It seems the MWC has some really funky gyms (Wyoming, Air Force, Utah St., San Jose) on the schedule. I don't know if that factors into where a blue chip player will decide to play. The fact that
SDSU is now a fixture in the Big Dance has to be a HUGE plus. Think of how many NCAA tournament games Tapley and Thames played in. Only a few schools in the PAC 12 can say they are in nearly EVERY year.
The Gonzaga syndrome - big fish in a small pond. DEFINITELY plays into a recruit's decision. Huge factor when it comes to basketball. Right now, given how big MM is, participating in MM (& having a chance to win a game or two) is bigger than any conference, unless of course you can play for a team like Arizona, Duke, MSU, Wisky, etc. (big conference AND get to the dance annually with shots to win).
IMO, from a recruiting perspective I'd say the hierarchy is as follows:
1. Major conference MM perennials (e.g. Kentucky, Duke, Arizona, MSU, 'Cuse, etc. - get to the dance at least 4 of 5 years or so & win on occasion)
2. Major conference Investors - major conference teams which may not get to MM annually, but are investing big time in their program (e.g. Texas A&M's, Texas, now SMU, Oregon, Virginia's (who's now moving into #1 above), etc.
3. Mid-Major Perennials (e.g. Gonzaga, Butler before going major, SDSU/Wichita St have moved up into this category, etc.)
4. Major "occasionals" (teams like UW, Cal, ASU - have money to compete but not quite on top shelf, yet have many successes)
5. Mid-Major "investors/occasionals" - teams on next tier willing to make investment (I'd put Boise St in this class; St. Mary's, etc.)
6. Major bottom feeders/also rans
7. Mid-major bottom feeders/also rans
8. Small conference nobody's
If I'm a stud recruit in Idaho, for instance, but not someone a UA/UCLA caliber team would look at, I'd probably look towards a Oregon or UW (cat 2) or a Gonzaga or SDSU WELL before I'd consider someone like BSU, ASU, WSU, St. Mary's or OSU. Not just because the chances of making the dance are greater, but you also know you're going to be treated like "First Class" rather than coach, as you would at a ASU or WSU (who's actually cargo).
Obviously there are exceptions. USC is a strange one - all the money in the world & great arena, but they value football 10x they do b-ball, so don't necessarily roll out the red carpet. But have the ability, plus have a great recruiting advantage. Other exceptions are OSU, thanks to the "dads" winning the recruiting war.
I think the common thread's for categories 1-3 are (SDSU status):
1. Make BB a priority (check)
2. Ensure facilities are among top 2-3 (or tied) in their conference (check, given Viejas upgrades & JAM)
3. Good coaching/continuity (check; continuity is key as you can hire a good coach & have short term success but if they're jumping ship every 3 years & you change staffs you'll continually have setbacks - see USC)
4. Have amenities which separate you from the pack (getting there; Gonzaga charters every flight; many have first class dorms/housing for athletes; check out UA's players lounge; etc. I don't think SDSU has the money to compete here but trying, such as fundraisers for charter flights, etc.)
5. Good home cooking (e.g. when recruits attend games is the arena filled; are fans supportive; etc.; check)
6. History (when you walk into the arena are there banners flying??; getting there)
Overcoming travel barriers is another, but I put that in #4 above. Obviously someone close to strong recruiting grounds has an advantage, but if you're willing to invest in recruiting you can overcome that obstacle.
Sometimes all that separates the top 2 tiers overall is #6 above - history. SMU is doing everything right to get there (new arena; new practice facility; major money on coach) but is lacking history. If Brown leaves after just a few years that'll set them back, given their lack of overall history whereas a team in the top class can afford losing a major coach as their history will hold them over (e.g. Kansas could change coaches every 3 years & still be great).
So, I definitely agree that getting to MM annually plays into a recruit's decision, but getting into MM annually is a function of the 6 pts above (& some luck).
Sorry for being long winded but this is something I've been passionate about with WSU for years. WSU had 2 good seasons - '07 & '08, getting to the S16 in the latter. The fan base had expectations that'd be the norm moving forward, rather than luck. WSU met maybe 1 of the 6 pts above even during their 2 best years, so anyone who expected the trend to continue was clueless.