"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...)"

Yep, and I completely understand that.  For me, I just don't care that much, and think keeping guys like mets and acn is more important than that.  But I see your point, too.

Posted by todd43615 on 8/28/2012 3:19:00 PM (view original):
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.

From the Wikipedia page for "Grandfather clause":

"In the 1980s, as states in America were increasing the permitted age of drinking to 21 years, many people who were under 21 but of legal drinking age before the change were still permitted to purchase and drink alcoholic beverages. Similar conditions applied when New Jersey and certain counties in New York raised tobacco purchase ages from 18 to 19 years in the early 2000s."

Ha, so apparently dac's example isn't a great one :)

Posted by isack24 on 8/28/2012 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by todd43615 on 8/28/2012 3:19:00 PM (view original):
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.

From the Wikipedia page for "Grandfather clause":

"In the 1980s, as states in America were increasing the permitted age of drinking to 21 years, many people who were under 21 but of legal drinking age before the change were still permitted to purchase and drink alcoholic beverages. Similar conditions applied when New Jersey and certain counties in New York raised tobacco purchase ages from 18 to 19 years in the early 2000s."

Ha, so apparently dac's example isn't a great one :)

I can't speak to that. I know that in New York that was not the case, at least not in Onondaga or Oswego Counties...

Isack, I agree 100% that it is a hindrance for the reasons mentioned. Is there any possibility that your BCS team suffers from not being able to recruit certain areas? If so, are you doing a disservice to your BCS mates? Is that or should it be part of the decision process for two teams?

I really don't care if they have a rule or don't have a rule. My post was simply to say I believe the game has changed... as it does so must the rules. When you change the rules... simply make us all follow em. Do what you can to keep the screaming to a minimum...(and I don't mean bending the rule... or grandfathering... or whatever else you want to call it). but make em uniform for all. If you can't... don't make the rule.

*for the record, I disagree with 1000 miles. Either you let folks have 2 teams or you don't. Same world... same division,.. I don't care. One rule for everyone and then enforce it ... if you can :)

Posted by zags27 on 8/28/2012 3:49:00 PM (view original):
I really don't care if they have a rule or don't have a rule. My post was simply to say I believe the game has changed... as it does so must the rules. When you change the rules... simply make us all follow em. Do what you can to keep the screaming to a minimum...(and I don't mean bending the rule... or grandfathering... or whatever else you want to call it). but make em uniform for all. If you can't... don't make the rule.

But a grandfather clause is a two-tiered uniformity (oxymoron anyone?).

It's uniform based on when the rule was applied.  The rule wasn't expressly made retroactive, was it? 

I don't know, again for me it's more of a balance between losing great coaches vs. not losing great coaches.  That won't matter for everyone, but I think it's better for the game.  I was in anadeau/acn's D2 conference that he was forced to leave.  At least one other team in that conference has a D1 alt ID.  None of us had a problem with it.  I think it's crap that he was forced to leave his team (especially in a year which he was probably the favorite to win the NC).

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Isack, I agree 100% that it is a hindrance for the reasons mentioned. Is there any possibility that your BCS team suffers from not being able to recruit certain areas? If so, are you doing a disservice to your BCS mates? Is that or should it be part of the decision process for two teams?

Great point.  No clue.  Although I realize now that I am recruiting a MI kid with my VTech team, and that's as close to MN as I have ever come.  But just so everyone knows, I have not FSSed MI with my D3 team, nor am I recruiting anyone from there.  Just thought I'd put an end to that before it came up.

I don't know if not being able to recruit IL/WI/MN/IA/etc. has hurt me at VT.  I doubt anyone cares, but you raise an interesting question that I've never considered.  If I am hurting the conference by refusing to recruit certain areas, isn't my avoiding a conflict a conflict itself?  Huh, probably. 

Dac-  we do agree on if there was a grandfather clause it should be clearly written out and apply the same way across the board for teams held prior to the introduction of the new rule.  WIS rules should be meant to improve the quality and the spirit of the game (which I'm sure was the intent of this rule) but it feels like the enforcement of this rule has been unclear impacting some teams and not others and causing more trouble than it is worth.

Posted by todd43615 on 8/28/2012 4:00:00 PM (view original):
Dac-  we do agree on if there was a grandfather clause it should be clearly written out and apply the same way across the board for teams held prior to the introduction of the new rule.  WIS rules should be meant to improve the quality and the spirit of the game (which I'm sure was the intent of this rule) but it feels like the enforcement of this rule has been unclear impacting some teams and not others and causing more trouble than it is worth.

Yes, I guess we do, although I would prefer there not to be any grandfather clause teams for the reasons I've put out there over and over, but if, indeed, they are going to insist upon allowing an exception to anyone it should be applied to everyone, and not just those with the foresight to ask.

I would have loved having a grandfather clause when they changed the rule that limited you from having a 12 man class down to 6. Back in the day I made an alias (godmaker) specifically to have 12 man classes and win championships every 4 years. It worked great until they changed the rule limiting classes. If godmaker had just been allowed to continue with that I would have been able to continue to use the 12 man class to dominate, and no one new would have been able to use the same strategy. Would have been genius for me, would have sucked for new guys.

lol shqipta - if there is a way for coaches with 2 teams outside of the 850 mile old rule that play by the rules have an unfair advantage over other ppl I retract my previous argument :)

I'm torn here ... I do think that if there is a rule it should be equally enforced. No question. I also think that if they are grandfathering people (and I'm not necessarily saying that they should), they should be grandfathering everyone who qualifies. That said, I think if you've specifically OK'd someone to do something, you're kind of committed at that point to sticking with it.

The problem is really from the inconsistent application of the rules here. First, there's really no way for them to even know who has multiple teams and who doesn't. Then, once they figure out someone who does, they have to treat them the same. (I'm really thinking of acn's example, which would **** me off if I were him.) 

And having suffered at the hands of shqipta's E. Oregon super classes back in the day ... I'm officially anti-grandfathering on that one.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 3:04:00 PM (view original):

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...)

dac, i definitely agree consistency is a must. and todd is right - many states DID grandfather people in on the drinking rule change. its absurd to say, "you've been drinking for 2 years now (legally, probably many more), but now you are too young to drink for another year". it makes no damn sense.

the best i can do to appeal to you is this. think about the point in time in HD when you most loved a program of yours. any program. now imagine you had two, 850 miles apart, and you had coached both for years. you planned to keep both until you retired. now, wis changes the rule. are you supposed to lose 2 years of work into a program? it seems VERY harsh, at the least. a well intentioned coach did nothing wrong, and now he has to choose between the two programs he loves?

about a year or two ago, my d1 and d2 teams were only a few hundred miles apart. previous rules said you couldn't have teams in the same region in the same division. now, that divisional constraint appears gone. without question, if CS told me to drop one of those two schools, and to pick which, i'd have said do both and go **** yourself. im sure other coaches would approach it differently, but surely, many would be quite ****** off, and a few (i would include myself at one time, but not now) would probably retaliate, causing many many times more damage than the original situation was causing.