In blogging about this weekend's game between BYU and UCLA, Steve Bainbridge observed: "There was an interesting article in the LAT this week on the perennial question of whether going on a mission hurts the development of Mormon athletes, especially QBs. Max Hall's making the case that there is no adverse effect, while Olson's struggles - win or lose - likely will restart the grumbling around campus."

Steve is right about this question coming around again and again. For BYU fans, the mission question is a constant source of entertainment, frustration, and anxiety. When BYU succeeds, you can guarantee that someone will play the age card. Last week, for example, Arizona head coach Mike Stoops was asked about BYU's ability to compete in a BCS conference*:

They're pretty good. They can compete, I would think, as well as anybody. They have a whole team full of Spencer Larsen's. [Larsen is a returned missionary.] I'd take one hundred Spencer Larsen's if I could get them. That's what you have to realize, they have maturity, they go on missions for two years, their average age is probably 22-24, I would think, and that's just the way they do it. They go to school for a year, they learn the system, they go on a mission for two years and then they redshirt them. Who knows how old some of those kids were but they were very physical. I think you notice it more with their linemen than you do with their skill (players).

What is often missed in this conversation is the enormous burden placed on coaches by the mission program. The burden is the result of several factors: (1) young men** are eligible to serve missions at the age of 19, which means (in most cases) that coaches must decide whether to use a year of eligibility before the mission or to burn a player's redshirt year; (2) young men who serve missions become eligible for transfer after their missions, meaning that they must be recruited all over again by the home school (in some instances, BYU loses players after missions, and in some instances, BYU gains -- see Ben Olson and Max Hall, respectively); (3) missions change people both physically and mentally (some great prospects are never the same after a mission, and others require a substantial period of adjustment to return to pre-mission form -- the phenomenon known in these parts as "mission legs"); and (4) programs change, so that returned missionaries often must adjust to new coaches or new expectations when they return.

If you think missions are a great advantage, you might ask yourself why coaches outside of BYU do not embrace this advantage. While some coaches have learned to tolerate missions -- especially if the prospect is very talented -- many view missions as an unwelcome complication. For a recent example, USC coach Pete Carroll conditioned starting fullback Stanley Havili's scholarship offer on Havili's commitment to forego a mission. Some other coaches promise during recruiting to facilitate missions, but later attempt to dissuade the players from actually serving.

In the final analysis, the effect of a mission on a particular athlete is unpredictable and may be impossible to distinguish from other factors. Has Ben Olson's ability been impaired by his mission, or would he have faced similar struggles without missionary service? I don't know because he redshirted prior to his mission, but I admire him for  making the decision at 19 years old to devote two years of his life to the service of others. If his experience was anything like mine, he will not regret that decision.

* Note that the question is about BYU's ability to compete in a BCS conference without the recruiting advantages and resources advantages currently enjoyed by teams who actually play in those conferences.

** Women serve missions, too. My wife served in Sweden, for example. But this post is focused on football, so I refer to young men.

BYU, Sports | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200e54eef15e18834

Links to weblogs that reference Mormon Missions & Football: