Well...we all conjecture...But I posit, still, that football was a driver...based on the context of the times. It was musical chairs time and the ACC was desperate to grab one of those five chaits.
Back then we had:
Swofford
"Swofford estimated that football drives 70-80 percent of rights fees and acknowledged that more national success in that sport would have meant additional
revenue."
Swofford
“The world is a much different place now in that regard,” Swofford said. “For decades, as a conference, we made more headlines in basketball and more money in basketball, and there was nothing inherently wrong with that. Obviously, basketball remains a huge part of our success and identity today.
“But for various reasons, that picture has changed significantly. We’ve been through realignment and expansion multiple times, with football a major factor in that. We have an ACC football championship game now. We have a College Football Playoff. I think it’s fair to say that, without significant upgrades in football over the years, the ACC would not be where it is today.”
The Clemson AD:
"For example, in this latest contract with ESPN, 80% of it is generated by football. As good as basketball has been in the ACC, it is very evident just through this contract that football has to be very, very relevant."
AND De Filippo
"We always keep our television partners close to us,’’ he said. "You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball.’’
I rest my case.