Must disagree. Anybody who does business knows, deals get done belly to belly, face to face. There is no substitute. Pushing papers in closing a transaction certainly can be done form afar, and even negotiations of a baseline LOI, but the basis for a deal is still a fundamentally human interaction and there is no substitute for personal presence.
As for your question, you are asking those who maintain a better PR campaign was required to prove a negative. What is certain is that there is ample economic rationale from a market perspective, academic standing, quality of facilities and historical athletic success to portray UConn as an exceptionally desirable candidate. Thus, one may rationally conclude a very poor job was done marketing UConn. As a general rule, these folks are not business professionals with experience in creating their own or recognizing business opportunities and that is what major college athletics have become. The TV marketing and advertisement dollars drive success. The ACC has been very astutely shaping itself and aligning to large market presence (Boston, Baltimore - DC, Penn, NY -Upstate (thus the conscious push to brand the fruits as NY's team). They were able to see the future and move. We, on the other hand, missed the boat. Working with Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse as a package would have been a great strategy years ago, but we kept waving the BE flag as it imploded over our sentimental need to protect BASKETBALL. The business mind would have recognized its not about basketball, rather its about football revenue. The BIG 10 is where we need to be by whatever means necessary.