Here were some of my "Little Things" wishes last year:
Redo Pipelines: Having 4 players on the roster from the same state doesn't establish a pipeline, at least not in real life. I guess they're trying to replicate that in real life certain coaches establish ties to areas, know the HS coaches, and are known to the parents. Sure, that's all true. But that's established over time, not by X number of players on your roster. Pipelines should be created and lost with time and successful recruiting in the states, not X. They should be gained and lost by who you play and who you beat. Ohio State shouldn't have to work to establish a pipeline to Indiana, Pennsylvania, or Michigan ... conference states should come automatically, at least at some level. And there should be varying levels of pipelines. No matter how many Florida players come to Ohio State, Jim Tressel is not going to recruit Florida at the same level that Urban Meyer will.
(Ironic, neither of those coaches are around this year ...)
When using "Find Prospects" in Recruiting, instead of "View All Matching Prospects", the option to only view Matching Prospects above a certain percentage would be awesome. If I search 3 different sets of criteria, more often than not, I only care about the guys that are 100%. In fact, the vast majority of the time I'm using Find Prospect, I only care about 100%. Yes, I can sort on percentage, but why load all 300+ prospects that match the search when I'm really only interested in 22?
MVP mentioned "bragging rights for beating a school in a recruit's Top 10" last year, and I think that would be huge to see. Especially if you bring a recruit in for a rivalry game, and the two schools are #1 and #2 on the recruit's Top 10. That outcome should have some kind of an influence on the recruit.

And my thoughts on Dealbreaker pitches:
Now, along those lines ... I don't like when a player had Early Playing Time as a Most, and I have it as a D, yet I'm still able to get him to come to my school. Yes, on the one hand, I clearly put more effort into him than I would otherwise. But if a player is most concerned with getting playing time ... he's not likely to choose a school where he's not going to get that playing time. That's something I think the team should think about in the future, though I wouldn't put that high on the list.
if I, as a football recruit, am saying that the absolute most important thing to me is Early Playing Time ... that should be a dealbreaker. And deal-breaker's don't exist in NCAA recruiting.
It's something worth thinking about though. At the very least, I think there should be a "Dealbreaker". Where if I pitch a D to a Most+Dealbreaker, I actually get Negative points rather than just very few.
The problem there is the differentiation between "Low" meaning "It's not that important to me" and it meaning "I want a school with Low Prestige". If you look at the responses the recruits give, it seems like it means either one.