I want to add a bit of historical perspective to the details we've learned recently about the toxic culture of intimidation and abuse in Maryland's football program by going back to one of the earliest moments when that style of coaching was publicly challenged: 1954 Nebraska.
Back then Nebraska was coached by Bill Glassford. He came to the school in 1949, bringing with him a hard-driving and "merciless" approach that, rather than causing concern, earned him a fawning 1951 profile in the Saturday Evening Post. 
Glassford was hardly an anomaly, of course. This was the era in which Bear Bryant conducted his famed Junction, Texas, training camp/torture chamber.
But three years after the Saturday Evening Post's profile, Glassford's players decided they'd had enough. They sent a petition to university leaders asking that Glassford be fired, and released a statement charging him with humiliating players and creating a culture of fear.
The reaction from sportswriters at the Omaha World-Herald, the largest newspaper in Nebraska, was telling. They described the players as confused cry-babies and defended Glassford on the grounds that every football coach used the same methods.
The OWH also ridiculed players for failing to provide specific details. In response, six players signed public statements listing their specific grievances. Bob Oberlin charged Glassford with failing to properly treat injuries and with prioritizing football over education.
Bill Holloran noted that Glassford put stipulations on scholarship money, forcing players to meet certain conditions and making them unsure about whether or not they would actually get the money they were expecting.
Max Kitzelman (his name is misspelled by the OWH here) wrote that Glassford refused to take his injury complaints seriously.
But the World-Herald sportswriters dismissed those complaints. When Glassford was ultimately retained as Nebraska's coach, the sports editor wrote a triumphant editorial that described the protesting players as freeloaders who were mentally weak.
The players, for their part, were well aware of the unfair treatment they were receiving at the hands of the press. They issued a statement complaining about the OWH's treatment of them, which the OWH dutifully published--but in a way that ridiculed the players' intelligence.
In the environment of the 1950s, the Nebraska players did not have much of a chance. The local and national media generally praised the methods of authoritarian coaches like Glassford as necessary and useful ways to develop character, instill discipline, and build winners.
But what about today? How does the Nebraska football situation of 1954 compare with Maryland of 2018? On the one hand, there are some positive changes. For one, sports media is more likely to support players (indeed, it was a media report that brought to light Durkin's abuses)
On the other hand, until specific abuses are detailed and laid out, sports media (especially at the local level) has a tendency to laud the hard-driving tactics of coaches, a point that @MJ_Baumann noted theringer.com/2018/8/15/1769…
And then there are the similarities between the grievances of the Nebraska and Maryland players. Coaches can't just yank a scholarship from a player these days but, as ESPN's report showed, they can find other ways to try to use scholarships to control and demean players
And of course the disregard for player health, the refusal to take injury complaints seriously, was evident in tragic ways in Maryland.
As for Bob Oberlin's complaint that his coach dictated which classes he could take and when...well, that has simply become such an entrenched part of college football that it is rarely brought up anymore. From @MJ_Baumann once again
There's one final similarity between Maryland 2018 and Nebraska 1954 that we should consider, too, and it is perhaps the most sobering. Put simply, it is often very difficult to tell when a football coach has crossed the line from accepted/expected methods and abusive behavior.
Consider the aftermath of the Glassford debacle. After he was retained, most of the players, even those who were the public face of the protests, came back to the team.
Bob Oberlin was one who returned. Despite his complaints in 1954, later in life he looked back fondly at his time under Glassford. In fact, in a 2009 story by @RandyYorkNSider he even directly contradicted his specific 1954 grievances huskers.com/ViewArticle.db…
This is common among football players who played for coaches who toed and/or crossed the line between being demanding and being abusive. They will often look back at their time with those coaches in a more positive light than when they played for them.
But there was at least one player from the 1954 protests against Glassford's abuse who stuck to his guns: Max Kitzelman. Kitzelman was a veteran of the Korean War when he came to Nebraska, which might explain why he did not put up with Glassford's treatment.
He did not return to the team in 1954 or 1955. But in 1956, after Glassford was finally let go, Kitzelman was back on the roster, ready to play his senior year. (Kitzelman, btw, is well-known among Nebraska old-timers for his post-college career as a wrestling coach & official).
Update: this thread was apparently discussed on Omaha sports talk radio today, which, I’m not ashamed to say, is very cool. Not quite as cool as the time I talked with @MikelSevere on The Bottom Line, but still up there.
