This probably isn’t perfect but I think the argument would be something like this:
1. Keeping the revenue-generating sports competitive is critical to the health of the university. These are probably the most important marketing arm for the school.
2. In this new era, the revenue-generating sports need to focus on themselves to remain competitive (if not also getting support themselves from the university/ state).
3. From the university’s perspective, and therefore the state’s, from my understanding one of the primary reasons to have the non-revenue sports is to help market the university to potential students. Since the revenue-generating sports can no longer afford to also fund the non-revenue sports, if the university and the state think the marketing provided by the non-revenue sports is worthwhile, the university or the state should pay for that marketing by funding the non-revenue sports.
I don’t think anyone wants sports getting cut, and that’s not what I’m advocating for. But when the primary revenue generators for your business (football and MBB in the AD’s case) are operating at a $20-30 million/ year disadvantage to the competition, I think there’s an argument to be made that they ought to at least help them out by not making them also fund the sports that are operating at a deficit.
