I don't know from a quantitative standpoint, let one of the other smart guys on this board figure that out. Look at last night's South Carolina and Tennessee games where the games were 50 something to 40 something (OK so South Carolina did finally get to 60). All the talking heads talk about what great hard fought SEC and ACC battles these were and how great those teams are. If East Carolina beats Tulsa 60-48 all we hear is what a terrible conference the AAC is compared to the others.
We're smart enough.
I believe it has more to do with the level of talent and athleticism than the final point total. When UConn plays these completely overmatched opponents in this miserable conference, the final score, as lopsided as it may be, does not necessarily reflect just how outlandish the matchup may have been.
When UConn plays a "name" school, even if the final score is in the 20-30 point range, the actual level of competition is much higher. In most years, the chances are slim that UConn could lose a game against a non-top 5 opponent, but it can and it has happened and it happened as recently as this season. Against the teams in the AAC, not only is the chance to lose basically non-existent, the prospect for a relatively competitive affair is practically an impossibility.
Duke and ND may have been pounded by wide margins, but playing against the likes of a Loyd, Allen, Turner, Williams, Stevens, etc., presents a far greater challenge than anything the AAC has to offer.