Although I totally agree with comparing peers, the fact of the matter is that no team plays peers only (there are alternative models where we can deploy this - playing peers).
Which is why I concentrate on Big Ten West - specifically. The Big Ten West is our peer. IMVVHO, unless we can recruit (AND coach) at their level we are going nowhere (IMO of course) in the B10 West.
?????
I would make a little different argument.
There are two levels of comparison. The first is comparable schools and the second is schools in neighboring states. We will compete more with Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. on one level and on another level, barely bowl eligible teams. Ultimately, if Michigan, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Iowa (neighboring state schools on a different level), etc. are coming for our recruits, it is likely we won't win the battle. We will win some, but definitely not the norm.
In contrast, we need to win more, if not close to all of the peer school battles. Iowa State, Missouri, etc. Neighboring schools with an inconsistent recent history of winning (peer schools). This is why St. Louis has been so important for our efforts (and why it cost Missouri a coach) and why Indiana is also important for our efforts. But, we also must win the battles where we go against a school like Kansas, Rutgers, or the like (particularly important for Juco and grad transfers not as important for high school because most likely the kids will pick the school in greater proximity)
We are competing against in-state and neighboring states for recruits. Michigan and Wisconsin don't compete, as often for recruits, as Wisconsin does with Iowa. Similarly, Michigan and notre dame often are in competition.
Twangers probably has a different and more accurate take on this, but I imagine we are pretty similar in how we see it