olsontex

My thoughts are beginning to transition away from "what will happen" and "why it will happen", to think about instead on what I'd like to happen and what will be most beneficial long term. It starts with accepting the reality of a few things. 1) No realistic path for the Big 10 or any other conference to match the SEC's current position of strength in football. 2) Football revenue is exclusively driving THIS situation, nothing else matters, but there's no reason for me personally to care about football revenue. It ain't making my life better or worse. 3) Notre Dame will not join the Big 10 for a large and varied number of motivational and contractual reasons. It's a shame because in terms of "on the field" football they are such a logical fit 4) There is 0% chance a school like Texas A&M would even consider leaving the SEC (unless you live here in Texas, it might be hard to relate to the complexities of the Aggies relationship with the SEC and UT). People associated with TAMU consider their program on equal footing with Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia, and they're hell bent on proving it. They are chomping-at-the-bit to beat the absolute crap out of the Longhorns repeatedly in the coming years (a joy that will never get old). Their Athletics Department generates the 2nd highest revenue in the country, there is nothing the SEC won't do to retain them in the conference. Again, zero chance. Deep exhale... well that simplifies things a bit, and even opens up possibilities for leap frogging the SEC at some point in the future (depending on your perspective). But there are a few questions that need clarity before looking towards the future. 1) Why is the SEC the dominant football conference. could this change in the foreseeable future? 2) Is the completely football centric nature of this situation warping my (your) perspective? 3) What actually defines "success" for me (you) in terms of college football and the bigger overall picture? 4) Is there a longer term inevitability that will make most of the current realignment issues obsolete? I'll make a second post later on with my thoughts on these questions, and what I'd like to happen.

If IU were a country competing in the 2021 Olympics: Gold Medal Count - tied for 12th Total Medal Count - tied for 15th - Excluding Brazil, tied with the entire Continent of South America - Trailing the entire Continent of Africa by just 3 medals As the Olympics are nearing conclusion, a few countries hoping to catch up with IU include: Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Romania, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Turkey, Israel, and every country on the African Continent.

I'd be worried that in the rare years we play Kansas in football a victory wouldn't be worth anything (and a loss would be crushing). On the basketball side I'd be worried that joining the Big 10 would actually raise their already extremely high profile and it would become a match-up we might lose more often than win. While the Big 12 offers to easiest path for expansion, none of the remaining teams offer enough to move the dial. It would be a move that screams of desperation and wouldn't even come close to countering the SEC moves. I'm in the camp of either: (1) Do nothing (don't expand that is - there are some vindictive options that I think are justified) - Make sure the CFP doesn't expand from the current format of 4 teams. We aren't getting in unless we win the Big 10 anyway. If the remaining Power 5 conferences collectively keep the CFP limited, it will pour an Olympic sized swimming pool of cold water on both ESPN and the SEC. - To add maximum pain, convince the Big 12 to let OU and UT out of their Big 12 obligation immediately. I have a sense the extra TV games resulting from a 12 team field was a major element of ESPN's push for SEC expansion, as an important additional source of revenue to cover financial expectations of this coup. The Longhorn Network is owned by an ESPN subsidiary, it's a money pit, and parent network is on the hook until 2031. They currently owe Texas $160M in differed payments. I'm starting to believe a secondary element of ESPN's push to bring Texas to the SEC is the opportunity to buyout the Longhorn Network as part of renegotiating the 2025 CFP contract (assuming they can hold on to it). - No matter how good the SEC becomes, they aren't getting more than two teams in, and it's far from a given they can even get a second team in consistently. To get a second SEC team in, at least two Power 5 conferences have to be down enough that the conference champion is not worthy of a playoff spot AND there has to be a clearly deserving 1 loss team behind the SEC winner. This was a significant hurdle before adding a Top 10 and a Top 20 program to the schedule of their second place hopefuls. They've just made the road a lot harder for the old members. - Where will the money come from to help cover the conference shares for UT and OU? Watch the discontent blossom as the remaining 4 years on ESPN's exclusive CFP rights aren't enhanced 1 penny. Watch the SEC scramble to figure out where the revenue will come from to cover two more programs without reducing the pie of the other 14 programs. The only way the SEC wouldn't be negatively impacted is if ESPN takes on an even larger financial burden by making them whole, years ahead of the potential financial benefits. (2) Merge with the suitable programs in the PAC 12 for the start of next season. It's looking more like an inevitability that we're eventually moving towards a league structure that resembles the NFL. The Big 10 can get ahead of it and lock up a good chunk of the best remaining programs. Above all, block the SEC from an opportunity to be a coast-to-coast conference. My preference is for #1 with a premeditated attempt to make this situation as painful as possible for the instigators of this fiasco. Any form of deterrent to additional SEC moves would be a good thing.

I really like posts like this. I'm just as excited about what IU grads do after or outside of IU as I am with accomplishments at IU.

I agree, establishing this threat will be difference maker for taking IU into the upper echelon of college football. We already have a secondary that is equipped to take advantage of DL pressure, which will be significantly enhanced with greater play disruption. Looking at the bigger picture, one of the largest remaining factors for IU being considered as a major player in recruiting is the ability to establish a pipeline to the NFL for higher profile players. Imagine the highlight footage when our pressure ability catches up to the opportunistic (takeaways) and coverage abilities that have already taken root in the secondary.

That is my perception too, although prior to watching the Gruden video it was not as high as it is now. Beforehand, I viewed Tom Allen as a good football coach who had spent many years learning the intricacies of the game. I did not view him as an elite X's and O's strategist, I viewed him as an elite motivator, and attributed his ability to get the most out of his players as the factor that makes him an outstanding coach. That video definitely changed my thoughts on Allen as a complete coach. The two biggest takeaways for me were: 1) he distills the game down to the handful factors that truly do determine the winner of most games, and makes sure IU is positioned to win these factors 2) he thinks and game plans like an NFL Coach, which I think has to be attractive to recruits (day-in-day-out preparation for the style of football played in the NFL)

To be honest, I struggled trying to find a clear cut way to draw the line. There was a time when the hierarchy of bowl games was a lot more clear. The #2 team from conference X would play the #2 team from conference Y. This type of logic seems to be evaporating from the game as the number of teams selected for BCS bowls is not distributed evenly between conferences. Therefore, I considered the opponent, my perception of the prestige level of Baylor/IU at that point in history, W/L records, and a few other "less concrete" considerations (like "was this a slight to the program"). A reasonable argument can be made both up and down a level for the way I classified the bowls. The COVID factor played a major role in bowl pairings last year, most important being the elimination of expected attendance as a consideration. There is no question in mind that bowl selection committees strongly consider how well a team's fan base travels. Like all other bowls, The Outback Bowl attendance capacity was capped at 20% of the stadium capacity. With this element of revenue generation eliminated from the equation, decision makers were freed to incorporate a lot more logic instead of being shackled by financial consideration or conference requirements. For this reason, I think a lot of the match-ups were determined based on "story lines" and prioritizing the perceived talent of a team over their actual in season results. Our bowl match-up last year with Miss St is a good one to use an illustration. First off, the pairing really disappointed me. Not because I though Miss St was "beneath" IU, quite the opposite. A loss against a 4-5 team would be used as media fodder to knock IU back down "where we belong", and the response to a win over a 4-5 team would be indifference. The truth is two of the scariest sub-500 teams in the nation last year were Miss St and LSU. I don't view the match-up as a slight to IU, I view it as a nod of respect to Miss St. IU on the other-hand produced results on the field worthy of placement in a major bowl. Both teams are considered programs on the rise, playing in the toughest divisions of the two toughest conferences, which also contributes to the intrigue of the pairing.

Those definitely were the good old days, but I'm optimistic IU is headed there again. Hopefully in Basketball too. The best gigs for my band were always right after an IU B-Ball win. Automatic huge crowd of people ready to celebrate, especially at Jake's since there was a lot more room than Bluebird.

While researching IU's historical performance I noticed many losing seasons, and a few periods of brief success. Success during the war years. Around the turn of the century, IU was a fairly respectable program in the old Western Conference. Seven of the Eight teams would eventually move on to form the foundation of the Big 10. In 1905, led by HalfQuarter Flanker Shamus "Scoots" McGillicuddy, IU stormed to an 8-1 record upsetting the favored University of Chicago Game Theories. OK, I made up the player, his position, and the Univ of Chicago team name but the rest is true. Indiana managed just 3 winning seasons in the next 11 years. When WW I broke out, the U.S. instituted a policy of National Isolationism (ignore the world around us). By 1917 we entered the war to end all wars, as our President saw a great opportunity to capitalize on the weakened position of our European allies and assert a new world order. ** to quote Matt Damon in Goodwill Hunting, "You smart people read the wrong F-ing books. You wanna read a real history book? Read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. That book'll knock you on your ass." ** My way of recommending something worth reading for the intellectually curious, but I digress... With America now at war, IU immediately returned to form with a 5-2 record in 1917. The 1918 season was shortened to just 4 games due to the large number of young men fighting in Europe and/or dying from the Haskell County Flu (known to some as Spanish Influenza). IU went 2-2 and the war ended shortly thereafter. Over the next 23 seasons Indiana would manage a winning record just 4 times. As fortune would have it World War broke out again and in 1942 IU Football would once again rise to prominence with a 7-3 record. In the following three years the war continued raging on and so did IU Football. After a brief 4-4 stumble in '43, Indiana rattled off 7-3 and 9-0-1 campaigns the next two years. IU reached it's high watermark ranking in 1945 at #4 in the final AP poll, a feat that would be matched in 1967 but never surpassed. Unfortunately, former Indiana Daily Student writer, IU Grad, and legendary journalist Ernie Pyle couldn't provide a write-up of IU's triumph, due to a prior engagement as America's preeminent war correspondent. Ernie delivered the human side of conflict and stories of American courage home to small towns across the nation who were missing their sons. He couldn't write about IU because he was busy being cut down by enemy fire and dying in heavy fighting on Iejimi during the Battle of Okinawa. If his name sounds familiar it's probably the building named in his honor you passed many times on your way to class. IU extended their wartime success in '46 and '47 with two more winning seasons but would fade back to irrelevancy. 1948 to 1957 brought a string of 11 consecutive losing seasons, followed by 2 .500 seasons, and then 7 more consecutive losing seasons. The Vietnam Conflict had been simmering for a few years but 1967 saw the beginning of a 3-year high mark for troop deployments. 1967 also saw IU achieve it's second greatest season with a 9-2 record, a Rose Bowl match-up with USC, and a #4 AP final ranking. From this point until a few years into the Bill Mallory Era, Indiana was a mixed bag. Mostly .500ish seasons with the occasional 8-4 and 1-10 season mixed in to keep things interesting. While IU did go 7-4 in 1991, win the Copper Bowl, and spend some time in the rankings, I'm not going to tie it to the Gulf War. Indiana was already 5 seasons into the greatest 8 year run our football team has experienced. It's this stretch from 1987-1994 that's our litmus test for the current squad. I see every indication that our current "golden age" could surpass the Mallory years. As far as the peculiar timing of Indiana's best historical seasons corresponding to the height of America's wartime engagements, I'm not sure what to make of it. I spent my time at IU playing gigs at Jakes, Bluebird, and Frat parties in a band named Primitive Means, de-pledging several fraternities, and suffering through ROTC. I spent the following 8 years as an officer in the Air Force and found myself stationed for two years on Okinawa, where Ernie Pyle died. So, if you have an inkling that my first thought might have been the wartime IU Football teams were comprised of a bunch of cowards avoiding service to country... you'd be correct. However, this is not actually the reality. In 1917 Congress passed the Selective Service Act (more commonly known as the draft). Public Universities were required to provide records of undergraduates and alumni who had enlisted for service. IU reported roughly 35% of their current and past students enlisted, including members of their athletics programs. Most notable was three-sport letterman and basketball captain Charles Buschman (pictured below holding the ball). Also featured is former football legend and and newly transitioned assistant basketball coach, Scoots McGillicuddy, back row far left.... just seeing if you're still paying attention. As a surprise to no one, it was the Boilermakers who were actually trying to avoid the war. "Meanwhile in Lafayette, a Purdue sports reporter held out hope that Purdue’s athletes could avoid military service. He wrote, “If Uncle Sam can do without several of Purdue’s basketball stars until the present season is over, Purdue should be able to look forward to a very successful season.” Uncle Sam could not do without, and Purdue lost the athletic services of several basketball players as well as basketball Coach Ward Lambert, a future Naismith hall-of-famer, to the military." Outside of future Dirty Works at the Crossroads actor Dastardly Dan (back row, 2nd from right), none of these guys scare me. I think our guy pictured above (front row, far left) could take him though. One of Purdue's players (bottom row, 2nd from right) tried to get out of military service by faking a boo-boo on his knee. The situation for IU Football during WW II was similar. "Another loss from the 1944 team was halfback Robert Hoernschemeyer. Hoernschemeyer was a second-team All-Big Nine player in 1944, but he entered the Naval Academy after the 1944 season, played for the Navy Cadets in 1945, and then played 10 years of professional football. On the other hand, several players returned from military service in time for the 1945 season. Most prominent among these were Pete Pihos and Howie Brown. Pihos was a lieutenant in the 35th Infantry Division, and Brown received three Purple Heart citations for his service in the European Theater of Operations. Neither had been discharged when the season began, but they were granted 60-day leaves by the Army and returned in time for the second game of the season against Northwestern." I don't know what transpired at IU in 1967 during the Vietnam Conflict but if there was anti-war sentiment, at that point IU would hardly be alone. It would also be forgivable, given the state of politics surrounding this situation. I do know what IU was like in 1991 as the Gulf War kicked off. I was getting ready to graduate and the focus of our ROTC training changed significantly. Students were by-and-large dispassionate about the situation and protests were both minor and uneventful. This war had no impact on IU Athletics as the days of the draft were long over. It's generally a good idea to avoid topics that broach on politics. I decided to write this post because I think it offers a tiny glimpse into a few unique snapshots of interesting time periods for IU Football. I also think that our program could be on the brink of greatness and having some context of our less than fruitful history might help us appreciate it all the more. I'm not a war hawk, and I'm definitely not intending to stir the pot for anyone with strong beliefs one direction of the other. If anyone was offended I'm genuinely sorry, as I did consciously try and choose my words as carefully as I could.

This is an interesting conversation (historical relative strength of different conferences, national championships) but how much do you think it matters in the context of conference realignment? I'm assuming this prestige would translate into the SEC dominating the other conferences in terms of current recruiting classes, and the Big 10 would be behind several other conferences as well. After all, OSU is the only legitimate title contender we've had for quite a while. Right? From my perspective, the distribution of the 2022 recruiting classes doesn't reflect this assumption. Sure the SEC is in a class by themselves on the field and the top dog in recruiting, but it falls a little short of dominance over the Big 10 in the recruiting landscape. The gap does widen though when you look at the SEC top-to-bottom. Something interesting is revealed when you remove the Top 20 recruiting classes and then compare conferences. Here are the average recruit ratings for the Power 5: 86.22, 86.23, 86.06, 87.51, and 87.59. The first 3 conferences are virtually identical (attractiveness to recruits is identical for 2nd and 3rd tier Power 5 schools in these conferences.). The second 2 conferences are a step ahead and also virtually identical. Do you know which conferences are in each of these two buckets? Bucket 1: ACC, Big 10, Big 12 (if you prefer the average total points as a gauge they are: 141.13, 140.58, and 140.30) Bucket 2: PAC 12 and SEC I don't want to repeat it over and over again but prestige/appeal/marketability doesn't necessarily correlate to actual football success. Consider Notre Dame's 33 year championship drought. How about their W-L record over the 22 year period of recruiting rankings? That would be an average of W 8.0 - L 4.5 and includes 6 seasons failing to post a winning record. It also includes 11 seasons failing to even finish in the Top 25 and a mere 4 Top 10 seasons. If I hadn't mentioned "Notre Dame" would you look at these results and think "now there's an elite program!"? There's no standard formula for looking at a range of 20+ years and pinpointing a combined ranking but this looks to be around the #15-18 ranking range to me. So how has this decent but not great track record impact Notre Dame's athletic program annual revenue or their ability to recruit at a high level? Their $170M revenue and $19M profit both ranked 6th in college sports last year, as it is year-in-year-out. With 20 Top 15 and 12 Top 10 recruiting classes over this period they are clearly recruiting at an elite level. If I used Texas as my example you'd see something fairly similar. This isn't a tail wagging the dog situation, it's not because "They're Notre Dame". They're "Notre Dame" because they have a large and influential national fan base who have achieved wealth and power, resulting in ND being one of the highest endowment receivers in the country. Hmm... maybe education does play a role in all this after all. Hint: if the AAU sticking point seems like a dumb rule, consider that research and education endowments absolutely dwarf athletic revenue streams. The leaders of Big Ten institutes aren't being nerdy, they're actually being just as greedy as the SEC, just along a different pathway to a much bigger pie. That's why Stanford and Cal Berkeley are particularly appealing... and why Oklahoma State's excellent Wraslin' program, 187th ranked academic profile, and lack of AAU affiliation is not. OK, so prestige and national exposure drive recruiting, and schools gain prestige and exposure largely as a result of their affiliation with a conference that's secured a national TV footprint (this is a large reason the PAC 12 led by USC is quite open to Big 10 proposals - they're current appeal is viewed as only regional). Yes, winning matters too but it devolves into a chicken and egg circular argument in a hurry. So if the Notre Dame example is true for most schools, then there must be a high correlation between annual athletic department revenue, recruiting success, and the level of a school's attractiveness to conferences in this realignment age. Key to all of this is a large fan base with disposable income, and that trumps even the relative success on the field. Advertiser dollars reach their target whether your team wins or loses... as long as you keep watching your lovable loser's games. So, about that correlation. Don't let your eyes trick you into seeing a bunch of miss-matched colors resulting from the thinly sliced tiers. Keep in mind the full population of this report is over 230 schools with close to 200 of them falling into the white shaded "Outside 45". With that in mind, simply have both a revenue and recruiting rank shaded inside the Top 45 indicates correlation, and the closer the shades the higher correlation. There are only two schools outside the Top 45 2022 recruiting classes with revenue inside the the Top 45, and vice-versa. Given how much I've written, and the fact that the conclusion from all this should be pretty apparent, I don't think anyone wants/needs me to tie a bow around a summary highlighting the implications for realignment. If you need me to, let me know and I will.

Part III - What might the next 10 years look like - the reveal and a few final comments. The mystery team is Baylor. I see you... stop coiling back in horror. If it makes you feel better, replace their name with a team you admire. It's not the name of the program that matters, it's their accomplishments and the time frame it took them to accomplish them. If it was difficult to clearly see the parallels in Part II, hopefully it's crystal clear now that I've aligned the years in the way that first caught my attention. This realignment is what I alluded to in "What might the next 10 years look like". 2009 Baylor / 2018 IU - both teams mired in a 10 season or longer stretch of futility. There are inklings of potential improvement but expectations remain low per usual. 2010 Baylor / 2019 IU - both teams get over the hump with a winning record and bowl appearance. 2011 Baylor / 2020 IU - both take a big step forward, rewarded with quality bowl games, and finish their seasons ranked #13 and #12 respectively. 2012 Baylor / 2021 IU - this is a perfect "watch out". Baylor still had a more than respectable season but it was a step back from prior year. When I look at IU's Top 10 most difficult schedule, a never before seen target on their back, and the possibility that they might have overachieved last season, a slight step back from 2020 would not be a surprise. I don't think it's something that on its' own is a reason for concern regarding IU's positive momentum. It's also not a given that they will step back. IU ends the season with a quality bowl win and a #23 ranking. 2013 Baylor / 2022 IU - Just like that Baylor rebounds to 2011 form and even reaches #3 in the polls during the season. More importantly they win the Big 12. IU has a few high level upperclassmen in 2020 and projects to have a decent number of players drafted, but on paper the majority of the talent is in the youth of the program. With a 4* mix getting closer to 50% in the starting lineup, IU will have personnel matching the upper tier coaching and culture of the program. Sure looks like a team capable of being 1 of the 13 best in the nation. IU's 2023 recruiting class matches the Top 20 profile of the 2022 class. IU loses their bowl game by double digits against Texas A&M and ends the season ranked #16. 2014 Baylor / 2023 IU - Baylor is officially out of the woods for being labeled a flash in the pan. They demolish Oklahoma and Texas on their way to winning their second consecutive Big 12 Championship. Baylor spends the final 10 weeks of the season ranked inside the Top 10. They lose a 1 point thriller in the Cotton Bowl and have to settle for 7th in the final poll. Their momentum is clear to high end recruits and they land 5 4* kids, but that's become normal. In 2023 the core of IU's talented youth are now emerging as confident and experienced Power 5 players. As a result of the uncertainty and turmoil plaguing schools outside of the SEC, IU is able to secure a half dozen elite transfers. They finish 2nd in the B10 East and earn a bowl bid against heavily favored Notre Dame. In the 3rd quarter, IU is hit with the dreaded new 25 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct by the fans. The hatred of all schools for all schools as a result of realignment bitterness is palpable. Indiana wins anyway as IU picks off 3 passes and returns a stripped ball for a touchdown. Final season ranking #9. 2015 Baylor / 2024 IU - Baylor has earned enough respect to begin the season ranked #4. The Big 12 was expected to be tough but not nearly as tough as it ultimately would become. Eight weeks into the season Baylor is 8-0 and ranked #2 for the 3rd week in a row, a 3 game stretch against ranked opponents (2 on the road) awaits them. *** Let's pause for a second and take stock. A team that just 6 seasons earlier was the doormat of the Big 12, transformed into an upper tier program with sustained success, and was now 8-0, ranked #2 in the nation, and a front runner for the National Championship. *** It would not turn out that way. Baylor lost a close one to #12 Oklahoma but rebounded with an extremely impressive road win over #4 Oklahoma State. They received the dagger the next with a double OT loss on the road to #15 TCU. Baylor would go on to redeem themselves with a Citrus Bowl victory over #10 North Carolina and finish the season ranked 13th. IU begins the season ranked #10. A heartbreaking home loss to Penn State drops IU to 5-1 and a trip to face undefeated Ohio State awaits them. In what has become the trademark of IU football, they parlay 3 OSU turnovers into 24-10 lead mid way through the 3rd quarter. Ohio State tightens the contest but never really threatens IU for the win. The 9418 IU traveling fans tear down OSU's goal posts... in both end zones and begin looking for other trophies. Indiana is one game away from a one loss regular season and a potential shot at a National Championship. An over confident IU squad uncharacteristically loses focus and falls to Purdue 29-22 in the season finale. Nevertheless they have reached the heights of double digit wins and are once again headed to a major bowl. 2016 Baylor / 2025 IU - Embroiled in a major sexual assault scandal involving Baylor players, the University dismissed multiple key players and terminated Art Briles just 3 months before the start of the season. The now depleted Baylor squad led by an interim coach manages to win their first 6 games and is ranked 8th entering a road match-up against Texas. A capacity crowd of 98,000 T-sippers revel in a one point win by Texas, and the wheels come off for Baylor. They proceed to lose their next five games before ending the season on a positive note with a bowl win over Boise State. A new normal for IU Football is now firmly established. I'm not going to speculate on where we go following our profile rising to a Top 4 Big 10 program, 8-10 wins per year, a perennial Top 20 ranking, the potential to crack the Top 10 and compete in the BCS, and upper echelon recruiting classes year-in-year-out. It may not be Alabama, Clemson, and Florida every year, but there will be an "Alabama, Clemson, and Florida" every year awaiting IU if we are fortunate enough to be an occasional national title contender. I don't know if IU will ever be able to climb the pile to the very top. But I'm confident as long as we retain our "team first" winning culture and have Coach Allen beginning each season with a game film review of the soul crushing 2024 loss to Purdue and a message on retaining focus, then I don't think anyone is out of our league. 2017 Baylor / 2026 IU - Following a max exodus of transfers Baylor barely resembles a Div I football program heading into 2017. They can't overcome their lack of talent or the dark cloud hanging over their program and finish the season 1-11, their worst mark in 19 years. IU continues translating it's winning culture into winning football, business as usual. 2018 - 2019 Baylor - A remarkable thing can happen when you establish a consistent culture of winning and achieve sustained success on the field. It's actually possible to overcome even the most gloomy of situations. Baylor responded from their 1-11 complete meltdown in 2017 to finish 2018 with a winning record and a bowl victory. They took that moment into the 2019 season and rattled off an 11-1 regular season record, a #7 ranking, and a date with #6 Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship game. Oklahoma proved to be too much as did their Sugar Bowl opponent #5 Georgia. Still, after the dismissal of their coach and a very large chunk of the players just two years earlier, an 11-3 record and #13 final ranking demonstrates their resiliency. I believe IU is on the cusp right now of firmly establishing that same level of resiliency and culture. If we can achieve a reasonable level of success in 2021 I believe it will be here to stay. Well, I didn't plan to make this a 4-Part post but I also underestimated the depth of the parallel I would end up writing. Part IV will be the conclusion and include a look at important variables emerging in the 2021 college football landscape.

The topic of conference realignment is really prone to getting sidetracked with aspects that seem like they should matter, but in reality are insignificant. I'm not speaking in absolutes, but things that by-and-large don't matter: 1) Any sport other than football (not even basketball) 2) Football - historical rivalries 3) Football - Past glory (other than revenue over the past 5-10 years) 4) Market size of the region where a school is located (regionally based TV scheduling is obsolete) 5) Conference charters and contractual obligations to a conference (good lawyers and deep pockets trump contracts) 6) Geographic location relative to regional location of the conference Things that do matter: 1) Level of national TV draw 2) The size of the school's national fan base and annual football revenue 2) The side of the academics/sports coin wielding the power within the conference (athletic department or president/chancellor) 4) Expected future performance on the field (think of "future" in terms of TV Contracts - 10 years) Digging into conference and specific athletic program financials is extremely eye-opening and brings a lot of clarity to which schools are even in consideration for the SEC, Big 10, and ACC conferences. Others have mentioned this in the thread already so I'm not going to rehash it. I will include a few links though. Since COVID severely impacted the financials last season, I prefer to look at 2018-2019 as a baseline. Keep in mind private schools aren't included but it's relatively easy to find their revenue totals (P/L is a bit more tricky). I've also included an interesting article on Alabama's athletic budget and a report on Notre Dame athletic department financials. NCAA Athletic Department Revenue The things you learn reading Alabama’s $164 million athletics budget closely University of Notre Dame Sports Information

Part II - What might the next 10 years look like? The table below breaks out the seasonal results for another school that seemed to come out of nowhere and establish a sustained presence on the national scene. In the 14 seasons prior to the breakout of School X, their record was 43-117 and they managed to win more than 1 conference game just 3 times. In the 14 seasons prior to the breakout of School X, IU's record was 52-109 and they failed to win more than 1 conference game 8 times. No point in splitting hairs between IU and School X, prior to 2010 they're both the very definition of bottom of the barrel programs, seemingly headed nowhere. Both schools would love to be Iowa or even Michigan State. The idea of competing with programs like Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Clemson, or Ohio State isn't a thought even in the most distant recesses of their minds. I'm not going to mention what changed for School X until Part III, as that's not the point of this section. So what is the point then? There's a perception that the gap between the elite programs and the average-to-good programs is massive, some might think nearly insurmountable. Programs like Iowa and Michigan State are historically "good" but they're not going to challenge Ohio State or Michigan for conference supremacy as anything more than a single season anomaly. They're often bowl worthy but not legitimately in the national hunt for a Top 5 finish. Never mind what this implies for programs like IU or School X. Yet, School X shattered that perception. Over the next 10 seasons they accomplished the following: 5 double digit win seasons 2 conference championships 6 major bowl game appearances (9 overall) 5 times with a final ranking inside the Top 13 3 consecutive seasons floating inside the Top 4 (i.e. actually competing at the same level as Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Clemson, or Ohio State) Enough national recognition to begin one season with a #4 Pre-Season ranking I don't know about you, but I consider this list of accomplishments as borderline elite and certainly the level I hope IU is able to reach. Consider where School X came from (the previous 14 seasons) and the added fact School X did not profile as a strong football program in their distant past either. I'll also add in that School X did not have as much going for it as IU does 2022 either. I think this is evidence that it's actually possible for a program like IU to rise to heights that only a short while ago would have seemed preposterous. In Part III I'll reveal who School X is (if you haven't already guessed) and mention a few aspects of their rise to prominence. I'll also offer opinions on the landscape in 2022 as compared to 2010 and how that impacts IU's chances of a similar meteoric rise.

This is a 3-Part post intended to identify concrete reasons for sustainable optimism in IU Football. Part I will focus on three components I think are key reasons for the rise of the program. Part II will offer a comparative scenario of another program (name withheld) that made a sudden significant jump in national relevance. Part III will be the reveal of the school profiled in Part II and briefly touch on potential implications of conference realignment for the current momentum of IU football. I welcome both additional insights and alternate view points, along with corrections if I stated anything incorrectly. Part 1 - Three components that give me optimism for the future of IU Football For so long the future of IU Football has appeared a rather bleak landscape, and I'll be honest, I became indifferent years ago. Don't write me off as a fair-weather fan though. You see, I had rather modest expectations as I was fortunate enough to attend IU the last time they were even remotely relevant (87-92). I expected the team to hover slightly above .500, make a decent bowl game every other year, and crack the Top 25 for a few weeks every now and again. I expected more than the 73-159 record and just 1 minor bowl appearance IU generated over the 20 seasons from 1995-2014. When the results the next four seasons were 6-7, 6-6, 5-7, and 5-7 I viewed it as a temporary shift from terrible to mediocre. If you became an IU Football fan sometime after the early 90s it's completely understandable for you to have zero expectations. I didn't move on to another team, IU was still "my team" but I just stopped caring. What Coach Allen is building is pretty remarkable, for a vast number of reasons (which I'm not going to rehash). There are three components that have caught my attention over the last several seasons. 1) Recruiting: IU was landing a few high level recruits at the offensive skill positions, a couple of difference makers for the LB and DB defensive units (along with a few "Oladipo's" and "Anunoby's"), but securing comparable talent on the OL and DL remained elusive. Depth remained a major concern as well. Prior to the 2022 class I thought it was enough to make things interesting but not enough to breakthrough and become a legitimate threat to the traditional powers. Along with being the highest rated, the 2022 recruiting class has to be the most balanced in IU history and includes legitimate line talent. As long as we remain competitive on the field and generate a reasonable amount of national exposure, I see no reason why this paradigm shift won't be the new normal. 2) Style of Play: Nothing caught my attention more than the ball hawking nature of our secondary. IU's 2.5 Takeaways per/Game in 2020 was good for 4th in the nation. IU's nation leading 2.1 Interceptions per/Game left the rest of country in the dust (2nd best was 1.7 Int/Game). The net Takeaway Margin of 1.0 was 8th in the nation. It made me wonder if the ball was just bouncing our way a bit more than normal or if there was more to it. There's a fascinating video from 2017 (shortly before Allen's 1st season as HC) that cleared this question up for me in a hurry (link below). I'm focusing on just one aspect of coaching but I see parallels in other areas of his game planning and emphasis on specific facets of technique. I think Allen is a master at negating the size/strength advantages of our competition and the style of play is very NFL friendly (attractive for recruits). Jon Gruden & Tom Allen - Defensive Film Room 3) Culture: I imagine I'm not the only one who felt a little "cringy" the first time I heard about LEO. I no longer feel this way. There are countless examples of LEO in action that indicate the players are 100% bought in. LEO is the focal point of IU's team cohesion and it translates to great on-the-field communication and trust. Another pair of highly admirable traits of this team are their calm collective nature and consistent level of effort. They don't panic or make mistakes trying to win the game on one play. There is absolutely no quit in our team and an obvious example is their response to a 35-7 deficit on the road against the 2nd best team in the nation. I have to believe the concept of LEO plays a significant role in what we are seeing on the field. Can't wait to see where CHASE leads us. We are all in a euphoric period of genuine excitement as a result of IU's recent momentum. We are in uncharted water... or are we? Part II will focus on a scenario profiling a potential trajectory for IU football, which I'll try to post in the next few hours (I have the program identified for the scenario but it requires a bit more research and detail to put together). Not all elements will be perfectly correlated but the results are intended to demonstrate it can be done.

Kind of makes sense that West Virginia and Iowa State are starting to look like primary recruiting competition for IU going forward. Several years ago WV was definitely in a higher tier than IU so I'd call be lumped in with them is progress. This brings up an interesting question, which I get to in a moment. Here's why I think we better get used to WV and ISU as primary competition, on par with our Big 10 rivals for recruiting: 1) I don't think anyone is going to confuse the states of Iowa, West Virginia, or Indiana as prodigious sources of Power 5 recruits. These states aren't on the opposite extreme either, but clearly all three schools have to recruit heavily out of state for any shot at the CFP. We're all East of the Mississippi so there's a natural geographical component as well. 2) All 3 schools are viewed as being in the Top 15-30 range the past few seasons, have fairly similar records, similar national exposure and reputation. They are considered schools with a positive trajectory for the near term, and possibly beyond. High School kids might know a little bit about the 3 programs, but realistically they are no more than afterthoughts for out of state recruits... until the school shows interest. I think once you get past the 15 or so schools that are perennially ranked in the Top 10, there are really only two other categories of programs. The first are schools that (1) play in a Power 5 conf, (2) appeared in the Top 25 in recent years, (3) have gone to decent bowl games recently, (4) have a bit of buzz/cool factor/blue blood history, (5) have televised games are televised outside of their region, and (6) recruit aggressively at a national level. The second are schools that don't. There are a decent number of programs that have some of these 6 attributes, but there aren't many that have all 6 attributes. IU, ISU, and WVU all makes this short list. W/L Record past 3 seasons: IU: 19-14 (6-2 / 8-5 / 5-7), WVU: 19-15 (6-4 / 5-7 / 8-4), ISU: 24-15 (9-3 / 7-6 / 8-5) 3) Power 5 football recruits (Top 1000) can be classified in the following four general categories: a) Elite prospects with realistic NFL ambitions - outside of the occasional special circumstance these players aren't going to any of the 3 schools b) Good-Excellent prospects who want to stay home (or local) - not going to IU/ISU/WVU, none of the 3 states produce enough of them to sustain the 3 programs c) Below the talent threshold to be considered primary targets - not going to IU/ISU/WVU because they aren't even being recruited d) Good-Excellent prospects who are considering going out of state - I don't know the numbers but I would be surprised if it's higher than 40% Suddenly, we're talking about a modest number of recruits who fall in category "d" and a fairly small number of schools that fit the 6 criteria mentioned above. There are no other options for programs in less rich football hotbeds if they want to remain nationally relevant (transfers and JUCOs require recruiting too). The intersection of "up for an adventure" recruits and the limited number of college programs with the necessary selling points to attract them is naturally going to result in seeing mostly the same suspects when kids make their final list of schools. Especially if recruits West of the Mississippi continue to be largely ignored by schools East of the Mississippi. It's a short list but it's got to be more than just IU, ISU, and WVU. Schools from Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma should be excluded (arguably MS, AL, LA, and TN should be excluded too). A few other schools that I think might fit the criteria are Northwestern, North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, and 1 Non-Power 5... Cincinnati. If my thoughts are close to reality then I think we're going to see the same 8-10 out-of-state schools competing against in-state schools over and over again. Maybe this has been the norm for years, but since IU was not in the picture we were oblivious to it. Do you think I'm over simplifying it? Are there other schools you think belong on the list? BTW - I know we just "lost out" to Illinois but I question if IU went all out for Miller once Cooper Committed. I don't think Illinois belongs on the list.

Is there anyone in the nation that Monds doesn't know? I wonder if there's anything to take from this impression... good guy, charismatic, natural leadership skills? Should never underestimate the value of having a player that others gravitate towards, it can evolve into both locker room and on the field leadership. Would be awesome to get a commitment this late in the process for a RB/ATH of his caliber. Makes me wonder if there might be momentum with other high level players that are currently under the radar for the general public.

Not entirely sure but I do have some thoughts. Unfortunately the only school in Texas where I have any connections is SMU, and that's only when he decides to share something. Not the kind of relationship where I can really ask questions. I used to be able to get pretty solid information about the comings and goings at Texas A&M but that ended at the beginning of the Jimbo Fisher era. If we're ever involved for a recruit from Highland Park HS though, I'm well positioned to provide excellent feedback, and I'll leave it at that for plausible deniability! Unrelated to the last statement, two of my nephews played locally and graduated in the last 5 years (one 6A and the other 4A). Both we're recruited and both were injured severely enough to end their football days. The 4A nephew played TE and was getting regular communication from Notre Dame before the injury. The best program recruiting the 6A nephew, who played Center, was Arkansas. At 6'3" 220, I'm on the smallish side in family photos. The first thing I'll say is there are similar dynamics in football recruiting in Texas as there are for basketball in Indiana. The state is partitioned off into regions of recruiting ownership/dominance, and because it's so large if often doesn't make sense for schools to invest resources in low percentage battles. As an example, the Aggies may be one of the top two programs in the state but they're a distant 5th in the DFW area behind UT, OU, TCU, and SMU, and it seems they've all but given up trying. Just like Indiana, it means they don't have strong relationships with HS coaches in some regions or make much effort to scout these regions. For the second tier schools it's like patchwork and based a lot more on relationships, so it's not as simple as just looking at a map and inferring school X should recruit a particular area that may only be 100 miles away. Second, certain parts of country are rightfully known for certain types of attributes, even if these are over-generalizations. If you want speed look to Florida and Georgia. If you want beef for your line look to places like Texas and the Southern States to the East. Case in point, Baylor's primary hunting grounds are right in the heart of where Lynch plays so you'd think he'd be a priority target. They've signed 3 OTs for this class, all of them are from Texas, and all of them are ranked nearly identical to Lynch (942,972,984). I want to stop short of saying this type of player is a dime-a-dozen in Texas, maybe a fifty cent piece a dozen? Why them and not Lynch? Well, let's swing it back to relationships. if you take a close look at his Westlake teammates, Baylor didn't offer #545 bookend OT Connor Robertson either. They made at best a half-hearted offer to #65 and the 5th highest ranked QB in the nation Cade Klubnik, and were eliminated very early on from consideration. I don't think it's because Baylor thinks Robertson sucks and Klubnik was just a backup plan. At a certain point you have to start assuming this isn't coincidental and summize instead that Baylor's coaching staff has great connections at the other Austin H.S. 10 miles away (which they do), and 4 other schools in Westlake's district, but doesn't have any inside track at Westlake. Baylor probably just took the path of least resistance and is in the enviable position of having a lot more local options than schools in other parts of the country... like Indiana. Finally, let's not forget that he did receive offers from Oklahoma State, TCU, and Southern Miss. I can tell you first hand that there are TCU favored schools and there are SMU favored schools, which differs a bit from Indiana where PU and IU go head-to-head more often than not. While neither Indiana school is going to be scared off by the other, it's a bit different for TCU and SMU. I think I've covered Baylor and SMU so here's a quick explanation on the "reluctance" of the other Texas schools + OU to offer: Texas Tech - Lubbock is in far West Texas, 373 mi away from Austin. For perspective, it's the same as asking why IU didn't offer Joe Blow in Huntsville, AL (379 mi away) Houston - This one is a little tougher to figure out, as they did offer his teammate OT Robertson. Very few of Houston's offers were to players in this part of the state, which is about the equivalent of IU trying to recruit Fort Wayne. Maybe Robertson was a site unseen offer (like most of Houston's other offers to high ranked players in Central Texas). Maybe they didn't want to offer two players playing the same position on the same team. Maybe they didn't like Lynch as player, although I find this one to be least plausible reason. UT, OU and Texas A&M - this is the easiest one of all. These 3 schools target and land Top 300 OL talent, simple as that. I haven't seen Lynch play so I can only really comment on the exceptionally high level of competition he's faced in his high school career. Hoover's was pretty damn high, Lynch's is even higher. BTW, did anyone else notice Penn State has landed 8 4* recruits and now has the 2nd highest rated class? So strange to see IU's name two spots behind Florida and 2 spots ahead of Clemson.

For anyone curious about the level of competition he faced, Austin Westlake defeated Southlake Carroll and #1 recruit in the nation QB Quinn Ewers (OSU commit) to win the 2020-21 Texas 6A state championship. They are riding a 24 game winning streak against Texas 6A competition. Among the 8 teams in their league (district) there are 5 Top 100 recruits including a pair of 5-stars. Bray Lynch is the 4th highest ranked recruit on his team, the 3 teammates ranked ahead of him are: #51 TE Jaden Greathouse (2023) #65 QB Cade Klubnik (Clemson) #545 OT Connor Robertson (Texas) Westlake's record and ranking: 2021-22: Preseason ranked 4th in the nation 2020-21: 14-0, won the 6A state championship, ranked 1st in Texas, ranked 3rd in the nation 2019-20: 15-1, ranked 5th in Texas, ranked 17th in the nation https://www.maxpreps.com/high-schools/westlake-chaparrals-(austin,tx)/football/videos.htm?videoid=c26a0b41-eb25-4a2d-bec7-7cd58fac4f6c

Both of these data tables are pretty interesting. I love stuff like this. One small thing that might make them even more telling is to add in visits from these players.

It's not surprising in the sense of how much appeared to be telegraphed the past few days, but on a personal level it doesn't make much sense to me. All of our opinions are subjective on the relative advantages of different schools and for me I'd rank Syracuse in a tie with VT at the bottom of the list. Academically Syracuse is a decent school, with a somewhat noteworthy basketball tradition. There is reasonable consistency in their program but there is also nothing to get all that excited about, especially in recent years. I know it feels hypocritical as an IU fan to comment on the lack of recent relevancy of another school, but oh well I don't care. The truth is the last time Syracuse made any noise on the national stage was 8 years ago in the 2013-2014 season. Since then they've missed the tournament 3 times in 7 years and been seeded 10, 11, 8, and 11 in years they made it in. Yes, they happened to reach the Sweet 16 3 times but nothing more. That last sentence encapsulates pretty much everything appealing about their program. They managed to win more than 1 game in the tournament a few times. Please tell me 2 wins vs. 1 win in the tournament isn't the in a vacuum deciding factor for the overall merit of a program. It's too early to say if Taylor has an NBA future, but like an overwhelming number of players I'd guess no. NC, UVA, and IU are all superior to Syracuse from an academic standpoint and arguably offer a bigger basketball stage (certainly no less). In the case of UVA it's many tiers ahead academically and in the case of NC it's many tiers ahead in terms of national exposure. In IU you've got a better academic school, a bigger national basketball presence, and current buzz/momentum exceeding just about every other school in the country. It just leaves me scratching my head. As adults we have the benefit of life experience so it's a bit silly to try and place ourselves inside a kids head. Still, I'm left wondering what the heck he could have seen or perceived that led him to think Syracuse is a better option for both his short term development and long term prospects.

No doubt there is there is an abundance of talent all throughout the South, and I couldn't agree more that MS, TN, AL, and especially GA aren't far behind in terms of producing that talent. I know I over-simplified the regional areas of recruiting emphasis by using state lines and in hindsight it's detracting from my actual point that just because Hoover didn't receive an offer from UT, OU, or A&M doesn't mean he wasn't highly sought after in this region. It was a good win for IU. I think Texas should be at least on equal footing with Florida in terms of priority for IU recruiting. Someone commented earlier about the over-ranking of receivers compared to linemen (which I completely agree with and was the reason I pointed out Demon Moore as one of our most important targets). I wonder if there's a similar dichotomy surrounding the state distribution of players in the rankings. I don't think this is happening inside the top 100 but in the interest of keeping fans outside of the traditional hotbeds interested in their publications I think it might come into play for the remainder of rankings. In my high school senior year, pretty much our entire starting lineup should have been selected to the season end all tournament team. There were only a handful of players on other teams that would have even had a shot at breaking into our lineup. However, that's not how things work because no one wants to face backlash. Therefor we live in a world where creating the perception of "equitable" is often a goal that creates artificial bias. What I'm getting at is I wonder how many kids in the South or California are being under ranked simply to squeeze in a bit a national balance. Before anyone questions if I'm saying there isn't any talent outside of the South, of course I'm not saying that. However, I am saying if these rankings were assembled by some omniscient entity instead of by a business aimed at generating revenue, I wonder if a player like IU target Cam Robertson (staring at another DFW powerhouse - Plano) would be ranked 783 instead of 1121. If we land Robertson I wonder if we as a community would be more excited about him if he were ranked 783 instead of 1121, even though it changes absolutely nothing. Playing against better competition generally leads to a better skillset. All that said, believe it or not I was actually trying to move past this part of the discussion and share a bit more detail about Josh Hoover.

Having lived in the DFW Metroplex for 20+ years now, I consider this commitment to be more significant than it might first appear. I want to hit on the topic of recruiting in the SW and then focus on the level of competition Hoover faced. 1) Cracking the nut that is the Southwest Region I've been thrilled with IU's ability to recruit competitively in Florida, that's no small feat. I don't want to suggest that the number of schools and level of competition we are battling for Florida kids is anything less than extremely high, but I actually think Texas might be on an even (slightly) higher plateau in terms of an uphill battle. This is a result of both the number of top tier regional options as well as the perspective on playing anywhere outside of the SEC or BIG 12. I think it's fair to say the out of region competition for Florida and Texas prospects is probably equivalent. The difference comes into play for closer-to-home options. The Florida list is impressive but I think the Texas list is higher. It's not necessarily only about the relative status of the programs, it's also about the sheer number of programs, and willingness of recruits to leave the region. Florida (11): Florida, Florida St, Miami, South Florida, UCF, Georgia, Ga Tech, Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, and South Carolina Texas (15): Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, TCU, Houston, SMU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Tulsa, Arkansas, LSU, Louisiana- Lafayette, La Tech, Ole Miss, Miss St Josh Hoover is the type of QB recruit that every school in my Texas list targets (excluding Texas, OU, and LSU). I think it's a slighter bigger deal to beat out Arkansas, Houston, Tulsa, SMU, and La Tech for Hoover than it might appear for people living outside of the region. Especially considering IU's profile in the SW has been virtually non-existent. I unfortunately lived in Orlando for 2 years in addition to many years in Texas (San Antonio and Dallas) so I've had a chance to gain perspective on how a school like IU or the BIG 10 for that matter is perceived in these football hotbeds. As a BIG 10 guy all the way, it's hard to accept/imagine that schools like Tulsa or La Tech are viewed on roughly the same level as middle and third tier BIG 10 programs within the region. Unfortunately my disbelief doesn't make it any less true. Let me rephrase what I said a moment ago, if we consider Tulsa a "Mid Major" the perspective around here until recently is that a school like Indiana or Minnesota is a "Mid Major". Very few higher end 3-star and up recruits have historically given BIG 10 schools (outside of OSU, UM, PSU, and occasionally Wisconsin or Iowa) even a second thought. The Florida kids seem to be a bit more open to out of region options although that didn't really include IU until recent years. Opening up a "second front" in Texas might expand our pool of opportunity just enough to get over the hump and remain nationally relevant on a yearly basis. ANY inroads we make in Texas are significantly important. 2) Josh Hoover's level of competition Hoover put up those 3536 yards and 36 TDs in his Junior year against extremely stout competition. He also started as a Sophomore passing for 2926 yards and 32 TDs. Rockwall-Heath plays in a 6A conference facing the likes of Southlake-Carroll (nationally ranked #15 in 2020), Cedar Hill (nationally ranked #26 in 2020), Rockwall-YJ (fringy top 100 nationally) and inner-city Skyline is no picnic either. Against historical state and national powerhouse Southlake Carroll, Hoover passed for 405 yards and 4 TDs with a 126.5 QB rating. His team would eventually lose in overtime 27-24 to state champion runner-up Cedar Hill and 247sports #47 recruit Kaidon Salter (QB) in the regional finals. This is big-time Texas football at the highest level. Rockwall-Heath finished 2020 as the 17th ranked school in Texas with an 11-3 record. After finishing last season as the 17th ranked 6a team in Texas, in 2021 Rockwall-Heath returns Hoover, 3 of his top 4 receiving targets, and a 1200 yard rusher. I have a hard time gauging high school defenses when the average score is 43-30. While the competition is immense, they are at least in the hunt for the state title. A deep playoff run will likely increase Hoover's notoriety and national exposure. I should mention the only time I've seen Rockwall play was in 2020 against #30 nationally ranked Highland Park... and it was Rockwall-YJ not Rockwall-Heath (i.e. I haven't seen Hoover play)! I don't think this detracts from my perspective though, since my aim is to paint a picture of his competition. Of the schools Rockwall-Heath is battling for a state title, 15 were ranked nationally inside the top 60 high school football teams in America last year. When I watched video of Hoover I saw pocket presence, accuracy, and a strong arm... leaving me wondering if this guy is only the 36th ranked QB what are they feeding these kids. On a side note aimed at placing Rockwall-Heath in the overall hierarchy of Texas athletics, they won the 2021 Texas 6a State Championship in Baseball and finished as the 23rd ranked team in the nation. Hoover was their top pitcher going 11-0 with an ERA under 1.00. His fastball is in the 87-90 MPH range. BTW, his younger brother is emerging as a pretty good athlete too. Here's Josh Hoover's home field in Rockwall (10,000 capacity). 3) What is Hoover lacking compared to the QB's ranked ahead of him? As a few others have mentioned, about 2 inches (I know what you're thinking... don't say it!). However, don't mistake "short" with slight of build (see photo below). If there is concern about his running ability, it's probably legitimate. In his 24 starts he's rushed a grand total of 13 times for 58 yards. When you look at how bulky he is it makes sense, but it might also make you think he'd be effective in short-yardage goal line situations. You'd be right as 5 of those 13 carries were goal line plunges for TDs. I'm not expecting Josh Hoover to come in and overtake the QBs currently in front of him but I don't think of him as some guy on the end of the bench holding a clip board either. He could develop into a guy we'll be glad we have if our starter gets injured and possibly even emerge as our starting QB his last two years of eligibility. Let's not sell him short. Hoover is on right.

Thanks Leathernecks. I also agree with you on the thinly veiled objective of ranking services (interest->money). To your point, they are playing to the crowds of the most popular teams. Stating the obvious, these teams are popular because they win, and they win because they consistently reload with higher caliber players. It might seem based on my post that I place a large emphasis on rankings but that's not actually the case. I think rankings are a useful gauge of relative potential... and one other thing that I'll mention in my last paragraph. There are many posts in the forum where people state they don't care at all about rankings, and not a whole lot that proudly admit to viewing them as extremely important. I find it hard to believe than anyone truthfully doesn't care at all. Regardless how we fans view rankings, I'm pretty confident there is one group of people who care a ton, follow them closer than they would publicly admit, and most importantly are at least somewhat influenced by them. That would be the high school kids being recruited. In the social media age it's quite clear that the level of communication between recruits is next level compared to even a decade ago. Perceptions are shared on a daily basis and that leads to influence. Maybe they want to play at a buzz-worthy school, maybe they want to be a part of a class that is numerically recognized as great, or simply play with other guys that are perceived to have a certain level of ability based on a ranking. It's fair to say that perceptions created by individual player rankings and the ranking of a school's class have potential to factor into a recruit's assessment of a school and ultimately where they commit. For that reason alone we shouldn't completely discount the importance of where we stand, even if we know there is biased gamesmanship in place to drive revenue over truth. It becomes a closed loop, especially in football. We need to be inside that closed loop if we want to sustain year over year consistency as a destination school for the types of players needed to compete in the BCS.

For anyone who manages to suffer through my painfully long post, and somehow manages to still have the strength to post a reply, I've moved this most over to http://www.hoosiersportsnation.com/index.php?/topic/8538-2022-class-rankings-and-discussion/ (page 6 I think). I also modified it a bit to hopefully make a few points more coherent.

The timing of my post is a bit less than ideal, given the focus (including mine) on this thread right now is entirely on another commitment expected to drop. I originally posted my comment in a new thread but it was suggested that my topic would fit in nicely in this thread. Counting were I first starting writing my post - third time's a charm, that's what I always say (not really). I started writing the following novel in the '2022 QB Josh Hoover' thread in response to btownqb's comment: "A commitment from Hoover moves us to like 33rd overall and we'd be the highest ranked team with 6 commits." I decided to be a respectful poster and not clutter the John Hoover thread with a comment that was only marginally related at best. It's hard sometimes to have the foresight that a post is going to veer too far off course to belong in a specific thread, then again sometimes it should be blatantly obvious. I don't know if it bothers other folks all that much but it's a pet peeve for me so I don't want to add to the problem. OK, moving on... btownqb's comment reflects exactly how I think about the quality of a recruiting class, and I doubt I'm alone. I've never understood the logic behind team recruiting rankings being based on an accumulation of points, even when individual players are weighted in a somewhat non-linear manner. This approach works much better for basketball than football but even then it's not ideal. When I was a little kid I wasn't always the best brother. I would trade "money's" with my sisters and feign consternation over giving up the "prettier" looking coins, larger sized coins, or MORE coins (most applicable to the current team ranking system). A typical trade would be something like 1 quarter, 5 nickles, 10 5-pfennig coins, and 6 pennies in exchange for 1 franc, 6 dimes, and 7 20-pfennig coins. If this multi-currency example seems bizarre, it's a product of growing up as an ex-pat living in both Belgium and Germany. For my example I didn't choose these coins or denominations randomly. My sister landed a recruiting class of 22 coins that includes 1 high 4-star, 15 3-stars inside the top 247 1250 players, and 6 3-stars or 2-stars outside the top 1250. - I landed a recruiting class of 14 coins that includes 1 5-star, 4 4-stars, and 9 3-stars inside the top 247 1000 players. My class includes 1 major difference maker, 4 high impact players, and 9 useful players most of whom will eventually start or see regular action. - My sister's class includes a player who will gain national attention, 8 players who will becomes average starters, 7 players who will see action but not enough to make much significant impact, and 6 players who will function as practice dummies. To reel this back to football, roughly 55-60% of players on scholarship will actually play regularly and determine the success or failure of the program. Let's be generous and set it at 55 players, and not forget that a few transfers will come in and take someone's playing time too. With the Redshirt system our team is comprised of 5 recruiting classes. A few players from each class will transfer out, become too injured to continue, or simply wash out. The question is how many QUALITY players does a team need on average in each class from a playing time perspective, and how many players in a class typically make an impact on a program. In my mind that's where the cutoff should be set for ranking recruiting classes. Slight detour from my main topic - I'm convinced that a smaller class with a bit higher perceived potential in combination with becoming a top tier destination for disgruntled formerly high ranked players in the transfer portal is the path for IU to remain relevant year-in-year-out. As we continue to build momentum by winning on the field and the buzz around the positive culture within the program grows, we should not lose sight of a less positive factor. Without the previous two mentioned elements we aren't even in the conversation for highly rated recruits, but the minute we start to over recruit we are going to run into problems. Playing time and "bigger fish in a medium sized pool syndrome" are also significant factors. I hate Michigan and Ohio State but at the same time I wish we were Michigan or Ohio State. I've thoroughly enjoyed the sense that we are relatively to close to Michigan these last 2 seasons in terms of ability, but I'm not going to mistake that for equivalent national prestige. Maybe in time we will be but we aren't close at the present. OK, back to my actual topic. In high school I was a basketball and baseball player but was intent on playing a sport in all 3 seasons to help stay in shape. I made the football team but my 6'3 175 pound wirey frame was not designed to play TE and DE, nor was I fast enough to play CB. I flipped to Cross Country the next season thinking it would be less taxing on my body (boy was I wrong). I bring this up because the scoring system for Cross Country is close to what I think makes sense for ranking College Football recruiting classes. In Cross Country the team consisted of 15 runners of which 12 could participate in a given race. The top 7 finishes of the 12 runners would count for scoring. This number is obviously too low for football recruiting rankings but conceptually I think it's the right approach. Especially if combined with an intelligent and dynamic weighted player ranking system. Here's what I think makes sense: Base the team score on the 15 highest ranked commitments and employ a sophisticated non-linear points system within ranking tiers. If "non-linear" isn't clear, what I mean is instead of players A, B, and C being uniformly separated by increments of .01 (4.21, 4.20, 4.19), allow for deviation from a straight line "curve" (oxymoron but the right term) when appropriate. I'll illustrate one of those potential "when appropriate" scenarios in a moment (Guard vs. Skill Position) but just know there are others that I'm leaving out of this already long-winded post. Back to "15 players" - If a class only has 14 players then they receive 0 points for the 15th slot. If the 16th ranked player in a team's class is a 4-star ranked 350 they don't count. I'm not suggesting depth doesn't matter, but at a certain point the likelihood of a player receiving enough playing time to matter passes a threshold of insignificance. We have perfect examples of how this plays out if we look at some of the transfers IU has secured the past few years. They may be positioned to be big difference makers at IU but there was simply too much competition on their higher profile team for them to make an impact on par with their recruiting ranking. Alabama didn't get the expected value of a recruit ranked #350 and there was very little chance they could based on the queue in front of the player. In other words the player didn't actually add much value to their recruiting class, and it was fairly predictable before the player even showed up on campus. Why give Alabama credit in the recruiting class rankings for this player in this particular scenario? The second part of this rankings topic is about the predictive nature of players ranked at specific levels and the idea that players within specific ranking ranges should all receive the same points for team rankings. There is ample data available to assess the typical career track at each ranking range. This can be used to assign points based on the probability of a player ranked XXX making a specific level of impact on the field. "Impact" could be defined as some combination of games started, minutes played, and percentage of plays on the field. I mentioned "range" a moment ago, which I think is important. It exists to a small extent today but I think it needs a major revision. When I look at 2 WRs, one ranked 200 overall and the other 235, the idea that there is enough information to determine any real separation between the two seems unlikely. In my mind the team(s) should be awarded the same number of points for both of them. The current system awards 6.6 points for #200 and 4.4 points for #235. I chose an example of two highly ranked players but obviously once you get outside of the top 250 splitting hairs becomes even more silly. I don't know exactly where the points of separation lay within the player rankings, but I know I could easily calculate them based on historical data. There may be a positional component that needs to be considered as well. I imagine the washout rate for a Guard ranked inside the top 600 is fairly low but I think exactly the opposite for skill positions that tend to be disproportionately higher ranked. For this reason, there are very few IU targets ranked higher than Demon Moore at #414 that I consider more important potential commitments. The points accumulated by the team that lands a player like Moore are going to fall woefully short of that player's significance. I also don't know the degree of sophistication or effort that is currently being used to determine the current points system but on the surface it appears shallow and somehow simultaneously lacking in nuance while being numerically pinpoint. Anyway, this was an extremely drawn out way of saying the average player ranking of IU's 2022 recruits that btownqb pointed out is WAY more important than the overall points ranking. However, even the current perspective of average ranking is flawed in my opinion. I'm a bit tired today and I know I didn't lay this discussion out particularly well, kinda all over the place - especially with the diversions on my youth. Maybe I should change my handle to Nuke LaLoosh. I also know I could improve the current points system that is currently in place on 247 by creating a dynamic non-linear model that adjusts year-over-year to reflect changes in potential (ranking) versus results (on field impact). OK - back to commitment watch. Truly exciting times that we haven't experienced in while!