any credibility. This could be a very very very very very very (did I say very?) fluid situation. At the end of the day Disney/ESPN and the ACC are going to make decisions that are in their best interest. If it is appears that conference networks are not as profitable, then it is possible that either or even both parties are stalling (for different reasons) to see what the new landscape may look like in the future. If it turns out there is no ACCN by July 1 (and assume the ACC got a check), then will Babcock have lost any credibility or will people continue to take a "wait and see" approach as they are doing now?

At the time Babcock made his comments, it is possible that the ducks were starting to line up to where the ACCN could be launch in the near future. However, this could have changed multiple times for a variety of reasons. Heck maybe the ACC doesn't keep the ADs as much in the loop as to where things are in the negotiation process.

When Babcock made his comments at the time the ducks were starting to line up to where it looked like the ACCN would be launching. However, things could have change by now for a variety of reasons. If it appears that ESPN will be cutting the ACC a check, then would it be in the ACC's best interest to have its ADs publicly hint that is what is going to happen or would that be like adding blood to the water and waiting for the sharks (Big Ten, Big XII, SEC) to start circling around the ACC? As far as potential instability due to the lack of the ACCN, would it make a difference who (ESPN, ACC, or both) did the stalling and prevented the launching of the network?