In checking the tournament standings for the 2nd chess.com 2001-2200 class I noticed that group #5 had a player that apparently resigned before making a move.  Should this entitle the four other players in the group to 2 victories apiece?

Nobody I know likes to claim a win like that.  And, if asked, the players in question would probably agree.  I am aware that we live in a world with too many rules already, but as online tournaments evolve maybe we should adopt a rule for this oversight.

The player who resigned may have been faced with any number of personal issues that prohibited play -- things happen unexpectedly.  But for those that would like to emerge from a tournament as a victor in a long fought battle should a "no move, no game" rule be placed on the books?

If every game was resigned before moving then it doesn't advantage any player over the other and counting or not counting the games has no affect on the outcome of the tournament.

What would be worse is if one player resigned all games except against one opponent. 

Understood on my original question.  The the wins are cancelled out by the fact of equality.  You raised a good point concerning selective resignation  although it seems that a player would have to be a little sick minded to do such a thing.  There's no rhymne, reason, or reward for it.  Still, stranger things have happened

I think, the current situation, that a game is counted as a winning one for the opponent, if a player withdraws or is excluded from the tournament for some reason is unsatisfactory in some way and not the optimal solution. First of all, his group opponents are receiving additional winning points, they have not really "earned", which might result for them in better group positions in further rounds. Secondly, if a player withdraws after having finished about half of his games in the current round, his remaining opponents (which will receive winning points) have again "undeserved" advantages above the others (who have already finished their games against the withdrawing person), if it was a "strong" player. On the other hand, if the remaining games would be counted as draws (with half of a point for each game), their would be some disadvantages for those group members (who did not finished their games against the withdrawing person), if it was a "weak" player. But, if they claim any disadvantages, they should have finished their games against the "weak" player earlier...

I think, the best solution with a minimum of advantages or disadvantages for anybody is to count the remaining games of a withdrawing or excluded player as draws (with half of a point) for his opponents. Concerning the rating of the withdrawing or excluded player, these games should be counted as losts for him (as is already the case today).