Aug. 8, 2008
WEST HARRISON, Ind. (12:52 p.m.) - By now, you should know the news about Ben Mauk. If not, you can find the UC release right here. Here's my take on the news.
The opening statement from BK: "I'm disappointed for Ben," BK said. "But he's a pretty resilient kid. He was quite disappointed himself. He's gone back to Kenton, Ohio and is going to reassess his situation to see where he goes from here. The things he has going for him are numerous. We're going to see if we can get him into a (NFL training) camp. He wants to continue to play football. That will be our first job at hand - to see if we can get him into an NFL camp. There was a lot of interest in him getting into some camps. If that doesn't work out, he's got a Masters degree in criminal justice."
Obviously, BK is disappointed. I'm sure Ben Mauk is disappointed. I imagine the team is disappointed. But I was talking with somebody today - before we knew the Mauk decision had been made - and we were saying, even if Mauk is denied, a sense of closure probably would be good for this team. I think it will be, beginning with the 70-play scrimmage set for Saturday.
It'd be good for Mauk - who was driving home to Kenton after learning of the decision this morning and was not available for comment (we think we're going to get him early next week) - because now he can move on with his life. Whether that's trying to make an NFL team (though I think that will be really, really tough to accomplish at this point in the calendar), finishing his Master's degree and heading into the real world, or taking a GA job at UC, he won't have this tiny hope in the back of his mind that maybe, just maybe the NCAA will grant me this sixth year.
What surprised me the most was that Mauk didn't get the chance to plead his case. I know he's been practicing what he wants to say to the NCAA Reinstatement Committee, and all along, we thought he would get his 10 minutes on the phone with them. But that obviously didn't happen - which, to be honest, kind of confuses me. I didn't expect Mauk actually to get that sixth year. But I thought he'd get the chance to make his final statement.
|
|
 |
"There was no teleconference," BK said. "The NCAA felt they had enough information to make the decision without Ben. They felt like they could make the decision without talking to Ben."
The problem stemmed from the Wake Forest side. Although he received treatment as a freshman for the foot injury he sustained in high school, the Wake Forest training staff has no record of Mauk's day-to-day activities from the 2003 season.
This is what Maggie McKinley, UC's compliance director, said when Mauk was turned down the second time in late April:
"Wake Forest didn't have the contemporaneous medical documentation when Ben was there," McKinley said. "We had all the documentation from his treating physician when the injury occurred and the follow-up surgeries. He got to Wake Forest, and the paper trail ended. That's the problem. Follow-up visits, things like that. There's nothing.
"The NCAA isn't disputing that there was an injury. What they're saying is that there's nothing to support that it kept him out of playing."
Still, UC and Mauk hoped they could somehow get that sixth year. When the news broke this morning, Mauk understandably was upset.
"It was a very emotional time," BK said. "He was upset he didn't have an opportunity to speak on his behalf. But the NCAA has protocol and they feel like they had a decision they could make without Ben. I think that would have helped Ben if he had a chance to say his side of the story. But he's a resilient kid and he'll bounce back."
This decision, of course, also will benefit Dustin Grutza and the rest of the quarterbacks competing. You have to think that, although Grutza is getting the No. 1 snaps, he could look over to the sideline and see old No. 9 standing there. Plus, Grutza knew that if Mauk got that sixth year, Grutza (probably) could flush his senior season down the toilet. Now, he doesn't have to worry about that.
The reaction from Grutza was a bit more muted than that, though.
"Ben is a good friend to everybody here," Grutza said. "I think a lot of people felt down that he's gone now. But we saw we have to step it up and start preparing for the season. We can't let it kill us. When they first said it, I felt bad for him, because I'm sure that was really tough. In my head, right then, I knew I had to take a leadership role and get the team going. You can't wait. There's no more waiting. We now know. We have to pick it up now."
I've also got calls into Mike Mauk, Ben's dad, and Erik Christianson, an NCAA spokesman. I'll let you know if I hear something from either one.
UPDATE (6:59 p.m.): I traded e-mails today with Erik Christianson, an NCAA spokesman. I asked him why the committee didn't talk to UC compliance or Mauk via teleconference before it rendered its decision. Here's his answer:
Regarding the appeals process, it's important to understand the difference between a request to waive a rule or bylaw and a violation of bylaws. Mr. Mauk's case involved a request to waive the rule regarding the five-year eligibility clock.The appeals process for waivers (as compared to violation cases) provides for a review on the written record. The Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee can hold a telephonic appeal if an institution requests one.
The committee determined that the review did not warrant a telephonic appeal. The documentation in the case was full and complete.
So, there you go.
