You are naïve if you think Mason would be where it is today without the final 4. I will not get on board with a mediocre mentality.
No, I think you are naive to think that one basketball season fundamentally changes a university. Mason's law school, its economics program, its IT programs, its public policy programs (and their faculty) are the real drivers of growth at the university. If you really want to look at what has made George Mason successful since the late-1990s, take a look at the growth in research money coming in.
I would argue the same thing is true of vcu: the MCV, and its art and design programs make that university, not its basketball team. If vcu had awful academics, all the basketball success in the world wouldn't matter. As much as we like to rag on vcu for its overall academics, they have some world class programs there that attract students.
Sports are good for two things: exposure of the name to people outside of the region (like you and me), and a means by which students become connected to the university after they leave. These are good things. But don't conflate Mason's academics with the Final Four.
By the way, I still think Merten was wrong for not allowing Mason to do what we are doing now and ask for money for specific athletics projects. I also think he was wrong to not match Miami's offer, but that's besides the point.
Also, marketing is really important. The basketball training facility becomes part of the overall athletics building (the RAC). So, why not just roll in the RAC's overall size and cost when you're marketing it to prospective student-athletes? A $35 million 140,000 square foot athletics facility that includes a dedicated basketball practice facility?