You won't need "virtually every game televised".
Within 5 years to 10 years at most, the games are gonna be streamed online. If WVU can have a production and TV crew pre Big East in 1991 to tape and show the game on local TV, then every schools games can be broadcast and streamed online.
As for the talk of fs1, NBC sports, and CBS Sports losing subscribers like espn. It is not the same. Espn-the mothership channel subscription fees are about $7 a month of the average bill. That's 1 channel. Each other espn channel you never watch is an additional $0.75 to $1 a month. FS1 is $0.60 a month by comparison, when last I did a Google search. Which network do you think is hurting more from chord cutters and the new ala carte subscriptions?
Btw FS1, NBC Sports, CBS sports, etc also haven't overbid for everything they're showing. None have created conference or school networks that are a financial disaster (except for the conference and that school in Texas that hooks em). And MLS-soccer (not talking about World Cup or even the EPL) which has rating similar to the WNBA which they also televise hasn't proven to be too fruitful either. How bout reruns of AWA rasslin and Worlds Strongest man(-not as expensive)?
These other networks don't have the over bloated budgets that the 4 letter network does. And nobody is watching their lynch pin program Sportscenter. The ratings on that show are at the lowest level in 20+ years. Anyone can go online and get a score/highlight.
You have to deal with reality, not with make-believe.
It's not a matter of the technical ability to stream every game. The amount of money made by an individual school streaming its games will not even come close to making up for the shortfall due to cord cutting.
Yes, FS1, NBCSN and the others losing subscribers is the same. Which network is "hurting more" is completely irrelevant. The point is, none of them will be able to sustain the college sports business model as it currently is, should these cord cutting predictions become reality. The reason networks like FS1 and NBCSN don't charge the same kind of fees as ESPN is because they don't have the same type of content as ESPN. Those other networks mostly have 2nd and 3rd rate games to broadcast. Rarely do they ever have top of the line games. They charge less because they don't have good games to show. As I said, if ESPN falters, FS1 is not going to come in and take up the slack for all these billion dollar TV contracts. They won't have the money to do it.
FS1, NBCSN, CBSSN haven't overbid for anything, because they don't really have anything to bid on. They basically show low level stuff. All the good stuff is already under contract with other channels.
The other networks don't have a bloated budget, because again, they don't have good content. I'll again point out, whenever ESPN loses a subscriber, these other network do also, because cord cutters are dropping their entire cable package, not just ESPN. You live in a fantasy world if you think FS1 is going to grow while ESPN shrinks. They're all shrinking. The point of the OP's post was to ask how this was going to impact the conferences, not to dance on ESPN's grave. Well, in that case, the impact will be that the conferences (and in turn, the individual schools) won't have as much money as they do now, should these projections hold up.
