I read your link the first time, it wasn't relevant to your point then either. Where does that link show us that revenue comes from academics, as you claimed? Where does it identify revenue sources at all (as my link did)? As I explained and cited, revenue comes from a lot of sources, primarily tuition, fees, and other sources that are collected per student. This revenue is then divided to different university departments, including both athletics and academics.

You seem stuck on the fact that NCAA football rarely "pays for itself:' i.e. doesn't bring in revenues that exceed expenses, and that in many cases student fees are used to make up the difference. Nobody really disputes this, but student fees are not, and never have been, dedicated solely to academics. Just because you don't value football doesn't mean people choosing universities can't value it. Also, most people understand that athletics don't have to be profitable in a vacuum to be beneficial for the university overall.