Virtue in signing choir boys?
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.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:30 AM ^
If a school is lowering its academic standards in order to pick up athletes, that's less OK than taking a kid, who would make it in but wouldn't have the money to pay, and giving him the money to do so.
Edit: I wrote this, and I'm actually fine with it now that I think about it. The Harvard study that showed that the bottom 1% of students do about as well as the top 1% of students once they get to college fits... but the guys have to be willing to work at school to make it, and a top-tier athlete with a low hs GPA is less likely to aim for a decent college GPA.
The right way to recruit is to pick up guys that have the will to succeed as STUDENT-athletes, not just athletes.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:33 AM ^
A good read, by a great professor.
http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews_opinion/2008/05/admit_reality_at_um_…
February 4th, 2010 at 1:46 AM ^
Thanks - that was a great article. JJ has it right.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:37 AM ^
I agree with your sentiment, and I think that notion is frequently forgotten in these types of debates. However, I can't help but feel that schools normally don't recruit questionable kids for the purpose of turning their lives around. They recruit questionable kids if they think it will help them win football games (i.e., make $$$).
February 4th, 2010 at 1:46 AM ^
The truth is the questionable kids don't use their educations in most cases. Justin Feagin wouldn't have done anything with his UM Communications degree anyways. Would he have used his improved communications skills to woo possible cocaine customers?
Listen, I know high risk kids are essential to most successful football programs, however it's not a noble act, nor is it an ignoble act to offer a scholly to Craig Roh or Ray Vinopal. (I wasn't a Vinopal fan either,though as a hardworking white guy, today's thewolverine interview kind of resonated with me. Then again, Feagin's Freep interview resonated with me).
Basically, I admire a cleanly run program. I always prefer the beastly football player with 34 on the ACT and 24 hours of voluntary charity work to the beastly football player with a 14 ACT and 24 hours of court-mandated charity work. But the latter can work too, just depends I guess.
February 4th, 2010 at 2:40 AM ^
I think RR has taken a fair amount of heat for signing Vinopal and Dileo.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:45 AM ^
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?Yikes.
February 4th, 2010 at 7:49 AM ^
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.
I'm not sure who does, except for racist people, which unfortunately exist.
In short, this isn't really an issue, and if it happens to be it's from a few rotten eggs in the Michigan community (reporters, fans, alumni).
By the way, I find it ironic that Michigan of all states (>10% unemployment, a horrible economy, crappy cities like Flint and Detroit) really can sit and complain about this.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
What people like Drew Sharp seem to fail to understand is the corruption in certain environments and school systems. Without getting into politics, some kids just don't have the same resources as other kids do in school, and on top of that they deal with the challenges in their immediate neighborhood. I don't understand how "second chances" or even giving kids a chance they wouldn't otherwise have isn't applauded. The media rape seems to be one sided as well. It's funny how this "investigative reporting" only comes out when a team loses.