I'll start by allowing that Jim Delany has set a high bar by which to measure success in the realignment/media rights game. There is no shame in falling short of that standard. But this conference should have done better.

"Miami was the lynchpin... BC was their demand." Why should Miami get to demand anything? If it is true that the conference leadership acquiesced to that demand, then shame on them. That would be a sadly weak decision. But I think the ACC was going after BC anyway. The Eagles were enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame as a football power and the ACC wanted more football cred. There may have been some hope of using this as a chip in the pursuit of Notre Dame as well. Was that under consideration in thse days. Not sure. Now nothing I said here is necessarily factual. I can't prove it. It's message board ruminations.

"BC was really no different... than Maryland and Rutgers..." "Market" in 2004 (BC addition) had a far simpler meaning than "market" in 2012. Rutgers and UMD carried the traditional meaning of "market" when the B1G came courting, but now they had the cable box gravy train to exploit. NYC metro and DC metro had millions of cable boxes to feed the BTN. Delaney also claims to have multitudes of B1G alums in those two markets. The combined student body populations of Rutgers and Maryland approaches 100,000. Cannot immagine the size of the B1G living alumni fan base. ACCN and cable box count were not considerations in the BC move. I can't prove any of this. I'm just sayin'

"I agree the ACC should always attempt to learn from history and not repeat past mistakes." This is an entirely meaningless sentiment. The ACC leaders need not observe history or learn from it because they are in no position to make any more decisions (mistakes) until 2035. It is the good fortune of the ACC that the whole cabal who executed the current deal will have found their way to the rocking chair. The entire package of media rights is in the hands of ESPN. The management of the conference media rights was abysmal at every turn. Who can explain the need to negotiate the reassignment of some games to Raycom? Make your deal with ESPN or whomever, and if Raycom wants in, let them buy the rights themselves from ESPN. The relationship with Raycom should not have been given any sentimental, good ole boy treatment. It's a business, a huge business. I believe that Swofford and Co. were way out of their element in the new world cable TV and media rights. They were eager to just hand over the operation and all decisions to ESPN, whom they believed (still do?) had thier best interests at heart. The risk-averse presidents were negligent for not hiring IMG, or some other industry experts to run this negotiation process. Seems that they just wanted to secure a deal, any deal, and put the issue to bed. Meanwhile IMG negotiated the LHN for Texas. That turned out okay, huh? Pitt and Syracuse were added to the ACC strictly for the zillions of cable boxes in NY and PA. I can see no other benefit to the ACC. What am I missing? So time crawls by as we await the arrival of the ACCN. Another season will come and go while we wonder how much carriage fee gold we left on the table. The SECN was in service 19 months after it was announced. Seems that the ACCN has taken longer. These musings aren't gospel. I can't prove any of it. It's just message board entertainment.