Good point about duration, although I think football games are only 1.5x longer, not 2x (bball goes about 2 hrs and 10 minutes). I was looking at regular season games for both sports. I'm actually trying to understand how/why football is so much more lucrative.
Beyond TV money, I think it's what the schools can generate locally that adds to their overall profitability. This is especially true for a school with no other local diversions, i.e. Clemson, FSU, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Boise, Alabama, etc. They are the center of the universe in these locals. Also:
- CFB is more "privatized" than basketball (ncaa manages and disperses revenue) which can drive up pricing for live programming
- Bowl revenue is typically a plus
- You touched on it when you said 80,000 fans. On average football games have 6x the attendance with ticket prices at least 2x that of basketball. Michigan can generate millions of dollars from a single game (which is probably why they were annoyed when ND ended their future match-ups). It's less disparate when it comes to UCONN.
- The additional revenue generated through longer game duration was a good point
- The additional revenue from prime time placement (fewer FB games played on a Tuesday night)
- The additional revenue from concession sales (it adds up)
- Football brands generate more cash when it comes to product licensing and sales
- Sponsorships, luxury boxes and booster revenue are more for football
- Generally speaking, third tier licensing generates more cash for football. There are exceptions such as Duke, Kentucky, UCONN, etc.
The difference in revenue correlates with the delta between the NFL and NBA. Having said all that, I do think that BB revenue is "under valued". Even NCAA credits can generate over $2M per team within a winning conference. And by the way, it's only more lucrative for about 30-40 schools in Division 1—and that still depends on how you measure your P&L.