From the diaries. -N

Okay, I'll answer the call in this thread, and provide a whole bunch of arcane stats.  I've put them in a new diary so I can make any corrections/changes if necessary.  Have fun with them.  

First, I looked back to see how much "talent" each Pac-10 team has had recently in terms of recruits.  This includes the star ratings as compiled on Scout.com for the 2002-2005 recruiting classes.  It does not include 2006, as those players haven't played in any games yet.  It doesn't go earlier, because that information isn't readily available.  These numbers also don't account for players who later were injured, transferred or left the team/sport for any other reason.  Thus, for these, and other reasons, this information should be taken with a grain of salt.

Team ('03-05 Total Record; '03-05 Conference Record; '04-06 NFL Draftees)

Arizona (8-26; 5-19; 1)
5-star: 0
4-star: 21
3-star: 30
Total "star points": 174 (T-5th)

ASU (21-15; 11-13; 7)
5-star: 3
4-star: 15
3-star: 33
Total "star points": 174 (T-5th)

Cal (26-12; 16-8; 10)
5-star: 4
4-star: 19
3-star: 31
Total "star points": 189 (3rd)

Oregon (23-13; 16-8; 10)
5-star: 5
4-star: 16
3-star: 25
Total "star points": 148 (7th)

OSU (20-16; 12-12; 9)
5-star: 2
4-star: 7
3-star: 24
Total "star points": 110 (10th)

Stanford (13-20; 8-16; 13)
5-star: 3
4-star: 11
3-star: 25
Total "star points": 134 (8th)

UCLA (22-15; 14-10; 11)
5-star: 3
4-star: 26
3-star: 34
Total "star points": 221 (2nd)

USC (37-2; 23-1; 20)
5-star: 21
4-star: 31
3-star: 24
Total "star points": 301 (1st)

Washington (9-26; 5-19; 7)
5-star: 2
4-star: 16
3-star: 37
Total "star points": 185 (4th)

WSU (19-16; 10-14; 7)
5-star: 0
4-star: 17
3-star: 21
Total "star points": 131 (9th)

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.  But, in broad strokes, you can see that USC had far and away the best recruiting/record/number of NFL draftees; UCLA had the 2nd best recruiting, 4th best conference record, and 3rd best number of NFL players, etc., etc.  On the basis of recruiting alone, it seems as though USC has performed as one might expect (very, very well); Cal, Oregon and OSU have slightly overperformed; UCLA has underperformed; Arizona and Washington have significantly underperformed.

Of course, how useful are the star ratings from the recruiting services?  As just one measure, I've compared the Pac-10 players selected in the 2006 NFL draft against those players' star ratings when there were first recruited, to see if there is a correlation between the players who made it to the NFL and their early star ratings.  (Note, I didn't do the opposite, e.g., see how many highly rated recruits did not get drafted; quick answer though, a lot).

Total Pac-10 players selected in the 2006 NFL draft: 32

Players drafted I could find ratings for: 20  (Note, I couldn't find star-ranking data for 2001, so I couldn't categorize guys who took their redshirt.)

1-star selections: 4
2-star selections: 0
3-star selections: 1
4-star selections: 9
5-star selections: 6

It's a small, flawed sample, but there seems to be a strong correlation between being selected in the draft and having been a highly-touted recruit.  So, while I'm sure there are countless exceptions, at least some highly regarded recruits do in fact turn into great players.

So, there you have it.  You may now beginning parsing this information to support your respective predisposition(s).  Stat-tastic. GO BRUINS.