It's not that we want all the programming for free. People are cutting the cord due to the increasing fees and bundling practices of Cable and Satellite companies. Now in order to get the desired content, one must subscribe to multiple streaming services. Before long, the costs of Internet access and streaming services are going to force people to either return to Cable/Satellite or give up on broadcast entertainment entirely. The direction that these companies are taking streaming services are not sustainable long term. Maybe not until full a la carte capability is available will the market stabilize.
The other problem I have with ESPN+ is exposure. This may be fine for teams that do not have nor care to strive for a national audience. Most people will watch a game that they come across while scrolling through channels. Flip back and forth between commercials. Neither of those are convenient on streaming platforms. The only people I know that watched games on ESPN3 were there to watch a specific game. They didn't flip back and forth; investigate whatever else may intrigue them. OTA and Cable/Satellite has a distinct advantage there. When I had satellite I would watch portions of 5-10+ games on any given Saturday. Now I watch 1, maybe 2.
Unless the platforms improve to a point where scrolling and switching through games becomes as seamless as Cable/Satellite, small programs will have a much harder time growing their brand and viewership. How long will Disney be willing to pay teams like Tulane and Tulsa $7MM/yr to bring 5,000-10,000 viewers/subscribers to the table? What value would Wyoming or San Jose offer?
Maybe I'm missing the big picture, but this just sounds like a bad deal to me.