Okay, one last time...
Participation awards are, according to some, BAD. So someone who doesn't go all out and earn an award shouldn't get one. So someone who sits on a bench for 90% of total game times should not get an award just because they were there. Erego, benchwarmers on winning teams should not get any awards simply because they were part of the team. They were just there.
I understood you perfectly the first time. I just don't think your point is particularly strong or well made.
Again, you asked for the logic behind the idea that everyone on a team deserved recognition of some sort when the team won a championship, even though not all of the players contributed equally (i.e. there are "benchwarmers"). So again, the logic is simple and obvious. Second-string and bench players can contribute in many different ways, especially through the course of an entire season. Whether or not their contributions were equal to the top players on the team isn't really relevant, especially since many teams like to give special awards inside the team, to MVPs and the like. So do many leagues.
The idea that a team sharing a championship is equivalent to participation awards in some sense is just nonsensical, imo.
