Some accounting reality . . . even minor sports can bring a profit to a university.

Here's the upshot.  The way sports are accounted for is very misleading.  e.g. The athletic department pays full price for the scholarships, even though the actual cost of adding the student might be negligible.  If your dorms aren't filled to capacity and enrollment has some slack, adding sports programs can be profitable - even if it's soccer or lacrosse.  The analogy in the article is that it's like a cruise line offering discounted cruises at the last minute to fill up a ship that's below capacity.

Here at OSU, our dorms are pretty full (or they probably will be next Fall) and enrollment numbers are strong, so this article doesn't directly speak to our situation.  But there is a broader point - that is, the way college sports are accounted for is deeply misleading.  Revenues are understated - items like logo licensing and soda sales contracts are put into the general fund despite the fact that sports drives most of the sales.  Expenses are overstated - especially the tuition.  At OSU, Ed Ray made it a policy of "subsidizing" athletic tuition, but it's still reported as part of the department deficit.  So the Canzanos of the world can still complain about "massive" deficits at OSU, even though the department objectively probably roughly breaks even and provides tremendous benefits to the university in visibility and alumni relations.