networks all chose different models. What does that tell us? If it was cut and dried, they would all have done the same thing. But they didn't. And with wide variations in success. BTN went first and lost money for 6 years. PAC went second and they are still second guessing. SEC went third and made money in year one. ACC waited, but they have picked the best of what worked from the other three. That is more conservative than I like. But it isn't dumb. And the Big 12 model with its independent third tier deals is on life support.

I don't buy all of Swofford's BS. The ACC should have clearly been up and running by this year. I said it. Hoo86 said it. Stech said the AD's we're getting impatient for a deal to be done. Most of us thought he waited too long. We just don't paint everything with broad brush strokes.

When we told you the network was a done deal you didn't believe it. We didn't say that because we had faith in Swofford. Most of us want him gone. But we weren't so jaded as not to be able to see what was happening and read between the lines when Swofford, Babcock, Radakovich et al. chose to speak publicly. If you go back and read the interviews from 2015 on, they told us almost exactly what they were going to do.

And I don't miss Maryland at all. I was happy when they left and I'm happy they aren't back. I'd rather have any of the teams we've added and every other prospective member mentioned as #'s 15/16. They have no added value for the ACC.