So have we played Ole Miss since 2010?

[doncecco]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... violations

My recollection is no.

[gerryb323]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... violations

My recollection is no.

2012. 39-0 L

[krewe of ham and eggs]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... violations

My recollection is no.

2012. 39-0 L

Played them in 2010 as well

[tulaneoutlaw]

I don't think it really matters. Vacating wins is about the dumbest penalty the NCAA can enforce. The games were played and we know who won. The players and coaches who played in those games are long gone for the most part. It's not like retroactively altered W-L records truly impact them anyway.

[krewe of ham and eggs]

[Rotorooter]

I don't think it really matters. Vacating wins is about the dumbest penalty the NCAA can enforce. The games were played and we know who won. The players and coaches who played in those games are long gone for the most part. It's not like retroactively altered W-L records truly impact them anyway.

Teams have to vacate any championships they won (take down the banner) and the coach has to change his W-L record. Other than that, I totally agree with you, it is meaningless.

[windywave]

It'd be nice if they gad to forfeit post season payouts

[PeteRasche]

It'd be nice if they gad to forfeit post season payouts

It would be, but what about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in sales of "National Championship" gear that the school reaped when they won a title then had it vacated because they cheated? It's not like fans can return their shirt and hat and get their money back.

I agree with everyone above, it's stupid.

[doncecco]

I never said it really matters, but it does change the record in the books.

But even that apparently is uninspiring. If both games were reversed (not clear if all games were by the article):


Toledo would be 5-7 instead of 4-8 in '10

and

CJ would be 3-9 instead of 2-10 in '12.

Like I said, not worth the thread, I started. Just was curious.

[windywave]

I never said it really matters, but it does change the record in the books.

But even that apparently is uninspiring. If both games were reversed (not clear if all games were by the article):


Toledo would be 5-7 instead of 4-8 in '10

and

CJ would be 3-9 instead of 2-10 in '12.

Like I said, not worth the thread, I started. Just was curious.

We don't get a win, they just lose the win

[OGSB]

I never said it really matters, but it does change the record in the books.

But even that apparently is uninspiring. If both games were reversed (not clear if all games were by the article):


Toledo would be 5-7 instead of 4-8 in '10

and

CJ would be 3-9 instead of 2-10 in '12.

Like I said, not worth the thread, I started. Just was curious.

We don't get a win, they just lose the win

I’ve been wondering why we care. We retain the loss. As said above, it’s dumb (the idea of vacating wins).

[gerryb323]

I never said it really matters, but it does change the record in the books.

But even that apparently is uninspiring. If both games were reversed (not clear if all games were by the article):


Toledo would be 5-7 instead of 4-8 in '10

and

CJ would be 3-9 instead of 2-10 in '12.

Like I said, not worth the thread, I started. Just was curious.

We don't get a win, they just lose the win

I’ve been wondering why we care. We retain the loss. As said above, it’s dumb (the idea of vacating wins).

I don't think we keep the loss, we just don't get a win. So Toledo was 4-7 instead of 4-8

[OGSB]

Regular season vacancies
In the case of regular season games, the penalized team's win is removed from its official NCAA record. The losing team, however, retains the loss, and individual statistics resulting from the subject game(s) are not affected other than for players declared specifically ineligible.[1][2] These changes affect the penalized team's season records, all-time records and coaches' records. Thus for example, a team that was 10-2 during a season in which it fielded ineligible players would have its record revised to 0-2. Any team or coach streaks (e.g. wins, postseason appearances, team statistical streaks) are terminated. The NCAA prescribes that all records that are changed should be asterisked with the footnote stating something to the effect of “Later vacated by NCAA action.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped ... _victories

[gerryb323]

Regular season vacancies
In the case of regular season games, the penalized team's win is removed from its official NCAA record. The losing team, however, retains the loss, and individual statistics resulting from the subject game(s) are not affected other than for players declared specifically ineligible.[1][2] These changes affect the penalized team's season records, all-time records and coaches' records. Thus for example, a team that was 10-2 during a season in which it fielded ineligible players would have its record revised to 0-2. Any team or coach streaks (e.g. wins, postseason appearances, team statistical streaks) are terminated. The NCAA prescribes that all records that are changed should be asterisked with the footnote stating something to the effect of “Later vacated by NCAA action.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped ... _victories

#themoreyouknow
#ifknowledgeispower

[doncecco]

I never said it really matters, but it does change the record in the books.

But even that apparently is uninspiring. If both games were reversed (not clear if all games were by the article):


Toledo would be 5-7 instead of 4-8 in '10

and

CJ would be 3-9 instead of 2-10 in '12.

Like I said, not worth the thread, I started. Just was curious.

We don't get a win, they just lose the win

I’ve been wondering why we care. We retain the loss. As said above, it’s dumb (the idea of vacating wins).

I don't think we keep the loss, we just don't get a win. So Toledo was 4-7 instead of 4-8

well, that's even dumber.

[gerryb323]

I never said it really matters, but it does change the record in the books.

But even that apparently is uninspiring. If both games were reversed (not clear if all games were by the article):


Toledo would be 5-7 instead of 4-8 in '10

and

CJ would be 3-9 instead of 2-10 in '12.

Like I said, not worth the thread, I started. Just was curious.

We don't get a win, they just lose the win

I’ve been wondering why we care. We retain the loss. As said above, it’s dumb (the idea of vacating wins).

I don't think we keep the loss, we just don't get a win. So Toledo was 4-7 instead of 4-8

well, that's even dumber.

I'm dumb sometimes, apparently

[doncecco]

I never said it really matters, but it does change the record in the books.

But even that apparently is uninspiring. If both games were reversed (not clear if all games were by the article):


Toledo would be 5-7 instead of 4-8 in '10

and

CJ would be 3-9 instead of 2-10 in '12.

Like I said, not worth the thread, I started. Just was curious.

We don't get a win, they just lose the win

I’ve been wondering why we care. We retain the loss. As said above, it’s dumb (the idea of vacating wins).

I don't think we keep the loss, we just don't get a win. So Toledo was 4-7 instead of 4-8

well, that's even dumber.

I'm dumb sometimes, apparently

I meant the rule, of course.