1) It's easier for freshman to make an impact in basketball than football for two reasons: a) the physical differences between freshman and upperclassmen isn't as dramatic in basketball as in football, b/c bball is more about speed/quickness than pure size and b) freshman come in more skilled with more game experience under their belt because about 10 years ago everyone started playing AAU ball from age 7 on up. So the miles/games/experiences have increased 5X what players in prior decades had, and this dynamic isn't as pronounced with football b/c they don't play year round.

The best of the best are coming in to college better than ever before, which is partly why the top 10 programs are littered with freshman who are taking them deep in the tourney.

I do think you have a point that the game has changed, and in theory it could have some positive impact to BYU (like a Butler or Witchita State or Wisconsin), but that brings me to #2...

2) The name of the game today is athleticism and speed, and BYU has always and will always be at a competitive disadvantage there b/c of our recruiting demographic. It's the same reason we struggle at the skill positions in football (WR and DB), but now all 5 positions on the court are the equivalent of skills positions in football.

3) On a related point, there is only detriment from RM's, no benefit. In football, we at least get a benefit on the OL and DL where guys are two years older and after a redshirt are strong and physical. There is no physical benefit, in fact I think bball is even harder to recover because it's all conditioning, stop/start, and quick twitch muscles. It's easier to get a guy ready for 30-50 plays on offense than 25-30 minutes of constant running/cutting.

4) I should have led with this, because this is the clincher. You are competing against more teams in basketball. I don't buy the 110 D1 versus 330+ D1 in terms of exactly triple the competition. Elon and Howard aren't competing with us. But there's a long list of teams bball competes against that football doesn't. A few notables... (see full list of key competition here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q8d4ZieVgFIhQ5zT0M8sggpB3-yLU1-ObQkumbM5Z7Q/edit#gid=1)

*The entire MVC, A-10, Big East, and WCC; Villanova, G-Town, Xavier, Butler, Witchita St, Gonzaga, Marquette, VCU, list goes on

Not only that, but it's easier to put together a strong season or two when the 4 year players gel. It IS easier to have a flash in the pan season (like Kent State to the Elite 8, Dayton last few years, George Mason, etc.). So not only are you competing against traditional powers, but you have the broader set PLUS a few hot teams. You just don't see that kind of volatility and movement in football (see Vanderbilt and Kentucky for examples).

For those reasons, it negates the NBA early entrant advantage, which is really only a few players a year for the elite teams who re-load anyway.

As for Bronco's success versus Rose, I don't see a stark difference like Cleve vs Rose which is very clear cut. Like BYUHeaven, apples and oranges and diff circumstances, history, and expectations.

Both are consistent winners, represent the program well, push us to think beyond our regional/doctrinal barriers, have had nice high's (top 12 finishes) and a recent string of "pretty good" years that aren't that satisfying.

I like Rose better (despite personal biases) b/c of his style of play and style with the media. Just a likable coach with an entertaining product, and a bright future.