if you're assuming no first year player is a factor, then you expect to lose only one year of contribution as opposed to a high school recruit, and is basically the equivalent of a 4 to play 3 juco recruit. i agree that if you can get the same caliber player without the mission, go for it, but i wouldn't write anyone off solely because of it, particularly talented players at a position of need (and good DT's are always in need).Yeah but he won't be a factor either his first year or the year after he gets back since he will have been out of the program for a full year, you lose 2 of the 5 years of eligibility.he will still have the same overall number of years spent in our program, and assuming he takes his mission after the first year, he will still have four straight years in our S&C program, as an older player. would you rather have a 24 year old DT or a 22 year old DT?
Another reason why I am not a big fan. If a player is a great talent and wants to do this then I think you take him, but if you have equal options that want to come on board also I think you stay away IMO. NU seems pretty set at DT right now, need a DE more at this stage.He will also be able to switch colleges after his mission too. Since he will sit out for a year during his mission he will be able to go through recruitment again. Manti T'eo (sp?) the ND linebacker will be able to be recruited again after he does his mission next year.
maybe the kid doesn't take the mission. maybe if he doesn't impress in his first year, you encourage him to look elsewhere after his mission.