It's about how accessible the Big Ten Network is to another 3 million+ pairs of eyeballs, not necessarily if those eyeballs are actively watching. The BTN is available in CT and western MA but in many cases, only on a specialty tier. The goal for the Big Ten is to get the network on a basic tier or at least more people ordering the sports package. While Michigan football is right up there with UConn for me, it is not appointment TV and watching them is not worth the extra money to add the BTN. UConn sports are appointment TV, not only for me, but the majority of Connecticut subscribers. I have little doubt the DMA metrics work.
All that said. More eyeballs are watching UConn women's basketball games than an entire conference's slate of mens' games.
In short (in the interest of baseball season), If you add them, they will watch.
You've probably heard this a hundred times in realignment world: Football drives the bus.
What that means is that the big money is in football, specifically the Tier 1 marquee games--the games that the heavy hitters (NBC, CBS, ABC/ESPN, and FOX) pay the big dollars to broadcast. That's why an established program like Oklahoma would almost be a no-brainer addition to the B1G--Oklahoma would make more money and
all of the other B1G schools would make more money, too. A profit, if you will, for adding Oklahoma.
UConn, on the other hand, well--UConn football ain't Oklahoma football. And, to make matters worse, throwing current UConn football into the B1G isn't doing UConn any favors and isn't likely to result in any marquee games, especially after the novelty factor wears off after the first year.
There's no question of UConn's value to the B1G network--every projection shows it. The question has always been: Does the value added to the network compensate for the lack of Tier 1 football value? The answer is tentatively, yes, although it could be uncomfortably close to a break even proposition. (I won't get into the cable fee/ad revenue split here.) In which case, there's no profit for the 14 existing schools of the B1G to add UConn. If the risk/reward isn't there, why bother?
From the B1G point of view, waiting and watching seems sensible. See how the O'Bannon thing appeals out, see how Rutgers/Maryland integrate, see who might be available down the road. There's no rush to add an "iffy" school. However, because of the geographical location, the B1G probably doesn't want to sit idly by and watch UConn go to another conference either. And, of course, I still believe Fox wants to push UConn somewhere--anywhere--they can maximize the basketball brand.
Everybody knows UConn is both available and undervalued--the question is "how much?" and "where would UConn fit?" If the ACC makes a move, at least it would force the B1G to ---- or get off the pot. The good news is this: If the ACC suddenly decides the UConn basketball brand would be critical to a successful ACC Network, that frenzied bidding Fishy hasn't seen may be on the horizon. Stay tuned.