I completely agree with you RE: the paradigm shift from basketball-centric world to football. My main point about that is that I firmly believe a more competent leader (say, Gene Corrigan in his prime) would have seen that shift as the threat it was sooner. I would also speculate if the ACC would have lost Maryland under competent leadership, but that's a totally different (if tenuously related) situation.

Regarding expansion, here's the key sign Swofford bungled it: first rule of politics is you don't take something to a vote unless you are certain to achieve the desired outcome. If Miami, BC, Syracuse was the desired outcome (and it was), it was ham-handed leadership that led to Miami, VT and BC being the invitees. Unless VT was Swofford's first choice all along and he manipulated the whole thing, which I'd have a very hard time seeing. Ditto Louiville; didn't do it untill the very real threat of FSU and Clemson leaving. So despite the positive outcomes there, my comment about having "a gun to his head" remains. I could be wrong, though.

You're right about Raycom, and I'm not saying the only motivation was taking care of his son. But when you're fighting for survival, do you value the health of a loyal partner over that of your members? And further, the member institutions are going to agree to whatever the commish tells them is the best possible deal. They may ask tough questions, they may not like it, but without an alternative, they're going with the commish's recommendation unless they plan to fire him.

Your (and Stech's) point that they've been pretty good at making lemonade out of lemons is true. They've made some good, reactionary moves. But those pale in comparison to the term of the deal, the rights it included, and the leverage it gave ESPN. The problem with ESPN is that they paid a ton more for the SEC's rights, so of course they are going to promote the SEC above the ACC. As mafiosos always say in the movies, it's financial, not personal. To really punctuate this, did the ACC get anywhere near the recognition of the SEC in the year that followed FSU's national title? Or did FSU, if we really want to drill down into it? Nope, because they (ESPN) are financially incented to reinforce the image that the SEC walks on water and everyone else is stuck in the mud.

The outcome is that the SEC receives a ton more money and a ton more exposure and promotion from ESPN. Barring a miracle, the distance between the SEC and the ACC will me gigantic by 2027, perhaps insurmountable. No amount of making lemonade will fix that.

I'm not anti-ACC; I believe it should be 'home' for VT. But where Stech and I apparently disagree is my opinion that Swofford's not the man to get this right, and never will be. I suspect the first thing he wakes up thinking about is not the ACC Network, but instead how he can exonerate UNC and himself from the mess that's been uncovered. If I drove by the ACC headquarters today, I'd expect to see a "mission accomplished" banner hanging out front (referencing the newest NOA from the NCAA to UNC).

But yours is a good post, so thanks!
[Post edited by Upwind of uva at 05/01/2016 08:50AM]