Posted by jpmills3 on 8/28/2012 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 10:36:00 AM (view original):
FYI though - in the case at hand - the user had went to WIS before acquiring the 2nd team to find out the mileage requirements (which were not posted at that time, but officially/unofficially 800 miles). They relied on WIS telling them that 800 miles was the rule.
jp, I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the user in question had both teams for some time before inquiring about the distance and getting permission to keep both teams to my knowledge. This was granted apparently shortly before the rule was enacted. I do believe both teams were already established before the CS discussion was had.
For the record, so my position is clear, either way (getting approval for 800 prior to taking new school or having both long term and then getting approval at 850ish) I still don't feel the rule should have exceptions. It has nothing to do with a competitive edge and everything to do with if there is a rule all users should be bound by it equally.
You are wrong in the first paragraph. I know this for a fact. Mileage requirements were absolutely sought out prior to taking the 2nd job.
See, a little back history for all of our listeners out there...
When you guys were starting up CUSA, I was asked to join and leave my Tex AM CC (another id). So were other coaches. The funny thing was, most people (can't say everybody cuz that is an absolute which I cannot prove) in your conference had no problem with me taking a CUSA team (at the time) even though I would have been closer to Tenn. Similar to other coaches who were approached I am sure. Its just when otehr coaches don't move and still win, they suddenly get sitemails from C/S about the distance between their two schools. So, such a hypothetical coach may have had his T's crossed and I's dotted when he made another move, don't you think?
wait, are we talking about mets or the coach in my exchange. I haven't named the coach I am talking about, so I am thinking we are talking about different things, unless you believe you have divined who I am talking about? Now I am confused...
If you are talking about mets with the prior approval thing, that I have no knowledge of.
For accuracy sake I went back and took another look at the coach's teams that I am questioning. He has been at one quite some time, the second considerably less, but still long enough ago that he would have taken the job some time before the new guidelines were released I believe. The ticket exchange with CS stated that, "In this specific case the user is allowed to stay at these two schools because we had approved it shortly before we released the updated Fair Play Guidelines."
I can't remember anymore when these were introduced. I guess it is possible that the coach got approval before taking the second job depending upon when the guidelines were released. I want to try to make sure the facts are presented factually... ultimately, for me, it doesn't matter if he was given permission ahead of time and took over the new, second school the day before the guidelines went into effect. I don't blame the user for anything, nor do I think he is trying explicitly to subvert the rules per se. I disagree with WiS allowing the deviation, for the reasons I've already established. It truly is just a simple case of I feel that the rules should apply equally to all users.