(12-18-2016 06:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-18-2016 06:29 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  I don't understand the rationale for such a policy in any way, shape, or form. We are literally turning down money because some nerd thinks that a donor isn't committed to academic excellence or some such!?

Where it has hurt the most is in the woeful lack ofg corporate sponsors to our athletic programs (as many of them of long-standing ties to the academic side).

Absolutely. This is a revenue stream that's probably $20 million at a place like a AMA, $6-10 million at successful P5s, maybe $2-3 million at a typical G5, even hundreds of thousands at a good FCS--and zero at Rice. How much difference would that make?

Regarding Patterson (and Tudor), those are two of the one-offs where Leebron got involved and approved exceptions to the policy. Both were built with substantial amounts kicked by the Board from general funds as well. I'm not aware that any of Leebron's predecessors have ever done anything similar (maybe the construction of HRS, but that was before my time). That's one reason why many people in or close to the athletic department will say that David is the best president for athletics in decades. By the way, for you Toad-haters out there, the guy who first convinced David to see the light on this was Todd Graham. Like him or not, give credit where credit is due.