For 12 years now....

[ragtimejoe1]

Do the Tiers imply that a decision made at Tier 1 negates a Tier 2 or 3 advantage? Also...what publications are publishing this research?

The tiers are based on models and recruits' responses. They simply build a hierarchy of factors involved in recruits' decision processes. Laramie's main disadvantage is distance to recruits. Most of the factors in tier 1 and 2 are somewhat in our control but are failures of people in charge. In other words, we are in control of most of the variables we need to be successful. TB and WYO like to sell it like the things that are out of our control are most important. They aren't.

For your reading pleasure (read all not hyperfocused on a single line or datapoint):


Dumond, Lynch & Platania. 2008.
An Economic Model of the College Football Recruiting Process.

Mirabile & Witte. 2017.
A Discrete-Choice Model of a College Football Recruit’s Program Selection Decision.

Huffman. 2012.
I’m Taking my Talents to…” An Examination of Hometown Socioeconomic Status on the College-Choice Factors of NCAA Division I FBS Football Players. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics.
Link (open access PDF): https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/jiia/vol5/iss1/12/

Klenosky, Templin & Troutman. 2001.
Recruiting Student Athletes: A Means-End Investigation of School-Choice Decision Making. Journal of Sport Management, 15(2):95–106.

Czekanski & Barnhill. 2015.
Recruiting the Student-Athlete: An Examination of the College Decision Process. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 9(3):133–144.

Al-Fattal, Walker & Gust. 2025.
From Recruitment to Enrollment: Understanding Student-Athletes’ College Choice Decisions. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7:1652581.

Pitts & Evans. 2016.
The Role of Conference Externalities and Other Factors in Determining the Annual Recruiting Rankings of Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) Teams. Applied Economics, 48(33):3164–3174.

Pitts & Evans. 2025.
Show Me the Money! The Immediate Impact of Name, Image, and Likeness on College Football Recruiting. Journal of Sports Economics, 26(3):316–335.

Owens, Rennhoff & Roach. 2025.
The Impact of Name, Image, and Likeness Contracts on Student-Athlete College Choice. Applied Economics, 57(22):2822–2838.

 

[PAPoke]

After reading and sticking to several peer-reviewed publications exploring recruits' decision processes, I've concluded the following:
Tier 1
Obviously NIL is important but more so for top recruits that many g6 teams aren't in the market for anyway. Arch Manning wasn't coming to WYO even if we paid him 500k more than TX, so highest dollar is a bit too simplistic. A high quality recruit might choose WYO over bsu for $500k more. NIL is nuanced and interwoven with other factors, but you obviously need some level of NIL/revenue share to compete with peers if peers also have that.

Athletic program quality and playing opportunity. Coach and program track record and opportunity to compete for a spot right away. Perceived path to nfl or nil is also part of this. Conference prestige can be considered in this but more in the P4 level and between P4 and G6. Within G6, Conference prestige is less important.

Relationship with coaches, team culture, and overall fit. Do they feel comfortable and recieve intrinsic/extrinsic rewards.

Academic reputation, majors, and career prospects beyond football. This still matters to a lot of recruits especially at g6 level.

Tier 2
Financial package (nil group of athletes are different) which includes scholarships and additional needs-based stipends.

Location, distance from home, and campus setting

Tier 3 (more tiebreaker)
Campus environment, social life, and support services. It's important but if tiers 1 and 2 are better at 1 university, the athlete will be more likely to choose that university over another that is only better on Tier 3.

I actually went back and read through the articles you listed. Interesting stuff for sure, but I’m not sure I agree with how you’re framing it. The research you cited doesn’t really support clean “Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3” buckets.

Most of these studies emphasize how unpredictable it really is. socio-economic status, geography, social/racial identity, coach relationships, perceived development path, etc, they don’t line up in fixed hierarchies. You’re painting with a pretty wide brush.

I’m also skeptical of how much weight we should be placing on pre-NIL data. The 2001-2012 era models in those articles were built for a completely different marketplace with different rules. NIL changed the incentive structure and compressed the talent funnel. What mattered then doesn’t map perfectly onto 2025 recruiting behavior, especially when you’re talking about fringe P4/G6 battles.

All that said, even if we accept your tiers the way you wrote them, I’m curious where you see Wyoming separating from other G6 programs.

If “Tier 1” is coaching track record + immediate opportunity + perceived development pathway… what is UW doing better than SDSU, Boise, Fresno, Tulane, JMU, App, etc?

Same question for “Tier 2” how does UW meaningfully distinguish itself in terms of NIL sustainability, geography, environment, or network effects?

I appreciate you bringing your research in, and I found it interesting to read. Perhaps we’re processing the articles differently. But, if what you’re implying is right, and if we’re going to tier it out, the next question has to be:

Where exactly does Wyoming create separation?