That's where you are wrong. They are part of the athletic program and their results impact the success of an athletic program overall. If they didn't, schools would just have the big 5 sports. The smaller sports performance on the field impacts the success of an athletic program.
If UK can do little other than basketball, why have we beat you 18 of 22 years is the directors cup? Oh yeah, riflery is the reason. Say what you want about "LPT" but we have pretty much owned Louisville on the field in every sport with the exception of football in the last few years. Oh yeah, that's our Super Bowl, according to you.
Like it or not, UK and UL both have successful programs which are good for both schools. Instead of trying to denigrate what UK has accomplished, wouldn't you be happier to just celebrate what UL has accomplished. Are you that much happier when UK fails or are you happier when UL succeeds? At this point, I honestly have no idea.