You mean Pitt doesn’t work that way.
If a school wants a coach who can win often, they pay for a coach who has shown he can win often. You can take a chance on a Coordinator who promises you he will win a lot of games, but you pay a little less (which Pitt did) and you don’t keep giving him hugs raises if he is not delivering on what he promised (which Is where Pitt made the mistake IMO). Give him a little raise if you are okay with his average results- but don’t pay him like he is hitting it out of the park.
Heck add an incentive thaf pays an additional $1 million If the team wins 10 games and gets into the top 15. Offer to pay another million if he wins the ACC. Guaranteeing a coach huge bonuses during his tenure when he does not deliver on expectations isn’t setting a good precedent - It tells other potential hires that you reward underachievers just as you would anyone who actually achieves what is expected of them or exceeds set expectations.
Those huge incentives would be laughed at, potential coaches would want more guaranteed money. That's how most schools operate.
Oh well, you'll find something to bitch about regardless so there is no point arguing.