Some say that this is not important. So why is it in the rule book!
Because some say it is important.
Look at it this way. Which type of pairing distortion is more serious, color distortion or rating distortion? Depends on how big the distortion is, and where you put the tipping point. The general feeling is that avoiding bad equalizations is “worth” about 200 points, while avoiding bad alternations is worth about 80 points.
Bill Smythe
I was going to say: how rare, someone who actually wants to get RID of a rule!
People do not like change, they are so use to just saying higher rated player gets due color and so it is with changes to rules. If they do not understand it they do not like it. Rules do complicate things at times. But thanks for the input to the comment.
“Higher rated gets due color” isn’t even the first rule on the list.
For example, in pairing BWB against xWB (where x is an unplayed game such as a bye), you would assign W to BWB rather than to xWB, regardless of rating, because equalization takes priority over alternation.
Even more subtly, in pairing WBWB vs BWWB, you would assign W to WBWB rather than to BWWB, because the former is more strongly due W than the latter.
It’s only when the entire color sequence of both players is identical, such as WBWB vs WBWB, that “higher rated gets due color” kicks in.
Furthermore, it’s not “higher rated gets due color”, it’s “higher ranked gets due color”. If two players have the same score, then, indeed, the higher ranked is the higher rated. But when pairing, for example, the lowest 2.0 against the highest 1.5 (because of an odd number in the 2.0 group), the 2.0 is the higher ranked, regardless of rating.
There is plenty of good logic behind all of these rules, including the 80- and 200-point limits. They’re not there just because somebody wanted to have a rule.
Bill Smythe
The full color sequence logic came in with the fifth edition rules, but higher ranked has trumped higher rated for much longer. I lost track of the number of times I explained to a higher-rated person that did not get their due color that ther lower-rated opponent had a higher score and was thus the higher-ranked player.
So since it is not the rule that higher rated gets due color, the premise here is wrong?
Maybe we should add a rule saying that this rule shouldn’t be followed. 
Nah, just make it another “variation.”
What if you aren’t using USCF ratings for pairings? the difference betwen 80 and 200 rating points might mean more or less.
FIDE pairings use infinity/infinity. IHSA’s team tournament uses seedings rather than ratings, so the swap limits are based upon the size of seeding groups (I think they are 8/16). However, if the non-USCF ratings use “Elo” ratings with the same scale factor as USCF’s, 80/200 is probably still reasonable.
If the TD assigned a pairing then that pairing is used for the 80/200 limits.
Those rules are important. They codify a reasonable extent (one of several) beyond which we will not contort the natural pairings to avoid someone having to play Black (and it’s always about someone having to play Black).
“almost always” but not “always”. I have had one complaint from somebody receiving a consecutive white in the next to last round because he knew that he would then have black in the final round. I think four of the six players in that scoregroup were due black and his was the only one that had a color conflict with the natual pairings. He then tried to argue that the full color history meant that he was more due black than somebody else that received it naturally but I explained that full color history only comes into play after any necessary transpositions were already made, and it doesn’t come into play to decide the transpositions.
See Mr. Wiewel’s comment above. If, however, you’re not using USCF ratings at all, you can do what you like since you can’t be appealed.
Alex Relyea
Truth to tell, in small sections where finding a legal pairing in a later round is difficult, I have ignored the rule.
I don’t quite understand what this means. The 80 point and 200 point limits apply to transpositions and interchanges made to improve color allocation (alternation and equalization, respectively). There is no limit on the transpositions or interchanges made to avoid pairing players who have already been paired in an earlier round. (Of course, such changes should be as minimally invasive as possible.)
And in particularly small sections I’ve deliberately broken the pairings (and sometimes the scoregroups) to avoid getting boxed into a situation in later rounds where either rematches or multiple byes are required. If it is not the final round then round three of a 5-6 player event and round five of a 9-10 player event are critical.
And there my friends is an example of what an experienced human TD can do. Those programed wizards do a fine job of pairing, but sometimes those pairings need help from a TD.
In a small section (10 players or fewer, maybe even 20 or fewer), it is a good idea to change the transposition limit for alternation from 80 to 0 (but leave the limit for equalization at 200). This will usually reduce the difficulty in pairing later rounds. In a small section you’re going to have lots of bad colors anyway. It’s better to have them in the odd-numbered rounds (alternation) than in the even-numbered rounds (equalization).
Bill Smythe