When Ohio launched the fundraising campaign for its IPF, in conversing with Jim Schaus, I expressed my dubiousness about an IPF's serving to strength recruiting. Dubiousness aside, I donated.
I remain dubious. I'm now thinking of Kent State. It just might have been first in the MAC to construct such a facility. I know it was in place in 1995 when I took on the presidency of the Akron-Canton Alumni Chapter. Indeed I visited it several times because a contact for scheduling Ohio alumni events at Kent had an office there. I also attended a MAC indoor track championship held there. Today there is scant evidence that that facility has strengthened Kent's recruiting. Some folks might disagree, positing that Kent's recruiting might have been worse without it. Perhaps.
Then there is Akron with its much newer and spiffier IPF. How has it affected recruiting? Without it could Akron's recruiting have been weaker?
Now my thinking is turning to some big time basketball programs which compete nicely with arenas that are but shadows compared to Ohio's Convocation Center. I am thinking Duke, Vandy and Stanford among others. In the MAC, Kent and Akron compete nicely with arenas that to me are glorified high school gyms.
So the "arms race" continues and some on this board are making the case for a basketball practice facility. Yes, I am dubious that it would strengthen recruiting - or team performance. In earlier fundraising campaigns for Ohio's IPF and the end zone academic center, I donated. If such a campaign is mounted for a basketball practice facility, I think I will abstain from donating.
BTW, going back 40+ years, one of my favorite Ohio University Foundation giving categories is Buildings & Grounds, sometimes called Campus Beautification. I do believe that campus beauty strengthens recruiting of students, if not student-athletes.