University of Cincinnati Sports: Mauk decision tomorrow

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Mauk decision tomorrow

UC expects to receive the Ben Mauk decision at about noon tomorrow.

23 Comments:

at 10:28 PM

Anonymous said...

OK Bill, please let us know what the decision is. How about Sean Miller to IU?

at 10:31 PM

Anonymous said...

Bill, what is your speculation regarding Mauk? Will the NCAA allow him another year? Why or Why not?

at 10:34 PM

Anonymous said...

Let's all hope that we finally get a favorable decision from the NCAA on an impact player for a change. They just granted a sixth year of eligibility to just such a player at LSU. If this is not granted, it will look VERY obvious that the NCAA has it in for UC.

at 10:37 PM

Anonymous said...

Hey we can wait until Thursday. No need for speculation when the decision is right around the corner.

at 11:03 PM

Unknown said...

A follow up on the LSU player,not sure if its exact same as Mauk or not...From Fox Sports..BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - LSU defensive end Kirston Pittman was granted a sixth year of eligibility by the NCAA, the school announced Monday.

Pittman, who missed all the Tigers' 2005 and 2006 seasons with foot and ankle injuries, formally applied for an extension in early January. After reviewing Pittman's documentation, the NCAA granted the additional year of eligibility.

"Kirston is very deserving of this ruling after what he's been through as far as injuries are concerned during his LSU career," coach Les Miles said. "He's very fortunate that there's a good rule in place that allows a guy who has missed extensive time with injuries the opportunity to get a year back."

Pittman signed with the Tigers in February 2003 and saw action in 13 games as a freshman during LSU's run to the national title that year. Pittman played in 12 games as a sophomore in 2004 before missing the next two seasons because of injuries.

at 12:43 AM

Anonymous said...

The LSU players situation is not the same. He was injured two seasons. Sitting out was not voluntary, it was necessary.

Mauk redshirted his freshman year, and even if that is a coachs decision, it appears voluntary to the NCAA. Mauk was then hurt and had to sit out.

Finally Mauk was lucky enough to take advantage of a rule that allowed him to transfer without sitting out a year, and that rule is no longer in effect.

It doesnt add up well for Mauk. Expect a no. Be happy if its a yes.

at 8:01 AM

Anonymous said...

Dizzy, I agree with you about the answer probably being a no.

However, redshirting is legal so that should not be an issue. A team or player shouldn't be penalized for doing what's legal.

Also, the "no sit transfer" was legal at the time. Again, there should be no penalty for doing what's legal.

The issue really seems to be the injury, the amount of the season played, and whether a rule does or doesn't cover it.

If it comes down to the subjective, I expect the NCAA to side against UC because it's easier for them that way.

at 8:30 AM

Anonymous said...

Bill - According to Fox19 (evening news last night), the decision is already in. Mauk (apparently) said he knew what the decision was, and that UC would announce something tomorrow (today).

Not sure this materially changes anything - since the rest of us wont know until later today...although your post states that UC will recieve the info today...which I believe is mis-leading.

at 8:32 AM

Anonymous said...

rumor is UC heard Tuesday night and he is not getting the extra year.

why the delay in telling the fans?

at 9:10 AM

Anonymous said...

8:32, it's to give us a "cooling off' period because we figure that the NCAA will rule against UC yet another time when it's an impact player. I hope that they rule yes, but history says the NCAA seems to love to say NO to UC. I really like Mauk, not only for his ability, but also for his mental toughness. He's definitely a big plus to the FB team. Hopefully, we finally get a favorable ruling.

at 9:29 AM

Anonymous said...

Minor miracle we got him for the one year we did. Honestly, I don't know if he even deserves the extra year. It would be nice, though.

at 9:35 AM

RickNMd said...

Oh I see no way he gets an extra year. It has nothing to do with a vendetta against UC. It's about setting precedent. Like the courts, the NCAA does not like to set precedent on rulings.

I think the reason they're waiting is so they can have a press conference on a day that a UC basketball game doesn't compete in the news and Mauk can say his good-byes.

at 9:40 AM

Anonymous said...

Even if the NCAA says no, BK won't be through with the fight. Expect the lawyers to be at the press conference if the answer is no. Put this into a judge's hands, which the NCAA would be fine with, so they don't have to be the final say. #9 will return.

at 10:05 AM

RickNMd said...

Sue for a player's eligibility after he's already had five years? I don't think so. It's not worth the long term ramifications with the NCAA. You say thank you, turn away and curse under your breath.

at 10:23 AM

Anonymous said...

the kid deserves another year, but i just dont see the ncaa siding with us on this one (or ever)

at 10:25 AM

Anonymous said...

This is just like the incumbent politicians. All of the rules that they make concerning fund raising and campaigning help keep them in power. The NCAA wants to keep the power teams in power and the lower tier teams at the bottom. They do not want UC to get any better because it is about money and power and the LSUs, FSUs, UF, UM, OSU, etc. are the power and the money makers. When UC has a 100,000 seat stadium and sells it out every year for decades, maybe something will change. Until then, the NCAA will always rule against UC.

at 10:53 AM

Anonymous said...

10:25, as John Mellenkamp wrote and sang: "Little pink houses for you and me" and UC. You hit the nail right on the head. Classic struggle between the haves and the havenots and the NCAA knows who butters their bread.

at 11:04 AM

Anonymous said...

Nonsense!

The NCAA took down SMU football, Kentucky basketball and now Indiana basketball, among many others.

It has absolutely nothing to do with big schools/little schools. It has absolutely nothing to do with UC as an institution.

It's about each individual case. Otherwise the NCAA would get sued about every 15 minutes and lose.

But of course from reading these boards you'd never expect most UC fans to use logic and common sense. It's always Us vs. Them no matter the circumstance.

at 11:37 AM

Anonymous said...

It appears that Ben's career is over. Thanks to Ben for helping put UC football on the map in a way it has never been before.

at 11:38 AM

Anonymous said...

denied! bummer :(

at 11:46 AM

Dave in Omaha said...

anyone expecting otherwise hasn't been paying attnetion...

Good luck to Mauk...He did a helluva job last year. Whoever takes over will have some big shoes to fill...

at 11:47 AM

Anonymous said...

8:32 - your sources were right.

at 12:12 PM

Anonymous said...

11;04 Right! UC is zero for 5,000 (hyperbole) when it comes to the NCAA. If you really think it's as you say, I have some snow to sell you in the Arctic Circle. Life is just SO fair!

Previous Posts

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Mauk decision tomorrow

23 Comments: