Skip to content

Vacated Wins Do Not Equal Forfeits

In the wake of vacating-of-wins penalties slapped on both Alabama and Florida State this offseason, there seems to be some confusion on the part of fans as to exactly what the sanctions mean.

Apparently, said confusion has also spread to some members of the media and players who previously played the game.

The following is a portion of an interview with former Hawaii quarterback Colt Brennan that appeared yesterday in Stephen Tsai‘s outstanding Honolulu Advertiser blog:

Because Alabama vacated its victory over UH in 2006, the Warriors technically went 12-2 and 12-1 in Brennan’s final two seasons. 

“Put that in the paper. I like that. I want to frame that.”

Unfortunately for Brennan, Tsai is technically incorrect.  A vacated win is a completely different animal than a forfeit.

We checked with a person in the know at the NCAA, and it was confirmed that, while Alabama does indeed lose their win against Hawaii — provided the sanctions are upheld on appeal — Hawaii will not get to pick that win up.  Additionally, the game does not count in any type of series record between the two teams.

Thus, Hawaii will stay at 11-3 as their 25-17 loss to the Tide in September of 2006 forever remains etched in the Warriors’ record books.

Permalink 0 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Alabama Crimson Tide, Hawaii Rainbow Warriors, Rumor Mill
Respond to “Vacated Wins Do Not Equal Forfeits”
  1. Whatever says: Jul 4, 2009 11:25 PM

    I don’t think that opponents of vacated wins should get a loss. I can see why these situations are different than a forfeit, but I think the game should just be removed entirely if there’s no official winner. It’s arguably unfair to count the loss for the losing team if they were beaten by a team that used inelligible players or otherwise violated the rules.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!