I would argue the Big Ten wasn’t the gauntlet then that it is today, though. OSU and UM dominated, but we were part of the Little Eight, and there were plenty of winnable games and a relatively high degree of parity then, even though we lost many more than we won. But it began to evolve under Mal, when easier non-con schedules let us win games and go to bowls, even though we won at under a .400 clip in the conference (and we’ve not really improved on that).
IU buying out next year's Louisville game
- Thread starter Pazhoosier85
- Start date
Yes the rotating schedule in the big 2 little 8 era gave IU a regular respite where it could better afford a G5/P5 out of conference schedule. IU was competitive with IA and MN then. Legends and leaders destroyed that … who knows what ‘24/‘25 schedules will look like, but some future year may say USC, Wash. MSU, Penn State, Mich. Ohio State, Purdue, Maryland and Wisconsin. Plan cupcakes now, or risk a future o’fer outcome.
Gerry Dinardo on BTN:
Dave Revsine: "What do you have against football in Indy? It's equidistant for both teams."
DiNardo: "Football should be played on campus for the students. That's who it's there for."
I like the sentiment, but I don't think that will be the focus going forward.
Dave Revsine: "What do you have against football in Indy? It's equidistant for both teams."
DiNardo: "Football should be played on campus for the students. That's who it's there for."
I like the sentiment, but I don't think that will be the focus going forward.
Pont had a tough schedule. Which carried over to Corso. Lee made it softer. Which carried over to Mallory. Which I believe he was criticized for. So it was toughened up a bit. That's the one Cam got. And so on and so on.
I don't recall what the price was when i was a student but it couldn't have been much.
If only Cam Cameron had hired just a little better DC … ARE would have outscored the opposition.
If the objective is to just get to 6-6 and a minor bowl bid, then softening the schedule can certainly help in that effort.
But if the the contention is that doing so will strongly increase IU’s ability to ultimately field a sustainably winning program, then the argument IMO pretty much falls flat because it is not, as it relates to IU, an evidence-based argument.
If one believes the ceiling for this football program is 6-6, or perhaps 7-5, and a minor bowl game, then by all means fill the OOC with FCS and “lesser” G5 teams—but no one should expect, especially at IU, that using that approach will put the program in a significantly better position to finally become a quality program that in some, if not most, seasons has a solid chance to win 8, 9, or even 10 games.
That kind of quantum improvement requires very good, if not great, coaching. And a program can’t “schedule” its way to acquiring such coaching. In the vast majority of cases it 1) has to be bought, and 2) is usually profoundly expensive.
I’ll say it again:
Coaching > scheduling
Coaching > bowl bids
Coaching > attendance
But if the the contention is that doing so will strongly increase IU’s ability to ultimately field a sustainably winning program, then the argument IMO pretty much falls flat because it is not, as it relates to IU, an evidence-based argument.
If one believes the ceiling for this football program is 6-6, or perhaps 7-5, and a minor bowl game, then by all means fill the OOC with FCS and “lesser” G5 teams—but no one should expect, especially at IU, that using that approach will put the program in a significantly better position to finally become a quality program that in some, if not most, seasons has a solid chance to win 8, 9, or even 10 games.
That kind of quantum improvement requires very good, if not great, coaching. And a program can’t “schedule” its way to acquiring such coaching. In the vast majority of cases it 1) has to be bought, and 2) is usually profoundly expensive.
I’ll say it again:
Coaching > scheduling
Coaching > bowl bids
Coaching > attendance
Last edited:
It’s a process. You make it to six and six and seven and five and maybe eight and four and you do that consistently for five or six years and then you can start shooting for consistent eight and four seasons maybe nine and 3, 10 and two.
While I agree with everything you said in this post, I think its also true that you have to crawl before you walk and walk before you run. And if you break your leg when you start running, unfortunately you have to walk for a while again. I would add that hiring coaches is always a crapshoot, and early success doesn't always guarantee long-term growth (as we've seen recently). As long as the conference is going to saddle IU with three annual games that are likely to end with an L every single year, and have the cumulative effect of depleting the roster of several of its limited number of top-quality players, I believe you have to schedule OOC games you are going to win. Winning begets bowl games, which begets better recruiting and extra practice time - as well as raising your profile and the perception of you program as a winner. Put me in the group that believes that 5-7 (and missing a bowl game) is not one iota better for your program than 2-10. Get three Ws in hand and save the wear and tear on your best talent and find a way to get 3 or 4 in the B1G. Continue to do that until you have recruited enough depth to know you will win 7 and can see the possibility of 8 or 9. Then build a more attractive schedule featuring better opponents like Cincinnati or Louisville.
Last edited:
Coaching and leadership is always at the top of the list if sustained success is the goal. We’ve had a dearth of both, and the historical results show that.
The “process,” at least at IU, is IMO mythological. It has effectively been tied with every IU coach since Corso and no one has sustained it except Mallory. And even he only sustained it temporarily, ending up going 1-15 in the B1G his last 2 seasons after taking IU to multiple bowl games previously. To date I’ve not seen anything that would lead me to believe or even suspect that TA is a better P5 head coach than Bill Mallory.
If Allen/Dolson are seeking to schedule their way to a .500 season and minor bowl game, fair enough. But I’m not going to pretend, after multiple previous and mostly unsuccessful attempts with the same approach, that them recycling that same approach is very likely to succeed long -term this time around where it failed multiple times before.
So a few things.
Coaching today and coaching with Bill Mallory was successful are entirely different situation‘s for all schools, including Indiana. We have a ton, more investment and resources in our program than we did back then, even as it relates to our conference competition.
I would, reiterate, I don’t think scheduling your way to 500 seasons is some thing that you want to see in perpetuity, but doing it so that you can stack four or five consecutive seasons of going to bowl games in a row has not been done because we put the cart before the horse and start scheduling More challenging games after one or two years. And yes, I understand. Those games are scheduled well in advance but in my opinion, they are done so too aggressively.
