I was pondering the possible sanctions against a program for widespread program misconduct (TCUN anyone?) and how that affects the conversation. In my lifetime the most common severe sanction I have seen imposed is vacating wins. The so-called "death penalty" has only been imposed 5 times, with a number of schools self-imposing this drastic remedy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_(NCAA)

This article discusses the concept of both forfeits and vacating wins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacated_victory

It seems like forfeitures are becoming increasingly rare. This article claims that the last football forfeiture was Louisiana Tech in 1998, with only vacated wins since that time: https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/friv/forfeits.html

The NCAA Statistics Policies and Guidelines outlines how forfeits and vacated wins are treated in the record books on the institution and the individual players (but no guidance on when one should be imposed over the other): http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/ForSIDs/Policies.pdf

Since it appears that forfeitures are technically still on the books as possible sanctions, what are your thoughts on under what circumstances the NCAA should impose a forfeiture vs a vacated win? What factors stand out as counseling in favor of forfeiture? Does a forfeiture provide any more solace?

The games can't be unplayed. In a sports bar eye to eye encounter with a forfeited/vacated opposing fan can/are you seriously going to argue you did not lose that game?