[qwerty49]

Here's a clunky way to look at it, but at least it's data-driven. It's the delta between the number of stars that transfer in versus out. So if you lose a 3-star but gain a 4-star, you have a +1 margin. Of course it doesn't take into account things like playing time, position of need and years of eligibility, but someone else can attempt that exercise if they have the time.

Utah: 0
Arizona State: -6
Oregon State: -11
Cal: -14
Oregon: -22
Stanford: -22
Washington State: -23
USC: -26
UCLA: -28
Arizona: -31
Washington: -32
Colorado: -51 (!)

To this point, not a single team in the conference has a net gain of recruiting stars. Stanford's transfer results are somewhere in the middle of the Pac-12. We'll see how things shake out in the next few months.

Only one inherent bias —- some schools start off with more highly-ranked recruits. ( ie if you consistently  bring in a lot of 5-stars, you have nowhere to go but down.)

[qwerty49]

Here's a clunky way to look at it, but at least it's data-driven. It's the delta between the number of stars that transfer in versus out. So if you lose a 3-star but gain a 4-star, you have a +1 margin. Of course it doesn't take into account things like playing time, position of need and years of eligibility, but someone else can attempt that exercise if they have the time.

Utah: 0
Arizona State: -6
Oregon State: -11
Cal: -14
Oregon: -22
Stanford: -22
Washington State: -23
USC: -26
UCLA: -28
Arizona: -31
Washington: -32
Colorado: -51 (!)

To this point, not a single team in the conference has a net gain of recruiting stars. Stanford's transfer results are somewhere in the middle of the Pac-12. We'll see how things shake out in the next few months.

Only one inherent bias —- some schools start off with more highly-ranked recruits. ( ie if you consistently  bring in a lot of 5-stars, you have nowhere to go but down.)