“So, (insert staffer here) testified that this was well-known, but you did not know?”
“I had no idea.”
“No idea?”
“The locker room is where they do their horseplay.”
“Okay. And (manager name) said that she found out about running within three weeks of coming to NU. And you had no idea.”
“No idea.”
“What is running, Mr. Fitzgerald?”
“Running is when you rapidly put one foot in front of the other.”
In testimony, he’d have to admit that he had no idea what was happening, while everyone else knew. Or he’d have to acknowledge that, even though he’s on record as a staunch anti-hazing advocate, that he simply excused it.
Those things are all reputationally damaging.
His lawyers’ best bet is to stick to the letter of the contract — which appears to have no ‘zero tolerance’ hazing clause, and no responsibility for players behavior, and only apparent responsibility for coaches felonious behavior — and get what they can (which will be a lot because, after all, Fitz got paid a lot).
The reporting indicates that there was no particularly egregious behavior by individuals. There are no broomsticks in orifices and there are no chocolate swirlies and there are no hospitalizations. There would not be sufficient evidence of individual convictions.
There was just, quite simply, a culture where it was accepted that young players and backups would deal with some harassment. The culture had problems. The head coach was blind to it.
He will not testify because it will make him look bad.