What I'm a little more concerned about is how this impacts the algorithms that are used to calculate things like SOS and SOR, which then become part of the CFP rankings.

I may not completely understand this, so, if I'm missing something here, please fill in the blanks.

At least in theory, SOS and SOR are used as part of the CFP rankings.  One of the variables in the algorithm used to calculate these is a recruiting rating.  So, if a player is a 4* with a 95 rating when recruited by the original team, he will stay a 4* as long as he is on that team's roster.  But, if that same player enters the portal, he gets re-rated and could fall (or rise as well).

So, in the case of the TX OL player that transferred to BYU, he was originally had a 96 rating when signing with Texas.  Had he stayed at TX his entire career and never seen the field, he would count as a 96 in Texas' recruiting rating.  However, by entering the portal he was re-rated down to an 85.  Now, when he transfers to BYU, he is not included in Texas' recruiting rating anymore, but he is included in BYU's.  So, the same player would be a 96 if he stayed at Texas, but is an 85 if at BYU?

If that is the case, then there is a potential for bias in the ratings---especially when schools like Texas are going to very likely to replace a portal player with a rating higher than the re-rating they get when they transfer.  In this case Texas would get credit for a bench player rated as a 96, when BYU would only get credit for an 85 FOR THE VERY SAME PLAYER.

If that is the case, wouldn't it make sense to just re-rate every player every year and then re-calculate the recruiting rating? I recognize that that would be extra work for the rating companies, but at this point, there are so many people in the portal that you might as well rate everyone every year.  Or, simply drop recruiting ratings from the SOR/SOS metrics, as that particular variable, if it is really significant, should show up in on-field performance anyway.  Why credit teams that can attract the easy-to-spot talent in high school as opposed to the teams that have to spot diamonds-in-the-rough and develop them?