IU Football: The Surprisingly Reasonable B1G Dark Horse
IU Football: The Surprisingly Reasonable B1G Dark Horse
Now I know what you're thinking, I hear you, but stranger things have happened in CFB...
If we’re both going crazy, then we’ll go crazy together, right?
- Mike, Stranger Things
Do you know when the last time was that Indiana won the B1G conference title? …No? That’s okay—me neither. I’m guessing it was a long time ago. In fact, it was 1967 when they last won the conference outright, and the only other title they hold is from WW2 era CFB, 1945. Christ Almighty. There are only three other programs in the B1G who have fewer titles than IU, and they are all programs who joined the conference in the last 20 years (Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers).
Poor old Indiana. Nobody ever expects anything from them—“just a basketball school”, they say… Even if you inserted Eleven with all her telekinetic powers into IU’s starting… eleven… they’d probably still have a tough time getting over OSU, UM and PSU—well, maybe.
Inspired by CFBDepth’s tweet this past Friday, I decided to take another look at this program, attempting to understand his perspective.
I don’t know if I’m there yet on IU being top five in the conference in terms of talent, but I don’t think it’s an outlandish statement by any means. Obviously OSU is #1 in terms of returning talent for 2024, maybe even in the whole country. PSU would probably be my pick for #2. UM and USC would be somewhere ahead of IU for me as well. Wisconsin and Minnesota are pretty talented this year too. Though I’m not very high on UW or UCLA. Obviously, UW won’t be the same team this year (I mean that literally, there’s nobody left from a year ago).
Looking at IU, a lot of their talent is new, but not inexperienced. Many of head coach Curt Cignetti’s former players from JMU followed him to Bloomington. He also brought in some other Louis via the portal in 2022 MAC Daddy QB Kurtis Rourke by way of Ohio and Myles Price from Texas Tech at WR.
That’s all well and good, but I’m here today to ask the important question: will there be any pigs in 2024?
Coaching & System
PPG AVERAGE — QB1: 29.7 — RB1: 11.8 — WR1: 16.2
There’s no need to specify which coach’s PPG numbers are being expressed above as both Curt Cignetti and OC Mike Shanahan have been attached at the hip since 2019. Thus, their numbers are the same. Something to note is that these PPG values are pulled from a subscriber’s model, measuring the QB’s PPG in (what I would assume) are six point passing TD measurements, as Jordan McCloud, who was Cignetti’s QB1 last year, only averaged 26.2 PPG in four point formats. I say only, but that was still a very good season.
The WR’s numbers are quoted in half PPR, so his track record there is actually better than on first appearance. As usual, don’t pay any mind to the projection numbers. I included the graphic for the historical averages only.
Head coach Curt Cignetti has been everywhere in his coaching career. In fact, it might be more useful for me to list the schools that he hasn’t coached at yet. Prior to spending the last five seasons at JMU, Cignetti was the head coach of FCS school Elon, Div. II school Indiana University… of Pennsylvania, WRs coach at Alabama, and QBs coach at NC State (2006-10), Pittsburgh (2000-06), Temple (1993-1999), Rice (1986-1988), and Davidson (1985). All that to say, he’s been coaching QBs for a very long time.
His OC, Shanahan, not to be confused with what’s-his-face from the NFL, was with Cignetti at IUP and Elon as the WRs coach, before joining JMU in the same role, eventually being promoted to OC in 2021.
Unlike at JMU, there is now an additional co-OC in the fold. He isn’t an unfamiliar face, however. Tino Sunseri followed Cignetti to IU after spending three seasons on his staff coaching QBs. Prior to that, he was a graduate assistant at Alabama (2019-20), where he undoubtedly learned a lot from Steve Sarkisian, who himself coached Tua Tagovailoa and Mac Jones to CFF excellence. And before Alabama he served in quality control at Tennessee and Florida State.
Sounds like a straight shooter with future SEC coach written all over him. He also looks like someone who could give you a killer Italian dinner recommendation if you asked him politely.
The track record at QB under these three gentlemen is nothing short of extraordinary. In addition to impressive passing numbers, one of the unique features of the Cignetti/Shanahan/Sunseri QB1s is that they score a lot of rushing TDs, but they don’t necessarily accumulate a lot of rushing yards. Over the past two seasons when JMU was promoted to the FBS, the starting QB averaged eight rushing TDs per season, but only 211 rushing yards. If the numbers seem a little out of whack, it’s because they are.
The general rule of thumb is that the ratio is usually 1-2 scores per 100 yards rushing, so even at the high end of that you’d only expect about half of what Cignetti’s QBs averaged the last two seasons. This obviously presents some benefits in CFF.
The other position where Cignetti’s system has garnered a reputation amongst the CFF crowd is WR. Below you can find a summary of the target share across the starting receivers of the last two seasons.
The 2022 season was pretty absurd with the WR1 averaging nearly a 30% share of the passing attack. But even 2023 was pretty gnarly as well. Of those two players, Kris Thornton and Elijah Sarratt, Thornton played in the slot, and Sarratt on the boundary. Keep that fact in mind for later.
RB is where the staff’s patterns are not very notable. This position has been a committee approach for the last two seasons, and there was only one runner to breach 1000 yards during Cignetti’s time at JMU.
In terms of team pace, JMU was slower than average last year, coming in at 91st in seconds per play with 27.4. The years prior they ran plays at a rate of 25.5, 25.7, and 26.7, which are a little more in line with the national average. I’d expect the plan will be similar at IU.
According to CFB Winning Edge’s model, IU returns only about 40% of the snaps on the OL from a year ago. That tracks as the Hoosiers are expected to start three transfers at both guard positions and right tackle in 2024.
Personnel
If Indiana was in the G5 I’d pick them to be a playoff team this year. That is, they have a lot of guys who were big time players last year at the lower level, it remains to be seen how they adjust to the P5—err, P4 level of play.
QB Kurtis Rourke — ADP: NA
Starting with the QB is so cliché, I know, but when you have a nickname like ‘The Maple Missile’ and your hometown is only an hour or so away from where I am in Toronto, you get special privileges (I don’t make the rules). Kurtis Rourke, most famously known for appearing on last summer’s MAC Daddy list, is a former standout in the Mid American Conference (i.e. the MAC).
He was having a very good year in 2022 before a season ending knee injury ended his year late in the campaign. He returned in 2023, but did not look like his former self, and the Ohio Bobcats offence overall struggled, despite sporting a loaded roster by MAC standards.
Had it been any other staff, I might have paused more for concern, but I’m willing to trust in Cignetti and take a few draft throws on Rourke at the end of drafts, bestball and standard alike. At a price of… well, NA, it’s hard to really go wrong. I know the B1G isn’t really a conference known for the forward pass, but I remain optimistic about what Cignetti and the boys can do with the 6’5” Maple Missile.
Rourke was originally rated a two star prospect coming out of high school, but was upgraded to a three in the portal.
WR Elijah Sarratt — ADP: 74 — Assumed role: Boundary
I wrote about Sarratt a very long time ago, and by that I mean February of last year. It was the second ever article I wrote and published, and Sarratt was a very unknown commodity at the time.
He was a standout in his freshman season with St. Francis at the FCS level, then he elevated up to JMU in 2023 where he became the Dukes’ WR1 on the year. Sarratt caught 82 of his 101 targets for 1191 yards and eight scores (19.8 PPG in 1PPR formats). He operated as sort of a jumbo slot in that offence (he’s 6’3” tall), but I suspect he’ll be on the boundary for the Hoosiers this year.
His ADP has him going around the front end of the seventh round in CFF drafts currently. I like Sarratt, but I’m not sure I want to spend that high of a pick on him.
Sarratt was an unrated recruit coming out of high school, which is kind of surprising given that he played at the most famous school in the DMV— St. Francis Academy (apparently he’s a big fan of St. Francis). However, he was given a four star rating in the portal.
WR Myles Price — ADP: 340 — Assumed role: slot
There could be some sneaky value here when you consider what the slot receiver production profile has been like under Cignetti in each of the last two seasons. Price comes over from another vaunted system known for featuring the slot receiver in Zach Kittley’s Texas Tech offence. Unfortunately, Kittley has yet to figure out how to recreate the WKU magic he unveiled in the 2021 season, and Price never really caught on during his time in Lubbock. He must be a CFF player the way he is sniffing out systems that specifically have a track record of featuring productive slot receivers, though.
In 2023, Price caught 43 of his 60 targets for 410 yards and five scores (11.2 PPG). Based on his ADP, I’m going to guess that the only place where he’s getting drafted currently is in these 30-round bestball leagues people are doing. Recall from Table 2. that even Cignetti’s WR2 has averaged over 20% target share from the last two seasons. Indeed, I like the idea of waiting to get Price instead of paying the cost to get Sarratt.
Price was rated a three star prospect both as a high school recruit and in the portal this past offseason.
WR Donavan McCulley — ADP: 223.7 — Assumed role: Boundary
Quotes from Cignetti suggested that McCulley was struggling earlier this offseason. Lately, it sounds like he might be getting back up to speed. Similar to Price, McCulley was productive at times last year, securing 48 of his 70 targets for 644 yards and six scores (12.8 PPG).
I was surprised to see he had ADP data, as it hasn’t even been clear whether he’ll be a starter this year by the way things sounded earlier in spring camp. I’m expecting McCulley will be one of the boundary players in the rotation, and given that he’s IU’s leading returning receiver from a year ago, he’s probably worth the dart throw if you just want to get a piece of this offence when the other names have already been selected.
He was actually the highest rated (four star according to 247 Sports) coming out of high school of any of these guys
WR Miles Cross — ADP: NA — Assumed role: Boundary
Miles Cross is joining his former teammate Rourke in Indiana after spending three seasons with the Bobcats. This past year was his best statistical season so far; he caught 47 of 78 targets for 617 yards and seven scores (12.6 PPG). He was effectively the Bobcats’ WR1 on many occasions in 2023 as injuries ravaged the WR room.
The NA on his ADP doesn’t surprise me and I view Cross as a borderline player for even the most niche CFF formats.
WR Ke’Shawn Williams — ADP: NA — Assumed role: slot
Williams joins the fold by way of Wake Forest. The 5’10, 190 pound slot receiver from Philly spent his last four seasons with the Deacons, where he was decently productive but never moved the needle from a CFF perspective. He’ll have an opportunity to compete for the starting slot role with Price this season.
In 2023 he caught 38 of his 57 targets for 384 yards and a score (8.1 PPG), which was his best statistical season so far. My view on Williams is similar to Cross with regards to drafting him, not really a guy you could justify drafting unless it’s a very niche format.
Closing
IU’s out-of-conference (OOC) schedule this year is threatening 2023 UM for the all-cupcake selection of this decade, with opponents including FIU, Western Illinois (FCS), and Charlotte. Speaking of St. Francis High school (was mentioned in Sarratt’s section), the former coach who built up that powerhouse program is now the head coach of Charlotte, and—speaking of Michigan—was Jim Harbaugh’s right hand man for several seasons with the Wolverines. Don’t you love it when everything comes full circle?
Incoherent ramblings aside, that OOC schedule is definitely pretty nice and should provide some explosive results in September. Luckily for the Hoosiers, they actually avoid PSU this year given the new scheduling alignment, but they do still play UM and OSU. They’ll play UCLA and Washington from the new entrants, which as I’ve mentioned before doesn’t really scare me. Is it really a hot take if I say IU can and should win both of those games? Bring forth the fire emojis then.
From a CFF perspective, there are several concerns. First and foremost is that we don’t know how a lot of these guys will adjust and elevate to the P4 level of play, and in some cases (such as Rourke’s) the last we saw of them was not pretty.
The second concern I have with IU as a whole is the OLine play. Replacing three starters from a year ago is never ideal. Third—and I suppose this point is related to the first two—is that there is a lot of turnover here, both in the coaching staff and via the personnel. That always introduces uncertainty and could provide growing pains in 2024 (see NC State last year).
Overall, as far as the individual players, I don’t know that there’s one who stands out as a must-draft commodity in CFF, but there are several intriguing ideas who come at little to no cost. ◾
If you enjoyed this content and would like to read more, I recommend joining the Pigpen, a community of over 500 degenerate college football fans: