Three things.

1. I hold a black belt in Tae-Kwon-Do. I may have some intelligence, but I hardly consider myself a nerd who's biased against athletes.

2. In this case, I believe the crime is larger because of what it caused. This is a textbook case of reckless endangerment. If the victims had died, the "jocks," as they have been called, could be charged with their deaths as homicides (I think manslaughter is the most that could apply - need to check the exact definitions - but that's still a major, major felony). The victims did not die, so manslaughter is out of the question, but lesser felonies certainly are not.

3. The argument that the defendants are exempt because they are minors is absurd, frankly. Anyone above the age of 18 has to be tried as an adult, and exceptions can be made to try those who are not of legal age as adults, too. It depends on the circumstances and is evaluated on a case-by-case basis with a heavy emphasis on the severity of the crime and the impact it caused. I'd say this was a pretty big impact (no pun intended), and as I pointed out in #2, the severity of the crime is also great.