flood for potential impermissible contact with a professor.
* The report states the university has a clear policy prohibiting contact between coaches and faculty members regarding a student's academic performance. The report said Flood should have known because of annual compliance meetings (at least from 2005-12), guidelines in his contract that require him to know university and NCAA policies, and notification from a member of academic support.
Flood said he was not familiar with the policy because he didn't attend the annual compliance meetings and he didn't take steps to familiarize himself with the policy on the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics website.
*On Sept. 5, the lobbying for Barnwell became irrelevant because he was kicked off the team by Flood following charges of aggravated assault, riot and conspiracy to commit a riot stemming from an incident on April 25.
Here are the three conclusions reached by the report:
- That Coach Flood violated university policy prohibiting contact by a coach with a faculty member regarding a student-athlete.
- That Coach Flood's conduct potentially violated the university's code of ethics because he "apparently intended to secure a benefit for himself by ensuring that a key player would remain eligible for the football team."
- That Coach Flood did not violate the university's academic integrity policy in editing Barnwell's paper.
Dan Duggan may be reached at dduggan@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @DDuggan21. Find NJ.com Rutgers Football on Facebook.
