I'd have thought you'd think about the old adage that; "He who controls the market will also control the price."
If that means temporarily giving up a few million dollars to increase the control you have over the market, it's a step back that in the end is two steps forward. That's the reason you'd take on additional schools, regardless of AAU affiliation or not.
As an example, assume you have 16 schools that total an average of 10 million people in their alumni/support/fan base. Each school would share in the profitability based on those 16 schools. If you add 4 more, and each one only has a base of 8 million, you're going to give away a part of what was your share of the pie based on sheer numbers.
But, you have done two things. You've increased the size of your control over territories where your brand becomes part of the equation when it comes to notoriety, and growth. Your total base went from 160 mill up to 192 mill, and the growth from that 192 is significantly higher than that from the 160. Plus, you've marked your territory.
If this wasn't fact, you need look no further than the SEC, where recruiting for non-SEC teams is difficult at best. Why? The schools have marked their territory, and they get the cream of the crop from within it, when it comes to signing of athletes. It's part of the culture.
Sometimes people need to take a step back and look at things through a different light. It's not always about how much money you have on the table today, but the potential growth in your revenue down the road, when your investment in the future starts to pay dividends.
