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.
. 
