Vacating Wins... do you also vacate losses?
by chirop1 on Jun 20, 2011 2:22 PM EDT
Email
Print
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A good point
and has been noted several places. Also, if a win is vacated, shouldn’t the other team then gain a win? I’m not sure, exactly, what the NCAA’s definition of a ‘vacate’ is and I’m too lazy to look it up. I’m sure it’s not the same as a ‘forfeit’, so maybe that’s the difference. What I find most ironic is that Thomas has no less than 3 teams in his own conference to go after now. Anyone think THAT will happen?
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
No
The other team didn’t W so it shouldn’t get credit for doing so.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 20, 2011 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions
He didn't say credit a win.
He said wipe out the loss. That’s not the same thing.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Vacate The W Not The L
He said, “shouldn’t the other team then gain a win?”
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 22, 2011 6:52 AM EDT up reply actions
IMO,
if you vacate a win then it’s the same as a forfeit. When I played Little League, if a player was ruled ineligible all the games he played in were forfeited and the other team was credited with a win. Now, we’re going back before they invented water, so maybe things have changed now. The NCAA has a problem “vacating” games. Bad term and bad practice, imo.
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jun 22, 2011 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions
If Memphis Or UMass Were Playing Little League Baseball
Perhaps they would have forfeited those games.
Instead the NCAA (basketball) vacated some W.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 23, 2011 7:04 AM EDT up reply actions
????????????????????
Memphis and Umass weren’t playing Little League baseball? The NCAA vacated Ws? Geez, I didn’t know that.
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jun 23, 2011 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Asked And Answered
Little League circumstances have nothing to do with NCAA vacating W’s.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 23, 2011 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't think so
The reason for vacating wins is obvious – removing some of the beneficial effects of playing with ineligible players. Leaving the losses alone goes along with that. A loss is a negative, so leaving them in place while vacating the wins is entirely consistent.
3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.
But,
if you use an ineligible player shouldn’t you really have a forfeit? Maybe the losing team would have won if not for the ineligible player.
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
Can't "Maybe" After The Fact
The L stays that way.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 21, 2011 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
IF......IF you use an ineligible player
then those games should be a forfeit, not a vacate. In which case the other team gets a win. imo. Vacates are just silly.
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jun 21, 2011 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Forfeit Before, No After
Vacate after.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 22, 2011 6:53 AM EDT up reply actions
??????????????????
how can you forfeit BEFORE a player is ruled ineligible? Am I missing something here?
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jun 22, 2011 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Forfeit Means The Game Was Never Played And You Get L
Vacate means the game was played but the W doesn’t count – you don’t get L.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 23, 2011 7:03 AM EDT up reply actions
That's what's silly
about vacates. One team doesn’t get the W but the losing team gets no compensation even tho the team vacating used an ineligible player. If you’re not gonna count a W, as tho the game never happened, how can you then turn around and still count the L?
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jun 23, 2011 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
No Silly At All
The L was earned by the losing team.
The W wasn’t earned buy the winner and hence it was vacated.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 23, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
forty, come on
how can the L be earned if the opposing team used an ineligible player? THAT player or players could have made the difference.
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jun 23, 2011 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions
The L Is Earned By Scoring Fewer Than The Opponent
Vacating W and forfeiting (L) are different.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 24, 2011 8:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Denial
is a sad think to observe
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jun 24, 2011 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I Stated Facts
You replied with opinion.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 28, 2011 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe the schools should be
punished by forfeiting monies made from illicit victories. The losing teams could be compensated from the collected money as if they had won. Leave the won/lost records alone.
I woke up feeling BLUE this morning. It's gonna be a great day.
Should I be scared that I was thinking the same thing?
An example would be for NCAA tournament births. The money gained from the conference being in the tournament (which is divided up by the conference per school) could be forfeited and divided up per the schools that lost to the offending team.
Just enjoy it Cameron
I think like Wineman all the time. We almost have enough for a band now. :-)
Blue... there is no other color to Bleed !!!
If that's the case..
then I call dibs on the jug. Or maybe the washboard. No, no definitely the jug. :-)
If an ineligible player is used and there's no win,
then there’s no benefit from the use of the player to take away.
by Feathered Biceps on Jun 21, 2011 11:19 AM EDT reply actions
Good summation of NCAA philosopy
If a team wins while using an ineligible player, it was because of the player, if the team loses, then the ineligible player didn’t matter. The player could have had the game of his life, but if it’s a loss, it doesn’t matter. However, if the player played less than one minute in a victory, well, the win was obviously because of the use of an ineligible player.
Great logic and great rule. HAH!
You sir, are wrong. Not how they do it today.
I think most people would like the NCAA TO BEGIN using a more black and white approach to this rule, but currently most would agree that there are many grey areas. See the treatment of Maggette versus other situations, namely Calipari’s — not exactly a consistent rule as I’ve been told.
I also feel you seem to insinuate instead the use of a case by case analysis of whether the ineligible player “contributed” or not in any given game. I think that idea is exactly what most are furiated about — the lack of a straight forward rule to be applied everywhere! Find an objective way to do THAT and we’d probably all be on board.
Again, what else can be taken from a team than the “W” when changing records? You take the win away to help make sure you don’t incentivise poor recruting and using of ineligible players. “Well, the win was obviously because…” makes no sense. If they got the loss while being ineligible, I just couldn’t see what else could be done with the record…
I think the more important debate was framed up by BigBill and FortyYear with regards to how the eligible teams records are handled when it’s found they weren’t competing on an unlevel field.
Lastly, to your point about contributing or not, I’m sure you could find an instance when a non-contributor cost a team due to ineligibility, but do we want to let them off the hook? That’s the school’s compliance department’s problem. Camby, Rose and Maggette were all contributors, as are most that we discuss.
by Feathered Biceps on Jun 21, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Vacated losses
This isn’t really an answer to this question, but interestingly enough, in the in the list of vacated and forfeited wins on the NCAA website, the NCAA does vacate losses as well as wins.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OK didn’t lose the NC to USC? All those teams didn’t lose to OSU? Memphis didn’t lose to KS? Now I’m totally confused. ;)
God Bless Our Troops............Especially Our Snipers!
by bigbill992001 on Jun 22, 2011 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 01/18/2012]
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
