Quantifying the Missionary Advantage--A 2010 Update

Last season, we tried to dig into the commonly cited, but never quantified, claim that BYU's players are "significantly" older than their opponents and concluded that on average, Cougar players were 1.11 years older than their counterparts (see analysis here).  A difference to be sure, but a far cry from the "your 26 year-olds vs. our 19 year-olds" that is nearly always claimed.

I wanted to do an update on that for this season.  Granted we are already 2/3 of the way through this season, but given how it has turned out so far, it might be of particular interest.  All assumptions are handled in the same manner as the original analysis (linked above).  Thanks to Jordan Christiansen in the BYU Football Medial Relations office for the cooperation on the data collection.

The only mission-related age difference for BYU vs other schools this year is 1.01 years per player on average.  Per the previous write-up, this is due to not all players serving missions and the class mix (e.g. more underclassmen than other schools).  A few interesting notes:

• 1.01 is nearly 10% younger overall than last year's team (averaged 1.11)
• 59 return missionaries on the team (same as last year)--56%
• Only 14 seniors on the roster, and only 9 of which start (kicker, 3 DBs, 2 OLs, WR, LB, DE)
• 41 freshmen on the roster, 9 of which are RMs

Here is the actual analysis for anyone interested:

                                              Fr         So          Jr          Sr         Total
Average Age (US)                 18.5      19.5       20.5      21.5
Class Mix (US)                      37.6%  22.1%    21.7%  18.5%
Weighted Ave Age (US)                                                             19.71

BYU Players by Class           41          27          24         14         106
Class Mix (BYU)                 38.7%    25.5%     22.6%   13.2%
BYU Ave Age w/o Mission   18.5      19.5        20.5       21.5      19.60

BYU Former Missionaries      9           24          16          10         59
Percent of BYU Class          22.0%     88.9%    66.7%   71.4%   55.7%
BYU Ave Age w/ Mission     18.9        21.3       21.8       22.9      20.72
Actual Age Difference (yrs)   0.44      1.78       1.33       1.43       1.01

A Rebuttal of Vegas Bowl Excuses

I have nothing but nice things to say about Oregon State—the university, the athletic department, the players and the fans. But, this is not the place where I am going to say them. Rather, this is a rebuttal to all of the OSU and PAC-10 apologists out there making excuses for why OSU lost the Vegas Bowl to BYU. I understand that many of the people making these excuses are not exclusively or even primarily the OSU fans themselves, so I address this to the apologists collectively.

These are the primary excuses that I have heard from TV talking heads, sports writers, bloggers, and just plain old fans leaving comments wherever they can:

1. The wind determined the outcome of the game. Are you kidding? The wind was clearly a factor in the game that both teams had to deal with, but…

A) Each team played 2 quarters into the wind. BYU won the coin toss and elected to receive, so OSU selected which end of the field they wanted—if the quarters that they had to drive into the wind (2nd and 3rd) were to their disadvantage in any way, it was also their choice. However, in exact contrast the disadvantage would seem to be going into the wind in the first (getting a quick start) and fourth quarters (in case of needing a field goal or late score).

B) In addition, a team with a strong running game (a la Oregon State) would seemingly have the advantage in 40mph winds, as the ESPN announcers opined early in the contest.

C) And, as far as kicking goes (per ESPN’s continuous replay of the 6 yard OSU punts), BYU punted 3 times into the wind and kicked off 4 times into the wind, while OSU only punted 2 times into the wind and never kicked off into the wind—the result is that OSU had great field position off of each of those kicks, seemingly winning the straight-up field position battle (turnovers not included).

On the surface, wind would seem to be a neutral factor, but if the apologists want to push the issue, then it appears that if anything, the wind factor was, if not neutral, then an advantage to the Beavers.

2. OSU was not motivated to play.  Granted, there is disappointment in losing to your rival in the last game of the season. But this excuse deserves another multi-shot take down.

A) The coaches and players themselves have discredited this by saying both before and after the game that they were ready for this and there would not be a motivational letdown.

B) OSU started out strong and on fire getting big stops on both of BYU’s first two possessions and scoring a quick touchdown on offense. Motivation was clearly not a factor in the first 10 minutes of the game. So, what, did they become unmotivated after a couple of possessions and change their minds?

C) BYU was playing in the Vegas Bowl for the fifth time in a row. The Cougars also met with disappointment this season at more than one point and were looking forward to playing in a BCS game and ended up in the same location again. The Cougars should be clearly tired of the same old song and dance and yet were able to overcome that just fine.

D) BYU was ranked in the top 15, and higher than Oregon State in every poll. Any team that claims to not be motivated to play and try to beat a top 15, higher ranked team—for the glory, perception enhancement, program advancement, bragging rights, recruiting advantages, ranking ramifications, etc. that come with beating a highly ranked team—is either trying to create a distraction, or there are deeper issues within the program.

3. BYU is older and more mature and its players were men against boys on the field and much less distracted off the field (among the temptations and vices of Vegas). This excuse is getting old.

A) The actual age advantage that BYU has on average is about 1.1 years—19.7 years old for the national average vs. 20.8 years old for BYU (see http://www.byucougs.com/2009/09/numbers-inside-missionary-advantage.html).  Yes, all other things being equal an additional year of age is an advantage. But all other things are not equal. OSU has four returned LDS missionaries in their team, yet none of them start. If it was such an advantage, why don’t they start? There are another 4-5 LDS players on their team that have not served missions for whatever reason. If it were a significant advantage, why aren’t the coaches pushing those players to leave for two years?

B) Due to the same religious and cultural influences that cause Cougar players to leave on missions, the BYU football team did not practice on Sunday, in what is usually a key two-day-prior to the game practice. Did anyone ever make that out as an excuse for the Cougs? No.

C) Many of the players are married. You could argue that BYU players were actually more distracted having wife and (in some cases) kids along on the road trip and staying in the team hotel for the first time of the year.

D) Any “distractions” that the OSU players may have felt (this argument coming from fans/apologists, not from the players or coaches themselves), could have been mitigated by personal discipline and team rules. All of the same “distractions” would have existed for the BYU players as well.

4. OSU played their worst game of the year. Maybe they did. I haven’t seen many of their other games this season. But in any case, you have to believe that the team on the other side of the line of scrimmage had something to do with that. Especially when you see that BYU was able to contain the running game (hard to just have a “bad game” with the PAC 10's best running back), run down Beavers from behind (nothing to do with a bad game), and break up pass after pass (OSU receivers would have made those catches if the defense weren’t there).

5. BYU played “dirty”. I can only think of two plays that would lead to this conclusion (maybe there are others?). One was when Harvey Unga slapped the helmet of the defender who continued to engage him after crossing the goal line and scoring a touchdown. I agree that he should not have done this and wish that he hadn’t, but it wasn’t much of a slap and I probably would hesitate to call it dirty. In any case, I challenge anyone to claim that this changed the outcome of the game. The second was when Scott Johnson hit the OSU receiver on the BYU sideline breaking up a pass. It appeared that Johnson “launched” himself and hit the receiver in a “helmet to helmet” infraction. Upon watching the replay at home (I was in attendance at the game), it appears that Johnson missed the helmet and hit the shoulder of the receiver in a great defensive play (albeit jarring hit). In this case Johnson was flagged—15 yards automatic first down—an even better outcome than had the receiver caught the ball. Dirty or not, how does that hurt the Beavers?

A) BYU was physical. Maybe more physical than the Beavers are used to. This is football. Deal with it. UCLA said the same thing when the Cougars beat them up in Pasadena.

B) To their credit, Oregon State was also very physical. Max Hall said afterward that he has not been so beat up since that same UCLA game in 2007. There were a couple of late hits on Max Hall, which I would argue are not just physical but do border on dirty when done intentionally (throwing the QB to the ground several seconds after the whistle?). There was also the apparent “helmet to helmet” decleating after a pass that nearly knocked him out of the game. I did not hear BYU fans calling OSU players dirty or making excuses.

6. Refs handed the game to BYU. There were lots of calls going both ways (11 on OSU, 9 on BYU). On my way out of the stadium, I heard the BYU fans commenting/questioning/complaining quite a bit about the officiating. So, I was actually surprised to find the OSU/Pac 10 fans complaining about the officiating on fan boards and article commentaries. Whatever gripes the OSU fans have (of which I am not aware), there are equal gripes on the other side. From a BYU fan perspective, there would be the curious time elapse at the end of the first half, the aforementioned helmet-to-helmet on Scott Johnson, the also mentioned no-call hit on Max Hall, the Unga fumble that was apparently caused by the ground… etc. The fact that both teams were unhappy, means that there was equal if not great officiating. My personal take is that the refs made the calls as they saw them and did a reasonable job. And, in an apologists world, even if there were a couple of calls that they think should have gone the other way, that doesn’t make up for a 30 point deficit going into the 4th quarter.

7. MWC teams can get up for PAC 10 games like it was the Super Bowl, because they don’t have to get ready week in and week out for big games. This one almost makes me laugh. Of BYU’s 13 games this season, 5 were effectively played against teams that were ranked—Oklahoma, TCU, Utah, Oregon State, and FSU (just outside the polls at #26). There was the Utah State game, where USU gets up for BYU as a rivalry game. Air Force (7-5) was still playing for a conference title and offered the #1 pass defense in the country. In conference, BYU played Wyoming in Laramie, New Mexico in Albuquerque, and San Diego State in California. While not striking fear into the hearts of opponents, all of those teams get up for BYU as much as any game on their schedule (as BYU is essentially considered a rival by all of them) and play among their best games of the year. If anything, BYU knows better than Oregon State what it means to have to prepare for games week in and week out. How many teams in the PAC 10 see Oregon State as their rival?

So why did Oregon State lose then? Take your pick…
• They were outcoached
• They were outplayed
• BYU was more physical
• BYU was faster
• BYU had better QB play
• BYU had the better defense
• BYU was better able to handle adversity (turnovers, etc)
• BYU had better mental fortitude to drive into the wind
• BYU’s receivers and tight ends were able to get open almost at will
• BYU’s linebackers had a bigger impact
• BYU had the better secondary
• BYU’s power running game trumped OSU’s
• The Cougars had a better game plan
• The top 15 Cougars were clearly the better team

The Numbers Inside the Missionary Advantage

Despite the fact that it seems to come up about every other week in the national media, the notion that BYU has players on its football team that are somewhat older than typical college athletes is not a new story. Many of their players do leave school and football behind (among other things) to spend two years at their own expense in an assigned region of the world providing service and sharing a message of faith and hope.

Both Pros and Cons
Some see this as an advantage—players return older, more physically mature, more mentally mature, and with increased discipline and focus. Others see it as a disadvantage—players return out of shape and rusty having not played football or worked out regularly for two years, players may lose their aggressive edge, and managing personnel and recruiting when losing 40+ players after every season can be a scholarship allocation and depth chart nightmare. It is often also pointed out that if it were such an advantage, then other schools would encourage their LDS athletes to serve missions (the opposite is usually true, as they are generally discouraged from serving). There is merit to the arguments on both sides, and the debate over whether having former missionaries on the team is an advantage or disadvantage will inevitably continue.

Apples and Oranges
What is nearly always missing in the debate, however, is the magnitude of the age difference, or advantage, in question. It is not uncommon for even respected national sports writers to compare an occasional 25 or 26 year old player on BYU’s roster to an 18 year old true freshman on the opposing team. Obviously that is a mismatch. But the underlying question is whether that is an advantage due to the missionary program or not. Given that a mission is a maximum of two years, such comparisons are clearly inaccurate, as other factors (such as late enrollment, redshirt, or injury exceptions) available to any athlete must have led that player to be older. The maximum age advantage then could only be two years—which would be the case if every BYU football player were a returned missionary, and no players on the other team were. But this is not the case—not all BYU players are, and there are some on other teams that have served missions as well. So, with the BYU missionary data courtesy of Carey Hoki, in the BYU Football Media Relations Office, we will take a look at the actual age difference of BYU players versus each of the teams BYU plays this season.

Assumptions
A few assumptions used and how they impact the analysis:

1. Assume that all players having served a mission are two years older than they would otherwise be. Conservative—although two years is the expected duration, we know that some missionaries return home for various reasons prior to two years.
2. No players on other teams have served missions. Conservative—there are a number of return missionaries on other teams, most notably Utah and Utah State.
3. Redshirt years will not be considered, since that is an option available to all players at all schools and unrelated to missionary service. Although it is possible that BYU redshirts more of its players than others, since they are often not in game shape upon returning from two years off, any age difference due to redshirting cannot be attributed to missionary service. Neutral.
4. Average assumed age of all non-missionary players (for BYU and opponents) is 18.5 (Fr), 19.5 (So), 20.5 (Jr), 21.5 (Sr). Any other age differences are due to other factors. Neutral.
5. No other player delays are considered (such as military service, peace corp, delayed entrance, etc.). Conservative—there are other players in other programs that also delay their athletic careers to participate in something else for a time, extending their eligibility.
6. Class mix impacts the average age of a team and varies from program to program. We assume that the average collective class mix of the teams that BYU plays (a roughly 10% sample) is typical of all college football teams. Neutral.
7. Some teams may lose more than the average number of players to the NFL early, reducing the number of seniors on the team. This will not be considered in this analysis. Neutral.
8. Fall camp rosters have been used for each team. There have obviously been changes due to injury and attrition since these were released, but it is assumed that such circumstances affect each team equally. Air Force has been excluded because it does not include freshmen on it preseason roster. Neutral.
9. This looks at the entire roster, not just the starters or two deep. Neutral to slightly aggressive. This assumes that the percentage of starters that have been on missions is the same as the roster as a whole, which is close, but not exact. It looks like 13-14 players will start that have been on missions (59% compared to overall average of 56%).

The Relevant Difference
Based on the typical class mix, and given the assumptions above, the average age of a college football player is 19.71 years. Without considering missions, and given BYU’s current class mix, the average age of BYU’s players would also be 19.71 years. Of the 106 players on BYU’s roster in fall camp, 59 of them spent time as a missionary (55.7%). When considering the additional two years in age for those players, BYU’s average age is 20.82 years. The difference then, and only relevant number to the missionary debate is 1.11 years. Whenever comparisons are made or debates are had, as a team, BYU is only an average of 1.11 years older than a player of similar class on the other team.

                                            Fr          So          Jr         Sr      Total
Average Age (US)                18.5      19.5       20.5      21.5
Class Mix (US)                    37.6%    22.1%    21.7%    18.5%
Weighted Ave Age (US)                                                          19.71

BYU Players by Class            37          30         19           20         106

Class Mix (BYU)                  34.9%    28.3%    17.9%     18.9%
BYU Ave Age w/o Mission  18.5        19.5      20.5        21.5      19.71

BYU Former Missionaries     13          19         11           16          59
Percent of BYU Class          35.1%    63.3%   57.9%     80.0%       55.7%
BYU Ave Age w/ Mission    19.2       20.8       21.7       23.1      20.82
Actual Age Difference (yrs)  0.70     1.27       1.16       1.60        1.11

Against the Schedule

Here is how the age of BYU players stacks up against each of the opponents this season. The only difference here, being the class mix—some teams are heavy on upperclassmen and others have a disproportionate number of freshmen. BYU’s players range from being 0.97 years older than UNLV (52% juniors and seniors) to being 1.27 years older than Colorado State (45% freshmen).