Giving a partner more because of who he is = stupid.
Giving him more because he's getting a commission and he sold more = motivational.
If the ACC agrees to paying more based on TV ratings, isn't that a commission?
Yes, giving benefits for TV viewers drawn is a commission as is giving benefits for championships won and rankings earned.
I would say that before long both BT and SEC will do both, because their Biggest Brands will not want to keep supporting their least brands. That language of 'can no longer support mouths to feed' that has been used by all those (schools, conference leaders, and network people) who keep acting to destroy all 'Major' conferences but the BT and SEC will certainly be used by the Ohio States and Alabamas, Michigans and Texases against the Rutgers and Miss States, the Northwestern and Vanderbilts.
It is coming. It will come to the ACC eventually even if FSU, Clemson, Miami, and UNC all have left. I assert that it is far better to come to the ACC now in hope that it buys much needed time, to get the ACC to a time when the market may have changed and the ACC will get a better deal, rather than to wait while doing nothing to keep the Biggest Brands (in football terms) content.
That said, I also am in favor of the ACC playing ball with ESPN and FSU, as long as the ACC gets stabilized permanently from FSU leaving. For example, if the ACC lets FSU go on the cheap, then ESPN must facilitate the ACC expanding with schools that definitely will help the league with viewers and football quality. With the possible exception of South FL, that means Big 12 schools such as Utah, Arizona, Arizona St, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, WVU, Cincy.