Long, but it's a decent read. Not sure I agree with everything, but he makes some good points on the money/realignment issues.
He didn't really go into any depth on the negative effect of cord cutters/cord nevers. The only thing really offered is how they are trying to make each game more interesting (and not just college football). The other aspect of this, is to try to get better data on each game, to sort of prove that you're reaching the markets and numbers that you say you would.
Outside of those things, the money situation seems more dire to me. The sheer number and size of long term contracts that ESPN has, likely allows them few other options than to cut people/expenses in the short term, negotiate lower future contracts, and raise prices on advertisers. Outside of a full financial meltdown for ESPN, I think they would have the ability to re-negotiate the longer term contracts if they can't pay them.
I have a hard time believing that this doesn't end up affecting the major conferences down to the Universities directly. Everybody's belt is going to get tightened in the chain, and there will be some losers.
There are plenty of articles that talk of the need for consolidation in the sheer number of Universities in this country. Add in the massive tuition increases, student debt defaults, and financial inefficiency that many Universities operate in, those belts are going to be tightened even more regardless of the effect of college athletics.
The plus side of all this, is it is quite possible that all these belt tightening maneuvers will reduce or eliminate parity in college sports. Parity made sense when everyone was doing well and there was enough to go around. When organizations start fighting for resources, fighting to survive, parity will naturally be removed from the equation. To the victor, the spoils.
