"Related to the issue of geographic recruit generation, if you are going to have preferences like "far from home" or "close to home," then your costs need to mirror that preference. Originally I thought about limits. with having prestige, early credit, and their preferences be the determining factor in school selection. I still think that could work, but so could cost differential. For instance, for Far from home kids" it would be cheaper the further away the school is (inverse of what current costs are.) This would give distance schools their shot. Close to home, prices could be as they are now. With those players that don't have a preference, costs could be equal across the board. Distance is usually not a critical factor, especially when you look at the top recruits irl. Most, if not all, consider teams all across the country and it's based more on coach philosohly, etc."
Not quite sure I understand the logic behind the costs mirroring the kid's desire Rails. The plane ticket for me to fly cross-country and do a home/scouting visit costs the same regardless of whether the kid wants to be close to home or far away from home. The kid's ticket costs the same to bring him out to visit campus, etc. The IMPACT those visits have should vary greatly based on the player's desires and the likelihood that he'll reject them should diminish if I'm far from home vs. close to, but I don't see the rationale for inversing costs.
That said, definite +1 on free FSS or simply providing the information in some fashion and abolishing FSS. In my mind that would definitely fix a lot of things that currently make this feel like Recruiting Dynasty at times and also would eliminate conference coaches "pooling" their recruiting money by each agreeing to grab FSS scouting reports from different states to maximize their league reach and edge over others.