Moneyball of College Football

[Bash Riprock]

Very interesting take. Did Indiana “moneyball” college football?  Will schools in the future put a higher value on past production over future potential?  A % of both, but does it tip toward one over the other?  Give this a listen and offer your thoughts.  (If inclined) 

 

[23andCounting]

Funny you mentioned that. I was going to start a Production Over Potential thread. 

At the end of the day, Cignetti just opened the door for the kid that's a tad too short and slow, but put up big numbers. Who was the RB from Center Grove who went to Ball State? He's a good example. His numbers in high school should have impressed Power 4 schools if I'm remembering correctly. After that, he did the rest, ending up at UCLA and the NFL. 

The model is pretty simple. Pick kids who produce and are used to winning. The winning part is an important component too. 

[Sparty]

1 hour ago, 23andCounting said:

Funny you mentioned that. I was going to start a Production Over Potential thread. 

At the end of the day, Cignetti just opened the door for the kid that's a tad too short and slow, but put up big numbers. Who was the RB from Center Grove who went to Ball State? He's a good example. His numbers in high school should have impressed Power 4 schools if I'm remembering correctly. After that, he did the rest, ending up at UCLA and the NFL. 

The model is pretty simple. Pick kids who produce and are used to winning. The winning part is an important component too. 

Carson Steele

[Alduflux]

I feel the "moneyball" aspect of this story is overstated.  The principal drivers of the Indiana success story are, 1: Talent evaluation and development.  2:  Outstanding on field execution.  Put another way, coaching is the most important part of the Indiana equation.  I imagine you switch the Indiana coaching staff with any other staff in the country, and you'll watch the results follow Cignetti.

The "production over potential" at its extreme would be a team that exclusively fields JR's and SR's for the roster and abandons high school recruiting entirely.  Again, the "evaluation" part of the equation is key.  I'm guessing there are a ton of high production guys Cig looked at and correctly passed on.  Other coaches trying to mimic Cignetti will fail at the evaluation part.

[23andCounting]

1 hour ago, Sparty said:

Carson Steele

I've seen plenty of those over the years. White RB's are the biggest victim in my opinion. Twenty years ago, I think black QB's were overlooked, but no longer the case. Cignetti is re-writing the book, and everyone is taking notice. 

 

[PDB26]

On 1/25/2026 at 8:57 AM, Bash Riprock said:

Very interesting take. Did Indiana “moneyball” college football?  Will schools in the future put a higher value on past production over future potential?  A % of both, but does it tip toward one over the other?  Give this a listen and offer your thoughts.  (If inclined) 

 

I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising that the media has glommed onto this story now. To me, it illustrates the difference between the coaches and the fans/media. Some thoughts:

1. 1/3 of all portal entrants are grads, and there has been a clear preference to take developed players to plug gaps on rosters. 

2. coaches would always prefer to be as old as possible without sacrificing production—no college team needs to get younger if they’re trying to compete. IU’s roster build isn’t some novel approach.

3. I’d wager that the teams that recruit the most portal guys will naturally skew older.

4. I’d wager that the national champion has typically been among the oldest teams each year.

5. IU’s story confuses people, and the relative age of the roster has been put forward as a novel and simple explanation as a media product.

6. it is easier to get older during transition periods and most likely to happen at places where the program has been moribund.

7. Cignetti and staff deserve a ton of credit for player evaluation and culture building.

[Coach Nowlin]

2 hours ago, PDB26 said:

I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising that the media has glommed onto this story now. To me, it illustrates the difference between the coaches and the fans/media. Some thoughts:

1. 1/3 of all portal entrants are grads, and there has been a clear preference to take developed players to plug gaps on rosters. 

2. coaches would always prefer to be as old as possible without sacrificing production—no college team needs to get younger if they’re trying to compete. IU’s roster build isn’t some novel approach.

3. I’d wager that the teams that recruit the most portal guys will naturally skew older.

4. I’d wager that the national champion has typically been among the oldest teams each year.

5. IU’s story confuses people, and the relative age of the roster has been put forward as a novel and simple explanation as a media product.

6. it is easier to get older during transition periods and most likely to happen at places where the program has been moribund.

7. Cignetti and staff deserve a ton of credit for player evaluation and culture building.

 

RACK THIS POST