I am not sure White agrees with you about the priorities.
Wade is woefully inadequate in a number of respects...amenities in terms of bathrooms, sure, but also as a football venue it is inadequate in two respects. The track, putting fans so far off the sidelines...and capacity is not at the critical level at which the Football Program can be a revenue add, rather than a rev. drag on the Athletic Department budget.
You want home and away game with Alabama? And the home game played in Durham? Have to be able to seat more than 33k people.
Attendance drags because of the track, imo..Anyone watch the USC Notre Dame game who remembers watching a game in the Coliseum before the track was removed? Its night and day. How about Ohio State....fans rave about the change there.
I can say in my opinion with absolutely certainty in my mind the following:
1. fixation on the stop gap fix the bathrooms and concessions and stop and wait from there is the wrong approach. White is looking at a comprehensive redo, removing the track and planning on bathrooms, concessions, club seats in an intergrated design. It was a blessing that Durham held up the stop gap.
2. Wade is the worst stadium in Division 1-a. Its an embarassment and hurts recruiting.
3. Fixing the stadium situation is more important than the indoor practice facility.
Re my third point I actually think K. White believes fixing Wade is more important than an indoor practice facility, that this will have more near term and longer term benefits for the program. It is also possible that an indoor facility may be contiguous to Wade and therefore that it will be part of the overall stadium redo footprint. The problem is raising the money, in the post stock market crash environment.