Both Sides of "Recruiting Returned Missionaries"

[votb]

This writer seems to have covered both sides of the "Why recruit kids going on missions or returned missionaries" question...all in one fell swoop. Any way you look at it...it has its positives...and its negatives...

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700108621/Worn-out-excuse-given-to-explain-BYU-success.html?pg=1

 

[sasquatch]

What did I miss here? This is a column which says schools shouldn't accuse BYU of having an unfair advantage when using returned missionaries. How does it cover both sides? It's a mormon owned newspaper defending the missions taken at the mormon owned university. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see how it covers both sides?

 

[votb]

The writer addresses both the pros (having more mature players available), and the cons (having kids who are way out of shape when they get home) in the article. If you'd like to address others...that's why I posted the article...to generate discussion. It's true that the writers purpose in the article was to defend BYU, but forget the BYU argument and focus on the aspect of recruiting prospective/returning missionaries. It's a conversation starter...

 

[pocabengal]

The writer does a fair job of explaining the pros vs cons. One thing that really stands out in my mind is that he talks about how the two years changes the young men from thinking about themselves and thinking about others instead. The two year mission helps build character, "forget about football" he said. That isn't a positive for a football program. There is too much forgetting about football. Maturity level up: Passion for football down.

 

[weberwildcat1]

byu sux