I would love to hear a LOGICAL argument for why serving a mission is an advantage, from someone who actually knows something about missions- not someone who is speculating after feeling salty about a recent BYU sports success. Funny no one complains until their sports teams do well???
The idea that no one would serve a mission if the decision was made solely upon the consideration of oneâ€™s athletic career is absolutely true. Who would do that, knowing you might have just given up your physical prime in many sports besides distance running, and that you might never get back to where you were before, in many sports, including running?
How does a 25 yr old who took 2 years off have an advantage over a 23 year old who has been focusing on his running career non-stop since high school? Thatâ€™s your comparison. Not 25 yr old man vs 18 yr old boy, but a 2 yr older guy who took 2 years off (yes OFF, you cannot run enough to stay in any kind of competitive shape on a mission) vs a 2 year slightly younger man who didnâ€™t. At the least you all must admit theyâ€™re disadvantaged for probably the first 2 years after coming back.
Sorry if Iâ€™m the guy who gets this discussion heated. But anyone who disagrees with that is a salty derp who has no clue.
Letâ€™s just call it like it is, BYU is good, podium-contender good, right now. In the past theyâ€™ve always been at least somewhat good too. Itâ€™s possible that theyâ€™ve been slightly advantaged by missions at times, but more than likely that theyâ€™ve been disadvantaged by missions at other times. They never attribute their success or failures to missions, and I donâ€™t think the best teams in the country do either. So
1. Present a VALID argument
2. Get the NCAA rule changed
3. Or go join the Peace Corps (where you can actually stay in shape), come back to collegiate running 2 years more a man, and quit crying.