The most important function of a school’s athletic department should be the betterment of its student participants.  Each program or rule the department institutes should therefore be judged first and foremost on the impact it has on individual students.

Suspending athletes from their sports for what they do outside of school removes that focus on the individual and is neither fair nor practical.

Keeping students on the field and involved in the sports they love keeps them away from the alcohol or drugs that the Athletic Code of Conduct tries to stop athletes from using.  When students are actively involved in nightly practices, that’s time they don’t spend drinking.

The effects of a 40% season reduction go beyond missed games.  When the athletic department decreases the total number of games in which a player can compete, they decrease the incentive to participate in any part of their sport.  After all, in order to be a strong competitor, the same amount of time needs to be spent practicing, but the benefits of all the effort decrease.

In essence, suspensions risk permanently turning students away from a legitimate outlet for time and energy.  If the goal is to decrease underage drinking, no one benefits from the Code of Conduct.

The athletic department argues that because students make the decision to join sports, they consciously elect to be held to a higher standard.  That’s not incorrect, but that higher standard should be directly about sports, not unrelated activities.  The rules that encourage good sportsmanship and fair play are important because they are directly noticeable on the court.  On the other hand, from the perspective of an audience member an athlete who drinks and one who does not are identical.

It’s important to remember that ending athletic suspensions does not mean athletes would go unpunished,  it just means that the punishments would stay in the courtroom and off the field.