Boosters should have zero influence over the decisions of the athletics department (or the rest of the university). Unfortunately, many mega-boosters like Phil Knight and T. Boone treat their generous gifts like investments, expecting to be treated like large stockholders in a corporation. Universities—especially state-run universities—have become increasingly dependent on these large donations to meet their budget demands. So, it’s no wonder they find themselves in an ethical dilemma. I’m not sure if the answer is to tell a T. Boone or Nike CEO “no thank you,” but I also have to wonder how much soul these schools have left to sell? What’s the next, the University of Oregon at Nike?

Why should intercollegiate athletics be exempted from the kind of influence that "boosters" (just another variant of the term "key university donor") exert in every other area of campus life? After all, Oklahoma State's geology school also bears Mr. Pickens' name, and presumably every other building on that campus and on most other campuses across the country also stand either as monuments or memorials to the influence (monetary and otherwise) of deep-pocketed supporters. These days, probably only institutions with the greatest endowments can tell donors "thanks, but no thanks for your suggestions" ... but even then, why would they? Donors aren't just influencing intercollegiate athletics; they impact institutional missions. Turning that around on itself, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the same forces that shape the core mission of our universities and colleges will take an active interest in higher education institutions' most visible representation, on the football field and basketball court.

When I saw the headline I thought it was about CBS' influence on the NCAA. I had just read a story elsewhere about the college presidents complaining that CBS violated the number of seconds alcohol advertising was shown on the Final Four games ...

To even consider this question just underlines how out of line college athletics have become in relationship to education, which is supposed to be their primary mission.

To have a non-educator/administrator who is only interested in winning having input on these sorts of decisions is ridiculous.