Over the past weekend, I was off the grid. My son graduated from college and had to be moved out of his apartment. We wanted to make sure each moment was reserved for family time to celebrate his achievement, with the rest carved out for the grunt work of moving.
I didn’t look at a computer screen for four days. I highly recommend it.
While I was away from the Indiana athletic beat, there was news. Indiana University presented its findings on the Brad Bomba sexual abuse case. Rod Clark will be joining Indiana’s men’s basketball staff from Tennessee. Highly touted recruits Davion Adkins and Caleb Gaskins were given offers by Indiana men’s basketball coach Darian DeVries.
All are important items, but what filtered through to me was something comparatively unimportant.
ESPN wrote an offseason college football story on which teams benefited the most from luck during the 2024 season.
Take a wild guess as to which team was deemed to be among the luckiest in 2024? Those plucky, playoff contenders out-of-nowhere Indiana Hoosiers were deemed to be “lucky” in multiple categories.
It’s an interesting story and not a terrible premise. I’ve seen worse from scribes who are trying to fill space during their offseason.
In the piece, written by Bill Connelly, luck is determined by favorable turnover margin, prowess in close games and injuries/starting lineup stability.
At a surface level, those are not bad categories to determine “luck,” Turnovers turn games around. The ability to win close games in football is vital. To accomplish both of the above, you need stability.
Again, all fine in a vacuum, but numbers alone can’t determine whether a team is lucky or not. Context is required, and that’s where the premise for the story runs out of steam.
Indiana ranked as the second-luckiest team in turnover margin in ESPN’s ranking system. The Hoosiers were assigned an expected turnover margin of plus-4.5, but they had an actual turnover margin of plus-15.
Expected turnover margin is partly determined by percentage of fumbles lost and passes defended that resulted in interceptions.
It’s a fascinating stat to ponder, but meaningless without taking into account the players involved.
Quarterback Kurtis Rourke gets little credit for his passing efficiency. He threw only five interceptions in 320 pass attempts. There’s nothing lucky about that. It’s a testament to his accuracy.
Indiana ball carriers only fumbled 10 times in 2024, losing five of those drops. That’s not luck, that’s player skill and coaching emphasis on avoiding turnovers. From the beginning, Indiana coaches had players work with a slippery ball in practice to get players to emphasize ball security.
On the defensive side, Indiana’s impressive pass rush forced quarterbacks into quick decisions, many of them ill-advised ones. Indiana had 15 interceptions in 2024 and recovered nine fumbles out of 16 forced. At some point, that level of opportunism isn’t luck, it’s preparedness and skill.
What I think is telling about Indiana’s turnover ranking is who is ranked ahead of them – James Madison. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Curt Cignetti’s current and former teams are ranked 1-2 in this category.
Indiana’s injury and continuity luck was also ranked second nationally. The Hoosiers only trailed Penn State in this category. ESPN created a ratio of players who started the majority of games versus players who started just one or two games.
Not a fan of this methodology. It doesn’t take into account players who played hurt – Rourke and linebacker Jailin Walker were two notable examples for Indiana – nor does it take into account starters who happened to be on the field first to fulfill a specific formation.
Luck certainly plays a role in injuries, but so does preparedness. Indiana uses multiple running backs and had some rotation in the defensive line, lessening the likelihood of injuries. Practices are also managed properly to avoid injuries. Luck plays a role, but so does preparedness.
Indiana was notably not ranked highly in close games luck for a very obvious reason – the Hoosiers hardly played any close games. Only one of Indiana’s games was decided by a touchdown or less, a 20-15 victory for the Hoosiers over Michigan.
The average score of an Indiana game was 41-16 in favor of the Hoosiers. Nothing lucky about that.
Because Indiana rated so highly in two of the three luck factors, the Hoosiers were determined to be a team that could be due a market correction in 2025.
Perhaps a more difficult schedule will create a little bit of a correction, but as far as “luck” is concerned, I don’t think that’s going to change for the Hoosiers.
One word used constantly in this column is why: preparedness.
Many observers who haven’t been as close to Indiana’s program just haven’t figured out that the secret sauce in the success Cignetti’s teams have had is being prepared. Having a plan from day one to make things happen.
That preparedness is felt from the players Indiana seeks, to the way the offseason is handled, to practices and game plans. Cignetti prides himself on being prepared himself and having his teams reflect that level of planning.
It’s really that simple. Cignetti and his staff are not out-prepared by any team. When you can achieve that standard, things like luck become far less important. I’ve never quite believed that good or bad luck are by design, but Cignetti has probably come closest to convincing me it can be true.
National observers aren’t there yet as far as their perception of Cignetti and Indiana football are concerned. They still see Indiana as a bad football brand where everything came together at once for a magical season. When you’re seen as a one-off, you get pieces published that try to explain away success with luck.
I don’t think it was luck. I do think Cignetti and the Hoosiers have to have another playoff-quality season to prove it to those outside Indiana’s sphere of influence.
Indiana just might do it.
More must-reads: