A large part of this experiment seems to consist of increasing the losses of the athletics program, such as the extra $9M subsidy in a year when the total defic

A large part of this experiment seems to consist of increasing the losses of the athletics program, such as the extra $9M subsidy in a year when the total deficit was $26M. High expenditure on athletics is often justified by the revenue it generates, but that is clearly not the case here. Is there any plausible case to be made that this extra expenditure will lead to the athletics program becoming self-sustainingly profitable in time to save the university?