Indiana ups ante on pathetic schedule. Will College Football Playoff committee clap back?

USA Today

28-07-2025

Here's the irony in Indiana canceling games against Virginia in two upcoming seasons and replacing the Cavaliers with even meeker opponents: If the Hoosiers aren't good enough to beat Virginia, they aren't good enough to make the College Football Playoff. Heck, if they can't beat Virginia, they're probably not good enough to make the Pinstripe Bowl.
This decision isn't just pathetic. It's unnecessary.
By ducking Virginia, and flaunting its scheduling choice at Big Ten media days, Indiana is begging the selection committee to treat it like gimcrack the next time it builds something resembling a playoff résumé – if there is a next time.
And for what?
Virginia last tasted a winning season six years ago.
Curt Cignetti's upstart Hoosiers could beat Virginia when they were scheduled to play in 2027 and 2028. He just doesn't see the point in trying.
'We figured we would just adopt SEC scheduling philosophy,' quipped Cignetti, who fancies himself the cleverest man in the North.
By swapping Virginia for chum opponents, Indiana will join the many SEC teams that schedule only nine Power Four opponents. SEC schools protect Championship Subdivision games like they're gold doubloons. Unlike SEC teams, though, Indiana won't play a single Power Four non-conference opponent this season, or the next, or the next, and so on.
The Hoosiers, like some other Big Ten schools, decided the surest path to contention is scheduling the easiest possible collection of non-conference opponents. Washington coach Jedd Fisch said Cignetti's strategy to avoid Power Four non-conference opponents is "dead-on right."
Herein lies the great pitfall of the committee's selection of Indiana to the playoff last season as the No. 10 seed, despite its flimsy strength of schedule. Coaches saw Indiana's strategy work, and now they wonder if they should mimic it, at the expense of playing compelling games.
The 2024 Hoosiers capitalized on a soft schedule draw from the Big Ten, and they avoided any opponents from the SEC, ACC or Big 12. They reached 11-1 without a signature victory, but no bad losses.
The committee did not err by admitting Indiana. It lacked superior alternatives. Never mind the nonsense that Alabama, with its 9-3 résumé including two losses to 6-6 teams, built more deserving qualifications than the Hoosiers. If you believe that, you must have 'It Just Means More' tattooed on your bicep.
The committee judiciously chose the Hoosiers, but, this being a copycat sport, now we've got teams from Indiana to Nebraska trying to game theory their way into the playoff by ducking any non-conference opponent with a pulse.
The issue isn't confined to the Big Ten, either.
The SEC won't dare add another conference game to its schedule, because why welcome another tussle when you could cream some flotsam from the MAC?
Programs that knew they'd never sniff a four-team playoff wonder if they can emulate Indiana and qualify for this expanded playoff by following a Hoosiers recipe that calls for construction of the feeblest schedule possible.
The twist of it is, if a few bubble teams with superior schedule strength had not gotten upset in the season's final two weeks, the committee might have rejected Indiana from the field. Because, contrary to what the SEC's propaganda campaign would have you believe, the committee cares about strength of schedule.
Enough bubble teams lost, though, so the Hoosiers slipped in, and the industry accepted Indiana's scheduling method as foolproof, rather than foolish – until the committee reverses course, or the bubble strengthens in a future season.
Cignetti jabbed at the SEC at media days, but his quip and scheduling moves also mock the committee and its selection of the Hoosiers. He's acting as if he outwitted the committee. Beware, because the committee is an evolving organism, unbound by past selection strategies.
The committee never barred an undefeated Power Four team from the four-team playoff – until it shunned 13-0 Florida State to make room for the SEC's one-loss champion. What's to stop the committee from rejecting the next 11-1 team that slinks into Selection Sunday touting three triumphs against non-conference lackeys that can't spell football, and not a single win against a ranked opponent?
Nothing.
Committee membership changes. Its chairperson changes. Situations change. No two seasons unfold the same way.
If the committee believes it's being played for a fool by Cignetti and others like him, perhaps it will stiffen its spine against a team that uses a weak schedule as a catapult to a strong record.
The persistent reluctance to schedule tough non-conference games remains an anchor preventing college football from ascending to a higher perch. The committee wields power to spur some evolution on that non-conference scheduling strategy. If the committee starts rejecting bubble teams that play nothing but slappies in September, I suspect we'll begin to see fewer schedules devoid of Power Four non-conference opponents.
Until then, if Cignetti fears a game against Virginia, then he must not believe he's built one of the nation's top 12 teams. Maybe, the committee will learn to trust his judgment.
Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network's national college football columnist. Email him at [e-mail] and follow him on X @btoppmeyer.