Signing Day came and went this week. The Hoosiers signed 18 players for the 2009 season. They are expected to fill holes left on the squad, but were not highly rated.
In fact the class was rated 11th in the Big Ten by ESPN.com. The team signed 10 offensive players, five defensive players, one special teams player and two "athletes." None of the commitments were in the ESPN list of top 150 players. Northwestern and Purdue also managed to sign no top 150 players, but Ohio State and Michigan signed seven each.
These ratings are not a definitive indication of greatness in college, but why is it you hear more about good players who flew under the radar than those who were high recruited?
The Big Ten had the third most commitments, 22, in the top 150 of all the major conferences and independents. The SEC had the most, by far, with 52. The ACC had 23.
The Chicago Tribune also rated the Hoosier class last in the conference.
The best player in the Hoosier class is the kicker, according to one rating I saw. That should seem worrisome for the future. But the recruits also include a couple quarterback/wide-receiver prospects that could provide some offensive firepower. I maintain the secret to winning is on defense. Is it a concern that some of the new recruits could compete for starting spots?