John Infante of the Bylaw Blog writes this morning about the theories and practices behind the NCAA “vacating” games.
Infante, the assistant compliance director at Colorado State, argues that the practice of “vacating” is based on the “acknowledgement of a true fact.”
In light of the controversy over Kentuckyk’s treatment of John Calipari’s 500th victory, which Infante mentions, he argues that there is a solid reason behind and a legitimate place in the NCAA record books for the use of “vacating” results of games or seasons.
An excerpt:
An men’s basketball team is not just playing the sport of basketball. They are actually playing the more specific sport of NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball. Aside from scoring more points than the other team, this sport has an additional requirement: to do so with a properly assembled roster of players meeting eligibility requirements. The NCAA Division I Manual is no less a part of the rules that disinguish college basketball from other forms of the sport than the 35-second shot clock.
When scores more points than the other team with an ineligible player, it has not actually won, since it has not achieve all of the necessary requirements for victory. So when a victory is vacated, it’s not rewriting history. It’s acknowledging the fact that the team is missing a piece of the puzzle.
Agree or disagree, it’s an interesting piece. And Infante makes a good case. But my quibble with “vacate” is the attempt to go back and rewrite history. The game has been played. The winner has been determined. It’s like trying to erase reality. I would prefer stiffer penalties be levied against the perpetrators than an attempt to right a supposed wrong.
