1) I never discounted the decline of Miami, FSU and Clemson. In fact, in all of my posts I referenced them. I acknowledged it repeatedly, unlike you who ignore that the ACC (under Corrigan) was once the model that all conferences envied. If there's a credibility issue here, it isn't mine.

2) My posts have never suggested that the ACC should have beaten the SEC to a network, nor is it implied. Perhaps you're conflating my arguments with those of other posters. However, are you arguing that the SEC is that much more valuable a property than the ACC (with all the overlap in households, which is a key driver in television rights)?

3) Again, I never stated nor implied that the ACC was the top football conference, only that it was the top overall conference in the 1990s. If that statement is debatable, it's because of the Pac12 and Big10, not the SEC.

4) Football is by far the dominant driver of TV contracts, as I acknowledged indirectly (via the acknowlegement that the decline of FSU, et al affected the contract). So if I can acknowledge that, why are you unwilling to address the TERM OF THE FREAKIN' contract, and how disadvantageous it is? Especially in light of the fact that ESPN will begin to renegotiate their deals with carriers in 2018, a full 9 years before the end of the ACC deal?

You also fail to acknowledge that nearly every move the conference has made under Swofford has been bungled (expansion) or designed to protect his buddies (Raycom and, in a huge conflict of interest, HIS SON). Again, you're failure to acknowledge these doesn't constitute a credibility issue for me.

And finally, you chose not to address any of the questions I posed in my previous post. I'll take that as a sign you don't have an answer that fits your narrative. That's cool, but at least own it.