I assume you're serious. I have no idea why but I assume you are. You're "vindication" scenario is like trumpeting a replacement at second base because the new guy went two-for-four. Or calling a pitching change brilliant because the new pitcher's first pitch was a strike. What the hell is your/the ACC's time horizon on deciding on proposed new membership? We want the team that's likely be the best performer through the middle of next week. And what's your strategy? Find out who's most pissed off and let them pick the next member? I'm not saying Louisville won't turn out to be a good add. I like Louisville and wish then well. I'm saying that you're celebration of the Louisville add is more reminiscent of a 5-year-old wanting to be a fireman because the class visited the firehouse today than a deliberative response. I'm saying that that decision making process won't serve you well in the future. Perhaps you got lucky this time. Time will tell. But you've also gotten stung by Boston College and Miami, and likely Syracuse...maybe Pitt.
Louisville's football history goes back to 1912. Yes, there is a lot of futility in there; there is also Johnny Unitas in there. There is a serious commitment to football there right now. I was not referring to Louisville winning one game as vindication; I was referring to the national showcase of their recently enhanced (still young) on-campus stadium which was sold out and rocking, breaking its own attendance record for the third or fourth time over the last few years. Strong local television ratings. Strong local involvement and commitment, enhanced by a football team seemingly on the rise. What's not to like?
Football drives bus the now. The ACC has had football problems. The ACC needs to address its football problems. The B1G, SEC, and Pac-12 thrive on on-campus stadiums rocking with passion-filled fans. Louisville has been demonstrating that repeatedly in recent years, all while investing more money in facilities and spending good money on getting good coaches (and cutting bait when they realized they erred).
I think that strong arguments can be made that Louisville was the most valuable Big East property after the departures of Miami and Virginia Tech (and BC), and that they could/should have been taken ahead of Pittsburgh and Syracuse (and perhaps taken by Big XII instead of WVU).
For all the negative commentary about ACC expansion targets, I have yet to read anyone say whom they should have been taking (beyond UConn, of course).
In the recent expansion era:
Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, West Virginia, Texas Christian, Maryland and Rutgers have moved to conferences other than the ACC.
Who of the above schools is a "good fit" for the ACC? Obviously, Rutgers and West Virginia are the closest geographically. If you think those schools bring the ACC up to the levels of B1G (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, followed by Wisconsin), SEC (Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Texas A&M), or Pac-12 (UCLA, USC, Stanford, followed by Oregon and Washington).... well then, we disagree.
Does anyone think the ACC could have poached Penn State, Ohio State, Georgia, or Florida over the last ten years? I don't.