Media Roundtable: Spring Game Exit Survey
BSB welcomes eight members or IU media for a roundtable survey on the Indiana Football Spring Game.
As a former reporter on the IU Athletics beat, I’m excited for this specific edition of Bite-Sized Bison. I’d like to welcome and thank the following IU media folks (listed in alphabetical order by last name) for their thoughts on the Indiana Football Spring Game:
and, of course, Taylor from Bite-Sized Bison
My role in this was simply to add any additional thoughts so that they didn’t go unmentioned. For BSB’s full analysis of the Spring Game, check out the last edition of BSB, logged Thursday night (Friday morning) after the scrimmage.
Let’s get to it!
1. What is your tweet-length review of the Indiana Spring Game?
Ankony: Indiana has upgraded the talent level of its wide receivers and running back rooms, while the quarterbacks mixed positive and negative moments. Aiden Fisher appears ready to lead an Indiana defense that should benefit from improved health and a couple transfer portal additions.
Clavio: It was nice to watch IU football actually try to showcase itself for a change! Hopefully this is the first of many such events as the Cignetti era moves forward.
Flick: Indiana's first outing of the Curt Cignetti era came and went with no injuries and an encouraging balance of plays from both the offense and defense. Kurtis Rourke's early struggles may leave a bad taste for some, but he finished strong and created a solid platform to build from.
Lasley: It was a glorified practice like Curt Cignetti emphasized and it didn’t show a lot of true complexity on either side of the ball but it still had a much different feel than throughout Spring over the past few seasons. A good mix of a ‘business-like’ approach from everyone with some swag and necessary toughness.
Morris: The Cignetti Era begins exactly how I expected it to: with visible progress already in place, and still a lot of potential for improvement heading into the season.
Osterman: About as expected. Offense clearly ahead of the defense. Defensive line needs bolstering in the portal, but offensive additions could take that unit up several levels.
Tow: The biggest optimists can probably find a lot from the game showing IU will be good next year, and vice versa for the biggest pessimists. The truth usually lies in the middle.
Williams: Fans were provided actual, tangible glimpses of something to get behind. Across the board, enough good came from it that there’s real promise worth investing in, and nobody got seriously injured. In that case, everybody wins.
BSB: Outside of the play on the field, the excitement in Memorial Stadium was palpable. Fans are eager for the Curt Cignetti Era to begin, and during the first on-campus opportunity to show it, they really showed it. I can’t believe Indiana’s staff went four springs without this.
2. What was your most encouraging takeaway?
Ankony: There’s no shortage of offensive weapons. Indiana has a variety of skill sets at running back between Justice Ellison, Elijah Green, Kaelon Black and Ty Son Lawton, who combine speed, power and pass-catching ability. There’s a similar dynamic at receiver with Elijah Sarratt, Myles Price, Donaven McCulley, Omar Cooper Jr., Andison Coby, Miles Cross, Ke’Shawn Williams and E.J. Williams Jr. On paper, those are deep position groups that won’t let opposing defenses lock in on one or two guys.
Clavio: There appears to be a plan on both offense and defense. And the roster reconstruction that was desperately needed is clearly underway.
Flick: The Hoosiers' rushing attack looked really solid. Throughout the spring, Kaelon Black impressed with his leadership, and both he and Justice Ellison played well in the actual game. Cignetti is fond of his running backs – and after watching their quickness, vision and feel – it's not difficult to see why.
Lasley: I think it had to be the defense. Not just the way they played with limiting scoring opportunities, but how they did it. The quickness they played with. The energy. The pace. Everyone looked explosive and were flying around the field. It was a piece that IU has lacked over the past few seasons and it’s clear that Bryant Haines’ defense is going to be a high- energy and explosive group.
Morris: The quarterbacks looked confident. Given that we almost always need 2-3 QBs, seeing Rourke, Jackson, and even Cherry look competent was very encouraging.
Osterman: Probably quarterback depth. Indiana’s recent history suggests the Hoosiers will need more than one across the course of this season. Based on Curt Cignetti’s comments I expected to see better from IU’s line and receiver group, and they both performed well. But the game offered genuine reason to believe Tayven Jackson can push Kurtis Rourke and, if he doesn’t win the job, back Rourke up capably. Again, recent history tells us that will be needed at some point.
Tow: It has to be the running game. The offensive line run-blocked well, and the running backs capitalized on those openings. The three main backs — Kaelon Black, Justice Ellison, and Ty Son Lawton — all made some big plays. They picked up yardage through contact, burst through holes — just a lot of what you want to see out of the backfield. IU’s run game was so inconsistent last season, it would be huge if this is a sign of things to come.
Williams: Indiana’s running backs are going to be electric to watch. They’re all new names, so they’ll take some getting used to when it comes to establishing ties. But this group is different from ones known to don cream & crimson in the past – they’re faster, more versatile, a bigger threat to break loose. If we’re to follow the audio and the very brief signs shown from the spring game, the true emphasis will still be on being an attack that leans pass-first. But if there’s substance in the early returns, these guys are going to be too good to not utilize.
BSB: I’m going to go a very nerdy direction – TE usage. When they were on the field, they were everywhere – working in motion, lining up in slot, maneuvering in blocking situations along the line. Of 28 Big Ten TEs with 10+ targets in 2023, Bradley Archer and Trey Walker ranked 6th and 8th in percent of snaps positioned along the line. There just was no creativity with TEs because they were needed to run-block, and they graded horribly there too. But Thursday, on one play, Walker lined up in a trips set out wide and dove into a crossing route, where Rourke found him for a handful of yards. JMU transfer TE Zach Horton was also targeted 6 times, which is nearly half of Walker’s 2023 team-leading target total (14). The offense in 2023 often relied on TEs in ways that prevented their best playmakers from seeing the field, but Thursday seemed to show more creativity in the offensive scheme.
3. What concerns did you leave with (or which concerns were exacerbated)?
Ankony: Defensive depth. There was a pretty significant drop off from the first team to second team defense, from my perspective, which wasn’t totally surprising. A few potential starters were out due to injury, and I expect Indiana to make some additions on that side, namely defensive line and the defensive backfield.
Clavio: The roster is nowhere close to ready yet, and there’s clearly some spots within the team that are going to make the 2024 season a greater challenge than some observers may be thinking.
Flick: The middle of Indiana's interior defensive line is legitimately concerning to me. There's not necessarily a vast array of big-bodied players there, and I'm hesitant to say it'll translate to stopping the downhill, physical rushing styles the Hoosiers will see in Big Ten play. I had this thought pre-game, and seeing Indiana's offense run all over its defense did little to quell this concern.
Lasley: While the overall defense was encouraging, the pass rush was underwhelming. Indiana clearly needs to add some depth and talent on the defensive line before the fall. Mikail Kamara had some nice moments but there isn’t a ton of explosiveness with that group. I think come fall, Jacob Mangum-Farrar will be much more adjusted to his position change. He didn’t look extremely comfortable or explosive for the majority of the night. With time, that’ll adjust. But outside of that, there was a strong underwhelming feeling that needs to change. Yes, there were some injuries that impacted rotations and availability but at the end of the day, Indiana needs to revamp that group as much as possible heading into the season.
Morris: Defensive depth.
Osterman: It wasn’t surprising, but defensive depth (particularly along the line) is a real concern. I think things will broadly sort themselves out at linebacker, and I think the tools are mostly there in the secondary, whether the pieces end up fitting together cleanly or not. The line — and in particular I think the tackle rotation — needs real reinforcement before the season begins. Yes, returning some players from injury will help. But even with that handful of players healthy, the Hoosiers will need to avoid injuries to have depth issues exposed here, unless or until Cignetti can reinforce through the portal.
Tow: This should be taken with a grain of salt because of injuries, but based on what we saw out there, the defensive depth looks like a concern. Not to take too much away from what Tayven Jackson and Andison Coby and the second-string offense did, but it was just way too easy for them. Injuries will happen during the season — that’s just football — so even though this will probably look a little better as some guys get healthier, what happens when others inevitably get banged up in fall? Then you’re looking at the same type of defensive depth (in the secondary, specifically). It might be an area for the staff to address in the portal this spring.
Williams: The second-string defense was noticeably a step or two behind in the Hoosiers’ Spring Game. Granted, the 2-offense it ran against is one I consider to be very talented, which is a testament to just how hard the coaching staff managed overhauling the roster this offseason. However, there’s also no hiding the glaring need for more depth on the defensive side of the ball, particularly on the defensive line and in the backfield. Some of it will come from injury recovery, some of it will come from spring transfer additions. Regardless, I think IU still needs help defensively.
BSB: The defensive line, both in interior depth and in pass rush, is a concern, and while the staff can address that in the portal in May, there are limits to the fruits of the portal. This might not get to where the staff would like until the 2025 season. Maybe even the 2026 season. Defensive line contributors are not easy to come by, especially good Big Ten pass rushers, and are most often developed. It’s not doom and gloom, but it’s not optimal either.
4. What was your approach to the Spring Game?
Ankony: I had a general sense of who’d start, but I was mostly interested in simply seeing who would line up with the first and second teams on both sides, given the significant roster overhaul this offseason. I didn’t want to make any sweeping conclusions about the team and its 2024 record, so it was more about individuals than whole-unit performances for me. I wanted to see Kurtis Rourke and the revamped offensive line in a game-like setting, as those were two position groups Indiana struggled with the last few seasons. And I wanted to see who’d step up and lead the defense. I didn’t anticipate perfect tackling because Indiana hadn’t tackled live during spring practice, and there were some imperfections that can be cleaned up before Week 1.
Clavio: I tried to go in with very low expectations, and mostly wanted to see how the players looked within the confines of the systems being put out there. At this point, I think looking for individual performances makes more sense, except in areas like line play.
Flick: I was looking to see the lineups, as we'd seen certain storylines emerge during spring practice. I, personally, had lots of questions about how the secondary and receiver rooms would look, so I spent most of warmups watching those groups and then monitoring those on the field during the game.
Lasley: I wanted to see energy, toughness and good overall fundamentals. The latter was on a major decline with the previous staff and clearly cost the group a few games throughout the last few years. I think all three of those aspects were answered in a very positive way. The running backs and wide receivers were the main groups I was interested in, both being totally revamped. It’s clear that Indiana is deep and talented at both positions and have varying skillsets that will be extremely fun to watch in a more complex Mike Shanahan system come the season. This may be the first time that Indiana has numerous options down the field in the passing game that will open things up for the offense. We all know the lack of explosive plays from that unit limited what the offense was able to do, so seeing more 10-15 yard routes getting completed was a welcomed sign.
Morris: My approach was to expect much more crispness and professionalism than what we tended to see under Tom Allen. That’s what I saw. This is what a well-coached football team looks like in the Spring.
Osterman: Not sure, exactly. It’s always hard with a first-year coach, and we’ve seen so little of spring practices that it’s not like there have been threads to pull on specifically. If I had to pick, I was probably most curious about both the offensive structure and then also personnel within it. Indiana took so many transfers on that side of the ball, and by his own admission that’s very much Cignetti’s system. It does broadly feel like that’s how Indiana is going to have to win football games this season, outscoring enough opponents to get to a bowl. So if I had any sort of preconceived curiosities going in, they were probably directed toward that side of the ball.
Tow: Genuinely, I went in without many expectations. I was just watching everything as it played out and making some notes — both physical and mental — of things that stood out. I didn’t want to pigeonhole this and look for anything specific, just see what caught my eye. I’m not sure whether I was looking for anything more than we saw from the offense and defense. Hard to really gauge special teams, though, considering we only saw the field goal unit a few times, so no kickoff or punt teams and no returns.
Williams: Wanted to just see something that gave off a different feel than in years past. Given this was the first time tackling, I stand firm on the no-injury factor being the most important aspect of the night. I was interested in the play of Kurtis Rourke, being the new presumed starter coming into this year. The play-calling spread across various situations on both sides of the ball was a point of mine, and I do think the early signs were encouraging. But ultimately, I just wondered if you’d leave the stadium or flip the channel Thursday night feeling like you’d watched an Indiana football team of old, or something different. I think the latter was the case.
BSB: I wanted to see how the offense differed schematically from last season. Obviously, they aren’t revealing their entire hand in April, but we got several glimpses – whether it was TE usage, slot usage, RB potential – at what the offense is trying to do. It felt promising. After that, mostly just individual capabilities after a massive haul in the portal.
5. Finish the sentence: “The quarterback play was…”
Ankony: Solid but nothing too special. Rourke fell a bit short of my expectations, and Tayven Jackson exceeded them by a fair amount. Jackson did have the advantage of going up against the second-team defense, however. Rourke eased into things by completing mostly short passes, but he also missed some throws and fell victim to drops. His final drive was especially impressive, completing a few longer passes and throwing his lone touchdown. Jackson was the opposite, as he started strong with a perfect 7-for-7 touchdown drive but threw an interception later. He had a definite advantage over Rourke on deep passes. I’ve thought all along that Indiana brought in Rourke to be the starter – and I still think he will be – but the competition felt closer on Thursday than I had anticipated.
Clavio: Adequate for the spring game, and it was nice to see that Tayven Jackson appears to have taken the off-season seriously so far.
Flick: Very spring-gamey. I'm not sure that's an actual phrase, but it feels representative. Rourke struggled early but rebounded quite nicely. Tayven Jackson looked sharp early but made a few mistakes. Tyler Cherry flashed but was evidently a level or two below the others. I wouldn't be discouraged by anything the quarterbacks did, though they certainly could've been better.
Lasley: What I thought it would be. We all know Tayven Jackson has the arm talent to make some extraordinary throws and he showed that early on in the game. His ability to not force the issue was a positive as well, but then some of the inconsistency he showed last year appeared. For Kurtis Rourke, I think everyone was expecting something tremendous right away based on the comments throughout spring practice from Cignetti. He struggled with moving the ball and finishing drives early on but I think what he showed during the final drive was tremendous and way more of what we should expect. There’s still a long way to go for both players, especially building chemistry with the wideouts, but I think you have to like what you saw from both players.
Morris: Encouraging.
Osterman: To steal your word, encouraging. Rourke was as advertised. Jackson undeniably took advantage of some second-string defense but he looked more confident than he ever did last season, absent maybe that Louisville second half. More broadly, both QBs looked so comfortable within their role in the offense. Confidence in quarterback play is about skills and reps and all that, yes, but it’s also about feeling an assurance you understand what you need to do play to play, that the calls and checks are sound, and that you know where the ball needs to go before you even touch it, so you can deliver it with authority. I thought you saw both players do that well.
Tow: A mixed bag. Kurtis Rourke can play better than that. His wide receivers dropped some passes that would’ve made his night look and feel a little better, and the defense deserves credit for some of his other difficult moments. He did look sharp in some moments, and looked a little shifty at times as well. But I think IU will hope he can perform better than that in the fall. Tayven Jackson looked good, like someone who can be — at worst — a very reliable No. 2 option. Tyler Cherry looked like you’d expect a true freshman to look in his first taste of college ball, but that’s okay.
Williams: Alright. I’ll give the sixth-year guy who was a former offensive player of the year and two-time all-conference selection a bit of slack when it comes to adjusting to a new place. Some throws were wayward, and I think it took him a bit of time to settle into the moment, but he’s also working with almost a completely new offense and is only four months into his stint with the program. If the fall comes around and we’re talking about the same thing, that’s a different story. For now though, not a concern I’m keyed in on.
Tayven was great in his own right, but even Cignetti was curious on how much of that was influenced by the thinner second line of defense. Still, 90-yard and 80-yard touchdown drives are nothing to scoff at, and he looked really encouraging overall. I think he’s probably one of the winners of the night.
Tyler Cherry looked like a freshman. That’s fine, he’s supposed to. He just needs the time.
6. Was there an individual player that grabbed your attention?
Ankony: Aiden Fisher. It felt like he flew to the ball nearly every defensive play Thursday night. Linebacker was a bit of a question mark position for me this spring after Indiana lost Aaron Casey, a first-team All-Big Ten linebacker and team captain, and Jacob Mangum-Farrar moved to the “stud” position on the defensive line. Fisher led James Madison in tackles last season, and he’s got to be a top candidate to do that again at Indiana. The jump from the Sun Belt to Big Ten could be a challenge for some of these transfers, but Fisher certainly looked the part in the spring game.
Clavio: Probably Andison Coby - that’s the name that sticks out after a few days of reflection.
Flick: The natural answer here is Andison Coby, but I'll go with a different receiver - senior Donaven McCulley. After a difficult spring in which he slid down the depth chart and drew public criticism from Cignetti, McCulley's soaring score offered hope he's getting back to the player he was towards the end of last year. I asked about McCulley postgame, and Cignetti said he responded well from the ordeal and has a clear understanding of where he needs to be better in the fall.
Lasley: Just one? I mean I think the obvious answer is the play of Andison Coby who absolutely dominated the entire night. Whether it was his ability to create separation and make plays down the field, or his ability to elude defenders on his long run after the catch. He made some tough catches that showed he may have some big moments this season at one point or another. I think the play of Jamier Johnson stood out as well. He seemed to be a bit undervalued coming into the spring after missing most of last year with injuries. But his length and overall ball skills really showed with some of the 1v1 matchups he had. Clearly Aiden Fisher as well. Not many people knew what to expect after coming from JMU but he showed that he’s a legit Big Ten level linebacker and he’s also a tremendous leader on the field. It is not going to be a surprise when/if he carries this defense at times like some of the past tremendous linebackers IU’s had.
Morris: Rourke and Jackson. They seemed to have solid command of the offense and nice early chemistry with the receivers.
Osterman: Offensively, it was obviously hard to look past Andison Coby. Which was largely interesting to me because of the sheer weight of depth Indiana added at his position. Even through a bunch of fresh faces and a lot of moving parts, Coby still found ways to make the biggest plays. Defensively, I liked what I saw from Aiden Fisher. Time will tell whether he’s physically able to step up to this level (I have a friend who’s intensely familiar with Virginia high school football who swears he’ll be fine), but you can see the leadership and communication qualities Bryant Haines values so much in him right away.
Tow: Outside of the running backs, I’ll say Myles Price. I thought Price was pretty clearly at least one of Rourke’s top options, if not the top one. And Price looks like a pretty versatile weapon, the type of receiver that could be a threat at all three levels — short/screen game, intermediate routes, and deep balls. Donaven McCulley had that sort of upside last season, but if IU can put a weapon like that in a more productive passing attack, that has other good receivers (like McCulley, potentially) to attract other defensive attention, that could be dangerous for opponents.
Williams: Where was that over the last two years, Andison Coby? In all seriousness, I think he’s got real value and untapped potential from his previous two seasons in Bloomington, and the depth and frequency of his utilization is something I’d keep a monitor on. Aiden Fisher was everywhere on the defensive side of the ball, and it’s not hard to understand why Curt says Bryant Haines sleeps better at night with him in the fold. He’s a moth to a flame, a heat-seeking hawk who feels unshakeable in pursuit of the ball. There’s real candidacy for him to be one of IU’s best players this fall, period.
BSB: There were several, but Amare Ferrell and Terry Jones – the two nickels – caught my eye. I was surprised to see Ferrell running with the first-team defense as a true sophomore with a new defensive coordinator, safeties coach, and defensive scheme, but he was all over the field. Jones showed his experience and that, wherever he ends up playing in the defensive backfield, he will be productive, after transferring from Old Dominion.
7. Rate what you saw defensively on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being extremely discouraging and 10 being extremely encouraging.
Ankony: Six. As I said above, Fisher looked fully capable of being an immediate-impact linebacker. Fellow James Madison transfer Mikail Kamara brought pressure off the edge a few times. Old Dominion transfer Terry Jones Jr. showed good instincts to jump a route for an interception, and his old teammate Shawn Asbury had one too, but it was called off. Some missed tackles were concerning, but it’s early. The second-team defensive backs got burnt a few times. I thought the defense as a whole played fast, and they’ll benefit from getting healthier and adding a few more transfers.
Clavio: Probably a 6 - There’s some promising signs there in the back seven, although obviously tempered by system unfamiliarity and injuries.
Flick: I'll go with a 7. For the most part, Indiana's first-team defense had its way with the offense, and I think the linebacker duo of Aiden Fisher and Jailin Walker could be extremely productive in the middle of the unit. The first-team secondary made several plays, with Shawn Asbury and Terry Jones pulling down interceptions and Kobee Minor showcasing why he was an honorable mention All-Big Ten selection last year.
Lasley: I would say 7. Like I said, the way that group was flying around with energy and quickness was extremely encouraging. Still need to add some talent to a few areas to make sure they can sustain it for a full game and season, but I don’t think anyone left Thursday disappointed in the way the defense looked overall.
Morris: 5
Osterman: I’d probably cut it down the middle and say 5. Individual players had some moments. I liked the way Haines mixed and disguised his blitz calls. IU will be healthier at linebacker come fall, and as stated above I think the secondary will broadly be OK. The line is just such a glaring concern that on one hand, it’s hard to be more bullish on this defense until we see how much portal recruiting can address that, and yet on the other if it can be dealt with to even an adequate degree this spring then a lot of other stuff slides into place and makes more sense moving forward.
Tow: I’ll go 6.5. The first-team defense looked good, I thought, although with the usual caveats of how tough it is to gauge things like pass rush success when you aren’t finishing the plays against quarterbacks and when you’re going against your own offensive line. I thought the secondary held up pretty well and deserved credit for Rourke not looking his sharpest. Jacob Mangum-Farrar looked really intriguing at the new stud position — he seems like a good fit for that spot. Aiden Fisher looked good as well, with upside to be one of the better inside linebackers in the league. The depth, as I said before, is a bit of a concern, particularly in the secondary.
Williams: It gets a 7 from me, and this score is anchored heavily by the first teamers. A complete judgment of the unit at this junction would, in my eyes, be unfair. But I’ve touched on it a ton – the defense feels different this year, it just needs to be deeper with some crucial additions needing to be made.
BSB: 6. The first-team defense, in its strongest moments, looked promising and was fueled by strong individual effort (Kobee Minor, Aiden Fisher, Jamier Johnson, Terry Jones, etc.), but, for the most part, it was a defense that looked as if it was still being pieced together (as most defenses look in spring scrimmages, especially under a new regime). It also was without a DT in James Carpenter, who graded 18th in the nation at his position (400+ snaps) last season, and a LB in Jailin Walker, who graded 24th at his position (400+ snaps). What defined Bryant Haines’ JMU defense, though, was dominance up front, and, in terms of interior depth and pass rush, the concerns at DL are conspicuous at the moment.
8. Make a bold prediction for the 2024 season with the understanding that the only evidence we have is this spring scrimmage.
Ankony: Indiana’s offense will average at least 30 points per game. Indiana has done so just twice in the last 10 seasons, 2019 and 2015, when it averaged 31.8 and 36.5, respectively. In the last three seasons, just three Big Ten teams each season have scored over 30 points per game. That’d be an impressive accomplishment in the first Big Ten season for Cignetti and his staff, who have a track record of success with quarterbacks. Indiana has a softer schedule in 2024 than the last few seasons, and the offensive talent appears to have been upgraded too.
Clavio: IU is going to be fun to watch on offense, and will have its highest points per game total since 2015 (when they scored 36.5 points per game).
Flick: I think the Hoosiers finish with a top-five rushing offense in the Big Ten. Last year, Indiana ranked No. 10 with 120 yards per game, but with Ellison, Black, Ty Son Lawton and Elijah Green, there's a quartet of veteran rushers who should provide balance and production from the backfield.
Lasley: I’ll go with this team wins 7 games. The biggest reason why is based on the fact that I don’t think they will beat themselves. Curt Cignetti and the rest of this staff are way too detailed-focused to have a lot of mental mistakes that cost them in big moments. That’s going to help, especially on the road in some of these swing games this season. Look, it’s a scrimmage and there’s typically always going to be more excitement coming out than there was going in, but the emphasis on fundamentals and details I think really shined through with this staff and have hit home thus far.
Morris: Donaven McCulley will be First Team All-Big Ten. My biggest takeaway of all was Cignetti giving some insight into why he rode McCulley hard during the spring. But when he punctuated it by saying, “I’m sure glad we have him,” it was important to read between the lines of the coachspeak. Cignetti doesn’t strike me as a guy who wastes a lot of time on talent he doesn’t believe in. I think he thinks McCulley can be an All-American and high NFL draft pick, and he’s going to push him as hard as he can to get there. And if your best player responds to that kind of coaching like it seems McCulley is, it really helps a new coach establish a culture and foundation.
Osterman: Indiana will have a top-three offense in the Big Ten. Define that however you want, standard numbers, advanced metrics, yards, points, whatever. If IU can get some luck with injuries (which anybody needs) I think the Hoosiers can and will be very good offensively. There’s just so much depth on that side of the ball, the line play looks improved as advertised, the running back rotation is completely revamped and history says it’s unwise to bet against Cignetti and coordinator Mike Shanahan being able to pass the ball effectively. Will it be enough to make a genuine bowl push? We’ll see.
Tow: Here’s a bold one that fits the criteria. IU’s possible three-headed monster in the backfield, combined with good run-blocking, could lead to a lot of production. Indiana’s had just one season with 20 or more rushing touchdowns as a team since 2016. If the promise the running game showed last week is for real, perhaps this year’s team can crack that 20 mark.
Williams: It doesn’t feel bold enough to predict a trip to a bowl game when two-thirds of their games are at home and the road slate has a couple of matchups of intrigue. While obviously understanding it’s a brand new team and brand new coaching staff, there’s likely a good chunk of people who would say that should be the expectation regardless. One of them is the head coach. So in the business of fulfilling that and trying to deviate a bit, IU has its best chance to secure a winning season since things have turned dating back to the 2021 season. Seven wins would be quite the feat in year one, but Cignetti’s resume is full of accomplishments like it.
BSB: Indiana will have the top passing attack in the Big Ten. This staff had James Madison ranked 20th nationally in passing yards per game and graded 31st in passing by PFF. Jordan McCloud transferred to Texas State, which could tell us how much of that success was system-based vs. individual perseverance. Read more about this staff’s QB development here. IU has a QB in Kurtis Rourke who was graded as the top QB in the country in 2022, and he has, in my opinion, a top-3 pass-catching corps in the conference and a strong tackle duo. Seeing some of those WRs (as well as RBs and TEs) live and glimpses into how the scheme hopes to use them made it clear that this passing offense will be surgical. They all just need time to build familiarity for a pass-first offense. We’ve now seen that IU has the steel and the flint, but can they make fire? Plus, the Big Ten QB play was so bad in 2023, and there are still so many question marks at QB across the conference (including Indiana). Miller Moss at USC and Dillon Gabriel at Oregon might be the strongest contenders.
IUMBB seems to have gotten the upgrade in players it’s needed for a long time. IUFB seems to have gotten the upgrade in coaching staff it’s needed for a very long time. For the first time in years I don’t dread either major sports season.