With what money? Again, the main point is that our donor base is exceedingly small iin comparison to virtually every other program, which means that the university is already forking over a larger portion of coaching salaries than virtually every other (public) school.
It's a cute correlation you keep trying to make. Other schools that are public universities paying coaches via boosters has NOTHING to do with their or our ability to pay a certain rate. They operate via that method as a pure PR maneuver to avoid backlash from softies like you in their state that would stupidly scream and cry that taxpayer money was somehow going to pay a coach an "outrageous" salary.
Does your (and DK's) back hurt from constantly carrying Donna's water?
It'd be neat if you'd pay attention the facts instead of trying to get cute yourself. As is, you perpetually sound like you have no clue.
It doesn't matter *why* public universities work that way; what matters is that it is, in fact, the way they work. Many coaches at public schools in the FBS are not paid by the school, but by the donors--which puts the schools at a distinct advantage when hiring. Big donor schools can pay big money right out of the gate, while smaller, private schools have to start low and work their way up if the coach wins.
if you want to make a comparison, let's stick to other private schools that have the same model as us. TCU, Baylor, and USC have already been mentioned, and they operate a lot like us. We have a smaller donor pool than all of them, but we do pay in the same range as them, and on the same model as them.
