God is on our side: 18 year-old missionaries

[MarkGrace]

I don't expect it to impact recruiting overnight and the assumption (which might be incorrect) is that 18 year old missionaries becomes the standard.

I think that's everyone's assumption in believing that overall it will be a positive.

I get what you're saying, but I just don't see any plausible way that it will hurt overall, let alone hurt "significantly." The biggest thing is that non-LDS recruits are just such a small part of our recruiting pool that even if they are impacted somewhat negatively the benefits still outweigh the negatives. That pool gets even smaller when you look just at non-LDS kids out of HS, and I think Bronco is starting to learn, as Lavell did, that JUCO is the best way to make non-LDS work at BYU. And the JUCO kids are already 20-21 or so and that makes the age gap less consequential.

LDS kids not intending to go on missions (KVN, Heaps, Apo, etc.) are still going to come here for the same reasons they always have, and I think there's an argument to be made that the age gap between these guys and some of the other contributors will shrink by a year. That could be a good thing.

Guys who are headed on missions are still by far the biggest and most important part of our program. This makes handling them much, much easier and is going to give a lot more consistency in doing so. This alone makes up for any potential (if it even happens) loss in the non-LDS recruiting pool. To me this is by far the most challenging part of making football at BYU work for a head coach, and it just got a lot easier. (Though I realize this isn't necessarily a "recruiting" point.)

We all know there's a decent pool of kids who want to go elsewhere but their parents/moms want them at BYU. I think they sell their parents on going elsewhere but still serving a mission, but are dissuaded once they're in another environment. If these kids head straight out of HS instead of enrolling one year before their mission, I think this ups the chances BYU eventually gets them. If they just decide they don't want to go out on a mission at all, I think there's merit to the idea that those parents/moms say "ok, if no mission, then at least BYU."

Continuing on that note, it also cuts down on Riley Nelson rule casualties. I don't think there's any doubt BYU has benefited quite a bit from kids who go elsewhere and then on their mission decide they want to be at BYU when they get home. I have to guess that most kids who really want to go on a mission and play sports will choose the 18 route. Because most of these kids will have not enrolled prior to leaving, there will be no penalty if they decide to transfer. Coaches (like Whitt) have picked up on the Riley rule and seem to have encouraged some mission-bound kids to enroll before heading out to put the rule in effect.

Anyway, I just don't see where the one small potential negative outweighs all the potential positives. And I certainly don't see it to an extent that will hurt substantially.

[statman]

I think there is a difference, freshmen, especially at BYU, tend to bond with those who are the same age as them. I knew freshmen who wouldn't go out with RMs for the simple reason that they didn't want to get involved with someone who was thinking about marriage. If significantly fewer 18 year old males enroll in college then that means that those girls who don't want to date RMs will either have no social life or they'll change their minds on who they date.

Or they'll just hang out with gal-pals for a year and go on missions when they turn 19...

I've got two 19 yo nieces (roommates at byu-i) who already have appointments with their bishops to go as early as possible after the fall semester ends...

[MarkGrace]

It will be interesting to see how quickly the transition happens to where almost all the young men just leave at 18.

I could see a lot of parents and kids still thinking it is good to get a year of college under the belt before the mission if for no other reason than that's the way we've done it for decades. I could see a significant percentage kids just wanting to still do it the same way their older brothers and fathers did. Time will tell I guess.

For the general group of LDS kids that may happen. I think for athletes the trend will be toward 18. There were two kids in my HS who got permission to leave at 18 because they had signed with BYU. This just makes it easier, I think.

[USUC]

HS kids are also graduating earlier at a much higher rate than when I was in high school. Kids with birthdays in the fall can play their senior year in HS and graduate that fall. Then go on their missions in winter and be back in time for spring practices.

[doctorcoug]

The focus shouldn't be on recruiting. This is huge in regards to gaining momentum. Forty percent of the team turns over every year. That is now cut in half.

via a galaxy s3 far far away

[All-American]

A friend of a friend is an executive secretary for the bishop. He has gotten 20 requests from sisters in the ward to meet with the bishop since the announcement.

[DU Ute]

Wrong thread

[MarkGrace]

A friend of a friend is an executive secretary for the bishop. He has gotten 20 requests from sisters in the ward to meet with the bishop since the announcement.

Hopefully some of them will transfer to play at byu after their missions.

[Flystripper]

I think that's everyone's assumption in believing that overall it will be a positive.

I get what you're saying, but I just don't see any plausible way that it will hurt overall, let alone hurt "significantly." The biggest thing is that non-LDS recruits are just such a small part of our recruiting pool that even if they are impacted somewhat negatively the benefits still outweigh the negatives. That pool gets even smaller when you look just at non-LDS kids out of HS, and I think Bronco is starting to learn, as Lavell did, that JUCO is the best way to make non-LDS work at BYU. And the JUCO kids are already 20-21 or so and that makes the age gap less consequential.

LDS kids not intending to go on missions (KVN, Heaps, Apo, etc.) are still going to come here for the same reasons they always have, and I think there's an argument to be made that the age gap between these guys and some of the other contributors will shrink by a year. That could be a good thing.

Guys who are headed on missions are still by far the biggest and most important part of our program. This makes handling them much, much easier and is going to give a lot more consistency in doing so. This alone makes up for any potential (if it even happens) loss in the non-LDS recruiting pool. To me this is by far the most challenging part of making football at BYU work for a head coach, and it just got a lot easier. (Though I realize this isn't necessarily a "recruiting" point.)

We all know there's a decent pool of kids who want to go elsewhere but their parents/moms want them at BYU. I think they sell their parents on going elsewhere but still serving a mission, but are dissuaded once they're in another environment. If these kids head straight out of HS instead of enrolling one year before their mission, I think this ups the chances BYU eventually gets them. If they just decide they don't want to go out on a mission at all, I think there's merit to the idea that those parents/moms say "ok, if no mission, then at least BYU."

Continuing on that note, it also cuts down on Riley Nelson rule casualties. I don't think there's any doubt BYU has benefited quite a bit from kids who go elsewhere and then on their mission decide they want to be at BYU when they get home. I have to guess that most kids who really want to go on a mission and play sports will choose the 18 route. Because most of these kids will have not enrolled prior to leaving, there will be no penalty if they decide to transfer. Coaches (like Whitt) have picked up on the Riley rule and seem to have encouraged some mission-bound kids to enroll before heading out to put the rule in effect.

Anyway, I just don't see where the one small potential negative outweighs all the potential positives. And I certainly don't see it to an extent that will hurt substantially.

I said this only impacts about 10% of the team albeit a pretty important 10%. I guess I was liking the trend of it being ok to come to BYU and not serve a mission. I see this change as not being conducive to that culture trend. I hope it is a insignificant as you seem to think. Only time will tell.

[MarkGrace]

I said this only impacts about 10% of the team albeit a pretty important 10%.

If it impacts a group this small, how do you even get to this, then?

It will help the 100% mission bound kids that choose BYU but I think it will significantly hurt recruiting.

Start naming the four year non-LDS kids that have had much an impact on the program over the last decade. Can you get past one hand? Even if you lost that entire 10% (which is not going to happen), could the impact even be significant by definition?

I guess I was liking the trend of it being ok to come to BYU and not serve a mission. I see this change as not being conducive to that culture trend.

I like it too and don't see it dramatically altering because they've made the age requirement more flexible.

I hope it is a insignificant as you seem to think. Only time will tell.

I just don't see any way that this is a net negative. To me it doesn't even seem within the realm of possibility. Any potential negative to non-LDS recruits is outweighed by some of the other potential recruiting gains. Beyond that, like Doc Coug said, by far the biggest challenge to the program is maintaining continuity. Just that alone considerably offsets any potential negatives in four-year non-LDS recruiting.

[Coach McGuirk]

God doesn't seem on our side right now...

[CJF]

Thinking about this I've decided that President Monson is a BYU fan. He just trumped the Riley Nelson rule. Also, we need some JC talent next year but we don't seem to be really going after much. Monson just sent all of next years recruiting class on a mission. The staff will have to hit the JC's to fill in the holes. President Monson is truly inspired. My testimony has grown.

[Scorcho]

why 19 for girls? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand the rationale.

Why not allow them both at 18?

Incidentally, Whitt in his press conference today likes the changes and thinks it will be a benefit.

[SoCalCoug]

why 19 for girls? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand the rationale.

Why not allow them both at 18?

Incidentally, Whitt in his press conference today likes the changes and thinks it will be a benefit.

Because they still believe there is some "wisdom" in an age differential.

[doctorcoug]

why 19 for girls? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand the rationale.

Why not allow them both at 18?

Incidentally, Whitt in his press conference today likes the changes and thinks it will be a benefit.

It is so the MTC doesn't shutdown during the winter months.