Pipeline
NFL production
Signing classes 2013 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
- DT1
- RB1
Program year analysis and class DNA metrics for Indiana (2013).
2013 recruiting class — expectation versus Stars2Stats outcomes
Class medals
“Built on development, not recruiting rankings.”
S2S Class DNA
One-year metrics for this recruiting class
Recruits that contributed to program
Share who became impact players (starters, elite contributors, or NFL)
Based on only Low HS Projection → All-Conference or higher
Recruits that reached the NFL in any tier
Share with limited verified outcomes
Pipeline
Signing classes 2013 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
The 2013 recruiting class for Indiana illustrated a mixed bag of results, particularly regarding the outcomes of its recruits versus their original rankings. The class included 26 commits, with a blue chip percentage of 19, indicating a focus on developing talent rather than relying heavily on highly regarded players. The S2S rerank of 94 suggests a significant improvement in the evaluation of this class, indicating that while initial expectations were modest, the performance of certain recruits exceeded those expectations.
Among the recruits, only one player, Rashard Fant, emerged as a notable success, achieving All Conference honors despite being ranked outside the top 300. This highlights a potential trend in the Indiana program's ability to develop lower-ranked talent effectively. Conversely, several recruits, including Taj Williams and David Kenney, who were ranked within the top 350, failed to meet expectations, marking them as misses for the class.
Overall, the class displayed a pattern where lower-ranked recruits often contributed positively, while some higher-ranked prospects did not fulfill their potential. This discrepancy suggests that Indiana may have found value in scouting and developing talent that was overlooked by higher-ranked recruiting services, but also faced challenges with players they expected more from based on their rankings.
The 2013 recruiting class for Indiana largely met expectations, as reflected in the S2S rerank moving significantly upward from 54 to 94. The class's overall performance benefitted from the development of lower-ranked recruits while being marked by the underperformance of several higher-ranked players. The takeaway from this class is that while Indiana had success in developing talent, the failure of some recruits to meet expectations highlights the unpredictability inherent in recruiting.