My guess is other ACC teams will wait and see what happens with the UMD lawsuit and what type of buyout they end up actually paying.
If they get hit with the full $50 million, the ACC may survive. If it gets chopped down, others may jump.
I think it will get chopped down. Hard for the ACC to argue that UMD leaving did that kind of damage to the league when they added Louisville right away and the commissioner said "the league has never been stronger." Kind of takes the teeth out of saying UMD leaving did much financial damage to the league. UMD also has some leverage in that they (along with FSU) voted against the increased buyout.
So I expect it will get cut way down. Just like A&M and Missouri (and Nebraska and Colorado before) paid way less than the contracted buyout to leave the Big 12, WVU, Pitt and Syracuse got out of the Big East 27 month waiting period etc.
Geography just doesn't matter than much anymore. See WVU in the Big 12, Boise, San Diego State, Houston, SMU, Tulsa etc. in the Big East. The travel just isn't that big a deal. If say Michigan is going to fly to games in Nebraska or Iowa, not really much different to fly to Atlanta if GT joins in terms of travel fatigue for players. Money is moot as adding a huge market like Atlanta for the BTN (again, doesn't matter if no one watches--the B1G really figured out a good racket with starting a cable network) will more than pay for the increased travel. Using WVU as an example, sure travel costs jumped. But the Big 12 payout is $20 million per year, where as they usually got around $6 million from the Big East. Even with only getting a 50% share this year (goes up each year, 100% in 5th year in league) the increased revenue more than covers travel costs.
I don't believe the ACC has a chance in hell of winning the suit and they know this. The ACC will have no choice but to settle. UMD is a state school (for all intents and purposes it is the state of Maryland) and the ACC is a private corporation. As you so eloquentily stated above, UMD has always voted against the implementation of an exit fee on legal grounds. Thus, the legal question becomes whether a private corporation can implement a tariff/tax against the state, when the state has refused to subject itself to such a tax? Many attorneys, myself included, believe the answer to be no.
The next step in the lawsuitis a change of venue/jurisdiction from North Carolina to Maryland, at which point the two parties will sit at the table and start negotiating a settlement because no Maryland Judge will rule in the ACC's favor.