that's because, in your hypothetical, Utah went undefeated and is ranked in the top 10, while Houston only won 2 games. What channel/streaming service they're playing on should be irrelevant. Nobody can control what channel the Walt Disney corporation decides they're playing on. The two concepts are intertwined, yes - teams that win more usually end up getting more exposure and better time slots, and thus end up getting more eyeballs. The big problem I have with a completely TV ratings-based disbursement of media rights payouts is largely the same problem the British had with the proposed European Super League - the EPL fans thought it would be complete BS to reward a select little group of teams with more of everything and take away even the prospect of promotion and relegation just because they're popular, with no regard to wins and losses, success and failure. Likewise, I think it's complete BS to agree to pay FSU, Clemson, or any other program, including VT, bigger shares of money even if they go 0-12 and embarrass the conference. To paraphrase General Patton - this is America. We only like winners, and we abhor a loser. The very concept of losing is vulgar to an American. Again, I have no problem with giving ACC programs that win more games more money. Incentivizing winning should be the name of the game. I have a problem with paying FSU and Clemson more money because the people cutting the checks decide they're playing on ESPN2 instead of the ACCN. If that's how they want to do business, then by all means, they can go independent and make their own media rights deals; they don't even need the rest of the ACC, or the B1G/SEC, or anyone else.