Curious to see what some other coaches think.

I think Pac-10 in Naismith, we've had some pretty major issues the past 4-5 seasons with the lack of good recruits being generated.  

One of the issues is that the Mountain West is well populated as well, which makes it more of a challenge; but the main issue is that the Western states are just not getting any top level guys.  There was a total of 1 5 star in Washington, Hawaii, Oregon, and California(COMBINED) this last cycle.  That's not realistic nor fair.

I notice across worlds that the ACC territory generates the most 5* recruits(and generally has high success/RPI) .  

I think there's something to say for the distance penalty, but also there's just problems with generation out west in general.

The veteran coaches are pretty unified in thinking the system is flawed and border line broken.

It would be great if recruit generation was based on human coach density instead of overall team density.

I agree that recruiting has several problems.   

I assume that the 5-star distribution is random because, in Wooden, it's completely different than Iba.   In a very quick survey, I found twelve 5-star recruits in the Big Ten states; seven in the Northeast (Maine to New Jersey); six in the SEC;  and 8 in the West  (CA and NV two each;  one recruit in ID, AZ, WY, HI, and UT) .  In the states that grant mentioned, there are only three. 

The ACC territory (MD, DC, VA, NC, SC, GA) has none in Wooden unless you count the one in Florida that I included with the SEC.

Getting ridiculous.  2 straight cycles without a valid D-1 recruit in Oregon/Washington.  

How many D1 schools are in OR and WA?  5?

8.  Plus Idaho and Boise St sit right on the border. 

I just checked Knight.

OR + WA (with 8 schools) combined have:
46 Division 1 recruits
5 top 25 in their position players
1 top 5 in their position players

NJ (with 8 schools) has:

36 Division 1 recruits
1 top 25 in their position
0 top 5 in their position

In Wooden

OR+WA

49 recruits
2 in top 25
0 top 5

NJ

24 recruits
4 in top 25
2 in top 5

I don't think state by state is a proper comparison.  250 miles from U of Washington gets you all of WA and 1/3rd of OR.  250 from Rutgers gets you all of NJ, MD, DE, DC, MA, RI, CT, Northern VA and most of NY and PA and parts of VT, NH and ME.  

There are what, 10 schools within 250 miles of the U of Washington?  There would be, no joke, at least 75 within 250 miles of Rutgers.

I am not trying to be a jerk, but how would you make it more fair?   

You're not being a jerk.  It's a legitimate point.  

True, there are way more teams out east, but how many of them are sims in lower conferences compared to the Pac NW?  I guess the real answer to this debate lies in the Top 25 recruit to Big 6 team ratio in those areas.  

This is why they should adjust recruit distribution to be more in line with human coach density.

@creilmann: That would have the effect of giving the human teams an advantage, wouldn't it? It would also make taking a job in an unpopulated conference a terrible idea.

From the FAQ:  AI-controlled schools recruiting efforts are the equivalent to being roughly 200 miles from the recruit regardless of actual distance.

So it really wouldn't matter for SIMs because they could still recruit a team in a highly human populated area and it would be as if they were only 200 miles away.

To your second point, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be any decent recruits in, say, Colorado if there aren't any human coaches there.  It can be a subtle change.  One or two more top 25 recruits in the Pacific NW or California would make a big difference if all of those schools up there are full.