I feel like we are beginning to argue two separate points here. No one can prove you wrong because that is what the rule book states, but I think the point here is that the fact the rule is written the way it is is absolutely ludicrous. The fact of the matter is they are basically serving little to no punishment for a rather serious offense. Your only response to that point has been that the perpetrator has graduated and we shouldn't punish the rest of the team. Should we make a new rule that as long as the kid is no longer on the team there should be no punishment at all? Absolutely not. As a standard of comparison many other teams have have WAYYYYY less sever infractions and served SEVERELY harsher punishments. Is it fair? No. Is it the way the rule book states? Yes. Just because its in the bylaws doesn't mean its just. Its a US law that 500 grams of powder cocaine will give you the same jail time as 5 grams of crack cocaine (this is actually true). Is that fair? No. The previous precedents set by the state over minuscule infractions should allow you to deduce that these kids had 0.000% shot of playing in the playoffs. Its obviously not the way its gonna happen that way, but if the people who wrote these rules had any common sense it would be that way.
Don't we have ways of stopping such a gross injustice? I think we've done it before. Oh I don't know say the 19th amendment? Nottttttt quite as big of a deal, but maybe you get my point. I say everyone boycott the playoffs and give them the rings!!! (I hope you can hear the sarcasm in my keystrokes)
