The issue for the players (not me, it's all very confusing) is that they were investigated extensively by the Hennepin County prosecutor and the police. The evidence was found to be insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They then went to a civil court to fight the restraining orders. We don't know what happened there but they probably think that the evidence wasn't very strong since they settled and the alleged victim plead the fifth. In a civil court, the rule is not beyond a reasonable doubt but 51% more likely than not. In the players' minds, the accused have been fairly tried by professionals and found to be not guilty.

Then a university administrative body recommends the expulsion/suspension of not only the accused, but 4 or 5 more allegedly not involved (one who reportedly was not at the location at the time of the incident). At this point, the players feel like they are being attacked and unfairly punished to be set as an example (ala Duke lacrosse). They don't believe in the legitimacy of the EOAA and their names are being plastered everywhere as rapists, which they don't believe they are. Then they read statements like this in their briefing, "based on the totality of the circumstances. Including the apparent failure of each accused student to provide full and truthful information ...we generally find (alleged victim) account to be more credible" (Source). To them, it doesn't sound like they gave them a fair shot nor does the committee sound very confident in its decision. They try to ask questions but nobody gives them conclusive answers.

All in all, it's an administrative clusterfuck (people can read very detailed summaries in comments below about this) and the players are frustrated. I don't know what to think about it but I believe people are moving too quickly to both extremes without enough knowledge. The details from both sides are very confusing but everyone can agree that the administration and team have handled it extremely poorly and it is going to end poorly no matter what.