The Drake Group is an advocacy group but the facts and law cited and alluded to in that piece exist nevertheless.
As for the quoted portion, 1. how do you determine value? With respect to professors, the free market determines value. With respect to football players, there is no market, not because the market has so determined, but because the market has been artificially eliminated, so it's an impossible comparison; and 2. Perhaps college football accounts for only 5% of UT's revenues, but how do you account for the students that choose to attend UT in part because of its football program, how do you account for alumni contributions that are inextricably linked to football performance? These are all good questions.
Students choose UT for football program? Really? As for alumni, you do realize that the article I linked already addressed that inept argument, I hope. And we're counting contributions into the net revenues for football already. Unless you're claiming that football fans are contributing to the academic side instead of football because, well, they love football?
The law cited, as applied, was a big loser in court. The lawsuit happened. They lost.
The free market determines value for professors but not athletes? Where did you come up with that? There's the NFL, isn't there? There's the CFL too. They can play ball in Europe. How has the market been eliminated? Since you're calling my sound arguments ludicrous, let me be a little bit more harsh on you: the idea that people would come out to see these football players if they weren't affiliated with dear old state is laughable at best. Heck, people don't even come out to watch the Jaguars. You honestly think fans have an interest in football minor leagues? No way. That's the free market.
You're not addressing the main point of the article. Since UT has much more profitable programs than the football program, and those programs are being cut back, then why shouldn't the football program cut back as well? That was the main point. Let me say this again: programs at the university that are a LOT more profitable than football are exploiting labor (grad students and lecturers) to a much larger degree than the football players are being exploited.
Let's pretend that NO football player gets an education (which is a ludicrous idea). They still get housing ($10,000), they still get food ($10,000 when you include the per diem stipend), they still get health insurance ($2,000), they still get football training (at UT, that amounts to $22,000 per player). They would never get $44,000 on the free market, and that's not counting the cost of education ($45,000) or the fees for services ($3,000).
Much more profitable programs at UT exploit their labor much much worse than that.
Finally, the whole idea you're peddling is bereft of logic since a good chunk of football players do actually take their studies seriously. I taught a number of players at Penn State, and trust me, it was not pleasurable to have to report to the football program which stayed on top of these kids and made sure they were taking their studies seriously. I can't recall exactly how many times a semester i had to fill out reports, but it was about 5 times. so, paying these kids would mean taking away their scholarships (no way you could justify to anyone in the university community that they should retain their $92,000 in perks AND get paid. They would become contracted professionals. Because of the money squeeze, you would effectively destroy college sports.
That's fine by me. If college sports are destroyed, these guys can go play for the NFL's version of the NBDL.