Good post +1 for you sir.
It feels to me like the ACC is always reacting to something that could potentially happen in conference realignment, but could just as easily not. Some might call it being proactive, but to me it feels like repeated miscalculation. They took BC years ago and then left them on an island geographically and culturally for a decade. They passed on UCONN, a flagship state school and basketball power, to take Syracuse and Pitt when all were available to them. Both of these teams have marginal fan support and national appeal(outside of SU BBall) and could never create demand in their respective states for any far flung potential ACC Network.
When you factor in the idea that the only other conference that might potentially consider either was The Big 12, you have to question what their motivation was? UNC/UVA could have strengthened the conference's football brand by allowing FSU/Clemson to have WVU, but cited inferior academics as a reason to keep them out. They then take Ville, a school with a worse academic profile then the Eers.
Finally they fell for the ND con job. The one where they get everything they want, and you get the privilege of giving it to them. Wait until the first ACC School gets knocked down the bowl ladder for ND's benefit. SMH. Very glad my school is not a part of this circus. I'd love to see your school grab UCONN and join ours in The B1G. Unlikely but it would be fun. Imagine the possibility of a neutral site game at Fed Ex, half Maroon/Orange and half Blue/White. Cool stuff.
Don't disagree with the first bolded statement but I would add they were always torn on other issues about how to properly react. Back in 2003 they were reacting to football now being the major driver in athletics and the need for a championship game in that sport in order to try and maintain their lead in conference payouts. If it were truly only about football though, their expansion back in 2003 logically should have been Miami, VT, and either WVU or SU. Instead, being torn about academics they decided to target Miami, BC, and SU. When they realized they couldn't get Miami without VT, they initially stopped at 11 and tried to get the championship game rule changed and failed. This resulted in BC being #12 four months later (for the invite) and a year longer wait than either Miami or VT.
In 2011, they were reacting to SEC expansion to 14 with TAMU and one other (possibly FSU or VT) and a terribly negotiated contract the year before that was being quickly passed over by the Big 12 and PAC since the year the ACC settled, ESPN and FOX were not negotiating together while the Big 12 and the PAC they did since Comcast/NBC enter the scene as a possible competitor. This resulted in both the PAC and Big 12 getting inflated TV contracts that their ratings did not deserve.
ESPN let it be known that they would renegotiate the ACC contract if they expanded, so the 2011 expansion had several goals - a buffer in case the league lost teams due to SEC or BiG expansion; a legitimate reason for ESPN to increase the TV contract somewhat; and make the league enticing for ND.
Which brings me to your second bolded point. Obviously, the ACC was in a position of weakness. But then so was the Big 12 at the same time when they were negotiated the same deal which would be for 4 games a year, with an annual game against Texas being one of the four. Considering this was from a position of weakness the fact that the ACC got from ND a 5 game deal (ND wanted 4, the ACC wanted 6); that ND had to cycle through all ACC teams and not have special privileges with Pitt and BC; that the tv contract went up again; got the GOR as a result of the ND deal; and that the ACC got in writing that if ND were to ever go full into a conference over the lifetime of the GOR it would be the ACC (perhaps meaningless since ND will remain indy at least until the end of the GOR and probably longer) isn't entirely bad for bargaining from a position of weakness.
Biggest issue with the ACC is really the CFB playoff/Event Bowl set-up and the fact that the ACC as a conference isn't conducive to a conference network similar to the BTN and SECN. And no matter how good UConn and West Virginia are, or how good Rutgers might potentially be, getting any one of them or two of them over SU and Pitt wasn't likely to change either of those factors.
Cheers,
Neil
