Your points have validity to them. However, when you start with horrible coverage, it is nearly impossible to gain good coverage. When FSU gets credit for coverage in spite of a painfully weak performance is on ABC or ESPN and SU is relegated to CW, which may or may not be broadcasting the game, depending on where you are, the starting point bias is difficult to overcome. Being on ABC or ESPN has a significant exposure advantage that CW or ACCN simply cannot provide. Thus, the team that is behaving like a petulant child is going to be rewarded for exposure that is denied to other teams, receiving more revenue and has a built in advantage as they pad their coffers on the way out the door or pay for an earlier exit, further damaging the ACC and SU.
I have no issue with paying for performance, especially from new monies and postseason play. I have no issue with creating more marketable games to enhance viewership. However, when FSU sucks, they suck and should not receive extra money simply because ESPN placed them on ABC or ESPN. Certainly SU and SMU had excellent seasons which deserved better fare than CW. Most fans had no clue SU and SMU were big winners along with Clemson and Miami until the last week or two. Yet, ESPN place FSU on the better access networks instead of the winners.
After starting out the way FSU did, they should not have appeared on anything other than ACCNX, CW or perhaps ACCN. Loyalty is a two way street and ESPN and the ACC seem to have no loyalty towards SU, with lots of loyalty to FSU, the petulant toddler.
Just my perspective, which when added to $10 can get you a coffee at Starbucks.
