Wow, there is a lot of problems with this argument.
First, all you did was just take one line from this report and used it to justify your whole argument.
Yes, while the total operating expenses are higher at W&M, when you look at the average expense per athlete, Wake spent over 2.6 times more per athlete than W&M did ($2,388 to $904) because of the "much larger rosters at W&M." Plus these expenses are likely only just variable expenses, such as shoes, clothing, and travel.
Second, Wake has a much higher budget in terms of expenses that do not get allocated to just one team. If you look at expenses not allocated to gender/sport, Wake spent over 6 times more than W&M (W&M $2.4M to Wake's $14.7M). These are the main reason why Wake is more appealing, the improved athletic facilities and resources that apply to the total athletic department.
And third (and likely most important) factor is Wake Forest is going to pay the head of it's program more than W&M would. If you look at average salary for a Women's coach (to strip out the effect BB and FB coaches salaries skewing things) Wake's average women's head coach earns $96K compared to $53K at W&M.
Now it is possible Coach Gibby may not be interested in the Wake job for a number of other reasons, such as not wanting to deal with Wake's tough academic challenges, having to move to NC, a limited pool of runners to recruit from, or trying to rebuild a program, but W&M certainly does not "have the upper hand" and I would certainly say W&M has a "constrained budget" in comparison to Wake Forest