Diluting historical rivalries while not adding premier football matchups is damaging the value of the brand. You can milk cable subscription fees in DC and NY of course, but it was as obvious as the nose on your face when we added those schools that that boost was extremely temporary, whereas the dilution was permanent.
Penn State and Nebraska were added to boost the inventory of desirable, nationally relevant football matchups, which are the core product under any revenue model. (For the record, I wouldn't have made those additions either, but I get it) Rutgers and Maryland were a cheap accounting trick and represented Jim Delany playing himself at the game he invented. Couldn't believe it then, and now the chickens begin to arrive at the roost.
It's easy to second guess Delany, but I think it was important to position the BIG in what looked like a possible run towards 4 superconferences. Several conferences were at severe risk of losing out, and in the long run, it could still happen. College football has a long history of dividing up the pie unevenly.
That said, I'm not sure where Rutgers fits in, but I did see this tidbit:
"Last season, Rutgers ranked ninth in the Big Ten and 51st nationally with an average attendance of 44,804 for its seven home games."
There's also, at least in my mind, the issue of competitive balance. You can't have every program be elite --there's just never enough room for everyone to be a winner. If you get a solid base with good academics, it may not be such a bad decision financially. I don't think Delaney is all that capable of making a bad financial move for the conference. It may or may not have been optimal, but he has been a very saavy leader that has put the BIG ahead of it's peers.