The Arizona State University men’s hockey program is confronting serious questions about athlete safety, coaching accountability, and psychological well-being following an August 20, 2026, training incident that left defenseman Matthew Mayich critically injured. The situation has also brought attention to the emotional challenges facing teammates who witnessed the emergency and continued competing while investigations unfolded.
Mayich, a 21-year-old defenseman who transferred from Clarkson University, collapsed during an outdoor team workout in Tempe, Arizona. The incident resulted in a prolonged hospitalization, with his family’s representatives reporting a devastating neurological prognosis.
The university subsequently reviewed the circumstances surrounding the workout, while seven players challenged aspects of its initial findings and raised concerns about whether athletes could speak openly without facing repercussions.
On September 30, Arizona State placed longtime hockey coach Greg Powers on paid administrative leave. The university announced on October 15 that it had mutually agreed to part ways with Powers and appointed former NHL coach Dave Hakstol to lead the program. Media Relations and Strategic Communications+1
Beyond the questions surrounding the physical emergency, the situation has exposed a broader challenge in college athletics: ensuring that student-athletes feel psychologically safe, understand where to find professional support, and trust that reporting concerns will not jeopardize their athletic opportunities.
An October 22 investigation by Cronkite News explored the emotional consequences for Mayich’s teammates and the importance of creating environments where athletes can discuss distress without fear.
What Happened During Arizona State’s August 20 Hockey Workout?
On August 20, 2026, members of Arizona State’s men’s hockey team participated in an outdoor training session at Sun Angel Stadium in Tempe.
The workout involved a third-party instructor with a military special operations background, alongside university coaching and athletic training personnel.
During the session, Mayich experienced a medical emergency and collapsed. Emergency responders were called, and he was transported to a hospital.
In its September 3 statement, Arizona State confirmed that the workout was a team event attended by coaches, training staff, and an outside participant who had previously worked with the program.
The university also acknowledged that it maintains guidelines governing outside personnel who interact with student-athletes, as well as heat-illness protocols informed by recommendations from the National Athletic Trainers’ Association.
Arizona State Police received an emergency call at approximately 8:30 a.m. on August 20 and began investigating the incident.
According to reporting from the Associated Press, Mayich suffered exertional heat stroke and a severe brain injury associated with oxygen deprivation. His family’s attorney subsequently reported that his prognosis was extremely poor. apnews.com
The incident prompted questions about workout supervision, environmental conditions, hydration, recognition of heat illness, and emergency response procedures.
These issues remain distinct from the psychological effects on teammates. Determining whether established safety protocols were followed requires evidence from the ongoing reviews rather than assumptions based solely on the outcome.
Seven Hockey Players Challenge The University’s Initial Review
The controversy intensified on September 28, when seven Arizona State hockey players submitted a 26-page letter to university president Michael Crow through attorney Timothy Casey.
The players disputed elements of the university’s initial account and requested that Powers and other coaching personnel be placed on administrative leave while further investigations proceeded.
According to Cronkite News reporting on the players’ letter, the athletes alleged that they were not provided water during a workout lasting more than 75 minutes.
They also questioned how Mayich’s developing symptoms were recognized and managed before emergency personnel arrived.
These allegations are significant, but they should be distinguished from independently established findings. The players’ account and the university’s review have been disputed, and the circumstances require continued investigation.
The letter also raised concerns about possible retaliation.
Some athletes reportedly feared that speaking publicly or criticizing decisions made by coaching staff could negatively affect their standing within the program.
That concern extends beyond the immediate investigation.
When athletes believe that reporting unsafe conditions might threaten their playing time, scholarships, team relationships, or future opportunities, they may become reluctant to raise legitimate concerns.
A university can maintain written reporting procedures, but those procedures are less effective if students do not believe they can use them safely.
Greg Powers’ Departure Brings Leadership Changes To The Program
Arizona State’s leadership response unfolded over several weeks.
On September 30, athletic director Graham Rossini announced that Powers had been placed on paid administrative leave.
Rossini said the university’s priorities included supporting Mayich and his family, providing stability for the hockey program, and ensuring that student-athletes received appropriate assistance as the season began.
Assistant coach Mike Corbett initially assumed responsibility for the team.
On October 15, the university announced that Powers and Arizona State had reached a mutual agreement to separate.
Powers had been central to the development of Arizona State hockey, helping establish the program at the NCAA Division I level. His departure represented a substantial organizational change.
The university selected Dave Hakstol, whose coaching background includes the NHL and collegiate hockey, as the new head coach.
The change did not, by itself, resolve questions about the August 20 workout.
A coaching transition is an administrative decision, while determining whether individuals or institutions failed to meet safety responsibilities requires a separate examination of evidence.
For the athletes remaining in the program, the leadership change also introduced another adjustment during an already difficult period.
Players were continuing their academic responsibilities and competitive schedules while processing concern for their teammate and uncertainty about the future of their program.
Those overlapping pressures make access to trusted mental health professionals particularly important.
Teammates Face Emotional Challenges After Witnessing The Emergency
The impact of a serious medical emergency can extend beyond the person directly injured.
Athletes who witness a teammate collapse may experience fear, uncertainty, sadness, or difficulty concentrating. Responses vary considerably, and witnessing a traumatic event does not mean that everyone involved will develop a mental health condition.
For Arizona State’s hockey players, the situation has involved both concern for Mayich and the challenge of returning to competitive play.
During the team’s October 10 home-opening weekend against Holy Cross at Mullett Arena, players acknowledged the difficulty of navigating the circumstances.
Center Sean McGurn described the lack of a clear roadmap for the team, while forward Kyle Smolen emphasized the importance of teammates supporting one another.
The team also honored Mayich through yellow ribbons featuring his initials and No. 27. Players wore matching helmet decals, and his jersey remained displayed in the dressing room. cronkitenews.azpbs.org+1
These gestures demonstrated solidarity, but public tributes and private emotional recovery serve different purposes.
A team may find meaning in honoring an injured player while individual athletes continue to experience different emotional responses.
Some may want to discuss the incident frequently. Others may prefer privacy or find that their reactions change over time.
Support should accommodate those differences rather than assuming every athlete benefits from the same approach.
Qualified mental health professionals can help students understand their reactions and identify appropriate resources when distress persists or interferes with everyday functioning.
Psychological Safety Becomes A Central Concern In College Athletics
One of the most consequential questions emerging from the Arizona State incident involves psychological safety.
In an athletic environment, psychological safety means that students can raise concerns, acknowledge difficulties, and request assistance without reasonably fearing humiliation or retaliation.
This does not mean that coaches must eliminate demanding training or competitive expectations. Instead, it requires a distinction between constructive accountability and an environment where athletes feel unable to communicate legitimate concerns.
Kristin Hoffner, an assistant dean and teaching professor at Arizona State’s College of Health Solutions, addressed this distinction in the October 22 Cronkite News investigation.
Hoffner cautioned against making unsupported judgments about whether Arizona State’s program was toxic. However, she explained that athletes’ fears about losing playing time or experiencing negative consequences for speaking out can undermine psychological safety.
That distinction is essential.
The allegations surrounding the hockey program warrant investigation, but they should not be treated as proof of a particular organizational culture before the relevant evidence has been assessed.
At the same time, the concerns raised by players illustrate why reporting systems need to be credible.
Athletes should understand how to raise questions about training conditions, coaching conduct, or emotional distress through channels that do not depend exclusively on the individuals whose decisions may be questioned.
For universities, that may involve independent reporting contacts, athletics healthcare professionals, student-support offices, and clearly communicated protections against retaliation.
NCAA Mental Health Guidelines Provide A Framework For Athlete Support
The Arizona State situation also raises questions about how collegiate athletic departments translate mental health policies into everyday practice.
The NCAA Mental Health Best Practices provide an established framework for supporting student-athletes.
The second edition became effective on August 1, 2024, and emphasizes that institutions should create environments that promote mental well-being, identify potential concerns, establish response plans, and connect athletes with qualified providers.
NCAA legislation requires member schools to make mental health services and resources available in accordance with these practices.
Among the recommendations are annual psychological distress screening using validated tools, written procedures for routine and emergency mental health concerns, and collaboration with licensed professionals.
The guidelines also emphasize the influence of coaches, trauma-informed approaches, and the importance of trust.
These recommendations are particularly relevant when athletes experience a serious team incident.
A university may have counseling services available, but accessibility also depends on whether students understand those services, feel comfortable using them, and believe their privacy will be respected.
Importantly, the NCAA guidelines are not a substitute for individualized clinical judgment. Screening and referral decisions should involve appropriately qualified healthcare professionals.
Arizona State Describes Its Mental Health Resources For Students
Arizona State has publicly stated that mental health services are available to its students, including members of athletic teams.
Aaron Krasnow, associate vice president and director of ASU Counseling Services, told Cronkite News that the university provides access to counseling, individual and group services, and crisis support.
Students can arrange same-day counseling appointments, while student-athletes may also work with professionals experienced in sports performance concerns.
These resources represent an important part of the university’s support infrastructure.
However, the existence of counseling services does not independently establish whether every athlete feels comfortable accessing them.
A useful evaluation would consider whether players know how to schedule appointments, understand confidentiality protections, and can obtain support without concerns about their athletic standing.
It would also consider whether mental health services are sufficiently independent from coaching decisions.
For athletes coping with a teammate’s medical emergency, confidential access to qualified professionals can be especially valuable.
Students may need assistance addressing distress, uncertainty, or changes in their ability to concentrate on academic and athletic responsibilities.
The appropriate level of support should be determined according to individual needs rather than assuming that every team member requires the same intervention.
Physical Safety And Mental Well-Being Cannot Be Treated Separately
The Arizona State incident demonstrates why athlete welfare must include both physical protection and psychological support.
Exertional heat stroke is a potentially life-threatening medical emergency associated with intense physical activity, particularly when the body cannot adequately regulate its temperature.
Recognizing symptoms promptly and implementing established emergency procedures are critical responsibilities for organizations overseeing demanding workouts.
However, the psychological environment also influences whether athletes feel comfortable reporting symptoms, requesting assistance, or questioning unsafe conditions.
An athlete who believes that stopping a workout will be interpreted as weakness may hesitate to communicate a developing problem.
That possibility does not establish what motivated any individual involved in the August 20 incident. It illustrates a general risk that athletic programs should address through education and clear policies.
Physical safety procedures should be developed with qualified sports medicine professionals and applied consistently across team activities, including sessions involving outside instructors.
Mental health support should operate alongside those procedures rather than being introduced only after a serious incident.
What Athletic Departments Can Learn From The Arizona State Case
The circumstances surrounding Mayich’s hospitalization provide an opportunity for collegiate programs to examine how their safety systems function under pressure.
A meaningful institutional review should address both the immediate medical response and the longer-term experiences of student-athletes.
Several areas deserve particular attention:
- Training oversight: Establish clear responsibilities for coaches, athletic trainers, and outside instructors conducting physically demanding activities.
- Emergency preparedness: Maintain rehearsed medical response procedures appropriate to the sport, environment, and potential risks.
- Independent reporting: Give athletes accessible ways to raise concerns without relying solely on their coaching staff.
- Mental health access: Provide confidential pathways to qualified professionals and communicate how those services work.
- Post-incident support: Offer appropriate assistance following serious injuries or other distressing events, while respecting individual preferences and privacy.
- Institutional accountability: Evaluate safety procedures and respond to substantiated concerns through transparent, appropriate processes.
These priorities should not be interpreted as findings that Arizona State violated every one of these principles.
Rather, they represent areas that universities can assess when reviewing athlete welfare and institutional responsibility.
Independent Review Will Be Important For Establishing What Happened
Arizona State has confirmed that an independent review is underway under former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Scott Bales.
According to the university’s official case updates, Bales has discretion over the information considered during the review and may seek additional assistance.
The university expects initial findings in early December 2026 and says the review will include recommendations concerning student-athlete safety.
That process may help clarify the disputed accounts of the August 20 workout, the adequacy of institutional procedures, and opportunities for improving oversight.
Until the findings are available, it is important to distinguish between documented events, allegations from participants, and conclusions that have not yet been established.
The university’s handling of the incident will likely continue to attract attention because the questions extend beyond one hockey program.
College athletic departments across the United States face similar responsibilities when balancing competitive expectations, medical safeguards, student rights, and emotional well-being.
Athlete Welfare Must Remain A Priority Beyond The Investigation
The immediate concern remains Matthew Mayich and his family, who have faced an exceptionally difficult situation since August 20.
His teammates have also continued navigating an unusual season marked by uncertainty, public attention, and major coaching changes.
The October 22 Cronkite News investigation highlights a central principle of responsible athlete development: providing mental health resources is important, but students must also feel safe enough to use them.
Universities can support that goal through qualified healthcare services, reliable reporting systems, responsible coaching practices, and consistent attention to the experiences of athletes themselves.
The independent review may establish additional facts about the workout and institutional responsibilities. Those findings should guide any conclusions about specific failures or corrective actions.
For college athletics more broadly, the Arizona State case underscores that physical safety, psychological well-being, and accountability are interconnected responsibilities.
Competitive success should never require student-athletes to sacrifice their health or remain silent about legitimate safety concerns.
