@RobHowe is messing with you guys, he has been pretty clear about where he comes down on the players' right to choose whether or not they participate in bowls.
I am pretty conflicted on the whole thing: while I recognize a player's right to choose what is best for them, I don't think it is the best "teammate move", and I think it is faulty reasoning to think that a 1st round lock has more to risk than a mid-round prospect. In fact, I would argue someone like Grier from WVU is the type who might not ever get a chance if he got injured, so he is the type with the most to lose. A projected top-10 pick (think the Jaylon Smith from a few years back) lost up to $30 million due to his injury, but he had a $9 million insurance fallback, and even with the injury, was selected at the start of the 2nd round and will earn tens of millions in his career. Jake Butt was projected as a 2nd round pick; even with his injury, he was taken in the 5th (and had a $2 million insurance fall back). Such a guarantee is not in place for someone like Grier (or Render, or Reynolds, or Drew Ott, or Jake Duzey, etc.).
What the discussions on here the past week or so have helped me to realize is that the Bowls are part of a really messed up system. Because of their history, many (players, fans) are convinced they have some special meaning, a meaning that has long since been diluted and lost. Also, because of players' intrinsic desire to compete and to want to be there for their teammates who are also competing, the default choice is going to be for players to participate in bowls (very few players have sat out bowls compared to those that have competed, although there is an obvious trend in the opposite direction). So everyone goes out to play, putting much on the line, and ultimately they aren't even given the possibility of a championship to compete for. Players are basically assuming this risk solely for the reason of making a lot of money for everyone but themselves (I highly recommend reading this opinion piece on Bowls from last December:
College Football Bowl Games are a Grotesque Money Grab).
As
@deanvogs and others pointed out, this could potentially bleed into the regular season games as well. As a team is mathematically eliminated from championship contention, do players start weighing risk vs. benefit? Realistically, 80% of teams are probably eliminated before the very first snap of the season, so why even start? So then we have to start examining the intrinsic value offered from sports and competition, that is, what value does it offer to the participant and fan that goes beyond the ability to determine which team is best? As someone who has long championed the lessons and memories derived from sports competition, I don't think these aspects should be undersold.
I don't know what the answer to all of these dilemmas is. But I am starting to feel strongly that a game with contrived meaning that takes place after a month layoff is pretty immoral. If the game is scheduled, I am pretty certain I would still plays due to a sense of obligation to my teammates and school, but there would be a sense of injustice that the game was scheduled in the first place.
