I often wonder if these proposals are by people who don't want to change themselves, but want to coerce other people into joining their division so there are more people to compete with (or beat).
I've often felt the same way. It seems like most of the time I see people propose these plans of "reducing divisions", they conveniently end up on the top end of a proposed division. Just anecdotal evidence against the plans, but it does smell a bit fishy a large amount of the time.
As for the article, for most amateur players, 876 to 950 is waaaay too big of a gap. As someone rated exactly 876, I'd never bother to play a PDGA again. It's not that I'm all about winning, I've only won a whopping 4% of the events I've ever played (3/74), it's just that the whole point of competing is to do your best and see if you CAN pull off a victory. A victory for an 876 player against a 950 rated player is very, very unlikely over 2 rounds, and a near impossibility over 4. (paging Chuck K. for the actual statistics...)
Personally, I always see these articles as much ado about nothing. My opinion is that any division with 8-10+ people is a worthy test of your skill. People who say those divisions are too small are playing the wrong game. We don't have the numbers to support massive divisions that are ALSO competitive. On the flip side, if you only have say 4 or 5 in a division, yeah, winning may not mean as much, but if that's the particular folks you wanted to play with, then more power to you. If there's not enough of your preferred folks, then you have to decide if you're willing to play a different division, or sit this one out.
Maybe we'll see a day down the road where we can have an amateur masters only C tier or a women's only B tier and see those events actually FILL UP. Personally, I'd love to see that day and look forward to being able to help TD or volunteer at those events.