Cog Hill benefits only from the publicity. For years the Jemseks donated the facility as a means of increasing the contribution to the Evans Scholars. I cannot be sure whether that remains the case but I believe it is still true.
Nonetheless, I think that players should be free to make architectural comments. This is particularly true because the average fan thinks they are authoritative. As noted by Shivas, while Phil's comments are somewhat generic, they at least come from a perspective that most of us would support. But I wish that those who criticize the work could leave the personalities out of the discussion. Phil comes across as having a vendetta against Rees. This deflects attention from the substance of the discussion. Criticism of the Jemseks causes those of us who know and respect them to rise to their defense even if we don't like the changes to the course. Again the GCA gets lost in the controversy.
This was an exceptional opportunity to focus the public on the issue of "what makes a good golf course?". But all of the side issues took us away from that issue. So we get Johny Miller telling the world its a great job because the best ball strikers are leading. His cheap shot at Mickelson, who he views as, heaven forbid, a scrambler is lost. No one stops to explain why players and critics don't like the work, not even on the Golf Channel which has all the time in the world to do so. Perhaps they wouldn't anyway due to their contract with the tour but the ease with which they categorized the criticism and avoided any meaningful discussion was aided by the manner in which the players presented it .
Moreover, some of the criticism was unfounded. I heard a suggestion that there were too many uneven lies. Who supports that as appropriate? Even the greens within greens concept is a good one; it is the execution that may be a problem in this case.
If the players are really interested in the architecture and are not merely interested in what is good for their game, then it behooves them and us to be clear in identifying what we think is wrong and why that harms the course. That will force the other side to respond in kind. But that would result in a rationale discussion that might achieve something and who wants that?