What has generally gotten people's hackles up is when someone says that underclassman A should play over upperclassman B not because he is better, but because the season is lost and we are playing for the future. That is when an upperclassman is "owed". If he is a better player, he has earned the right to play. That doesn't mean that underclassmen might not get a few more minutes for development, but when people say the seniors shouldn't get another minute simply because "you are playing for the future" you are rightly going to get people disagreeing.And I don't really understand this at all. I had a great junior season (went to state playoffs) in high school football, but I regressed a bit as a senior due to realizing I had other things I needed to concentrate on more, and I didn't have what it takes for collegiate athletics.
I got benched halfway through the season for someone who wanted it more and played better in-game. I completely understood what was happening and was absolutely fine with it, because that's life.
The idea that an individual on a team is "owed" something, when it might actively hurt the team as a whole in the long run is just ridiculous to me.
I am making no assertions as to who is better...