There is one other interpretation you'll hear argued, but it's actually a worse interpretation (in my opinion). I 100% don't think this is the correct interpretation, but because I know others have argued it, I'll at least mention it.

Some will argue that "Tuition", as listed as 14% of athletic revenue doesn't mean money from tuition, but rather the scholarship money that players receive.

However, every other school lists that in their expenses section (given that the scholarships are an expense to the school because of athletics). If we're taking a $10M/yr cost and reclassifying it as revenue, that's a $20m/yr swing and indicates that we aren't really balancing out budget, instead using funny bookkeeping to make it look like we are.

As is, with it being supported by student tuition, we don't necessarily have the high ground on "student fees", but it still remains impressive that we DO balance the budget and do so without excessive student fees ($10M/33.5k means about $300/student per year) or state funding