If you acknowledge that the 2010 deal wasn't a good one (which you seem to, since your assessment of the deal hinges on whether or not "they are done"), then even if it was the best deal they could get at the time you are acknowledging that it put the league at a disadvantage compared to other leagues. Yet you continue to avoid the question of the length of the contract.

So I'll ask, which is worse, a bad deal with a shorter term, or a less bad - but still bad - deal for a much longer term? Especially if the final analysis of the 17-year deal can't be made 6 years in. I mean, yours seems to me to be the most damning review of all, unintentionally. That is, unless the ACC network magically yields significantly more money than the SEC network over the remaining term - a scenario we both acknowledge is highly unlikely.

The key difference between you and I is that you appear to think Swofford has done enough to earn our trust until this deal is finalized because "he was dealt a bad hand" while I think he's continually offered no logical reason to expect him to suddenly turn into a competent conference commissioner. And all the while you ignore the reality that the few good moves he's made (adding VT and Louisville) only occurred because he had a gun to his head.