They lost a smattering of their best players, so yes, it did. Their status as a club throughout history didn't change, but that doesn't best represent their current standing today; I'm a Liverpool fan, I'm well aware of that.
If someone boosts a 50 they'll be out of the kiddy pool in a (relatively) short time. It's not a perfect system, nobody's arguing that it is, but I'd ask what proportion of players at the lower end of the scale are boosters, and what number are legitimate players at that level? My guess would be the majority are fairly levelled players, but I'd need input from Frank on that one.
If it's a minority who're temporarily at incorrect levels, then I'd wager that system is still on the whole successful, no?
Does the Rangers example de-legitimise Scottish second division standings on the whole? Not at all. Just like Monaco being bought by a Russian billionare doesn't disqualify the majority of Ligue 2, for example.
Your argument doesn't make sense because skill's relative. Gratification gained from 'outskilling' opponents shifts with the context of said duel. If my opponent's not particularly good at the game then I don't garner much enjoyment. Of course there's still skilled ranking under the hood, supposedly, but without a concrete unified system of understanding there's still an element of doubt involved in determining how you are actually performing against your peers.
