When Ben Mauk was denied an additional year of eligibility at Cincinnati, it was assumed that ended his quest for a 6th year. Mauk spent all of last weekend away from the Bearcats' training camp, and just out of sight. It was assumed that he was making calls to some NFL teams about a possible tryout or simply mulling his future. Well, sort of. He was in consultation with lawyers and decided that if the NCAA was going to deny his final appeal without directly speaking to him, he would change the venue. He filed for and received a temporary restraining order in Ohio Common Pleas Court against the NCAA against prohibiting him from playing and practicing with Cincinnati. While that puts the NCAA in the position to respond at an August 22 hearing, Mauk won't be practicing at Cinci training camp at the moment.
[Cincinnati head coach Brian] Kelly said Thursday that if UC allows Mauk to practice and the NCAA eventually prevails in court, UC could be forced to forfeit games and return bowl money.As strange as this is, it isn't unprecedented.
"Ben Mauk, myself and everybody else here will not go down that road," Kelly said. "That's ludicrous to even think that we would put him on the field and put our football team in harm's way."
Mark Schlabach at ESPN.com lists some other examples.
The move isn't unprecedented. In 1999, Northwestern quarterback Zachary Kustok sued the NCAA for his eligibility before reaching an out-of-court settlement. Kustock sued the NCAA to regain his eligibility during the 1999 season, claiming the year he spent at a junior college after leaving Notre Dame fulfilled the NCAA's one-year penalty for transferring to another Division I-A school. Kustok played in the final seven games in 1999 and led the Wildcats to a share of the Big Ten championship the next year.What stands out, is that the players who have sued have prevailed. Or at least forced the NCAA to back down without any penalty to the school. Cinci is being cautious ahead of the hearing, but if Mauk prevails in the hearing, expect the Bearcats to welcome Mauk back to camp.
In 1996, Texas Tech offensive lineman Casey Jones sued the NCAA for his eligibility after it ruled he was academically deficient. A Texas lower court granted Jones a temporary injunction to play the second half of the 1996 season. The NCAA appealed to a higher court, but by the time the Texas Supreme Court heard its arguments the Red Raiders' season was over. Former Fresno State basketball player Larry Abney also successfully sued the NCAA in 1996 to regain a season of eligibility. Abney sued the NCAA after the NCAA Clearinghouse declared him ineligible as a freshman. The eligibility clearinghouse ruled one of Abney's math courses from high school didn't meet its standards.
This appears to be the main legal point of Mauk's action against the NCAA.
"The NCAA denied Mr. Mauk's request even though a virtually identical request was recently granted to another student-athlete. In denying Mr. Mauk's request, the NCAA held Mr. Mauk responsible for the lack of information contained in his medical files while at Wake Forest University, even though Mr. Mauk had no control over those files. In the absence of those records, the NCAA failed to fully consider other relevant, contemporaneous medical evidence of Mr. Mauk's injury. The NCAA also made its decision without affording Mr. Mauk the opportunity for an oral hearing, an opportunity provided for in the NCAA's regulations. The NCAA's actions are breeches of its contractual and fiduciary duties it owes Mr. Mauk. Its application of its rules to Mr. Mauk is arbitrary and capricious."To simplify, Mauk suffered an injury as a senior in high school. He went to Wake Forest and as a freshman was still recovering from the injury. He had a setback when the screws in his big toe had to be removed early. Wake Forest opted to redshirt him because of the slowed recovery, but did not formally make it a medical redshirt. Wake Forest actually backs Mauk's version of events, but they don't have the documentation to satisfy the NCAA.
The NCAA had decided not to consider other evidence and when it denied his final application, they opted not to let him make an oral presentation directly to the appeals board.
Mauk's lawsuit, essentially is as much about making his presentation and forcing the NCAA to explain how it has decided in this instance to be so bound to the complete letter of its rules -- while still denying him the due process allowed under the rules. In other words, the arbitrary decisions to be strict in some interpretations of rules while refusing to afford Mauk the same strict following of the rules and procedures.
