You make some good points Ricky. I do not doubt that a high proportion of at-risk kids who play college football are literally saved from a difficult and dangerous life. On the other hand, these kids represent an infinitesimally small fraction of at-risk kids. We are not saving them for them, we are saving them for us.

To answer why today, why now? I think it's the poor state of state economies. When so many states are cutting funds to their state colleges and universities, it is understandable that some would question why states continue to support football programs that cost money. The other answer to the why now issue is that dollar figures attached to athletic department budgets, particularly for football, are astronomical. That's not a problem for us because our program is a big money maker. But the escalation in the costs to be competitive will soon price many schools out of business. Add the growing concerns about the long-term effects of repetitive closed head injuries (see Cecil's column this morning) and football finds itself in a precarious position.

43% of NCAA schools don't make money on football. Doesn't this mean that 57% do make money?

Another lame ass academian/journalist not getting enough attention or recognition for what he contributes.  Arguing the other side is a slam dunk. While he wants to make readers gasp at CNS's obscene salary he conveniently omitted that University of Alabama revenues greatly increased since he was hired.  Also ignored was the intangibles of PR, enrollment enhancement, and the general enthusiasm around the state by the tax payers that do supplement college programs. The author is, like always, amazed that no one wants to spend $1000 on a weekend to come to town and watch him write.
 

Very good morning, Preacher. 
Did you have the injections in your aching back yet?