First, the department subsidy is something different than whether a single sport is making money. Second, nj.com (the sole source of information in the sportsbusinessdaily.com link) has grossly oversimplified the issue in an effort to support their story. It does not specify how specific expenses (and particularly one-time expenses) are allocated, nor does it take into account the varying accounting practices between universities -- which have been explained more fully on this board in the past. Nor does it account for the past reinvestment of profits back into the same program with the goal of obtaining larger profits in the future.
But that said, even if you accept the statement you rely on as accurate, it is from 2014-2015, and it seems unlikely that the financial position changed materially in the 2015 football season.
Your original quote:
"Maybe if Rutgers didn't bleed money from football, Coach Ash could do half as much and you'd all love it and you know it"
is, at best, out of date and incomplete. While Rutgers doesn't have the money to lure away Nick Saban, and certainly must be smart with their funds and spend them where they will get the most value for dollars spent (and to the extent you imply that this is not on dozens of satellite camps, you are probably correct), there is no recent evidence that it won't spend to compete, which seems to be the point you were making.
