The SEC built its brand on football dominance that was based on rampant cheating. Having the best teams enabled it to drive premium pricing on cable TV in an era where there were limited channels widely available and networks wanted games that would attract the most casual viewers.
In streaming, fans want to watch their teams, and most fans have no idea what channel they are watching. Teams with large followings that can afford subscriptions become the most valuable, and the SEC is a mixed bag here. Florida, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Alabama, LSU, Kentucky in hoops, and a few others have large followings, but many of the fanbases are not wealthy, and the corporate support is a mixed bag too. A lot of the SEC is just along for the ride. Between NIL and House, the costs of running major programs have skyrocketed, and $25,000 of cash in a paper bag doesn't make a team a player in recruiting like it did 20 years ago when the SEC was dominating recruiting. It will be interesting to see how long the poorer states can hang in this world.
Before anyone says "but the TV contract", those TV contracts pre-date House. Now the SEC schools have to come up with tens of millions of costs when every nickel of revenue is already spoken for. The Big 10, which 10 years ago was in decline due to weakening local recruiting and aging and shrinking populations, is roaring back because it has huge local corporate and alumni and non-alumni support in wealthier states than in the south, and added Los Angeles, Portland and Seattle. In a world where all that matters is money, the Big 10 is really well positioned. It doesn't appear that all the Big 10 programs want to compete at the highest level, but an Illinois, Penn State, USC, UCLA, Oregon or Washington has can really go to war for recruits if they want to. Rutgers has every possible advantage (wealthy state, fanbase beyond just alumni, proximity to NYC) but they are Rutgers which supersedes all other factors. The Big 10 may no longer be the Big 2 and everyone else.
Clemson and FSU are still players in the ACC, but Virginia and UNC have a lot more natural advantages than Clemson and FSU. The ACC has some urban schools (Louisville, Pitt, SMU, Georgia Tech, Miami) that should be strong because they have access to corporate support and a fan base beyond just the alumni. Pitt and SMU also have wealthy alumni and big endowments. I will hold off judgment on Cal and Stanford because I am unclear if they are long-term for the ACC. Ironically, it appears some of the longer term members, like Virginia Tech and NC State, are simply on the wrong side of history. BCU and Syracuse do not appear to be trying.
UConn needs something to shake loose on the macro level, a big shakeup. Right now, none of the conferences need us, and therefore none of them want us.