In essence, you can choose to believe one of two sides.
The first is the account of two coaches who inspired great loyalty among their players and the players' parents, coached for seven years, and spoke openly to the WP about this event.
The second is a commissioner who would rather his son play football than attend his grandmother's funeral, refused to comment for this story, and put his own ego above the team's goals.
Yet for some reason, you think the latter party has more credibility...
I didn't base anyone's credibility on those factors. I don't understand why you did. What do those actions have to do with credibility?
Prior to the last game, the coaches abided by the rules set out in the commissioner's e-mail. The entire season. They never strayed from them.
Now, you expect me to believe that was mere coincidence? I mean, that's what YOU believe, right? You believe the coaches had the authority to do whatever they wanted to do -- they just chose not to. Right?