I disagree. The BTN is a vehicle to make a lot of money for sure, but the conference still makes more money (and will contribute to make more money when a new deal is signed in a couple of years) from its national first tier football contract. Football absolutely, positively matters. While that brings up the question about "Why did the Big Ten add Rutgers and Maryland if it's supposed to be about football?", the answers are (1) that expansion was allowed because choice #1 was the legit marquee football name of Nebraska (which is the antithesis of the East Coast), (2) New Jersey and Maryland produce the highest number of Division 1 football recruits of any two non-Sun Belt states that aren't already in the Big Ten footprint and (3) they are located directly in (not just kind in the vicinity of) the NYC and DC markets. The Big Ten could afford to go for a market-oriented expansion because (as many people have seem to have forgotten with all of the focus on the BTN) they arguably made the purest football move in all of conference realignment by adding small market Midwest-to-the-core Nebraska as step one.
The geographic proximity of Florida State would be an issue for the Big Ten if they didn't add anyone else - I'll grant you that. However, I'm sorry, but FSU blows away virtually all other schools outside of Texas (not just UConn) on any TV-based and football-based metric. FSU unambiguously delivers the entire state of Florida for TV purposes in a way that isn't possible in the Northeast, so the size of the Tallahassee is irrelevant. I can't tell you enough how different the mentality is there regarding college sports. You'll also find *individual* high schools in Florida that produce as many or more Division 1 football recruits as the entire state of Connecticut on an annual basis. Seriously. On a pure money and football basis, the only two schools that would provide more to the Big Ten would the University of Florida (obviously not leaving the SEC) or Texas. Any non-SEC/Texas candidate for the Big Ten isn't anywhere isn't close if you disregard geography.
Now, the reality is that geography still matters somewhat. When I hear the Big Ten talk about the "East Coast", though, what I really hear is "Mid-Atlantic" as opposed to "New York City" (which is what a lot of others assume). That points to Virginia and North Carolina. Those are the areas that a rapid number of Big Ten grads are moving to (more so than New England) and have a large pool of football recruits. Riddle me this: if the Big Ten would look past UConn's lack of AAU status, why wouldn't it also look past another school in a larger soon-to-be contiguous state with a fantastic football program and fan base: Virginia Tech? Think about what value they'd be bringing to the table if it proves to be impossible to pry away UVA from the ACC. I point them out because if you start thinking that the Big Ten is going to start overlooking AAU status and hope that UConn would be a beneficiary, you better understand the type of additonal competition that you're opening yourselves up to (because I honestly don't think UConn's leadership had any idea about what they were going up against with Louisville for the last spot in the ACC and that's a big reason why UConn is here today). Overconfidence will get you killed in conference realignment - expecting a conference like the Big Ten to deviate from the criteria that it has applied to every single school that it has added isn't realistic. The resume has to be *perfect* (not just "We are working on it" potential) when inertia is very much toward no further expansion at this time.
Rutgers and Maryland were great adds, I agree they had a lot going for them. But you are under-rating Connecticut which does similarly in many metrics. Almost 20 million people live within a 2 hour drive of Rentschler field; and apart from BC and UMass which have few fans there are no other FBS programs in the region. Once you realize that state boundaries are not as meaningful in the northeast as they are in the rest of the country -- UConn by the way has a regional preference program which offers reduced tuition to New England and New York students -- then maybe UConn's strong brand presence in Boston and NYC will be more understandable to you.
Football is a relatively new sport in Connecticut but it is growing fast. Connecticut is now producing 10 BCS level scholarship players a year, 16-20 FBS level, and the number grows almost every year. High school football is becoming more competitive. The move of UConn football to 1-A has greatly increased investment in football and Connecticut high school coaches are benefiting from clinics by UConn coaches.
Texas and Florida are tremendous football states, yes. But you also have to look at the competitive environment. With the influx of money into college athletics, many schools are upgrading. In Texas, TCU is now a BCS school, Houston and SMU want to be, Baylor and Texas Tech have made big investments in football, North Texas and other small state schools have moved to FBS, Texas A&M moved to the SEC, at every level the competition is increasing and the market is getting divided into smaller slices. Similarly in Florida -- USF and UCF are moving up and making big investments and could become B12 schools. So we are looking at 5 BCS schools sharing a state with 19 million people -- one that produces a lot of football talent, yes, but that every school in the country recruits. That's 4 million people per school -- the size of Connecticut, but without UConn's out-of-state reach into major population centers.
Based on football metrics, FSU is way ahead of UConn. But now that conferences are forming their own networks which need year-round inventory, and with poaching of the NCAA basketball tournament the next potential way for major conferences to increase revenue, basketball is becoming as important as football from both a branding and revenue perspective. Basketball has always been central to ESPN; it is becoming so the BTN and SEC network and Pac network. Also, markets become extremely important as they become opportunities for national brands like Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, etc, to broaden their fan base into extended geographic regions. Visiting New England regularly, and appearing on New England cable TV, picks up many fans for Michigan. Markets are extremely important to the new conference networks. The B1G now has to start thinking like ESPN, and emphasizing basketball for the same reasons ESPN has always done so.
You mention AAU status and I agree that UConn must join the AAU before the B1G will extend an invite, unless UConn has been offered by another conference and the B1G is forced to decide. But it will happen. I don't know the timetable but the investments already funded will make UConn an AAU school within 5 years. It may happen quicker if UConn develops friendships in the AAU.
You do know that Virginia Tech is in Blacksburg, 270 miles from Washington DC and in close proximity to West Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky? How does it help B1G schools develop relationships with alumni in DC to play at a school a 5 hour drive away? Va Tech makes sense only as a stepping stone to the populous North Carolina - South Carolina corridor linking Raleigh-Durham-Greensboro-Winston-Salem-Charlotte-Spartanburg-Greensville; but then you need to poach the heart of the ACC, in which case UVa would be available. Va Tech is nowhere near the prize that UConn is. West Virginia might bring more than Va Tech.
You mention overconfidence. No one is overconfident. UConn has its warts and has to address them. They are working on it. The state under-invested in the university for a long time, thus the university's stature has lagged what its market supports. But now that the investments are being made, there will be a reversion over time to the level the market supports. That will raise up UConn and pull down schools like FSU and Texas which are facing growing competition.