Bucknell Coach Charged Over 2024 Freshman Football Player’s Death

Charges and Legal Action Against Mark Kulbis

Former Bucknell strength and conditioning coach Mark Kulbis was arraigned Monday on felony aggravated hazing and three misdemeanor counts, including involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and hazing. The indictment stems from the death of an 18‑year‑old freshman who collapsed during his first team workout in July 2024. Kulbis posted bail at $10,000 and a preliminary hearing is set for July 28. His attorney, Barbara Zemlock, maintains that Kulbis did not cause the tragedy and vows a vigorous defense.

According to the Pennsylvania attorney general’s statement, Kulbis ordered 100 up‑downs and several full‑body plank drills despite warnings from other coaches that the exercises were unsafe. The player, Calvin “CJ” Dickey Jr., was visibly struggling, and the coach delayed calling for help until he was unconscious. Attorney General Dave Sunday described the incident as an intentional hazing that ignored the athlete’s known health vulnerability.

Calvin “CJ” Dickey’s Tragic Workout Death

CJ Dickey died on July 12, 2024, two days after collapsing at a Bucknell conditioning session. He was 18 at the time, and his family later learned he carried a sickle cell trait that heightened his risk for rhabdomyolysis. The family’s attorney said the condition could have been prevented if the workout had been stopped when Dickey showed signs of fatigue. The lawsuit alleges Bucknell was aware of the trait yet allowed the player to continue.

Bucknell issued a brief statement confirming it is cooperating with investigators but declined to comment further due to pending criminal and civil actions. The university’s LinkedIn profile for Kulbis shows he departed the institution in January 2025. The school’s spokesperson noted that all relevant information has been provided to the attorney general’s office.

NCAA Guidelines on Sickle Cell Trait and Coach Responsibility

The NCAA requires all athletes to be screened for sickle cell trait, emphasizing that those with the trait are more susceptible to rhabdo when they feel fatigued during intense conditioning. In an online fact sheet, the organization warns that sudden death incidents involving the trait have occurred during conditioning sessions, not games or skill drills. Coaches are instructed to follow scientific training protocols and to intervene promptly when athletes show distress.

The NCAA guidance underscores the need for coaches to adjust workouts based on individual health data and to stop activity at the first sign of strain. The criminal case highlights a failure to meet those standards, as the coach allegedly ignored the athlete’s known health condition and imposed excessive exercises. Legal experts note that the case could set a precedent for accountability in college sports conditioning programs.

Family Lawsuit and Bucknell’s Response

Dickey’s parents filed a wrongful‑death suit against Bucknell in 2025, accusing the university of negligence for not protecting their son despite knowledge of his sickle cell trait. The complaint alleges that Bucknell’s training protocols were inadequate and that the institution failed to enforce NCAA safety measures. The family’s attorney described the criminal charges as a meaningful step toward accountability while the civil case proceeds.

Bucknell’s statement to ESPN confirmed the university’s cooperation with investigators and noted that, because of active criminal and civil litigation, it will not comment on the specifics of the case. The school’s handling of the incident is now under scrutiny from student‑athlete advocates and safety watchdogs. Observers are watching for any policy changes that may result from the lawsuit’s outcome.

Next Steps in the Legal Process

Kulbis surrendered to authorities on the same day he was charged and was arraigned shortly thereafter. The judge set bail at $10,000, and a preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 28. Both the criminal case and the civil lawsuit filed by Dickey’s family will move forward in separate courts. Legal analysts predict that the criminal trial could influence the civil proceedings, potentially affecting settlement negotiations.

The case has already sparked discussions about hazing policies in collegiate athletics and the enforcement of health‑screening mandates. Advocates are pushing for clearer guidelines on conditioning supervision and stricter penalties for violations. Stakeholders are watching for any new regulations that may emerge from Bucknell’s response and the court’s decisions.