[Roberton3]

There's possibly less here than meets the eye. What's being eliminated is not the teaching of computer science, but the research side of the department.

In a field like CS, that's a distinction without a difference.  If you eliminate the research side of the department, all of the competent faculty will leave, and it won't be possible to replace them, so you'll wind up with a community-college-level CS department.  In other fields, where the supply of good faculty greatly exceeds the demand (e.g., the humanities and most social sciences), you could get away with this and only have a small drop in quality.  But in fields where good faculty are scarce (e.g., CS, law, medicine, economics, most engineering fields, etc.), eliminating the research side of the department is tantamount to eliminating the department.

As for the Athletic Department, it appears to be self-supporting,

I don't know the details on Florida, but I suspect that "appears" is the key word there.  But I do know the details at the University of Texas, where I used to teach.  UT has a "self-supporting" athletic department, but if you look closely, athletics gets credit for a lot of revenue that doesn't come entirely from athletics.  For example, 100% licensing revenue for items (clothing, etc.) with the UT logo and/or name is counted as athletic department revenue.  I'm sure many (and probably most) of those items are sold to UT sports fans -- but I'm also sure that sales to sports fans are substantially less than 100% of all sales.  And that's just one of the many ways in which the accounting is skewed to credit athletics with as much revenue as possible and as low as share of costs as possible, thus making it look self-supporting even when it really isn't.  I'm almost certain that Florida does the same thing.

[Roberton3]

There's possibly less here than meets the eye. What's being eliminated is not the teaching of computer science, but the research side of the department.

In a field like CS, that's a distinction without a difference.  If you eliminate the research side of the department, all of the competent faculty will leave, and it won't be possible to replace them, so you'll wind up with a community-college-level CS department.  In other fields, where the supply of good faculty greatly exceeds the demand (e.g., the humanities and most social sciences), you could get away with this and only have a small drop in quality.  But in fields where good faculty are scarce (e.g., CS, law, medicine, economics, most engineering fields, etc.), eliminating the research side of the department is tantamount to eliminating the department.

As for the Athletic Department, it appears to be self-supporting,

I don't know the details on Florida, but I suspect that "appears" is the key word there.  But I do know the details at the University of Texas, where I used to teach.  UT has a "self-supporting" athletic department, but if you look closely, athletics gets credit for a lot of revenue that doesn't come entirely from athletics.  For example, 100% licensing revenue for items (clothing, etc.) with the UT logo and/or name is counted as athletic department revenue.  I'm sure many (and probably most) of those items are sold to UT sports fans -- but I'm also sure that sales to sports fans are substantially less than 100% of all sales.  And that's just one of the many ways in which the accounting is skewed to credit athletics with as much revenue as possible and as low as share of costs as possible, thus making it look self-supporting even when it really isn't.  I'm almost certain that Florida does the same thing.