So, long-time reader, first time board poster, at least as to original content.
Anyway, my question is this: How did it become so virtuous to sign the reasonably talented (typically white, if we're being honest) kid, but so controversial to sign the inner-city kids with a history?
While my issue with this ironic conundrum has been exacerbated with the whole Dorsey thing, it didn't start there. For a couple of years I've watched as the media has lauded schools like Notre Dame for recruiting "the right way" i.e. taking kids with high grades who would have gone to college, schollie or not.
Yet, when Michigan takes a flier on a kid who might not have had a chance at a college education otherwise, and it doesn't work out, they get pulled over the flames. (Brian has maybe made this point?)
I guess, what it boils down to for me, is which is the nobler pursuit--giving a free ride to the kid who's set anyway, or trying to make it work for a kid with talent from a less than perfect background. It seems like an easy choice for me.