Again, the metrics are there for all to see. At the very least, don't top off the ACC like they did. How is Pitt worth more than the average of, say, Virginia and Clemson? Pitt is not more valuable, and in fact is probably less valuable. The ACC as a whole may be less valuable with Pitt and Syracuse included, but the ACC as a whole was re-evaluated. This means the FSU, Clemson, UNC, Virginia, and the rest are all worth more than they were 3 -4 years ago when the contract was originally signed. When Pitt and Cuse joined they renegotiated and offered the ACC more. Was hat fiduciary duty? It was a contractual committment. I am sure this was bad for ESPN and the shareholders bottom line, but it was a contractual agreement to look at the ACC as whole and re-evaluate the value. ESPN got burned by the ACC on this deal. Or was that something else entirely? I do think that ESPN was aware of the clause to re-evaluate and may have worked with the ACC to help them up the payout. Without this increase, ESPN may have lost the ACC teams to FOX leagues such as the B1G and Big 12. We know what that was--had nothing to do with ESPN's bottom line, and was not supported by any metric either. It was the cutthroat business of NCAA realignment. This is what you're missing. I am not missing that realignment has been cut throat. It has ruined rivalries and left teams behind. But do not blame ESPN for holding up there end of the contract and looking out for there best interests.