Indiana Hoosiers football coach Curt Cignetti’s fiery critique of the SEC’s scheduling practices has stirred the pot, leaving fans wondering if a scheduling revolution is on the horizon.
At a Glance
- Indiana’s Curt Cignetti criticized SEC football scheduling practices at Big Ten Media Days.
- Indiana adopted a scheduling model similar to the SEC, dropping Power Four non-conference games.
- The move has sparked debate about fairness and playoff selection in college football.
- Indiana’s 2025 schedule includes only Group of Five (G5) or FCS opponents.
Indiana’s Scheduling Shakeup
Curt Cignetti, the head coach of Indiana Hoosiers football, has set the college football world abuzz with his public critique of the SEC’s scheduling practices. During the Big Ten Media Days in July 2025, Cignetti defended Indiana’s decision to adopt a similar model, abandoning Power Four non-conference games. As the Hoosiers prepare for the 2025 season, their schedule includes matchups against Old Dominion, Kennesaw State, and Indiana State—none of which belong to the Power Four. This decision has sparked significant debate over the fairness of playoff selection and the evolving landscape of college football scheduling.
Under Cignetti’s leadership, the Hoosiers have been on a remarkable journey. Their 11-2 season in 2024 marked the team’s first-ever College Football Playoff (CFP) appearance. But this success came at a cost: Indiana’s playoff selection over SEC powerhouses like Alabama and Ole Miss drew criticism from those who believed their schedule was too soft. The Big Ten’s requirement for nine conference games, compared to the SEC’s eight, adds another layer of complexity to the debate. The SEC’s flexibility allows its teams to schedule weaker non-conference opponents, a strategy often criticized but defended as necessary for managing conference play’s rigors.
Cignetti’s Bold Challenge
Cignetti’s candor at the Big Ten Media Days has only added fuel to the fire. He stated, “We figured we’d just adopt SEC scheduling philosophy. Some people don’t like it. I’m more focused in on those nine conference games.” This statement underscores a broader strategic shift within the Big Ten, as teams like Indiana seek to maximize home games and minimize non-conference risks. By canceling a home-and-home series with Virginia and buying out games against Louisville, Indiana has opted for a path that could potentially ease their route to bowl eligibility and playoff consideration.
Cignetti also called for standardized scheduling across conferences to ensure fairness in playoff selection. “We need to standardize the schedule across the board if we want to have objective criteria for who should be in the playoffs and who shouldn’t,” he asserted. His challenge to the status quo and the notion of playoff entitlement based on past performances has resonated with fans and critics alike. “Nobody deserves to be in the playoffs because they’ve been in the playoffs four of the last five years. Do it on the field,” he added.
Implications for College Football
The implications of Indiana’s scheduling decision extend far beyond Bloomington. In the short term, Indiana faces criticism for weakening its schedule but gains an extra home game and potentially an easier path to postseason success. If successful, Indiana’s approach could accelerate a trend toward softer non-conference schedules across the Big Ten and other Power Four leagues. This shift may prompt calls for the College Football Playoff (CFP) committee or governing bodies to consider standardized scheduling requirements.
However, the debate is not just about numbers and wins. It’s about the integrity of college football and the balance between tradition and strategy. While Indiana fans may enjoy more home wins, they may miss out on the excitement of high-profile non-conference matchups. Other programs, like Virginia and Louisville, lose high-profile games and the associated revenue. The scheduling controversy intensifies the rivalry between the Big Ten and SEC, with potential implications for future playoff formats and power dynamics within college football.
