Yes, ESPN is not losing money, but their profit margins are under pressure. And, the future doesn't look great for their current business model. Basically, they make money 3 ways: Total subs, price charged per sub, and advertising. Well, subs are declining, price per sub will probably be difficult to increase going forward, and ratings have been mixed. On the expense side, ESPN has locked in escalating media rights costs for the long term. The cost savings of the recent job cuts are minimal compared to costs of media rights and you can't cut too much talent or ratings will decline.
So, ESPN could have flat to declining revenues with rising costs for media rights.
What could happen to an ACCN? ESPN could convert ESPN Classic to the ACCN as ESPNC has been losing subs and shifting to VOD, so it could be a way for ESPN to turn around a declining asset. (ESPN Classic has less than 25 million subs today) The real issue is will the carriage of an ACCN be jammed down the throats of cable companies like the BTN was? In today's world where cable companies are losing subs to cord cutting due to the high cost of the cable bundle, I think it's doubtful.
You discuss real issues, though in somewhat of a vacuum. ESPN has higher profit margins than average. They are not close to losing money, they have a reduction in profits. While I agree that the cuts to date are small compared to the rights they have purchased, there are more cuts to come and the word is out that people need to perform of will be cut and the giant salaries are going the way of the dodo (ESPN will probably still pay well for on-air talent, but the idea of making a fortune doing what we would do for a moderate living is no longer on the table which will have a long term effect of keeping salaries in check for a while).
The subscribers ESPN is really losing are those unwilling to pay for sports. In a free market, this is desirable for all. ESPN is feeling the pinch that not everyone enjoys sports. Fans who no longer have cable will not stop watching sports altogether, they use different platforms to get their sports. Thirty yeas ago, most fans had to go to a sports bar to watch their team play, if it was covered by TV. Now, nearly every game is broadcast, even smaller colleges can get coverage.
The net result is that there is money in sports, probably not as much as Rutgers fans dream of, but more than enough to make money. ESPN is owned by Disney, who has had an eye on their costs since purchasing ABC/ESPN. The timing is right to begin controlling costs for an industry that has had 3-4 decades of continuous growth and is now entering into the mature stage. The idea that ESPN is about to fold (only a slight exaggeration of what some ACC haters think) is far from accurate. Regardless, even if ESPN folded, the ACC would regain their rights and sell them to another alternative and generate monies. The paradigm is shifting but the old model will not become extinct for decades, if then.
If we assume, arguendo, that your scenario of rising costs goes far enough that it forces renegotiation of rights deals, that in turn would lead to renegotiating coaches salaries, staffing, etc. The schools will not lose as much as everyone thinks, there will still be revenue to be had. The only schools that will be hurt are those that mortgaged their futures on the miraculous promise of forever increasing TV money to the conferences. In truth, your scenario would benefit Syracuse more than most schools as the school has been prudent and has not to fallen into the traps of the monster schools (Gotta have 100,000 seating - which is hurt by TV), more facilities are necessary to attract best talent (read-the kids we recruit are too stupid to attend class so we have to entertain them), building facilities that are never filled (Rutgers, aside from the B1G's top schools that bring their own crowds), facilities that they cannot afford (far too many schools), etc.
I like the idea of converting ESPN Classic or one of other channels. ESPN-C would have the benefit of already having a lock on many subscribers, much easier for ESPN to market without strong arming every cable/satellite provider. Playing the game like the BTN did probably will not work in this economy right now, besides, it is bad for long term relationships. I don't worry as much about the cable providers, they will be the ones providing the bundles for those not subscribing to cable and they will be the internet providers,they will survive.
I think that ESPN will look to the HBO model, take a hit on their subscriber fees - which would benefit the cable providers and offering packages (monthly-season-conference-team) to the sports nuts and junkies, at a nice premium. This would keep them in good relatoins with cable providers and move them forward into their own streaming market. Just a guess, but HBO has clearly made the transition well and a company like ABC/ESPN/Disney will surely exploit it.