In doing a little post-signing day number crunching, I came across an interesting number: 37. There are 74 four-star players who have signed with Pac-12 teams (assuming UCLA commit Priest Willis keeps his verbal, which is expected) and 37 of them went to teams in the Pac-12 North and 37 of them went into the Pac-12 South.
In 2012, four teams failed to make the postseason -- two from the North (Cal and Washington State), two from the South (Colorado and Utah). So it begs the question, which division had the stronger recruiting season?
If you're looking for highly-ranked players, then you'd lean toward the South, which signed 15 players from the ESPN 150 list as opposed to five from the Pac-12 North. The South also had the edge in ESPN 300 players, signing 23 while the North signed 17.
The difference, however, is the distribution of wealth. All 15 ESPN 150 players are going to either USC (which signed nine) or UCLA (which signed six -- again, assuming Willis is on board). The North had five ESPN 150 players spread out among three schools -- Washington (3), Oregon (1) and Stanford (1).
Of the ESPN 300 players, 12 signed with USC and 10 to UCLA. Arizona was the only other school to sign an ESPN 300 player. But in the North, five of the six teams signed at least one ESPN 300 guy.
And in the end, each division had 37 four-star players sign with their programs -- but every team in the North had at least four. While in the South, Colorado had one, Utah had two and ASU had three.
So does the massive influx of talent to Southern California mean the South Division had the stronger recruiting season? Or does the fact that the North had an equal number of four-star players and more talent spread throughout the division mean overall the North was stronger?
So for your Thursday poll question: Which Pac-12 division did better in recruiting?