yes, but......
1. they aren't making a lot of money. it depends on how you want to think about it. there are a lot of football programs that make money. there are men's basketball programs that make money. the athletic programs of many schools do not make money.
2. tying in with #1, this is one of the reasons colleges have been reluctant to give athletes money in the first place. because it's not a business. what they do for the men, they must do for the women due to title IX. they can't treat the football players differently. college athletics is a robbing peter to pay paul enterprise. the money made from football pays for the track and field, soccer, volleyball, and name your other athletic program here.
3. as i have said numerous times, there aren't a whole bunch of stockholders or a greedy owner on the other end of this deal walking away with a whole bunch of money. yes, there are paid employees of the athletic department making very nice salaries. but, there is no jerry jones here.
4. along the lines of #3, greed has not been the main motivation of these schools, contrary to popular opinion. if you don't believe that, follow the money. where is the money going? for most schools, every last penny is funding the rest of the athletic department. some schools like florida have enough cash left over that money is given to the school library or something of that sort. but again, it ain't like the school president is pocketing the cash for himself. the rules are in place to try to create some level of fairness, because everyone damn well knows, some schools have deeper pockets than others. the ncaa did not want a system where the school with alumni that make your autograph the most valuable wins.
part of the problem is that many people look at the exception to the rule and not the rule. florida, ohio state, texas, tennessee, lsu, etc, etc, etc are the exception not the rule.
north dakota state, middle tennessee state, long beach state, are the rule.
if you don't believe that this was reported from an article in 2013
USA Today reported that just 23 of 228 Division I athletics departments in their analysis of athletic department revenue and spending were reporting a profit without requiring institutional subsidies. Only seven institutions reported no subsidy from their universities (though Michigan's reported subsidy is attributed to work-study programs and the cost of an academic services director's salary).
so people, will discover there ain't a hell of a lot of gold at the end of this rainbow real quick unless.....football and men's basketball are treated separately. in that case, the effect on non-revenue sports will be devastating.