[CardinalSagehen]

 The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. 

Overall I agree, except the revenue stream is not as big or as important to the university as everyone thinks. 

The University of Maryland overall has a budget of about 2 billion. 
http://otcads.umd.edu/bfa/FY18%20Working...GET%20.pdf 

The USA Today does an annual listing of athletic department revenue, expenses, subsidies from the general fund. The latest lists nominal revenue for Maryland of $95 million, of which $14.5 million is a subsidy from student fees, the general fund, etc. Apparently that means the actual revenue from athletics is about 80 million. 
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

So, by my math that makes athletics about 4% of revenues; significant but not exactly the largest source. 
I think it is notable that even at Maryland, a Big Ten school, the athletics program overall is a net drag on the institution's finances. [Though I suspect football is a net income generator.]

I'm not sure if this financial analysis attempts to include the indirect effect on alumni giving. Athletics is a form of brand advertising for universities, and in business, brand advertising almost always has a negative hard-RoI because its benefits cannot be directly attributed to the campaign. In the case of football, for example, well heeled donors feel better at tailgate parties when the team's winning and may tend to open their checkbooks. 

That said, I still take your point that the revenue effect of football is overstated and there's too much kowtowing to football programs and coaches.

[CardinalSagehen]

 The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. 

Overall I agree, except the revenue stream is not as big or as important to the university as everyone thinks. 

The University of Maryland overall has a budget of about 2 billion. 
http://otcads.umd.edu/bfa/FY18%20Working...GET%20.pdf 

The USA Today does an annual listing of athletic department revenue, expenses, subsidies from the general fund. The latest lists nominal revenue for Maryland of $95 million, of which $14.5 million is a subsidy from student fees, the general fund, etc. Apparently that means the actual revenue from athletics is about 80 million. 
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

So, by my math that makes athletics about 4% of revenues; significant but not exactly the largest source. 
I think it is notable that even at Maryland, a Big Ten school, the athletics program overall is a net drag on the institution's finances. [Though I suspect football is a net income generator.]

I'm not sure if this financial analysis attempts to include the indirect effect on alumni giving. Athletics is a form of brand advertising for universities, and in business, brand advertising almost always has a negative hard-RoI because its benefits cannot be directly attributed to the campaign. In the case of football, for example, well heeled donors feel better at tailgate parties when the team's winning and may tend to open their checkbooks. 

That said, I still take your point that the revenue effect of football is overstated and there's too much kowtowing to football programs and coaches.