Their football team was a FCS team until the 2000's, it has NEVER been popular, no one cares,
I'm not sure how meaningful that is. Those are the same arguments that have been made against Rutgers.
Rutgers essentially moved from FCS to FBS in 1980, 20 years earlier than UConn. (1979 was the last year that Rutgers' schedule was more than 50% what would have then been considered FCS schools. In 1978, the only "FBS" schools Rutgers played were Penn St, Temple, and Arizona State in the Garden State Bowl. And Temple barely counted as an "FBS" school as 6 of their games were against what would have been FCS schools.)
And Rutgers' move to FBS was clumsy and poorly executed. In the mid-1990's our stadium was mostly empty. At that time, it was easy to say that no one cared about Rutgers football and the program was never popular.
But Rutgers eventually built the program, and built a strong enough following that the Big Ten could count on the popularity of Rutgers football to monetize the inclusion of Rutgers in the Big Ten conference.
One could argue that UConn has been somewhat more adroit in making the move from FCS to FBS. Plus they have the popularity of their basketball programs to shore up support for their football program.
The big difference between Rutgers and UConn is geography. The population of New Jersey is about 2.5 times that of Connecticut. That translates into many more fans, all other things being equal. Plus NJ produces many more college football players than Connecticut (much more than can just be attributed to the differences in population). That gives Rutgers football a much better chance for success.
Even when Rutgers football was losing and unpopular, the potential was quite obvious. People referred to Rutgers football as a sleeping giant. No one has ever referred to UConn football as a sleeping giant.