shhhashank wrote:
if it's such a disadvantage... then stop it already.
You're making an assumption that it's all about running.
It's not about running. If it was about running then guys wouldn't be going on missions in the first place, it's counter intuitive to think that a young athlete with potential in the sport would choose to go on a mission in order to gain a competitive advantage. He would have to believe that getting assigned to some place not of his choosing for two years and working 60+ hours a week proselytizing and serving, having limited control over diet and exercise depending on the type of transportation used in the mission (a lot of missions in the United States use cars and so even your walking could be limited). Having a daily routine with 30 minutes of scheduled exercise in the morning, which if you want to use for running would have to be accommodated by your companion. He would have to believe that going through all that was worth it just so he could get that competitive advantage he's looking for.
Yeah i'm sure every young man that chooses to go on a mission thinks "This will be great for my running career, I can't wait to throw my fitness to the wind for two years so that I can come back and dominate the NCAA's finest!"
Missions have nothing to do with running/sports and the BYU track and field program has no authority to determine wether an athlete goes on a mission or not, it's a personal decision.
If it was only about the running then i'm sure Ed Eyestone would prefer to have his guys with 4 years of eligibility and a redshirt option right out of highschool like he had with Linkletter and Mcmillan.
Versus recruiting guys in highschool, waiting 2 years with the uncertainty which a mission brings, blowing a redshirt year in order to help the athlete get back in shape so he can start contributing to the team. To me that sounds like a tough reality rather than a nice advantage.
Want a recipe for success? Yes it includes older athletes, but more importantly less unknowns, less need for athlete development. How about recruiting and bringing in international athletes who have excelled at Worlds U23. Bring them in at 21-23 years old as threats to score points for you as freshman and three years thereafter. That's sounds like a much better strategy for a program, and one that many use today.
It's not about running, if it was about running no one would choose to go on missions.