This is probably what's going to happen, but only if we take a LOT of human labor out of it. Either that, or accept that every class will be huge (200-500 students) with minimal attention given to students, no office hours, and low-paid labor doing all the grunt work (grading, answering questions)

I see a lot of parallels to medicine here. Both are highly regulated and seen as a "right" we ought to fund. Maybe, but until we achieve greater labor leverage (made even harder by professional credentialing in medicine), there just won't be a way to drive costs down much, so we're stuck with what we have.

College at $60k a semester while an adjunct earns $28k a year and somehow this doesn't result in a 1:1 student:teacher ratio means someone's skimming off a ton of money.

Skimming or cross-subsidizing?

Part of the problem with universities IMO is the accounting for revenue<->expenses isn't at all straightforward. Athletics generate a ton more money than they cost, most people seem fine with that. Research generates no revenue but costs a ton, for some hard-to-quantify but (hopefully?) real benefit to society at large. Tuition is nominally for teaching, which is a big cost center for a university. And, at least in the US, all the costs are split between the national government, the state government (who has the pleasure of educating people who may not live in that state long-term?) and tuition, and various donors and grants.

A system ripe for disruption, if ever there was one.

I have no idea why anyone would say "research generates no revenues" when most universities have systems to spin out viable research and profit from it. Universities quite literally profit financially from patented research funded by taxpayers. The government gets no direct return on this, and the usual argument is that it increases economic activity and raises the tax take - which may be true, but it's still a uniquely privileged position.

But most universities are more about property speculation and bequest farming than they are about education or R&D.

The system is entirely corporatised and often predatory. Professors are only as valuable as the grant income they generate, adjuncts are gig economy labour, students are a barely-tolerated annoyance, and property speculation and "administration" are considered the central mission.

Exactly, why are young students footing a disproportionate load for “society-benefiting research” as part of their tuition? And paying interest for it. That’s amazingly unfair.

For the university, research in the sciences brings in way more money than it costs, and subsidizes a lot of other things. Most professors in physics, chemistry, etc. largely pay their own salaries out of grants.