I was listening to the Sirius college sports channel this morning and the hosts praised Josh Rosen for his thoughtful, articulate defense of players who skip bowl games to prepare for the NFL draft.
Rosen wanted to be on the field with his UCLA teammates last night at the Cactus Bowl, but doctors did not clear him to play. Earlier this week - when he still anticipated playing - Rosen argued that the QB position tends to be less physical than the RB position; therefore, his bowl situation was different than Christian McCaffrey's and Leonard Fournette's situations had been. "For them it's not an issue of if they're getting hurt, it's an issue of how severe, because most of those guys get banged up to some extent every single game . . . [quarterback] will take a few licks here and there, but nothing like the beating those guys take."
Rosen further explained why each player's situation is different:
A lot of people bash them, but some of them have to realize that some of these guys have families, some of these guys have kids. Some of these guys really have to support the people around them. Some of them maybe have been put in unfortunate circumstances where they can't afford to be in school for another year. They might want to...If they feel like they've locked in their future earnings to take care of their kids, or families, sisters, brothers, whatever, then I think people should really look into their story and see how football is affecting their life.
The Sirius morning crew is right that Rosen is smart and articulate. Here's the problem, though . . . what Rosen is doing is making very smart and articulate rationalizations for why fans and media should cut some slack for players who skip bowl games. When we consider the logical implications of Rosen's argument, however, they lead in a precarious direction for college football.
Let's consider an example . . . It's October 21, 2018. A draft eligible running back learns that he is projected to go in the top 10 of the 2019 NFL draft. At this point, he has essentially "locked in [his] future earnings." Meanwhile, he has an 8-month old baby to take care of, not to mention other family members who are depending on him to get out of difficult and potentially life-threatening situations. By Rosen's "rule," this player would be justified (and maybe even wise) to shut down his senior season about halfway through - forget about any silly bowl game!
What if the running back's team is still in the playoff hunt in mid-October? Okay, but what's more important than the well being of his loved ones? We couldn't blame the player for prioritizing his family, but should he be given that option in the first place?
Maybe this is why society came up with the concept, and principle, of commitment. Commitment means voluntarily agreeing to some obligation and then sticking to it, even if one's situation makes it difficult or relatively risky to meet that obligation. Otherwise, if everyone's different needs and desires were always kept relatively constant in relation to other people's needs and desires, we wouldn't need commitments and obligations, would we?
