Short of a lawsuit, it looks like the saga will end next week one way or another. Here's Bill Koch's blog:

Quote:By this time next week, the University of Cincinnati should know once and for all if Ben Mauk will return to play quarterback for the Bearcats this season.

UC coach Brian Kelly said Friday that Mauk is expected to have his final appeal hearing via teleconference possibly Tuesday and no later than Thursday.

Mauk’s request for a medical hardship waiver that would provide him with a sixth year to complete his four years of eligibility was turned down by the NCAA for the second time in 2½ months on April 30.

The NCAA said in that ruling that Mauk lacked contemporaneous documentation from his former school, Wake Forest University, to support his claim that an injury prevented him from competing during his freshman year in 2003.

This time Mauk and UC will present their case to a five-person Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee armed with a precedent that they believe closely mirror’s Mauk’s situation.

“When you appeal for this sixth year there has to be case precedent,” Kelly said, “or you’re just kind of pulling at straws to try to get another year. In our investigating of the case and looking at what the chances would be, we found that there is a case that’s very similar to Ben’s (in which the ruling was overturned).

“A lot of our work has been trying to parallel all the things that were in this other case.”

Bill Koch Enquirer Blog

No inside info and despite UC's recent history with NCAA decisions, I'll take a guess that he gets the 6th year.

Edit: Um, nevermind - hearing postponed....

New updated timetable thread

Koch story on the newest delay

good...we'll finally be able to get beyond this, no matter what the outcome.

I like how BK says they at least have a precedent. At least they have some type of tangible something to use to build their case. Let's keep our fingers crossed!

I wonder if #9 will be available in the new jersey?

They might have a precedent, but from what I have seen, if they don't come up with documentation it's a moot point. I'm just not getting a good vibe about this.

I have written off Mauk, for next year, a long time ago. We can keep our fingers crossed, but as it was said earlier, i am not getting any good vibes about a change.

As for QB spot, i was a bit uneasy in BK's first year and felt if we could survive thru it we might be okay. Well, its a year later and still have the same feeling, but this time i am just riding the wave and expecting that BK will have whomever takes the position, ready. Go Cats!

Last night, Mick talked about how the NCAA doesn't do ANYTHING unless there is precedent for it. I believe him. In order for Mauk to come back, UC will have to find a case that is "strikingly similar" where the athelete "won" in order for them to rule in favor of Mauk. Otherwise...

QSECOFR Wrote:Last night, Mick talked about how the NCAA doesn't do ANYTHING unless there is precedent for it. I believe him. In order for Mauk to come back, UC will have to find a case that is "strikingly similar" where the athelete "won" in order for them to rule in favor of Mauk. Otherwise...

I don't think the NCAA would rule in favor of UC without precedent. Seems to me other schools might not find it that difficult to be precedent pioneers.

Remember a certain school down south with a famous fax machine? Talk about precedents...

QSECOFR Wrote:Last night, Mick talked about how the NCAA doesn't do ANYTHING unless there is precedent for it. I believe him. In order for Mauk to come back, UC will have to find a case that is "strikingly similar" where the athelete "won" in order for them to rule in favor of Mauk. Otherwise...

So then how does a precedent get set?

1125 Wrote:

QSECOFR Wrote:Last night, Mick talked about how the NCAA doesn't do ANYTHING unless there is precedent for it. I believe him. In order for Mauk to come back, UC will have to find a case that is "strikingly similar" where the athelete "won" in order for them to rule in favor of Mauk. Otherwise...

So then how does a precedent get set?

By a school who's NOT UC

Bearcats#1 Wrote:By a school who's NOT UC

But you get the point, if the case is strong enough there needs to be no precedent. It just appears Mauk's case is not a very strong one. Something we might not know. Saying that I do hope we get Mauk back. Wait and see.

1125 Wrote:

Bearcats#1 Wrote:By a school who's NOT UC

But you get the point, if the case is strong enough there needs to be no precedent. It just appears Mauk's case is not a very strong one. Something we might not know. Saying that I do hope we get Mauk back. Wait and see.

From what I've read/heard, and somebody has already said it in this thread already -precedent or not there has to be documentation and my understanding is they are short on the documentation which is too bad because it appears Mauk has a solid case/argument and unfortunately there isn't the documentation to back it up......

I'm completely confident yet again that we will get Mauk back. And again I will be heart broken if the NCAA rules against him.

faNATIc Wrote:I'm completely confident yet again that we will get Mauk back. And again I will be heart broken if the NCAA rules against him.

Confident or hopeful? I don't see how anyone could be confident given Mauk has already struck out twice and knowing UC's track record with NCAA elegibility the last dozen years.

I was just kidding. I'm all ready to get my #3 jersey.