This is what all the dinosaurs on this board don't get. 5 years from now there will likely be more people watching content "streaming" than subscribing to cable. This deal gives ESPN the flexibility short-term to put the content they want on their networks. If our teams are good we'll get plenty of exposure, if we suck we won't. I don't think people realize how many people these days WON'T pay $100/month or more for a cable subscription (especially the younger generation). People under 35 or 40 are more likely to shell out $60/year to watch their favorite teams than spend $1500/year on cable. If anything this will increase viewership over time. Cable is dying folks, I know some of you guys refuse to believe it, but it's gonna happen sooner than you think.
You could not be more right and more wrong at the same time.
The future of sports, and TV in general, is through streaming and customer-curated packages. For cable companies to survive, they will have to start offering the ability to selectively choose which stations you want and pay accordingly based on what you select - along with the option to stream those channels through your various devices.
That's where ESPN will thrive - NOT ESPN+. ESPN will be the service that the customer selects and streams, accompanied by ESPN2. ESPN+ is and will continue to be an add-on streaming platform that the vast majority of regular sports consumers will not consider a necessity. They will be able to pay for and stream their main ESPN content to their devices in-home and mobile.
There's virtually no one who is going to or already has cancelled their ESPN
in favor of ESPN+. ESPN+ is at best a tertiary option for the consumer. And that's where this deal falls woefully short - the average sports consumer will not add it to their streaming services and AAC teams will not get the same level of exposure as those on ESPN/ESPN2.