zxcvzxcv wrote:
Totally bogus to have 25 and 26 year olds competing at NCAA. I have no idea why there would be exceptions for religious and foreign athletes. 25 vs. 22 or 23. A world of difference.
I can see that, especially if taken to the extreme and looking at it from an athlete's perspective, a typical high school graduate who goes to college to run at 18/19 years of age that is.
There are at least two aspects which seem unjust.
1st from the perspective of competing to earn a spot on the team, a scholarship or to improve an existing scholarship to support ones education. If I came to a program with aspirations to work hard and compete for additional scholarship money, just to have ready made freshman stars who are older than me come into the program in subsequent years, I would certainly be less than thrilled seeing the scholarship standards seemingly unfairly getting harder and harder to reach for me and other 18 year olds coming up through the American high school system.
Sure, in such a scenario I could and should be happy for the incoming athletes and the talent they bring to the team. But i'd be lying if I told you I wouldn't have any resentment about losing scholarship/varsity opportunities to older athletes with more eligibility and towards the coaches win at all cost attitude.
I see this first scenario as being more applicable to older foreign transfer students as opposed to older returned missionaries.
2nd as an athlete with aspirations to earn all American honors. Imagine your a talented 22 year old who's worked hard and is on the cusp of All American status and recognition your senior year. Just to be beat out by more than a handful of guys 2-3 years older than you at NCAA's.
A few examples of what that could look like two years from now, among others.
A 23 almost 24 year old redshirt Junior Conner Mantz (BYU) taking an All American spot
A 23 almost 24 year old Junior James Sugira (EKU) taking an All American spot
A 24 to 25 year old redshirt Senior Clayson Shumway (BYU) taking an All American spot
It happens and I can empathize with the situation and see how it can be judged as unfair/bogus.
Currently the NCAA has eligibility exceptions for mission bound athletes and it's clear they have exceptions for older foreign athletes in many cases as well.
I don't know what the answer is, but on the unfairness scale I would give the edge to older foreign athletes receiving four years of eligibility vs eligibility being postponed for a maximum of two years for a mission.
Taking away that two year eligibility exception would obviously devastate BYU's athletic program, and yes I know there are those out there who would be giddy to the bone to see it happen.
Additionally talented athletes who make the choice to serve a mission prior to college would be hard pressed to earn any scholarship. To warrant scholarship money they would have to perform right away after a mission and at best get 3 years of scholarship funding with a redshirt. So their best case athletic scholarship scenario wouldn't even support them long enough to earn a bachelors. Again i'm sure no one except for athletes making a difficult decision on whether to serve or not would lose any sleep over this.
And i'm sure there are equally good and noble reasons to give older athletes full athletic eligibility to represent an institution and receive an education. Personally I do not resent that the NCAA grants exceptions for missionary service because I am a fan of the BYU program and culture, including athletes on other teams who choose to serve missions (e.g. Elijah Armstrong - BSU). But I do see where the other side is coming from. I'm wrestling with the same thoughts and feelings about full eligibility for older foreign athletes as well.
An aside:
Eligibility at 26 is rare for a mission bound athlete, usually happens in cases where a medical redshirt is granted. most redshirt seniors would exhaust their eligibility at 25, and even 24 for cross country eligibility.