Arizona State Puts Coach on Leave After Gruesome Military-Style Workout Leaves Hockey Player in Coma

Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights
2. Introduction
3. What happened: timeline and the university's preliminary findings
4. Who is Matthew Mayich and medical status
5. Who ran the workout and what the university review found
6. Medical realities: exertional heat stroke, best immediate practices and what may have gone wrong
7. Culture of toughness and why players feared retaliation
8. Institutional responsibilities: vetting third‑party instructors, oversight and emergency preparedness
9. Legal and disciplinary avenues: investigations, precedent and potential outcomes
10. The role of conferences and national bodies: response and guidelines
11. Parallels and lessons from previous incidents
12. Practical recommendations for athletic programs
13. What the immediate institutional actions mean
14. Broader implications for collegiate athletics
15. How families, athletes and the public can push for accountability
16. What to watch next
17. FAQ

Key Highlights

• Arizona State University placed head coach Greg Powers on paid administrative leave while investigating an August military-style workout after player Matthew Mayich collapsed from exertional heat stroke and remains in a coma.
• An independent review found the instructor was a non-university, ex-Green Beret who conducted an hour-long, atypical session without formal strength-and-conditioning oversight; players and the family demand removal of coaching staff pending a full independent probe.
• The incident has reignited scrutiny of athlete safety, emergency response protocols, third‑party instructors, and the culture of toughness in collegiate programs — with clear parallels to prior collegiate and professional heat-related tragedies.

Introduction

A late‑August outdoor training session at Arizona State University that involved sprints, planks, push‑ups and bear crawls has left a 21‑year‑old hockey player fighting for his life and a prominent college coach sidelined. Matthew Mayich, a forward who transferred to Arizona State after playing at Clarkson and was drafted by the St. Louis Blues in 2023, collapsed during the workout and suffered exertional heat stroke that deprived his brain of oxygen. He remains in a coma and, according to his family’s attorney, is not expected to make a full recovery.

The episode has exposed lapses in oversight, raised questions about the use of non‑university instructors in team activities, and prompted anonymous complaints from players fearful of retaliation. Arizona State has released an initial timeline that stops short of assigning blame; players, parents and the National Collegiate Hockey Conference have called for a more thorough, independent investigation. The school’s decision to place head coach Greg Powers on paid administrative leave marks the first major institutional action in a case that sits at the intersection of athletic culture, emergency medicine and legal accountability.

This article reconstructs the timeline released by Arizona State, outlines what is known about the medical emergency, examines institutional responsibilities and the standards for preventing exertional heat illness, and places the incident in the context of earlier cases that reshaped sports safety policy. It also considers practical steps programs must take to prevent similar tragedies.

What happened: timeline and the university's preliminary findings

On August 20, Arizona State’s hockey team participated in an outdoor "team‑building" exercise that university documents later described as including physical activity. Multiple accounts and the timeline released by the school indicate the session lasted roughly an hour and took place amid Phoenix‑area temperatures reported in the mid‑to‑high 80s. The Athletic described the workout as "both atypical and extreme" for the conditions.

An ex‑Green Beret, identified as Tim Ziesel, led the exercises. The university's review reports that coaching staff requested permission for Ziesel to speak with players but did not submit his planned activities to the strength and conditioning staff for formal review. Ziesel was a non‑university employee, did not have a contract for the three‑day event, and had left campus before the workout concluded.

Players report being put through high‑intensity drills: repeated sprints, planks, push‑ups, bear crawls and, near the end, a medicine‑ball run the length of a football field and back. Instructions emphasized repeating back commands and accurate counting. Sources told The Athletic that those who lagged or failed to follow directions were required to perform additional repetitions. Several players reported being told not to complain.

The timeline notes that a water break was scheduled 20 minutes into the session at the instruction of head coach Greg Powers, but it remains unclear how uniformly that pause was implemented. Some players who were late finishing drills reportedly were compelled to perform extra reps and therefore missed the break. Observers later said Mayich appeared disoriented during the workout, stumbling and falling while holding a medicine ball.

Shortly after the session ended, Tempe Fire Medical Rescue was summoned for a "serious heat emergency." Trainers on site applied iced towels and cool water. Mayich had been cleared for participation by a physical exam prior to the exercises. Despite emergency care and hospitalization, he suffered oxygen deprivation to his brain; he has been in a coma since the collapse.

Arizona State University Police initiated an investigation. Players responded by submitting an anonymous letter to the university president urging that coaching staff be placed on administrative leave while the facts are investigated; they said they feared retaliation because coaches control scholarships, roster status and playing time. Mayich’s parents echoed those concerns in a public statement through their attorney, asking that the coaches who ran the workout be removed while an independent investigation proceeds.

Within days, the university placed head coach Greg Powers on paid administrative leave and assigned assistant coach Mike Corbett to handle the season opener. The National Collegiate Hockey Conference issued a statement supporting a thorough review and affirming athlete well‑being as the priority.

Who is Matthew Mayich and medical status

Matthew Mayich is a 21‑year‑old forward from Ontario who transferred to Arizona State after playing at Clarkson University and was drafted by the NHL’s St. Louis Blues in 2023. His collapse during the August training session has left him in a coma. According to his family’s attorney, Mayich suffered exertional heat stroke that led to a critical lack of oxygen to the brain — a sequence that can cause permanent neurological injury.

Exertional heat stroke occurs when intense physical activity elevates core body temperature to life‑threatening levels, typically above 104°F (40°C), and the body's thermoregulatory mechanisms fail. The resulting cellular damage and systemic inflammatory response can lead to multi‑organ failure and brain injury. Immediate, effective treatment is required for the best chance of survival and minimizing neurological harm. The most effective treatment for exertional heat stroke is rapid whole‑body cooling, ideally through ice‑water immersion, initiated as soon as possible at the site of collapse.

Public reports indicate trainers attempted to cool Mayich using iced towels and cool water while awaiting paramedics. The timeline does not make clear how quickly whole‑body cooling was implemented, whether ice‑water immersion was possible on site, or whether core temperature was measured. Those details often dictate outcomes in exertional heat emergencies.

Mayich’s family has stated they want the team to have a successful season but are calling for the coaches responsible for the August 20 workout to be removed pending an independent probe. They also expressed concern about the potential for player retaliation if athletes spoke out while coaches remained in their roles.

Who ran the workout and what the university review found

The outdoor session was led by a non‑university instructor, Tim Ziesel, a former U.S. special forces service member described in the timeline as an "ex‑Green Beret." The university says it did request that Ziesel speak to players, but did not formally submit his planned training activities to the team's strength and conditioning staff for review. Ziesel reportedly had no contract for the three‑day exercise and had departed the campus before Mayich collapsed.

That combination — a high‑intensity, unvetted exercise led by an external instructor without formal integration into the conditioning program — is the central institutional concern. The university's initial report describes the sequence of events but does not, at this stage, assign blame to a particular individual or unit.

Players and the family’s attorney have argued this response is insufficient. The athletes' anonymous letter emphasized fear of retaliation and demanded that coaching staff be separated from the team during the inquiry. The family’s attorney, Rob Carey, has expressed skepticism about the adequacy of the university’s review and called for the ASU police to hand the investigation to Phoenix law enforcement to ensure impartiality.

The presence of a military‑style approach in a collegiate athletic context — including an emphasis on obedience, punitive extra reps for lagging behind and restrictions on vocalizing discomfort — has drawn particular scrutiny. Experts in sports medicine and athletic administration caution against militaristic or punitive methods that prioritize toughness over individualized safety monitoring.

Medical realities: exertional heat stroke, best immediate practices and what may have gone wrong

Exertional heat stroke (EHS) represents a medical emergency distinct from more common heat cramps or heat exhaustion. The hallmark is a dangerously high core temperature coupled with central nervous system dysfunction — confusion, collapse, seizures or loss of consciousness. Rapid cooling is the single most important determinant of survival and neurological outcome.

Best practices for field treatment of EHS include:

• Immediate recognition: any athlete who is collapsing or showing neurological impairment after exertion in heat should be presumed to have EHS until proven otherwise.
• Rapid whole‑body cooling: ice‑water immersion consistently outperforms other methods and should begin within minutes of collapse. Even short delays in achieving a core temp below 104°F increase the risk of organ damage and long‑term disability.
• Core temperature monitoring: rectal thermometry remains the gold standard in the field to guide treatment and confirm successful cooling.
• Airway and cardiovascular support as needed, and rapid transport to definitive care once cooling has been initiated or if immersion is not possible.

The information released about the Arizona State incident indicates trainers used iced towels and cool water while awaiting medical responders. Iced towels and evaporative cooling can help but are significantly less effective than ice‑water immersion. If ice‑water immersion was not available on site, that may have reduced the chances of preventing brain injury after Mayich collapsed. It also remains unclear whether core temperature was measured at the scene and how rapidly cooling measures reduced it.

Beyond immediate treatment, prevention hinges on adequate acclimatization, progressive exposure to heat, limiting intensity and duration of activity based on environmental conditions, enforcing hydration breaks that are actually taken, and having a complete emergency action plan with the necessary equipment and trained staff present.

Reports that some athletes missed water breaks because they were asked to repeat drills or perform extra reps underscore a systemic failure of supervision and adherence to basic safety practices. When athletes are disciplined for lagging — exactly those at higher risk of heat illness — the risk multiplies.

Culture of toughness and why players feared retaliation

Players who sent the anonymous letter to Arizona State's president said they feared retaliation because the coaching staff determines playing time, scholarship amounts and roster status. That fear led them to withhold their names while calling publicly for administrative leave for coaches involved in the August 20 session.

Athletic cultures that place a premium on toughness, unity and obedience can discourage athletes from reporting symptoms. When visible cues — stumbling, disorientation, falling — occur in an environment that punishes complaining, intervention may be delayed. The consequence: athletes may continue to exert themselves past the point where danger becomes imminent.

Head coach Greg Powers had publicly criticized the team's previous performance as too "soft." That rhetoric, combined with the presence of a military‑style instructor and reports that players were told not to complain, paints a picture of a high‑pressure environment in which asking for help could carry career consequences.

Other universities have confronted similar cultural issues. The death of University of Maryland offensive lineman Jordan McNair in 2018 followed a highly publicized workout and raised questions about whether staff recognized and acted appropriately as he deteriorated. McNair's death led to independent reviews, resignations and systemic reforms; it also demonstrated how athlete reluctance to report symptoms — and staff failure to act — can have lethal consequences.

The Arizona State athletes’ decision to communicate anonymously suggests they perceive the risks of speaking out as real, a concern that institutions should treat as a critical indicator of broader cultural and supervisory problems rather than as an internal personnel dispute.

Institutional responsibilities: vetting third‑party instructors, oversight and emergency preparedness

Several institutional failures, based on the university's own timeline and player accounts, deserve scrutiny:

• Vetting and authorization of external personnel: The instructor leading the session was a non‑employee who did not have a contract for the activity. Best practice requires formal authorization, insurance review, background checks and integration of any external program into the team's training plan with review by certified strength and conditioning staff and medical personnel.
• Integration with certified staff: The university acknowledged that staff requested the instructor to speak but did not submit his training activities for review by strength and conditioning professionals. Conditioning programs should be designed or approved by qualified personnel who understand sport‑specific demands and heat safety protocols.
• Adherence to medical clearance and monitoring: Passing a physical exam does not obviate the need for monitoring during high‑risk sessions. Athletes can still suffer EHS even after a pre‑participation clearance, especially when exercise intensity spikes unexpectedly or when environmental conditions change.
• Enforcement of water breaks and hydration: Scheduling water breaks is insufficient if those who most need them are prevented from taking them. Coaches, trainers and instructors must ensure access to hydration for all participants.
• Emergency Action Plan and equipment: EAPs (Emergency Action Plans) should specify the location and process for rapid whole‑body cooling, provide equipment for ice‑water immersion or other rapid cooling techniques, and identify nearby EMS resources and transport protocols. The efficacy of on‑site first response hinges on immediate access to cooling and staff trained to implement it.
• Reporting and non‑retaliation mechanisms: Students must have safe, anonymous venues to report concerns without fear of jeopardizing scholarships or playing time. Universities should have clear policies protecting whistleblowers among athletes.

The university’s initial timeline conceded gaps in process but stopped short of ascribing responsibility. That lack of clarity has fueled demands from players and the family for independent review and for removal of the coaches involved while investigations proceed.

Legal and disciplinary avenues: investigations, precedent and potential outcomes

When a serious injury occurs in collegiate athletics, institutions confront several potential legal and disciplinary consequences: internal investigations, criminal inquiries, civil litigation and NCAA or conference scrutiny. The path depends on the facts revealed by independent reviews and the findings of public safety authorities.

ASU Police have opened an inquiry; the family’s attorney has urged that Phoenix police take the lead, citing concerns about impartiality. If evidence shows gross negligence or reckless behavior that contributed to Mayich's injuries, criminal charges remain a theoretical possibility, though prosecutions in athletic injury contexts are uncommon and fact‑specific.

Civil litigation is more likely. Families frequently pursue wrongful death or negligence claims when a college athlete suffers catastrophic harm in supervised activities. Settlements and verdicts in prior related cases have prompted universities to alter policies and to allocate resources to compliance, training and facilities.

Two high‑profile precedents illustrate potential institutional consequences:

• Jordan McNair (University of Maryland, 2018): Offensive lineman Jordan McNair collapsed during a spring conditioning session and died shortly afterward. Multiple reviews found that coaching and medical staff mismanaged the emergency and that heat illness protocols were inadequate. The incident prompted the university to suspend staff, institute procedural reforms, and reach settlements with McNair's family. The Maryland case also led to public discussion about the role of culture, supervision and timely medical intervention in athlete safety.
• Korey Stringer (Minnesota Vikings, 2001): The NFL player died of exertional heat stroke during training camp. His death led to widespread policy change in professional football and the establishment of the Korey Stringer Institute (KSI), a research and advocacy organization focused on preventing sudden death in sport from exertional heat stroke and other causes.

Those cases demonstrate that outcomes frequently include administrative discipline, changes to protocols, civil settlements, and public commitments to improve safety. They also show how tragedies can catalyze improvements — but only when institutions embrace transparent, independent investigations and follow through on recommendations.

For Arizona State, potential disciplinary outcomes include administrative termination or sanction of staff, mandated training, contract and policy changes regarding third‑party instructors, and settlement of any civil claims. The university may also face NCAA or conference-level scrutiny if policies governing athlete safety or staff conduct were violated.

The role of conferences and national bodies: response and guidelines

The National Collegiate Hockey Conference issued a statement supporting the university's decision to place the coach on leave and insisting that student‑athletes' concerns be heard and thoroughly reviewed. Conferences can place additional pressure on institutions to conduct independent reviews and, in some cases, impose sanctions or require corrective action.

National bodies, including the NCAA and organizations of sports medicine professionals, issue guidance on exertional heat illness. Sports medicine experts emphasize heat acclimatization, graduated exposure to heat stress, monitored workouts, immediate access to cooling protocols, and mandatory emergency planning. The Korey Stringer Institute provides evidence‑based resources and best practices that athletic programs can adopt.

Adoption of these standards is uneven across institutions and sports. Many programs have improved since earlier high‑profile cases, but the Arizona State episode shows that policies may still fail in practice — especially when non‑university personnel lead conditioning activities without medical oversight.

Parallels and lessons from previous incidents

Patterns emerge when comparing Arizona State’s situation to prior cases: use of high‑intensity workouts, delayed or inadequate medical responses, questionable supervision, and cultures that implicitly punish vulnerability.

The Jordan McNair case revealed failures in decision making and communication among staff. The Korey Stringer case led to structural changes in professional sports, including better monitoring of environmental conditions and the development of evidence‑based protocols for recognizing and treating EHS.

Key lessons that have repeatedly emerged and that appear relevant here:

• Empower medical personnel and give them authority to halt activity: Athletic trainers and team physicians should have the final say on player safety during practices and workouts, and their removal from the decision loop creates risk.
• Integrate external instructors fully: Third‑party instructors should be contracted, vetted, and their activities reviewed by the program's strength and conditioning and medical staff.
• Create enforceable non‑retaliation policies: Athletes must be able to report unsafe practices without fear of punitive consequences.
• Train staff in rapid cooling and ensure equipment readiness: Ice‑water immersion tubs, rectal thermometers and an accessible EAP should be standard for high‑risk sessions.
• Monitor intensity and environmental conditions: Heat index, humidity and short‑term weather changes require real‑time adjustments to planned activities.

Arizona State’s initial timeline touches on some of these areas but leaves open questions about decision authority, the timing and adequacy of cooling measures, and how the external instructor’s activities were allowed to proceed without formal oversight.

Practical recommendations for athletic programs

To reduce the risk of exertional heat stroke and other preventable catastrophic outcomes, athletic programs should adopt a layered approach that includes prevention, detection and response:

1. Written policies for external instructors: Any non‑employee must be pre‑approved through a formal process that includes a written contract, background checks, proof of insurance, and submission of planned activities to the program’s certified strength‑and‑conditioning staff and medical directors for review.
2. Mandatory strength‑and‑conditioning oversight: All conditioning sessions should be planned and supervised by certified professionals who understand sport‑specific metabolic demands and who can tailor intensity to environmental conditions and individual athlete readiness.
3. Empowered medical staff: Athletic trainers and team physicians should have unambiguous authority to stop workouts and initiate emergency protocols. Their assessments should be final in safety matters.
4. Heat acclimatization programs: Athletes should progress volume and intensity gradually when returning to training and when environmental conditions are extreme, following established gradual acclimatization schedules.
5. Environmental monitoring and activity adjustment: Use wet‑bulb globe temperature (WBGT) or equivalent metrics to adjust practice intensity, duration and timing. Avoid high‑intensity outdoor sessions during peak heat hours.
6. Hydration and cooling logistics: Hydration breaks must be enforced, and equipment for rapid cooling — including prepared ice‑water immersion tubs and rectal thermometers — should be available at potentially risky sessions. Staff must be trained in their use.
7. Emergency Action Plans and drills: EAPs must exist, be rehearsed regularly, and include clear responsibilities, location of equipment, EMS coordination, and protocols for immediate cooling and transport.
8. Anonymous reporting and non‑retaliation protections: Clear channels for athletes to report unsafe practices without fear of scholarship or roster consequences. Education for athletes about their rights and protections.
9. Documentation and transparency: Detailed documentation of workouts, attendance, incidents, and medical interactions helps investigations and continuous improvement. Independent review of severe incidents should be standard to preserve trust.
10. Cultural change and leadership training: Coaching staffs should receive training on leadership styles that prioritize athlete safety, psychological safety and open communication rather than punitive toughness.

Implementing these practices requires institutional commitment to prioritize athlete health over short‑term gains in perceived toughness or team unity.

What the immediate institutional actions mean

Arizona State’s decision to place Greg Powers on paid administrative leave is the university taking a precautionary step to allow an investigation to proceed without the potential influence of the head coach. Administrative leave is a common immediate measure once serious allegations or events occur; it does not imply a final finding but permits an independent or semi‑independent review to proceed more openly.

Placing the head coach on leave also addresses one of the central demands of the anonymous player letter and the family: separation of coaching authority from those taking part in the investigation. The National Collegiate Hockey Conference’s public support for a thorough review signals external pressure on the university to comply with transparent practices and to prioritize athlete welfare.

The depth and independence of the upcoming investigation will determine whether further sanctions or reforms follow. Players and families are calling for an independent review rather than a purely internal investigation. Independent reviews, often conducted by external law firms or independent sports safety experts, carry greater public confidence if their scope and findings are made public.

Broader implications for collegiate athletics

The Arizona State case will test whether institutions have internalized lessons from prior tragedies and whether they will act with transparency and urgency. College athletics operates in a context of intense performance pressure, financial stakes and complicated relationships between coaches, administrators and student‑athletes. Those dynamics complicate safety oversight.

This incident may accelerate changes in how programs use third‑party trainers and how conferences enforce safety standards. It also highlights the need for greater uniformity in safety protocols across sports and levels, from club to elite collegiate programs. Public scrutiny, media coverage and the involvement of families and the conference will likely shape the pace and nature of reforms.

If the investigation finds systemic failures, the case could lead to new policies at ASU and potentially at the conference or national level, including mandatory oversight of third‑party instructors, stricter EAP requirements, and enhanced reporting protections for athletes.

How families, athletes and the public can push for accountability

Families and athletes seeking accountability should press for:

• Transparent, independent investigations whose scope and methodology are publicly disclosed.
• Release of actionable findings and a timeline for corrective measures.
• Clear non‑retaliation assurances and protection for athletes who testify or provide information.
• Immediate interim measures to prevent recurrence while investigations continue, such as suspension of similar external programming and mandatory staff training.
• Engagement with recognized sports‑medicine organizations to audit processes and implement recommended safety standards.

The public can support these aims through advocacy, by demanding transparency from institutions, and by supporting legislation or conference rules that codify best practices for athlete safety.

What to watch next

Key developments to monitor include:

• The findings of any independent or law‑enforcement investigations and whether the ASU Police hand off the investigation to Phoenix police.
• Whether charges, civil suits or settlements arise.
• Any personnel actions beyond the initial administrative leave, including firings or resignations.
• Revisions to institutional policies governing external instructors, emergency action protocols, and athlete reporting protections.
• Statements from athletic medical leaders or sports‑medicine entities, and whether conferences issue new guidance.
• The condition and care plan for Matthew Mayich and how support for the family and teammates is structured moving forward.

The stakes are high: the way Arizona State responds will shape trust in the program and may influence safety policies across collegiate athletics.

FAQ

Q: What is exertional heat stroke and how serious is it?
A: Exertional heat stroke is a life‑threatening condition that occurs when intense physical exertion in hot or humid conditions overwhelms the body's ability to regulate temperature. Symptoms include collapse, confusion, seizures and loss of consciousness. Rapid whole‑body cooling initiated within minutes of collapse is critical to survival and minimizing permanent brain injury.

Q: Did Arizona State have a policy for outside instructors?
A: The university's initial timeline acknowledged that coaching staff requested the instructor speak but did not submit his training activities for review by strength and conditioning staff. The instructor did not have a contract for the three‑day exercise. These facts suggest formal vetting and approval processes were not followed for this session, though further investigation will clarify the institutional policies in place and whether they were circumvented.

Q: Why were players anonymous when complaining?
A: Players expressed fear of retaliation because coaches make decisions about playing time, scholarships and roster status. Anonymous reporting indicated they believed naming themselves could jeopardize their standing on the team. Institutions should provide and encourage safe, anonymous reporting without fear of penalty.

Q: What immediate steps should athletic programs take to prevent similar events?
A: Programs should require pre‑approval and vetting of external instructors, ensure certified strength and conditioning professionals design and supervise conditioning sessions, empower athletic medical staff to halt workouts, maintain and rehearse emergency action plans with equipment for rapid cooling, monitor environmental conditions and adjust activities accordingly, and implement non‑retaliation policies for athlete reporting.

Q: What precedent does this case follow?
A: Similar high‑profile cases include the death of Jordan McNair at the University of Maryland in 2018 and the death of NFL player Korey Stringer in 2001. Both led to intense scrutiny, independent investigations and systemic changes aimed at preventing exertional heat illness and improving emergency response.

Q: Could criminal charges result from this incident?
A: Criminal prosecution in such cases depends on the facts and whether investigators determine gross negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct. Investigations by campus police and public law enforcement will explore whether any criminal statutes were violated. Civil litigation is more common in cases of catastrophic athletic injury.

Q: How should teammates and the program support Mayich’s family?
A: Support can include providing transparent updates about institutional actions, ensuring the family has access to medical and logistical support, establishing a fund or assistance mechanism for medical expenses if appropriate, and committing to meaningful institutional reforms that address the causes of the incident. Protecting teammates’ mental health with counseling and ensuring they are not subjected to retaliation for speaking out are also critical.

Q: What can parents of college athletes do to reduce risk?
A: Parents should ask programs about heat‑safety protocols, emergency action plans, staff certifications, and how external instructors are vetted. They should encourage athletes to report symptoms immediately and ensure their athletes know how to access medical staff. Education about signs of heat illness and the necessity of early reporting is essential.

Q: Will this incident change policies at other schools?
A: High‑profile incidents often prompt policy reviews at peer institutions and can accelerate adoption of best practices, particularly when they highlight systemic vulnerabilities. Conferences and national organizations may issue guidance or require compliance audits.

Q: How long will the investigation take and who should conduct it?
A: The duration varies with scope. Families and player advocates often call for truly independent investigations, typically conducted by external law firms or independent sports medicine experts, to preserve public confidence. A credible, independent probe should have unfettered access to documents, interviews, and the authority to issue public findings and recommendations.