Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jostar1, post: 1325507, member: 1737"] One explanation is here: In 2003, the Big East is raided for two of its name brand schools, and a regionally significant school. The Big East added some lesser brands, and their media partners did not reduce their ongoing media deal. 2010, the Big 12 lost 2 schools in Colorado and Nebraska, did not replace those schools, and the Big 12 lost a significant amount of content (1/6th) in football and basketball. The Big 12's media partners did not reduce the payout on existing contracts but actually negotiated for more money on an expiring one. 2011, Texas A&M and Missouri left, the Big 12 replaced them with less valuable TV properties in [URL='http://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/team/tcu-horned-frogs-team']TCU[/URL] and [URL='http://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/west-virginia-mountaineers-team']WVU[/URL], and neither ESPN or FOX required a reduction in the payout to the Big 12. 2012, Maryland leaves the ACC for the Big 10, ACC replaces them with a less valuable media property. Not a single word is mentioned about a reduced payout for the ACC. Networks, and one specifically, won't reduce the amount they pay to the conferences because it would violate their fiduciary duties to the conferences. Because one network (ESPN) has a hand in every league's media deal (except new Big East if it even exists) it can't in good faith pay one league more for raiding one league, then reducing its payout to league that was raided. [URL]http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights-010313[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach