Forget notoriety. University football generates a ton of money, and since we live in a capitalist society, the people in profit centers tend to get paid a lot than people in cost centers.
So, I disagree that professors are a cost center for a university and that, as a society, we invest more overall in head football coaches than in educators.
"About 10% of coaches get a cut of ticket revenue; Oregon's Mike Bellotti got $631,000 [in 2006] under such a provision."
I read somewhere that the football revenue from some universities can support the sports programs for all the other sports. That's probably true for the big college programs that have large fan bases, like Notre Dame and many SEC schools.
Sadly, a significant part of alumni contribution can be earmarked for sports and football/basketball in particular. [Sad because this is the state of affairs, not that contributors can donate to specific programs.] Those boosters pay for the new locker rooms and stadiums. It's an arms race to get the best facilities to attract the best athletes and get wins. (I heard the facilities at NC State were impressively professional.)
NY Times recently profiled Stanford's additional compensation to coaches for Palo Alto real estate: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/10stan...
The article left out an interesting factoid, which is that many of them are the highest paid state employees in their state.
I'm not sure if the profit takes into account university merchandise. Powerhouse football programs sell lots and lots of university clothing, and the universities make money off the licensing.
What they don't tell you is that they are lucky to break even if you take into account the hidden costs. The next time they do a 15 million stadium renovation, it won't be counted against the athletic department's budget.
Ever watch a game on Saturday afternoon? Mixed in with all the ads for Nike, etc. are messages about how "this school really cares about academics", etc.