And I don't know the answer. I do know at one point they had some contracts that required production of 800+ events.

They do have technological flexibility moving forward and that is appealing to me. But they don't have the distribution they need and there are significant obstacles to getting an equity partner in the contracts they already have. The "Tier 3" deals for example cut both ways. It can be an excellent way to supplement income (see Tx and Ok as you often cite). But it also leaves each member with individual contract obligations so when you try to add an equity partner, each member has to re-do their individual Tier 3 contract. A few months back PAC schools rejected ATT's bid to work with them for this very reason. Contractually, they couldn't meet ATT's demands. Right now the Tier 3 deals in the Big 12 preclude them getting a conference network.

The "major coin" in the PAC network you have referred to is reported to be $1-1.5 million per year per school. If that is "major", you should be thrilled if ESPN just gives another $3 million to each ACC school. But I know you aren't and I'm there with you. The gap between VT and its major competitors to the south and north/west would remain too huge. The ACC needs a network and it needs to make money off of it. We can't get B1G and SEC money but we need to be WAY better than the PAC.

There are things I like about the PAC network, but I'd rather be the ACC right now, trying to build something rather than trying to untangle a rats nest of fishing line. I'd feel better if Swofford was not involved but I'd be trying to run Larry Scott off if he were here as well. I'd be totally pissed if we were where the PAC is right now.