Key Takeaways
- Steve Sarkisian lauded Curt Cignetti’s transformation of Indiana but warned that imitating only the Hoosiers’ schedule overlooks other vital factors.
- Indiana’s “Indiana Way” stacked weak non‑conference opponents (FIU, Western Illinois, Charlotte) to pad its record, earning an at‑large 2024 CFP bid before a convincing loss to Notre Dame.
- The tactic ignited a broader debate at Big Ten media days, with commissioner Tony Petitti defending IU’s approach and Cignetti citing his team’s confidence.
- Other schools, notably Texas‑Tech boosters offering to buy out Week 1 games, are experimenting with similar schedule tweaks to chase playoff berths.
- Sarkisian’s own Texas Longhorns will face a 2026 slate loaded with Power‑Five opponents, using the conversation to position Texas for the expanded 12‑team College Football Playoff.
- The controversy underscores the ongoing tension between building a strong win‑loss record versus a strong strength‑of‑schedule in modern college football.
Steve Sarkisian’s recent remarks on the “Always College Football Podcast” brought renewed attention to the scheduling philosophy that propelled Indiana Hoosiers from a historically losing program to a College Football Playoff participant in just two years. Curt Cignetti, upon taking over in Bloomington, overhauled not only the roster—infusing it with sixth‑year seniors, transfers, and a veteran‑laden practice culture—but also the non‑conference slate. By scheduling opponents such as FIU, Western Illinois, and Charlotte, Indiana piled up lopsided victories (average margin of victory >45 points) and finished the 2023 season 11‑1. That record secured an at‑large berth to the 2024 CFP, where the Hoosiers fell 27‑17 to Notre Dame—a loss Cignetti famously described as an “ass kicking.”
The success, however, sparked a vigorous debate about the merits of building a record through cupcake games versus earning wins against formidable foes. At the Big Ten’s annual media days in Las Vegas, commissioner Tony Petitti stood behind Indiana’s method, arguing that the conference’s scheduling mandates and the Hoosiers’ on‑field performance justified the approach. Cignetti himself pointed to the team’s dominance in early‑season games—beating Old Dominion, Indiana State, and Western Illinois by an average margin of 44.3 points—followed by a shocking 63‑10 rout of No. 8 Illinois that launched a wave of memes and cemented Indiana’s momentum heading into Big Ten play.
Sarkisian, while acknowledging Cignetti’s “amazing job,” cautioned that other programs risk missing the forest for the trees if they merely copy the schedule without adopting the broader cultural and personnel shifts that made Indiana’s turnaround possible. “We can’t, everybody, want to adopt the ‘Indiana Way’ but then, not adopt all of the ‘Indiana Way,’” he said, noting that the Hoosiers’ happiness, early‑year player development, and veteran leadership were as critical as the soft slate. His warning comes as several schools, including Texas‑Tech—where boosters have floated the idea of buying out Week 1 games to test whether the Longhorns could go undefeated with their second‑ and third‑string units—begin to experiment with similar scheduling tweaks.
The controversy also dovetails with Sarkisian’s own strategic positioning for the Texas Longhorns. In 2026, Texas is slated to face ten Power‑Four opponents, including a rematch with Ohio State and a slate of nine SEC games, with a potential SEC championship game adding another high‑profile contest. By highlighting the value of each win in a crowded playoff landscape, Sarkisian is laying groundwork for an argument that Texas deserves a spot in the expanded 12‑team CFP, even if its strength‑of‑schedule appears daunting. He reminded listeners that, ultimately, “win the games and the rest will take care of itself,” echoing the Indiana mantra that a strong record can outweigh a tough schedule when the playoff committee weighs at‑large bids.
As college football continues to grapple with the balance between record‑building and schedule rigor, the Indiana model serves as both a blueprint and a cautionary tale. Programs seeking quick playoff access may be tempted to pad their résumés with weak opponents, but Sarkisian’s counsel suggests that sustainable success requires marrying a favorable schedule with the holistic program changes that turned a once‑moribund Hoosiers squad into a national contender. The ongoing dialogue—spanning podcasts, media days, and booster meetings—will likely shape how conferences structure their non‑conference slates and how the CFP committee evaluates merit in the years ahead.