Maybe there are people like this but for the most part I think you are likely missing the point. The idea being getting Minnesota kids is that if you can't get Minnesota kids you are likely to have an even harder time getting non Minnesota kids of same or better ability since with Minnesota kids you have built in the draw of being close to home and having an easier time visiting or being visited at games by friends and family. The Minnesota piece is more just an indicator of how good you are at recruiting. What is the right metric for number of Minnesota players to be able to keep? I don't know, but I (and clearly many others) certainly don't think it is what it has been the last 8 years.
I personally don't care if we had no Minnesotan's on the team if we were near the top of the B1G, but we aren't because we don't have players that are performing at a high level. When you see so many Minnesota players go to other schools and have more success than Minnesota that becomes a concern when you are bad and get so few of the Minnesota kids. Having a bunch of Minnesota guys making up the team would be fun because there is a certain amount of pride with people knowing these players and watching them play as well as knowing people that know people that know them. This is all kind of fun but not particularly fun if the team is bad. Lots of people would enjoy having a team with a bunch of players from more random origins i.e. Alaska, UK, Congo, Norway, Argentina or a particular Indian reservation within Minnesota. This all brings curiosity, interest and there would undoubtedly be many stories about such groups of players. But Minnesota players have the extra dimension of people being familiar with them and where they are from, see Suni Lee, Lindsey Vonn and all the other Minnesota athletes that go to the Olympics or other big sporting events.