That's a common misconception. Very few college athletic departments are in the black. And even among those, usually only football and men's basketball make any money at all. Sorry no link...should be easy to google statistics.
Every single one of those programs listed is making money, though. That's also easily Googleable and you can see that above link.
It might be wise to not link to an article in which every single sports program is massively profitable as an example of how college sports are causing financial issues. There's an argument to be made for that, but that link isn't it.
The parent comment to my previous was completely rewritten after I replied. It originally said something like "those athletic programs make tons of money for their schools." I was just saying that only a relative few really made a lot of money, which is what the link shows (as you said).
The big sports programs are profitable, but not all of them.
I guess many state schools do have successful sports programs with big TV deals. For example, 2 of the highest paid NCAA football coaches are in self sufficient programs at state schools in just 1 state: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/08/big_10_schools_l...
Building maintenance isn't free and comes out of university funds. Especially at state schools you see politicians posing in front of a new building they have arranged funding for. Trouble is, the new building requires maintenance, as does the existing building stock, and oftentimes it would make better economic sense to renovate the buildings that are already there as you don't increase the number of buildings. But you won't find a politician to pose in front of a renovation, consequently you won't get free state money either.
At Alabama. What about the other 100 or so FBS schools? Does Alabama make a profit without mandatory athletic fees? What about other schools? Alabama is an outlier and even its numbers are not as good as they make them out to be.