First, you offer ZERO foundation for the viability of the first 2 notions.

Option A: The ACC could have raided their endowments and pursued the PAC 12 approach. Of course they wouldn't have had a good chunk of their current market and a money loser might have scared away some of the more recent conference adds. But yes they could have tried it. However there is nothing to suggest it would have been a good or viable investment. The PAC 12 isn't even sure theirs is viable, and they have no local or overlapping competition like the SEC and B1G.

Option B: Having a third party be a joint investor or distributor requires a third party. You've offered none. So who? Remember this is 2009 again and the ONLY similar venture out there, one with the football crazy and large media market friendly B1G behind it, was LOSING money.

And even if someone had the balls to try, remember the BTN did not turn a profit for 6 years? You are suggesting that the ACC being neck deep in an unprofitable network as late as 2015 is good? I suggest that more than anything, a losing TV endeavor might have caused the destruction of the conference.

Option C: It would appear that even with the awkward, nepotic nature of the Raycom deal (which Swoff should have been fired for) that the conference did not dissolve, and that it has been effective in delivering a result that ACC leadership and financial managers are happy with, and will pay the conference at a level exceeding 2 of their rivals even before the network comes on line. Oh, and it mirrors the most profitable venture to date and requires minimal out of pocket capital to get there.