I am not talking about spending 10 years in NCAA D1 competing.
I am asking this:
What competitive advantage does a 31 year old who hasn't competed in 10 years have over a 21 year old who is likely in his second season in college and hasn't taken time away from competition? Some say "man strength", but I'm not buying that. You don't automatically get stronger just because your are x-years old than someone. Sure, when you are comparing a 13 to 23 year old. But a 23 to 33 year old?
Now---start adding into this people who choose to enroll in military service right out of school, and after they do 4-6 years there, decide to go to college. Should we automatically state that they are unable to compete in D1, simply because of age? I know there is certain criteria for when the D1 "clock" starts---missions, military, etc---but should it really matter? What if I graduate HS and decide I want to go to work building cars? And then 10 years down the line, I decide I want to go back to college and get a degree......am I not allowed to enroll in a D1 school and attempt to compete, simply because of the "clock" rule? If I can make the team and compete, shouldn't I be allowed to do so?
I will go back to what I said initially----to be the man, you have to beat the man. I don't care if the man is 18 or 28......and there should never have to be an asterisk following any NCAA Champ's name.
Just my view from the cheap seats.......