The SEC made the move official just last week: nine conference games, just like the Big Ten.
That eight-game schedule has been the SEC’s bread and butter for decades. Get in a few tune-up games in the early going with the option of scheduling another in November to alleviate the grind of a conference schedule.
Why does that apply to Indiana? Well,
In typical Cignetti fashion, his response drew headlines:
“That was a scheduling philosophy that began before I was hired, but I did sign off on it upon being hired before our first season, okay? Look, here’s the bottom line, okay, we picked up an extra home game, and we play nine conference games. The two best conferences in college football, any football guy that’s objective will tell you is the Big Ten and the SEC, all right? 12 of the 16 SEC teams play three G5 or an FCS game. 12 of those teams play 36 games, 29 G5 games and seven FCS games, and one less conference game. All right? So we figured we would just adopt SEC scheduling philosophy, you know. Some people don’t like it. I’m more focused in on those nine conference games. Not only do we want to play nine conference games, okay, and have the four-four championship — the playoff format, we want to have play-in games to decide who plays in those playoffs.”
Now, almost exactly a month later, the SEC changed its rules. Was that because of Cignetti’s comments? No, probably not. Was it because of the points he raised? Kinda!
Indiana definitely benefitted from a softer non-conference schedule and a favorable draw of conference opponents in Big Ten play. That’s obvious. What’s equally obvious is that Indiana won every single game by multiple scores with one exception in Michigan.
SEC teams have benefitted from that same approach to non-conference scheduling for entire decades. Teams that probably should’ve won just five games won a sixth and got to a bowl game thanks to that extra non-conference buy game. But that’s another argument for another day.
What matters for Indiana is this: SEC opponents are required to schedule a power conference opponent as one of those three non-conference matchups.
So that scheduling jab from Cignetti? He was right to say it in the moment. Starting in 2026, it’ll be a different story.
Will Indiana have to add a power conference foe to its future non-conference slates here soon? Maybe. It would be the result of either outside pressure forcing the athletic department to make a scheduling move or the Big Ten implementing a similar rule that doesn’t grandfather in existing schedules.
You’d think Cignetti would be upset with this right? Indiana’s carefully-planned non-conference scheduling strategy foiled by his third year? Well, no.
Here’s another excerpt from that answer, one that went a bit less viral:
“We wouldn’t be opposed to Big Ten-SEC regular season games every year. We need to standardize the schedule across the board if we want to have objective criteria for who should be in the playoffs and who shouldn’t, and we need to take the decision-making off the committee to some degree.”
Cignetti’s open to playing power conferences in the non-conference slate. Why not Virginia? The ACC is the least stable league in the country and, no offense to the Cavaliers, but a win in Charlottesville wouldn’t have the same plus of, say, a win in Lexington (more on that later). Additionally, Indiana is set to play a home-and-home against Notre Dame in 2030 and 2031.
Indiana might have to add a power conference foe before that series. Cignetti has said he’d be fine with that. It’s not as big of a deal as its being made out to be.
