All players at all schools DO play by the same rules. The "time-off" rules apply to religious missions, military service, and government-run humanitarian services such as the Peace Corps.

Now ask yourself, if taking that time off was really a net positive, don't you think that coaches in other colleges would be encouraging their players to serve time in the Peace Corps, Military, or on missions for whichever church they belong?

Here is the blunt reality of it. You are right; the missionary does indeed return with a more mature mind and body, but he is hardly ever (pretty much never) in shape to play at the D-1 level. That finely-honed athletic body he once had is a thing of the past. Muscles, reflexes, and game instincts have atrophied. Some even return with a body wracked with parasites. It usually takes considerable time and effort to get them back into playing shape. Many athletes never regain their "pre-leave" form. Their life and interests have changed. Priorities tend to shift when you spend two years dedicating yourself to a cause bigger than yourself. Sports may no longer be the top priority that it was before they left. Some even decide to give up the sport altogether when they return to concentrate on other things that are now more important to them.

Now I am not going to tell you that athletes never benefit from their "leave". That is obviously not the case. Some definitely do. That more mature mind and body can go a long way in helping an athlete end up playing better once he has reestablished his conditioning. So why doesn't Coach Few encourage his players to serve two years in the Peace Corps or on a Catholic mission if they are Catholic? They would definitely return more mature in both mind and body. That option is open to him. Why doesn't he take it?