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?

 

[ragtimejoe1]

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?

I don't disagree that the data is "messy". The tiers were just my way of sorting things based on consistencies across studies. Tier 1 was found higher in the rankings across a few or several etc.

It's clear the literature lacks a clear sorting of recruits. As I've thought about this, I put them into several categories and 1 of the categories makes the tier system more meaningful. I look at it strictly through a g6 lens.

High School
True Blue Chips: Not coming to WYO and not coming to G6 under virtually any circumstance. Maybe an outside chance that beating P4 by 4+ mill a year but we all know that's not realistic. Money among the big dogs matters but so do coaches, program prestige, etc.

High level but not blue chip. Deciding among P4 offers but not at the blue bloods. Could potentially be convinced to G6 but would take a lot of money, prestigious program, etc.

P4-level but not a lot of offers; several G6 offers. IMO, this group and lower is where the academic programs and such begins to gain traction. This is also the group where G6 program prestige (and NIL) will play in and I also think proximity to family becomes more of a consideration. Coaches and potential playing time are huge. This is the group the top G6 programs have significant advantage over us especially if they have large NIL money. To crack this group, it's pretty simple, we'd need more money. Realistic? That's the job of the athletic director. Playoff chance probably plays some role.

High end G6-level recruit. No real P4 offers but lots of G6 offers. I think this group and lower is where the tier system really takes hold. However, in this one, my strict guess is that proximity to family, NIL, and coaches are among the top. We can improve in this group with NIL, coaches, etc. The NIL money in this group is probably pretty marginal. Here and below is where we could be pretty strategic with NIL money. This could be the group where the social aspect has more importance but still not a lot compared to the rest of the tiers. Playoff chance probably plays some role.

G6 recruit with some offers. The recruit will look at the schools that offered so proximity may not be much of an issue. NIL likely not as much of an issue because the other (big) offers just aren't there. I think this group is where the tier system starts really applying.

FCS or no offer group: Didn't get a lot of G6 offers. If they get 1, likely to take the offer unless FCS program offers money and is in close proximity. I also think this group is where some of the other categories like academics, support services, etc. play a larger role. Proximity to family probably not as important because it is not as much of an option.

Transfers
I think this group almost needs their own tier system. For the high end transfers, NIL, program/conference prestige, and coaches probably covers most of it.

P4 lateral movers. Coaches, NIL, and program fit.

For the P4 flameouts. Still solid players, but just not getting reps. G6 will likely be in a bit of bidding war. G6 program relevance is likely more important but coaches and potential playing time are important.

For the rest, reality is most never land anywhere, but the decent players with more than a few G6 offers, I'd bet the tier system is pretty accurate here. Program fit, coaches, academic programs, playing time opportunity, are huge.

I think there are some challenges in Laramie due to location, but that isn't the main challenge. The question comes up over and over again. How do we separate ourselves? The one thing we haven't tried. Pour money into people rather than buildings but that comes back to a clear strategic plan with measurable (and accountable) goals. It starts with great coaching staffs , talent evaluators, recruiters, etc. and that starts with salaries as well as a keen eye for identifying staffs that fit. The second is build the strongest NIL/revenue share we can and use very strategically. Identify positions we can almost plug and play versus those that we really struggle with *QB.

Then, there is the reality of college football. The door to competing with the P4 is closing. The sun is setting on that era and planning for a future that is focused on that is futile. We will start to see it competitively in the playoffs. The Cinderella days are over. A few more years of blowouts and a new system in 2030 will slam the door on g6 (and maybe some p4 schools) forever. The question is can we compete in what remains.

Obviously, within the new dilapidated MWC, there isn't a logical argument other than systemic dormancy that says we shouldn't be able to compete. Within the new MWC, I think the tier system is probably pretty close to what we'll be facing and a lot of the factors, other than coaches, will be relatively equal. Will we compete with the upper end g6? I don't think that hurdle is as insurmountable as it seems and is less insurmountable in the future. There is no reason we can't build a program that consistently competes for and wins MWC championships (if you need metric, say every 3 years or so; ideally with runs of back to back or better) and every few years (say 3 or 4) is among the best G6 programs. That is step 1. I don't think you talk about step 2 until you achieve step 1.

Do I think it will happen? No. Systemic dormancy, acceptance of mediocrity, culture of failure, etc. will not be addressed by the governor, bot, president, or ad. We'll target and regress to the mean or lower of whatever situation we are in.

 

[PorkerPoke]

G6 recruit with some offers.

FCS or no offer group: Didn't get a lot of G6 offers.

I think there are some challenges in Laramie due to location, but that isn't the main challenge.

It starts with great coaching staffs , talent evaluators, recruiters, etc. and that starts with salaries as well as a keen eye for identifying staffs that fit.

Systemic dormancy, acceptance of mediocrity, culture of failure, etc. will not be addressed by the governor, bot, president, or ad. We'll target and regress to the mean or lower of whatever situation we are in.

This describes our usual recruiting. The diamond in the rough. Someone else feels there is potential but for the most part they are usually on the lower level. In case anyone has never really understood what “recruited by” in the player profile really is, it usually includes the letters of interest sent. My HS buddy who ended up at Chadron State got letters from a number of D1 schools including UCLA after exceeding X distance in the shot put as a 16 year old. He went on to be a nothing in the realm of success athletically but a great park and rec teammate.

I do believe that Wyoming has had some talented assistants and those guys have left for better deals elsewhere. A lot of our assistants over the years seem to have a resume of experience even with some sporadic success but once you do a deeper dig into the success story there was always that head coach who went up the ladder or that uniquely special franchise type player enabling the results because the majority of seasons were mediocre at best which is why they are at Wyoming.

The culture of it’s no big deal to have never really competed in 26 years for a MWC championship except for 1 time in 2016 with the reward of the Arizona bowl every few years says it all. I used to be a Wyoming zealot. Rarely missed a football game or basketball game and that included driving 150 miles each direction including weeknights. My entire wardrobe was Wyoming gear. Not anymore. I’m still an interested fan but it’s no longer an enticing draw. The passion has been erased by “Systemic dormancy, acceptance of mediocrity, culture of failure, etc.”

Thanks for sharing your analysis ragtime!

 

[307bball]

I don't disagree that the data is "messy". The tiers were just my way of sorting things based on consistencies across studies. Tier 1 was found higher in the rankings across a few or several etc.

It's clear the literature lacks a clear sorting of recruits. As I've thought about this, I put them into several categories and 1 of the categories makes the tier system more meaningful. I look at it strictly through a g6 lens.

High School
True Blue Chips: Not coming to WYO and not coming to G6 under virtually any circumstance. Maybe an outside chance that beating P4 by 4+ mill a year but we all know that's not realistic. Money among the big dogs matters but so do coaches, program prestige, etc.

High level but not blue chip. Deciding among P4 offers but not at the blue bloods. Could potentially be convinced to G6 but would take a lot of money, prestigious program, etc.

P4-level but not a lot of offers; several G6 offers. IMO, this group and lower is where the academic programs and such begins to gain traction. This is also the group where G6 program prestige (and NIL) will play in and I also think proximity to family becomes more of a consideration. Coaches and potential playing time are huge. This is the group the top G6 programs have significant advantage over us especially if they have large NIL money. To crack this group, it's pretty simple, we'd need more money. Realistic? That's the job of the athletic director. Playoff chance probably plays some role.

High end G6-level recruit. No real P4 offers but lots of G6 offers. I think this group and lower is where the tier system really takes hold. However, in this one, my strict guess is that proximity to family, NIL, and coaches are among the top. We can improve in this group with NIL, coaches, etc. The NIL money in this group is probably pretty marginal. Here and below is where we could be pretty strategic with NIL money. This could be the group where the social aspect has more importance but still not a lot compared to the rest of the tiers. Playoff chance probably plays some role.

G6 recruit with some offers. The recruit will look at the schools that offered so proximity may not be much of an issue. NIL likely not as much of an issue because the other (big) offers just aren't there. I think this group is where the tier system starts really applying.

FCS or no offer group: Didn't get a lot of G6 offers. If they get 1, likely to take the offer unless FCS program offers money and is in close proximity. I also think this group is where some of the other categories like academics, support services, etc. play a larger role. Proximity to family probably not as important because it is not as much of an option.

Transfers
I think this group almost needs their own tier system. For the high end transfers, NIL, program/conference prestige, and coaches probably covers most of it.

P4 lateral movers. Coaches, NIL, and program fit.

For the P4 flameouts. Still solid players, but just not getting reps. G6 will likely be in a bit of bidding war. G6 program relevance is likely more important but coaches and potential playing time are important.

For the rest, reality is most never land anywhere, but the decent players with more than a few G6 offers, I'd bet the tier system is pretty accurate here. Program fit, coaches, academic programs, playing time opportunity, are huge.

I think there are some challenges in Laramie due to location, but that isn't the main challenge. The question comes up over and over again. How do we separate ourselves? The one thing we haven't tried. Pour money into people rather than buildings but that comes back to a clear strategic plan with measurable (and accountable) goals. It starts with great coaching staffs , talent evaluators, recruiters, etc. and that starts with salaries as well as a keen eye for identifying staffs that fit. The second is build the strongest NIL/revenue share we can and use very strategically. Identify positions we can almost plug and play versus those that we really struggle with *QB.

Then, there is the reality of college football. The door to competing with the P4 is closing. The sun is setting on that era and planning for a future that is focused on that is futile. We will start to see it competitively in the playoffs. The Cinderella days are over. A few more years of blowouts and a new system in 2030 will slam the door on g6 (and maybe some p4 schools) forever. The question is can we compete in what remains.

Obviously, within the new dilapidated MWC, there isn't a logical argument other than systemic dormancy that says we shouldn't be able to compete. Within the new MWC, I think the tier system is probably pretty close to what we'll be facing and a lot of the factors, other than coaches, will be relatively equal. Will we compete with the upper end g6? I don't think that hurdle is as insurmountable as it seems and is less insurmountable in the future. There is no reason we can't build a program that consistently competes for and wins MWC championships (if you need metric, say every 3 years or so; ideally with runs of back to back or better) and every few years (say 3 or 4) is among the best G6 programs. That is step 1. I don't think you talk about step 2 until you achieve step 1.

Do I think it will happen? No. Systemic dormancy, acceptance of mediocrity, culture of failure, etc. will not be addressed by the governor, bot, president, or ad. We'll target and regress to the mean or lower of whatever situation we are in.

I too took the time to read those studies. A lot of my reactions mirror your and @PAPoke's analysis. I think your are correct in saying that we will be able to compete in the new MWC..in fact...we are pretty much already there. Our record against the "leftovers" for the last 10 years is pretty good and if you remove the defectors from the conference, it's highly likely Wyoming would have won a chip or two or more over that time span.

I think PApoke is right to point out that the studies are largely from the time before NIL and transfer shenanigans. You yourself aknowledged the data is messy. The thing that jumps out to me is how often proximity to home comes up in how recruits are making decisions. That is a high hurdle for us and does not surprise me in the least. Ultimately, the NIL differnce is not likely to seperate us, positively or negatively, from conference mates. What NIL does is forever shut off our ability to dream of beating a "power" program....and that now includes some teams we used to play and have success against. That alone greatly diminishes my enjoyment of Wyoming sports. I hate to use the dreaded "FCS" example...but that is starting to look a lot like where this is all headed....i'm not excited about that.

The biggest problem, and it was referred to in some of the studies, for Wyoming is transfer rule changes. Even among the teams we will be in contention with moving forward, Wyoming will always be located in pretty much the most remote place in the conference. If we can't flip that into a positive we will lose talent to transfers at a higher rate than our conference mates. I don't think you really can flip that into a positive ... about the best you can do is just have the best coaches/program so athletes want to be there. If you are just average or below....then the remote-ness matters.