is not the best choice of words. I doubt anybody believes that things SHOULD not have proceeded faster but, the question is whether they COULD have proceeded faster? Hopefully someday there will be a story written that will provide an objective look at the historical timeline and surrounding events of the creation of the college networks. As far as the ACC goes it is certainly possible to assert Swofford and the leadership were merely asleep at the wheel in not launching earlier. The other end of the spectrum might argue the ACC was deliberate in order to get the best partner for long term success and allow its member schools adequate time to plan for a major investment and do it right. Like most things the reality is probably somewhere in the middle as opposed to being at either end of that spectrum.

Everybody will be an expert with the benefit of hindsight in identifying what should have been done. The ACC has obviously foregone revenue by not starting quicker. Some of the questions that will hopefully be answered at some point include what partners were truly available? What were the numbers actually talked about in terms of cost and income early on? Were there other contract considerations that constrained the network? etc., etc.. This post is not to defend the ACC leadership as it is clearly obvious they screwed it up. The purpose is to point out the decisions surrounding a network launch are complex, include a myriad of considerations and in certain cases can have extremely long shelf lives and effects. Starting early and winning the battle might not necessarily mean winning the long term war. The ACC clearly lost the early battle of first to market. Whether that is a mortal wound or a temporary setback in the long term war is yet to be determined.