You guys on the high horse of "FAIR PLAY" need to STFU...seems like I read about some BS every week about some **** that doesn't matter...I could do this exact same thing tomorrow and nobody would ever know about it.  If you can't beat someone or are up to the challenge of beating someone that "cheats" (very loose usage of the term), then you probably shouldn't be playing this game.  WIS isn't going to deny money coming into it's business just as you wouldn't either.

Again, FSS free to all, problem solved, and it inherently makes the game tougher because everyone is playing with equal info.

Posted by jpmills3 on 8/28/2012 12:30:00 PM (view original):
And also to be clear and transparent, Mets went to Auburn after the fair play guidelines were updated with the 1000 mile rule, so it he would not have the expectation of being "ok."  But he only moved there in the first place because MSU was too close (so he tried to make it work).

I do hate seeing good institutional coaches ran off.  It is NOT good for the game.  and there is definitely behind the scenes political stuff with conference rivalries that seems to drive many of these complaints.

That does not change my opinion on the subject matter of this post.  that person had approval long ago.  was told 800 miles was the rule.  relied on that rule.  its unfair to make take that person from their gig absent any evidence of shennanigans.

with that being said, i have some work to do!

I have tried to avoid analogies since I don't want to introduce straw men into this in any way, BUT - reading your last post reminded me of something from my youth. Back then the drinking age was 18. I had an older friend who turned 18 and celebrated appropriately. Later that year, the drinking age was raised to 19. Suddenly he was no longer able to legally buy or consume alcohol. Then he turned 19 and celebrated again. Later the age was raised to 21 and again he lost his right to use alcohol. Not because he did anything differently or wrong, but because the rules had changed and he was no longer in compliance with them. To me this is a similar thing. Receiving permission for something that did not violate any posted rule is one thing, having that permission carry over after a hardline rule is implemented is another in my book. 

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 1:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/28/2012 12:19:00 AM (view original):
On the other hand, if he had been expressly given permission beforehand, would it be right to suddenly revoke that explicit permission for him? Other question is ... Just how close are we talking? Was it '990 miles" or 90 miles?

To your first question, yes, it would be right. I counter that it is the only thing that is right. Well, actually, they could revoke the rule and go back to the way they used to handle things. That permission was granted back when the 1000 mile rule was informal and CS handled matters on a case by case basis. Now that there is an explicit rule, everyone should have to be bound by it. To exclude some users from the rule cheapens the existence of the rule and implies privilege.

i thought in the original example, the coach was granted permission BEFORE the 1000 mile rule came into play. that rule is only a few months old isn't it? the old rule read like, you can't have 2 schools in the same geographic region. i would think you would grandfather people in who existed before the rules.

i won't name names because id hate to get this coach in trouble, hes a very honest guy and it would take a total douche to complain about his situation. but he had two schools very close by, maybe even in the same conference, predating ANY restrictions. and i think he still has them.

ive watched countless coaches pick up teams in the same conference and i never cared. i had the benefit, in most cases, of knowing the coach on some level, and was comfortable they were playing above board. i really think the 1000 mile limit is fairly arbitrary. for example, it seems i cannot apply to kansas, as i coach south carolina, but kansas may as well be the other USC (southern california), for all the interaction between the two. 

the real issue here is this - this issue, for the entire 5 years ive been here until lately, ran under this simple rule - if nobody cares, you could do it. i suspect its largely that way today, there are probably infractions all the time by well meaning individuals. but CS probably got some complaints and left people unhappy, so they had to formalize the rule. the complainers would be unhappy if CS didnt make someone move, and the guy who got moved would probably get ****** too. after all, its dead obvious that if you want to cheat, you don't style yourself dacj501 on one account, dacj502 on another, and cheat with yourself. if someone wants to cheat with 2 accounts in this game, its ridiculously easy, and almost impossible to get caught, unless you are a complete dumbass about it.

did mets quit the game over this? i saw he is no longer at oklahoma either. if so, that would be about one hundred and fifty million times bigger travesty than coaching maryland and mississippi state together (which i have no problem with).

whats his other id anyway?

gil, yes, according to CS the permission was granted shortly before the rule came into effect. You seem to be in the camp that approves of grandfathering in certain folks who are now in violation. I repsect your right to that opinion. I hold a different opinion though, and I guess I put this out there to see how many others agreed with me on the principle. General impressions seem to be that more people are ok with it than not. That won't change my opinion, but I suppose I won't go about tilting at windmills forever...

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 8/28/2012 12:30:00 PM (view original):
And also to be clear and transparent, Mets went to Auburn after the fair play guidelines were updated with the 1000 mile rule, so it he would not have the expectation of being "ok."  But he only moved there in the first place because MSU was too close (so he tried to make it work).

I do hate seeing good institutional coaches ran off.  It is NOT good for the game.  and there is definitely behind the scenes political stuff with conference rivalries that seems to drive many of these complaints.

That does not change my opinion on the subject matter of this post.  that person had approval long ago.  was told 800 miles was the rule.  relied on that rule.  its unfair to make take that person from their gig absent any evidence of shennanigans.

with that being said, i have some work to do!

I have tried to avoid analogies since I don't want to introduce straw men into this in any way, BUT - reading your last post reminded me of something from my youth. Back then the drinking age was 18. I had an older friend who turned 18 and celebrated appropriately. Later that year, the drinking age was raised to 19. Suddenly he was no longer able to legally buy or consume alcohol. Then he turned 19 and celebrated again. Later the age was raised to 21 and again he lost his right to use alcohol. Not because he did anything differently or wrong, but because the rules had changed and he was no longer in compliance with them. To me this is a similar thing. Receiving permission for something that did not violate any posted rule is one thing, having that permission carry over after a hardline rule is implemented is another in my book. 

The Green Bay Packers are publicly owned.  NFL teams are no longer able to be publicly owned.  The Packers still have that right.

For every example you have, I promise you I have one that counters.

Obviously a new rule doesn't demand that no exceptions exist for those following the old one.  The question is twofold: (1) is this the type of rule which should have allowed exceptions for long-time coaches; and (2) should WiS have been more transparent?

Certainly the answer to (2) is "yes."  So that leaves the answer to (1).  I think the answer is "no," but I can respect the opposite viewpoint.  I certainly don't think you MUST be correct simply because the rule itself changed.

Started off rough but ended up a good discussion.  I see valid points from both sides and most everyone agrees that it is a stupid rule.  Dac I wish you would have left the analogy off tho.  IMO comparing a changing drinking law and this situation is apples to oranges.  There are plenty of real life examples where a grandfather clause has been used with a rule or law change and it makes perfect sense.  Using your example I could take it to an exaggerated level and say a speed limit changed on a road that I've been driving for years so I should be able to drive the old speed limit - which is of course ridiculous.  The thing that I think needs to be considered as some have already mentioned in this thread is the time and money invested by the paying customer who purchased the teams following the rules that were in place at that time. They paid the money and followed the rules that were in place why shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy the teams that they built?  If an arbitrary rule was put into place that forced you to leave your team that you had been building and spending money on season after season wouldn't you be upset too?  To me it makes sense that a grandfather clause should be available to those teams affected by the rule change.  It should be clearly written in the rule and available to ALL teams affected provided that there is no evidence of cheating of any kind. 

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/28/2012 1:25:00 PM (view original):
did mets quit the game over this? i saw he is no longer at oklahoma either. if so, that would be about one hundred and fifty million times bigger travesty than coaching maryland and mississippi state together (which i have no problem with).

no.  and he doesn't want to be a part of this either.  i was just using him as the most recent example.

and see I think the analogy fits 100%.
the drinking age changes because of evidence that convinces lawmakers that times have changed and the rule needs to be updated.
No grandfathers... no Grandmothers... nothin. Yesterday you could drink... today the law says you can't
HD has evolved... the engine gets changed.... FSS makes this rule seem to be needed to level the playing field.
No grandfathers... no Grandmothers... nothing. It's a rule and should be enforced on everyone.
WIS can make whatever consessions to those affected by it to keep em happy... But the rule should be enforced equally for all.
Otherwise you make a mockery of the rules period. Who are they to say who's a cheater and who's a great guy.
I have seen one of the best coaches in the game take his D1 team and rape a D2 team because they were winning a D2 battle against his D2 team.
I have seen a A+ prestige D1 team enter a battle across the country because someone was beating up on his B+ prestige D1 team.
You can't have it both ways... Haters are gonna hate an cheaters are gonna cheat.

Dumb question of the day, why even have multiple teams in the same world?  Aren't there enough other worlds available?

Posted by ike1024 on 8/28/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 8/28/2012 12:30:00 PM (view original):
And also to be clear and transparent, Mets went to Auburn after the fair play guidelines were updated with the 1000 mile rule, so it he would not have the expectation of being "ok."  But he only moved there in the first place because MSU was too close (so he tried to make it work).

I do hate seeing good institutional coaches ran off.  It is NOT good for the game.  and there is definitely behind the scenes political stuff with conference rivalries that seems to drive many of these complaints.

That does not change my opinion on the subject matter of this post.  that person had approval long ago.  was told 800 miles was the rule.  relied on that rule.  its unfair to make take that person from their gig absent any evidence of shennanigans.

with that being said, i have some work to do!

I have tried to avoid analogies since I don't want to introduce straw men into this in any way, BUT - reading your last post reminded me of something from my youth. Back then the drinking age was 18. I had an older friend who turned 18 and celebrated appropriately. Later that year, the drinking age was raised to 19. Suddenly he was no longer able to legally buy or consume alcohol. Then he turned 19 and celebrated again. Later the age was raised to 21 and again he lost his right to use alcohol. Not because he did anything differently or wrong, but because the rules had changed and he was no longer in compliance with them. To me this is a similar thing. Receiving permission for something that did not violate any posted rule is one thing, having that permission carry over after a hardline rule is implemented is another in my book. 

The Green Bay Packers are publicly owned.  NFL teams are no longer able to be publicly owned.  The Packers still have that right.

For every example you have, I promise you I have one that counters.

Obviously a new rule doesn't demand that no exceptions exist for those following the old one.  The question is twofold: (1) is this the type of rule which should have allowed exceptions for long-time coaches; and (2) should WiS have been more transparent?

Certainly the answer to (2) is "yes."  So that leaves the answer to (1).  I think the answer is "no," but I can respect the opposite viewpoint.  I certainly don't think you MUST be correct simply because the rule itself changed.

this is a good post. I agree with the answer to #2 of course.

I guess I was smart to avoid the analogy for so long, and would have been even smarter if I'd continued to do so. Regardless of that - I too see that some rules should have some provision for grandfathering. I don't think this should be one of them, and I especially don't think it should be applied to some coaches who held both schools before the new guidelines were introduced and not applied to others, as seems to have happened to acn.

Mostly I don't think that I should be subject to rules and limitations that others aren't in respect to the game. More broadly, I don't think anyone should benefit from something that others are specifically forbidden to benefit from (my use of benefit does not imply anything improper - the benefit may be simply the ability to have 2 teams on the same schedule for recruiting and whatnot...)

Posted by bullman17 on 8/28/2012 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Dumb question of the day, why even have multiple teams in the same world?  Aren't there enough other worlds available?

there are a few reasons I can think of, here are a couple:

There are only 3 2-game a day worlds. Many people prefer the faster pace of these worlds, and they may want more than 3 teams.

Another coach recently explained to me why he would like another school in the same world. He is too busy to deal with the disruption of recruiting more often than the once every 7 weeks or so it comes around in a 1-game a day world. Having teams in other worlds means he'd be forced to work more recruiting into his schedule. With another team in the same world he is currently in he could deal with all the recruiting at the same time.

Perhaps a coach has teams in all 2-game worlds already but wants to experiment with alternate strategies. To do so in a 1-game world would take a long time to try to bear out any kind of results from experimentation. Another team in a 2-game world would be a better option, and he could run some experiments for a few seasons and move on...

Well actually somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure some states actually did have a grandfather clause on the legal drinking age where people that were 19 when the age was changed could still purchase alcohol - have to look it up to be sure but I'm about 90% sure lol.  But regardless my opinion is still that paying customers that follow the rules that are in place when they paid for the teams should not have to throw that time and money away by being forced to go to another team because of a newly implemented rule.  I would say that the teams that were victim to your examples zags should most certainly file complaints for unethical play.  But your examples could happen with or without the 1,000 mile rule so the grandfather clause wouldn't promote or prevent those things from occurring.

Posted by bullman17 on 8/28/2012 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Dumb question of the day, why even have multiple teams in the same world?  Aren't there enough other worlds available?

I do, and have always been open about it.

My reason was that my D3 conference had a bunch of people move up to D2.  Almost all of us went.  But then, we started to get buyer's remorse, and when new openings started, most of us used an alt ID to get our old teams back.

I really enjoyed my conference mates in both conferences, so we stayed with it for awhile.  Now, I have a BCS team and a D3 team.  I have no intention of giving up my D3 team, or my D2 team in another world, so my only option would be to start from scratch to get back to a BCS team.  If WIS banned me from having those two teams, I would probably just drop to two teams.

As I've said before, the opportunity to cheat is clearly there, but I actually think it's more of a hindrance because I go out of my way to avoid recruiting entire regions to avoid the appearance of impropriety.