Convenient Treatment of Vacated Wins

Like most of you that will read this, I have been following the 2013 NCAA basketball tournament and Michigan's run to the Final Four. Congratulations to those players and best of luck next week against Syracuse and beyond.

Now that that is out of the way, let me talk about what has interested me since long before this tournament- vacated wins, particularly as a penalty for rules violations.  The theory of this penalty makes sense to me but the gray area of its application has always been confusing.  I searched high and low for a good definition of what it means to vacate a win by the NCAA's standards without any luck.  The best definition I found (by what I imagine the NCAA implies) was from Merriam-Webster: "To give up incumbency or occupancy". In other words, when a team vacates a win, they no longer occupy the position that victory provided; they have vacated it, leaving the position empty or unclaimed.

The #2 image result for the search: Michigan Basketball

The gray area I referred to is most visible in the media's treatment of vacated wins.

1. Before the  tournament, I posted a link to a rivals.com blog post that tallied the Big Ten schools' historical tournament performances.  The article counted wins and achievements of Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio State with no mention that they had been vacated due to various infractions.  
2. As CBS televised Michigan's games this weekend, the references to the school's last Final Four run(s) were unsurprisingly a main storyline complete with images of Steve Fisher hugging various players.  
3. Last night mgoblue.com, THE official website of University of Michigan athletics, posted a write-up on the current team's run that couldn't get past the first sentence without referencing the schools last Final Four.

The only reason I can see for the inconsistencies is convenience.  It makes an easy storyline to sell. It's difficult to make allowances for people ignorant of the back-story.  It's easy to say how two things are the same. It's difficult to say how they are different.  It's easy to subtract wins on paper. It's difficult to reconcile that achievements were a benefit of those vacated wins.  Just to make a point on that, with all of the references to Michigan's Final Four appearances, when do you think you'll next hear Joe Paterno referred to as the winningest college football coach?

Vacating wins is obviously something the NCAA is serious about as evidenced by its actions.  Schools obviously don't want to vacate wins as evidenced by their appeals to the punishment.  Why then does the NCAA not enforce logical reporting and treatment of vacated games by its partners (CBS) and members (UofM)?

For further reading on vacated wins I recommend:

• The Theory and Practice of Vacating Games from the NCAA's own blog
• What does vacating wins really mean? from ESPN