It goes back to your original statement that Rutgers has "No real good history to point to." Now when someone makes a statement like that, then I am expecting to find a program with no postseason appearances in any sport, maybe a handful of winning seasons at best for the team sports, little history of individual champions/winners (including marquee events like the Penn Relays), very few student-athletes going on to play a professional sport, and any other indicators to suggest that the school will never be "good" (not great) in any particular sport.

You may disagree, and that is your opinion, but nothing I have found about Rutgers suggests that Rutgers entire athletic department is horrible or whatever adjective you want to use to describe it. As I stated before, I do think their entire athletic department is probably "average" (not great but not horrible either) among the entire DI. If you want to only look at the P5 schools, then it may lean to "below average" which is still relative to whatever criteria I am using to judge each athletic department.

Keep in mind that not everyone can be considered "great" by whatever standard. If 1 athletic department improves over time, then it means that individual sports for other school are in a decline. If sports for other school are in a decline because of Rutgers success, then by your implication their athletic department is in a decline too. Otherwise, you have created a double standard. Also, remember that every athletic department (aka all athletic teams) in a conference can be viewed as being "great" because you really end up with every team being "average" (aka having a .500% winning record in the conference). The ACC's Wheel of Destiny for the Coastal Division has proven that statement multiple times.

Given that you desperately want UConn in the ACC and maybe even blinded by that desire, I will make this statement about UConn in the ACC. If the ACC were to add UConn, then there is a real good chance that similar articles will be written about UConn in the same manner as the Rutgers article. Maybe even more given that UConn won't improve the ACC's standing in sports it is already dominant in. The ACC is already considered to be "King of the Hill" in several sports, so the ACC can't move up any higher in those sports.

So then the question becomes for the sports (i.e. football) that the ACC is perceived to be weaker in, will the addition of UConn or any school for that matter help to improve the perception of the ACC in those sports? If the answer is "yes" for a majority of those sports, then the ACC should consider it. If the answer is "no" for a majority of those sports, then it doesn't make sense to continue considering that candidate until something about the candidate changes (i.e. the football program builds a dynasty similar to Boise State's dynasty). Given that the TV market appears to be changing, adding UConn may be the "old way of doing business" instead of the "new way of doing business."