Last week, I took numerous trips to the Riley County Courthouse, repeatedly checking the file in regards to the case "Kansas State University, and K-State Athletics v. Ronald D. Prince, and IPP, L.L.C."

With each trip, nothing new came out. The full legal depositions of Jon Wefald, Jacque Butler, Jim Epps and Bob Cavello weren't there. Rather, they were abbreviated depositions. For example, Wefald's consisted of just three of the 117 pages.

So I sent an e-mail to Neil Cornrich, Ron Prince's agent, who negotiated his 2008 employment agreement, seeing by chance if he would provide me with the full depositions of all involved in the case.

That afternoon, I received a phone call from Cornrich's office. Moments later, I had all the depositons.

I was very appreciative to Cornrich for giving me the information. Then again, why wouldn't he want to provide me the documents? After all, everything being printed appears to be in his client's favor toward receiving the $3.2 million from the MOU rather than the contract being invalidated like K-State hopes.

Perhaps that is true, but after having numerous conversations with lawyers over the past 48 hours, I'm led to believe K-State has a shot in this case.

Let's ask some questions to ourselves. First of all, we know why Cornrich is willing to provide the depositions — he thinks they benefit Prince. But why is K-State so quiet? Do K-State's attorneys possibly have some tricks up their sleeve, an ace in the hole so to speak? It's certainly possible.

Is Cornrich using the media as a public relations machine, trying to put out information in favor of his client and pressure K-State to settle because he doesn't believe he has as strong of a case as he says he does? Also possible.

It is widely believed in K-State's circles that former K-State AD Tim Weiser did not in actually offer Prince a fully guaranteed deal like the former coach said in his deposition.

Who is telling the truth?

 If Prince truly thought the MOU and employment agreement were one deal, then why didn't he provide the MOU in the lawsuit with his former agent Barry Terranova?

All of this will test the credibility of Prince in court.

Finally, did anyone at K-State truly know about the MOU, particularly former president Jon Wefald? I'm inclined to believe Wefald had no clue of the document.

Think about this: Less than three months after signing off on Prince's new employment agreement, Wefald decided to have him fired.

 If Wefald had truly known about the MOU, does anyone believe he would have terminated Prince's deal at the time?

Of course not.

Wefald was in his final year of his presidency. In just months, he would be able to ride off into the sunset as one of the most influential presidents in K-State history.

It would be easily justifiable to give Prince another year, despite several embarrassing losses that had much of the fanbase angered. Prince was still just in year three as the Wildcat football coach and had compiled a 17-20 record. He'd beaten Texas twice, and was the first coach to take K-State to a bowl game in his first season.

Wefald could hope that Prince could guide the Wildcats to a bowl game in year four and everything would settle down. Meanwhile, that "secret" buyout would decrease with each passing season he remained as the coach.

But he chose to fire Prince, who lost six of his last eight games that season.

I'm not questioning Wefald's decision to fire terminate Prince. Wefald likely knew a significant portion of the K-State fanbase would be angered if Prince were given another season. Ticket sales would almost certainly be on the decline.

But he also probably understood that the public backlash upon the potential discovery of the MOU would be far greater than what it would be by giving Prince another year. Some would have stood behind Wefald's decision to keep Prince around — that 37 games isn't enough time to judge a coach — that three seasons isn't enough time to rebuild a program.

But he had to know K-State fans would be hurt much more by the news of a secret agreement — that the administration that they trusted for 23 years would do something like this.

So using logic, I find it hard to believe that Wefald knew.

He may have been negligent when he signed off on the employment agreement. He didn't ask enough questions -— didn't read the contract closely enough. Then again, he'd worked with Krause since 1986. He was loyal to Wefald  —there was a trust factor there.

However, he said he knew in August he had made a mistake in appointing Krause the athletic director. So he probably should have carefully reviewed the biggest decision Krause had made in his first stint as an AD.

That's where Wefald made a mistake. He had too much trust in Krause. If anything, he's guilty for trusting a friend he worked with for 23 years.