In the meantime, CBSSports.com's Greg Doyel wrote a column on the topic, and it's worth passing along to you, although I do it with a caveat -- right at the top, Doyel sets up a flimsy straw man:
...Meyer faces a once-in-a-lifetime choice:
He can do the right thing for his team, his career, his legacy and his future earnings. He can play Tebow against LSU.
Or he can put the interests of Tebow ahead of all those things. Meyer can tell him it's too soon to play after suffering one of the more disturbing football concussions in years.
Cripes, it's like "Urban's Choice." Except it's a FALSE choice that Doyel presents.
How is Meyer playing a concussion-recuperating Tebow against LSU the "right thing" for the team, if it wants to win the game?
How is playing Tebow vs. LSU the right thing for Meyer's career? How is it the right thing for Meyer's future earnings?
Doyel's false choice presumes that if Meyer doesn't play Tebow, Florida will lose. It presumes that if Meyer plays a concussed-recuperating Tebow, Florida will win.
Both are entirely flawed assumptions. In fact, not only can (and, I would argue, will) Florida beat LSU with John Brantley, but playing a half-speed Tebow gives them a WORSE chance to do it.
It's interesting: I agree with Doyel's premise -- Meyer shouldn't play Tebow. The risk to Tebow (and risk to Florida) in the short- and long-term is unknowably too great.
Doyel wants Meyer's decision to be some sort of "statement" -- it could be. Maybe it even should be. It's certainly a large enough moment for that.
But it doesn't HAVE to be a statement. It can be about what's best for the team at the same time it is what's best for the player.
And it certainly has nothing to do with a fabricated "Urban's Choice" (my phrasing) that he can play Tebow and win the game (and, apparently, secure Meyer's own legacy) or not play Tebow and do the right thing.
Doyel ruins his argument right from the start by relying on an entirely false choice.