And I want my child to understand that if they believe the rules to be invalid or unjust, they should work to change those rules.
The point you're missing (or ignoring) is that the coaches accepted the commissioner's conditions. They coached the entire season under those conditions. Then they violated those conditions in the final game and were fired for it.
It's disingenuous of you to compare that to the Nazi's enforcing behavior under penalty of death or an employer extorting sex from an employee.
You believe the end justifies the means, and that's what you're teaching your children. Well, I don't. There will always be those who disagree with the rules -- they're not necessarily right and they don't get a pass just because they disagree.
And what you are ignoring is that you cannot "accept" invalid conditions. An employer who listed your duties on the day you were hired as "typing, filing, sex, and doing my laundry" cannot then hold you to having sex if you do the filing and typing for the first few weeks (please try arguing that one in court!). Attaching invalid (i.e. commands outside of the authority of the hirer) requirements to valid ones does not somehow magically make the invalid ones valid.
The commisioner may have the power to hire and fire, but I've seen no indications that his formal power includes making playing decisions. That is a power traditionally reserved for coaches. The fact that he might misuse his power to fire a coach that didn't do what he wanted doesn't suddenly give him coaches' power. Try taking a local crack dealer to court because he didn't deliver the quantity he promised to you. Invalid contracts cannot be made valid simply because you adhere to some of the conditions (that's black letter law... and common sense).
Better luck next time...