Why are some folks saying that Pat Summitt doesn't deserve to make $1 million per year? She does. That's what the highest-paid coach in women's college basketball is going to make. And she (or Connecticut's Geno Auriemma) should be the one making it.

Summitt brings great exposure to UT, brings in quality athletes, makes sure that her players go to class and graduate, she does it all with class, AND she wins. A lot.

More than a million dollars a year? Whatever it takes to put her at the top of the women's coaching game. But to go further than that? How?

Isn't the UT athletic department in a financial pinch? Athletic director Mike Hamilton has talked openly about the fact that the UT athletic department might soon need to start doing business differently. According to him, due to monetary woes the athletic department might eventually need to cut back on the money it returns to the university each year. That or it might need to stop aiming for national titles (fans would love that one). That's how serious the financial outlook is.

And Hamilton's not alone in the discussion. UT President John Petersen quickly responded to his athletic director by saying that it might not be out of the question for the university to someday subsidize athletics. Sort of like the world's most expensive glee club.

But to me, that talk is now kind of silly considering the fact that Summitt was not only made the highest paid coach in women's basketball (again, no problem with that), but she was also made a higher paid coach than UT men's basketball coach Bruce Pearl for next season. Huh?

Is that fiscal responsibility? One program makes at least 10 times more than another program. So you give the coach of the smaller program more money than the coach of the larger program? I don't follow that. Heck, if it's all about success, dedication and exposure and has nothing to do with the amount of money involved in the different programs, then why just push Summitt to Pearl's level?

Summitt has had more success, is more synonymous with her sport, and brings more exposure to UT than football coach Phillip Fulmer does. Go ahead and give her $2 million. How 'bout $3 million? You can argue that she's worth it. After all, how do you put a value on someone who's helped to build an entire sport? And she really has done that.

Of course, the problem is that at some point it has to come back to market value. Doesn't it? Summitt and Auriemma are the only coaches making anywhere near $1 million in the women's game. And Auriemma still makes a half million less than Jim Calhoun, the men's coach at UConn who's had less success than Geno.

Jody Conradt at Texas has had a more distinguished career than Rick Barnes (she's No. 2 in all-time wins to Summitt), but she sure isn't making what Barnes makes coaching the much more profitable men's team. Come to think of it, how many women's coaches (male or female) are paid as much or more than the coaches of their school's men's team? I'll await your replies.

But maybe UT fans will line up in favor of this move, right? The Lady Vols will be raising ticket prices next season and that will help pay for Summitt's raise. Knowing where the cash is going, Lady Vol fans probably won't complain.

And what about those Vol fans who've been grumbling about football tickets going up for the first time in five years? Many of them have also been big supporters of Summitt getting a raise. They must be ecstatic that that raise has exceeded all expectations.

So I assume that those folks are now going to be quiet, content to give UT more of their money. After all, UT needs to raise funds. They're in a financial pinch, remember?

Is a political statement a good thing if you don't have the financial clout to back it up? There's no question that the UT Board of Trustees is sending a message with this pay raise. "Tennessee stands at the forefront of women's collegiate athletics." Well, that's a pretty noble place to be. But wasn't the message already sent when they made Summitt the highest paid coach in her sport? Did they have to set a new precedent by ignoring a sports' revenue altogether?

A couple of months ago, I wrote that any decision that left Summitt making less than Pearl would be based on economics, not sexism. I didn't know how right I was. Sexism? Boy, howdy, not at Tennessee.

UT already had one of the few remaining "separate, but equal" women's athletic departments in the nation (though the women get an awful lot of cash from the men). Those separate departments mean more employees (and salaries and benefits) that are tied to either the men OR the women rather than to the men AND the women.

And now Tennessee has shown that the coach of their women's basketball program will rank right beside of and ahead of the coach of the men's basketball program.

Too bad that last part doesn't make monetary sense. It's so silly, in fact, that the "we're in financial straits" argument might need to be retired.

So who does Hamilton and Peterson need to talk to? Personally, I think it's a waste of time for them to keep telling Vol fans about rising costs, market values, and financial woes. Nope, apparently they need to start explaining those things to women's athletic director Joan Cronan and the board of trustees. The fanbase has already heard it all.

This decision makes it look like it's the folks in power at Tennessee who haven't gotten the message. They clearly think that the UT athletic department does have the money to pay coaches big-dollar, record-setting, paradigm-busting salaries regardless of the revenue their programs bring in. So what should fans believe? Does the UT athletic department have plenty of money or not?

At any rate, I'm guessing the coaches of the rowing, tennis, track, diving and golf programs, for example, are very happy to hear all of this. It's the American Dream right here in Knoxville. "Why not me? Show me the money!"

John Pennington hosts The Hall's Salvage Sports Source on Sunday at 11 a.m. on WATE. He also writes a blog at govolsxtra.com.