Illini Football 2025

[Bbuck21]

We share similar experiences my Illinois brother, and maybe even the same companies (at least in my civilian career - military career verrrry different). We’ll have to catch up some time over adult beverages and share experiences.

I'm in. I sat through so many large corporate presentations, with Q&A, when somebody started asking a question that made me cringe for them, before they even finished. I was always so surprised by the lack of awareness from a supposedly mature professional. During a meeting one time that included the CEO and several division Presidents, a guy went on a diatribe about our corporate direction regarding competing technology decisions. He clearly didn't know what he was talking about, was probably trying to impress top management. After the meeting, on the way to a "team building" event (ie golf). I said to my President, what did you think of so-and-so's comments. He responded. "What a dipshi!"

 

[Bbuck21]

I was over Beckman until you posted this . . . OWWWW

THAT was truly cringe worthy.

 

[Subortus]

I always opt for finding a free spot, which you can generally find in the corridor around and north of the Armory. I'm sure you could find more convenient paid parking, but it's not a bad walk from the Armory/Ice Arena to the Stadium.

Also, I am not saying there is a ton of wide open parking spots, but I've generally always been able to find one.

I think you may have been lucky. I'm pretty sure those spots are not officially "free" on the day of a game. You could have been ticketed.

 

[Illini2010-11]

He has made his schedule apples to apples with the SEC. I think that is his point.

Why would I play tougher teams in the Non-Con than my direct competitors for at large spots?

If they win enough in the BIG they will be high enough in the pecking order to be one of the teams from the BIG. Their record would then need to beat SEC teams.

Why give yourself a chance to lose games that aren't necessary to lose?

I think the primary reason is that these cupcake games do nothing to really prepare yourself for the conference season. IU got extremely fortunate last season in the sense that they had, what turned out to be, one of the softest B1G schedules in recent memory. They turned that soft schedule into some serious momentum, which got derailed when they actually played a top 25 team (when you look back at the schedule, their best win was at home to Michigan late in the season). They were also lucky to lose the tiebreaker to make the B1G Championship Game (truly believe that they would have lost in a way that they would have relegated them out of the playoff). It is not often that a team finishes the season 11-2 in a major conference and have no top 25 wins. I believe it was a severe anomaly for IU last season.

Even most SEC schools are at least scheduling one major non-conference game. Some of the big name schools in the SEC have gotten around this in the past, as their talent was off the chart and they were able to go two or three deep in many of these games. The likelihood of having a bad loss in the conference season was significantly low for these programs. The mindset is shifting as the playoff is much larger than in the BCS era and even 4-team playoff era. A non-conference loss does not really hurt the resume as much as it would have 10 years ago.

The schedule argument would have had more merit if it came from an individual like Coach B, who has scheduled at least one non-conference game against a power conference, than an individual who has now scheduled the softest non-conference schedule in back-to-back years. That IU schedule is designed for a team that is trying to sneak into a bowl game, not contend for a spot in the playoff. The message was not the problem...it was the person that delivered it.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

I think the primary reason is that these cupcake games do nothing to really prepare yourself for the conference season. IU got extremely fortunate last season in the sense that they had, what turned out to be, one of the softest B1G schedules in recent memory. They turned that soft schedule into some serious momentum, which got derailed when they actually played a top 25 team (when you look back at the schedule, their best win was at home to Michigan late in the season). They were also lucky to lose the tiebreaker to make the B1G Championship Game (truly believe that they would have lost in a way that they would have relegated them out of the playoff). It is not often that a team finishes the season 11-2 in a major conference and have no top 25 wins. I believe it was a severe anomaly for IU last season.

Even most SEC schools are at least scheduling one major non-conference game. Some of the big name schools in the SEC have gotten around this in the past, as their talent was off the chart and they were able to go two or three deep in many of these games. The likelihood of having a bad loss in the conference season was significantly low for these programs. The mindset is shifting as the playoff is much larger than in the BCS era and even 4-team playoff era. A non-conference loss does not really hurt the resume as much as it would have 10 years ago.

The schedule argument would have had more merit if it came from an individual like Coach B, who has scheduled at least one non-conference game against a power conference, than an individual who has now scheduled the softest non-conference schedule in back-to-back years. That IU schedule is designed for a team that is trying to sneak into a bowl game, not contend for a spot in the playoff. The message was not the problem...it was the person that delivered it.

It was the same argument for SMU - who also had zero top 25 wins - and after losing to Clemson were still left in. No reason to think it would've been any different with IU (who actually had a much better resume comparatively). Additionally, both Penn State and Texas - teams that made the major conference championship games - finished with 2 losses and were still seeded #3 and #4 respectively (ahead of one loss teams like Notre Dame). To some extent it proves the committee valued that conference title game.

 

[Illini in Italy]

forgive me my brother/sister, for i have sinned against you

All is forgiven my Illini brother.

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

I think the primary reason is that these cupcake games do nothing to really prepare yourself for the conference season. IU got extremely fortunate last season in the sense that they had, what turned out to be, one of the softest B1G schedules in recent memory. They turned that soft schedule into some serious momentum, which got derailed when they actually played a top 25 team (when you look back at the schedule, their best win was at home to Michigan late in the season). They were also lucky to lose the tiebreaker to make the B1G Championship Game (truly believe that they would have lost in a way that they would have relegated them out of the playoff). It is not often that a team finishes the season 11-2 in a major conference and have no top 25 wins. I believe it was a severe anomaly for IU last season.

Even most SEC schools are at least scheduling one major non-conference game. Some of the big name schools in the SEC have gotten around this in the past, as their talent was off the chart and they were able to go two or three deep in many of these games. The likelihood of having a bad loss in the conference season was significantly low for these programs. The mindset is shifting as the playoff is much larger than in the BCS era and even 4-team playoff era. A non-conference loss does not really hurt the resume as much as it would have 10 years ago.

The schedule argument would have had more merit if it came from an individual like Coach B, who has scheduled at least one non-conference game against a power conference, than an individual who has now scheduled the softest non-conference schedule in back-to-back years. That IU schedule is designed for a team that is trying to sneak into a bowl game, not contend for a spot in the playoff. The message was not the problem...it was the person that delivered it.

There's pros and cons to practically everything in life; the net gain if what matters. If you're a coach, I have virtually no clue how you go to bed certain that playing that game betters your chances (bowl game or CFP). SMU and Indiana made it in because it's never about the SOS; it's the record. If Duke made a 30 yard FG SMU would've been out (and after all, you play in the Big Ten - this is not Boise State trying to get an at large bid). It's common sense - it's history - but this year we have the opportunity of taking advantage of that downside, so I'll keep it at that.

It was the same argument for SMU - who also had zero top 25 wins - and after losing to Clemson were still left in. No reason to think it would've been any different with IU (who actually had a much better resume comparatively). Additionally, both Penn State and Texas - teams that made the major conference championship games - finished with 2 losses and were still seeded #3 and #4 respectively (ahead of one loss teams like Notre Dame). To some extent it proves the committee valued that conference title game.

Sure, but neither Penn State, Texas, or SMU got annihilated. I don't see any way IU doesn't lose by about 30 had they played in that title game vs undefeated Oregon.

 

[saleen970]

Happy to see your predictions because it's not easy when you stick within reasonable parameters. It's easy to believe in so many WRs:

- Dixon is going to take a big step forward
- Bowick was a monster in the four games he played
- Musk is going to bounce back with a major comeback season
- Clement was awesome as a freshman at WVU
- Arkin will have his best season as a senior
- Elzy finally breaks out
- Hollins showed major flashes last year
- Trimble has been making jaws drop in the spring

....but that many guys aren't going to pop. This is peak July/August hopium. That's why I want to see other people's predictions within the limits as it's a fun barometer on who people think are going to take a step forward and not allowing you also to predict 800 receiving yards for everyone.





I'll happily take betting action on Altmyer throwing for less yards this year than last year. If Illinois is going to be as good as we all hope this year, they won't be replicating the insane number of close games and comeback wins as 2024, which necessitated more passing plays. It also is a team that doesn't have Bryant and Franklin. If anything, I could be more easily swayed that this team rushes for more yards this season than last season. The experienced o-line is further evidence to support that theory.

You are not wrong, it is hard.

 

[Illini2010-11]

It was the same argument for SMU - who also had zero top 25 wins - and after losing to Clemson were still left in. No reason to think it would've been any different with IU (who actually had a much better resume comparatively). Additionally, both Penn State and Texas - teams that made the major conference championship games - finished with 2 losses and were still seeded #3 and #4 respectively (ahead of one loss teams like Notre Dame). To some extent it proves the committee valued that conference title game.

Do not actually disagree with your general argument. Penn State was in a similar position to IU in not making the B1G Champ game -- they had a superior resume even with two losses, and Texas going into the conference title game had a rock solid resume. Notre Dame was held back by the inexcusable home loss to NIU, but they were still ranked highly getting a 5-seed due to a solid schedule.

SMU is the closest comparable to IU, and their lone loss in regular season was against a very good BYU team (they at least scheduled a power conference foe in the regular season). Their resume was fairly weak too, and a close loss to a ranked team in the conference title game did not hurt them too much. Reality is that both SMU and IU were likely worse teams than some 2 or 3-loss peers that did not make the playoff.

My primary argument is that I believe IU would have lost by 20+ points in the B1G Champ game. They had a lot of question marks on their resume leading up to Selection Day, and a loss of that nature in their second game against a good team very well could have put them in a bad position. We will never know, as they were fortunate to not have to play that game. They probably would have still snuck in the playoff, but it is hard to see a blowout loss putting them in a better position than not playing the game.

Which does lead to a question I have been thinking about for a while: Would you rather be in a position like Penn State, where you are essentially assured a home playoff game and not having to play in conference championship game or play in the B1G title game with a chance to secure bye but a loss puts you in position to play a road playoff game?

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Do not actually disagree with your general argument. Penn State was in a similar position to IU in not making the B1G Champ game -- they had a superior resume even with two losses, and Texas going into the conference title game had a rock solid resume. Notre Dame was held back by the inexcusable home loss to NIU, but they were still ranked highly getting a 5-seed due to a solid schedule.

SMU is the closest comparable to IU, and their lone loss in regular season was against a very good BYU team (they at least scheduled a power conference foe in the regular season). Their resume was fairly weak too, and a close loss to a ranked team in the conference title game did not hurt them too much. Reality is that both SMU and IU were likely worse teams than some 2 or 3-loss peers that did not make the playoff.

My primary argument is that I believe IU would have lost by 20+ points in the B1G Champ game. They had a lot of question marks on their resume leading up to Selection Day, and a loss of that nature in their second game against a good team very well could have put them in a bad position. We will never know, as they were fortunate to not have to play that game. They probably would have still snuck in the playoff, but it is hard to see a blowout loss putting them in a better position than not playing the game.

Which does lead to a question I have been thinking about for a while: Would you rather be in a position like Penn State, where you are essentially assured a home playoff game and not having to play in conference championship game or play in the B1G title game with a chance to secure bye but a loss puts you in position to play a road playoff game?

I would always gamble on trying to win the conference title and not shy away from the potential pitfalls. If you’re not good enough to win one road game, you’re probably not good enough to win the whole shebang.

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

I think the primary reason is that these cupcake games do nothing to really prepare yourself for the conference season. IU got extremely fortunate last season in the sense that they had, what turned out to be, one of the softest B1G schedules in recent memory. They turned that soft schedule into some serious momentum, which got derailed when they actually played a top 25 team (when you look back at the schedule, their best win was at home to Michigan late in the season). They were also lucky to lose the tiebreaker to make the B1G Championship Game (truly believe that they would have lost in a way that they would have relegated them out of the playoff). It is not often that a team finishes the season 11-2 in a major conference and have no top 25 wins. I believe it was a severe anomaly for IU last season.

Even most SEC schools are at least scheduling one major non-conference game. Some of the big name schools in the SEC have gotten around this in the past, as their talent was off the chart and they were able to go two or three deep in many of these games. The likelihood of having a bad loss in the conference season was significantly low for these programs. The mindset is shifting as the playoff is much larger than in the BCS era and even 4-team playoff era. A non-conference loss does not really hurt the resume as much as it would have 10 years ago.

The schedule argument would have had more merit if it came from an individual like Coach B, who has scheduled at least one non-conference game against a power conference, than an individual who has now scheduled the softest non-conference schedule in back-to-back years. That IU schedule is designed for a team that is trying to sneak into a bowl game, not contend for a spot in the playoff. The message was not the problem...it was the person that delivered it.

There's pros and cons to practically everything in life; the net gain if what matters. If you're a coach, I have virtually no clue how you go to bed certain that playing that game betters your chances (bowl game or CFP). Indiana made it in because it's never about the SOS.... if Duke made a 30 yard FG SMU would've been out (and after all, you play in the Big Ten - this is not Boise State trying to get an at large bid). It's simply history.

It was the same argument for SMU - who also had zero top 25 wins - and after losing to Clemson were still left in. No reason to think it would've been any different with IU (who actually had a much better resume comparatively). Additionally, both Penn State and Texas - teams that made the major conference championship games - finished with 2 losses and were still seeded #3 and #4 respectively (ahead of one loss teams like Notre Dame). To some extent it proves the committee valued that conference title game.

Sure, but neither Penn State, Texas, or SMU got annihilated. I don't see any way IU doesn't lose by about 30 had they played in that title game vs undefeated Oregon.

Do not actually disagree with your general argument. Penn State was in a similar position to IU in not making the B1G Champ game -- they had a superior resume even with two losses, and Texas going into the conference title game had a rock solid resume. Notre Dame was held back by the inexcusable home loss to NIU, but they were still ranked highly getting a 5-seed due to a solid schedule.

SMU is the closest comparable to IU, and their lone loss in regular season was against a very good BYU team (they at least scheduled a power conference foe in the regular season). Their resume was fairly weak too, and a close loss to a ranked team in the conference title game did not hurt them too much. Reality is that both SMU and IU were likely worse teams than some 2 or 3-loss peers that did not make the playoff.

My primary argument is that I believe IU would have lost by 20+ points in the B1G Champ game. They had a lot of question marks on their resume leading up to Selection Day, and a loss of that nature in their second game against a good team very well could have put them in a bad position. We will never know, as they were fortunate to not have to play that game. They probably would have still snuck in the playoff, but it is hard to see a blowout loss putting them in a better position than not playing the game.

Which does lead to a question I have been thinking about for a while: Would you rather be in a position like Penn State, where you are essentially assured a home playoff game and not having to play in conference championship game or play in the B1G title game with a chance to secure bye but a loss puts you in position to play a road playoff game?

So how would that exact game/loss somehow benefit them when scheduling in the non-con?

 

[Illini2010-11]

I would always gamble on trying to win the conference title and not shy away from the potential pitfalls. If you’re not good enough to win one road game, you’re probably not good enough to win the whole shebang.

I tend to agree there. If I recall correctly, the schools did not keep much of the revenue related to the home playoff game (I think it got split between the different schools in the playoff). Not to mention, the weather in Champaign in December is very volatile to what is comfortable to sit in.

With that said, I do believe the Coach B will get us into the B1G Champ game at some point, and might even snag one of the trophies to put in the case. It is nice to finally have a solid college football coach that can gain us wins above expectations.

 

[WhereDoWeStandWithStorr?]

I think the primary reason is that these cupcake games do nothing to really prepare yourself for the conference season. IU got extremely fortunate last season in the sense that they had, what turned out to be, one of the softest B1G schedules in recent memory. They turned that soft schedule into some serious momentum, which got derailed when they actually played a top 25 team (when you look back at the schedule, their best win was at home to Michigan late in the season). They were also lucky to lose the tiebreaker to make the B1G Championship Game (truly believe that they would have lost in a way that they would have relegated them out of the playoff). It is not often that a team finishes the season 11-2 in a major conference and have no top 25 wins. I believe it was a severe anomaly for IU last season.

Even most SEC schools are at least scheduling one major non-conference game. Some of the big name schools in the SEC have gotten around this in the past, as their talent was off the chart and they were able to go two or three deep in many of these games. The likelihood of having a bad loss in the conference season was significantly low for these programs. The mindset is shifting as the playoff is much larger than in the BCS era and even 4-team playoff era. A non-conference loss does not really hurt the resume as much as it would have 10 years ago.

The schedule argument would have had more merit if it came from an individual like Coach B, who has scheduled at least one non-conference game against a power conference, than an individual who has now scheduled the softest non-conference schedule in back-to-back years. That IU schedule is designed for a team that is trying to sneak into a bowl game, not contend for a spot in the playoff. The message was not the problem...it was the person that delivered it.

Texas had no top 25 wins.

 

[Illini2010-11]

Texas had no top 25 wins.

Not sure where you are pulling that statistic, but Texas won @ #10 Michigan by 19 points, vs #18 Oklahoma, @ #25 Vandy, @ #20 Texas A&M, vs #12 Clemson, and vs #4 Arizona State (the last two are based on playoff ranking). The beatdown at the Big House was delicious. Texas simply could not beat Georgia or Ohio State...not many teams do.

 

[WhereDoWeStandWithStorr?]

Not sure where you are pulling that statistic, but Texas won @ #10 Michigan by 19 points, vs #18 Oklahoma, @ #25 Vandy, @ #20 Texas A&M, vs #12 Clemson, and vs #4 Arizona State (the last two are based on playoff ranking). The beatdown at the Big House was delicious. Texas simply could not beat Georgia or Ohio State...not many teams do.

If Michigan is a top 25 win for Texas, then so is it for Indiana. Oklahoma went 6-7. Vandy and TAMU were not top 25 teams. Clemson and ASU were in the CFP as you said.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

If Michigan is a top 25 win for Texas, then so is it for Indiana. Oklahoma went 6-7. Vandy and TAMU were not top 25 teams. Clemson and ASU were in the CFP as you said.

For better or for worse, "top 25 win" almost ALWAYS refers to the ranking of the team at the time you played them. Our wins vs. KU and Nebraska were cemented as "top 25 wins" in September regardless of how they finished the season. Michigan was not ranked when they played Indiana ... thanks to us.

 

[Illini2010-11]

If Michigan is a top 25 win for Texas, then so is it for Indiana. Oklahoma went 6-7. Vandy and TAMU were not top 25 teams. Clemson and ASU were in the CFP as you said.

You are taking a very strange approach to classifying top 25 wins. The overwhelming majority of people talk about ranked games when they are played, not based on final rankings. Using AP rankings at time of game played, Texas was 6-3 and IU was 0-2. Trying to discredit the Texas schedule as similar to IU the way you have is very odd.

The fact remains that IU had an extremely soft schedule, and they took full advantage of it. IU and Rutgers were the only B1G schools to have only one ranked opportunity through the regular season. As I stated, it is simply rare to be in a power conference like the B1G and get to 11 wins without a ranked win. For context, Illinois got to 9 regular season wins with 3 ranked wins. That is why I am so proud of what the Illini put together last season, and I am very confident Illini would have beaten IU last season. The good news is that the Illini have the opportunity to do that this season, and the way IU has scheduled cupcakes again, I think the Illini will be much more prepared than IU, given the Illini will already have a road game against Duke under their belts.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

You are taking a very strange approach to classifying top 25 wins. The overwhelming majority of people talk about ranked games when they are played, not based on final rankings. Using AP rankings at time of game played, Texas was 6-3 and IU was 0-2. Trying to discredit the Texas schedule as similar to IU the way you have is very odd.

That is indeed how they are categorized but the better question is whether it's actually a good indicator. It isn't. I'm sorry, but our wins over Kansas and Nebraska, which seemed really impressive at the time, were in actually not that impressive (still not bad, but not what we thought they were). Same with Michigan. Talk about ranked opportunities all you want, but IU also beat both of the ranked Big Ten teams we beat, just they had the misfortune of playing them after we had already exposed them as paper tigers. The Nebraska one is especially instructive. Are we really to believe that we should get props for beating Nebraska in overtime, but IU should not get props for dismantling the same Nebraska team 56-7 just one month later (Nebraska won both their games in between those two meetings so it's not like they were in freefall)?

 

[Illini2010-11]

That is indeed how they are categorized but the better question is whether it's actually a good indicator. It isn't. I'm sorry, but our wins over Kansas and Nebraska, which seemed really impressive at the time, were in actually not that impressive (still not bad, but not what we thought they were). Same with Michigan. Talk about ranked opportunities all you want, but IU also beat both of the ranked Big Ten teams we beat, just they had the misfortune of playing them after we had already exposed them as paper tigers. The Nebraska one is especially instructive. Are we really to believe that we should get props for beating Nebraska in overtime, but IU should not get props for dismantling the same Nebraska team 56-7 just one month later (Nebraska won both their games in between those two meetings so it's not like they were in freefall)?

100% agree with everything you say. IU started getting many eyeballs glued to them after the Nebraska beatdown, but it lost shine as the season progressed, as did the ranked Illini wins from September/October. I was simply responding to the strange argument that Texas also had no top 25 wins as a way of somehow saying that they also had a soft schedule like IU (at least they scheduled a premier road game @ Michigan, whereas IU scheduled the powerhouses of FIU, Western Illinois, and Charlotte all to be played in Bloomington). IU had a great season based upon how they performed with their schedule; they had many impressive beatdowns (including that Nebraska game). The issue is that when confronted with actual ranked opportunities (as how they are categorized), they faltered (hard to fault them they were tough games). Ultimately, IU got exposed in November and December. IU cannot be faulted for the conference schedule becoming weaker, but they deserve ridicule for the weak non-conference schedule last season and even more so for 2025 (especially if they want to be deemed playoff caliber). I think I am more irritated at the fact that Cignetti complains about standardizing the schedules as a swipe at the SEC, all while he continues to have all three non-conference games at home to cupcake opponents.

Based upon how ranked games are classified in standings, it is still very strange for a team to go 11-1 with no ranked wins in a conference like the B1G where these opportunities are typically plentiful. That is where I am still in shock. It is rather impressive (and fortunate) for that to happen.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

You are taking a very strange approach to classifying top 25 wins. The overwhelming majority of people talk about ranked games when they are played, not based on final rankings. Using AP rankings at time of game played, Texas was 6-3 and IU was 0-2. Trying to discredit the Texas schedule as similar to IU the way you have is very odd.

The fact remains that IU had an extremely soft schedule, and they took full advantage of it. IU and Rutgers were the only B1G schools to have only one ranked opportunity through the regular season. As I stated, it is simply rare to be in a power conference like the B1G and get to 11 wins without a ranked win. For context, Illinois got to 9 regular season wins with 3 ranked wins. That is why I am so proud of what the Illini put together last season, and I am very confident Illini would have beaten IU last season. The good news is that the Illini have the opportunity to do that this season, and the way IU has scheduled cupcakes again, I think the Illini will be much more prepared than IU, given the Illini will already have a road game against Duke under their belts.

Just for some context on this, these are the Big Ten schedules this year with the number of ranked opponents, using the FB Schedules website ... not sure where they got their preseason rankings, but it is all we have:

Illinois: at #17 Indiana, vs. #5 Ohio State
Indiana: vs. #11 Illinois, at #8 Oregon, at #1 Penn State
Iowa: at #14 Iowa State, vs. #17 Indiana, vs. #1 Penn State, vs #8 Oregon
Maryland: vs. #17 Indiana, at #11 Illinois, vs. #20 Michigan
Michigan: at #25 Oklahoma, vs. #5 Ohio State
MSU: at #17 Indiana, vs. #20 Michigan, vs #1 Penn State
Minnesota: at #5 Ohio State, at #8 Oregon
Nebraska: vs. #20 Michigan, at #1 Penn State
Northwestern: vs. #8 Oregon, at #1 Penn State, vs. #20 Michigan, at #11 Illinois
Ohio State: vs. #3 Texas, at #11 Illinois, vs. #1 Penn State, at #20 Michigan
Oregon: at #1 Penn State, vs. #17 Indiana
Penn State: vs. #8 Oregon, at #5 Ohio State, vs #17 Indiana
Purdue: at #7 Notre Dame, vs. #11 Illinois, at #20 Michigan, vs. #5 Ohio State, vs. #17 Indiana
Rutgers: vs. #8 Oregon, at #11 Illinois, at #5 Ohio State, vs. #1 Penn State
UCLA: vs. #1 Penn State, at #17 Indiana, at #5 Ohio State
USC: at #11 Illinois, vs. #20 Michigan, at #7 Notre Dame, at #8 Oregon
Washington: vs. #5 Ohio State, at #20 Michigan, vs. #11 Illinois, vs. #8 Oregon
Wisconsin: at #9 Alabama, at #20 Michigan, vs. #5 Ohio State, at #8 Oregon, at #17 Indiana, vs. #11 Illinois

So it varies quite a bit and obviously preseason rankings will change a lot, but ... ZERO of the 18 Big Ten teams are projected to play fewer than two ranked teams, and 16 of 18 will play three or more. So, I think it is safe to say IU definitely got super lucky with its schedule last year!

P.S. Holy shlt, Wisconsin has a brutal schedule. Simply losing those incredibly tough games listed above gives them zero margin for error for making a bowl. I'd be worried if I were Fickell!

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Just for some context on this, these are the Big Ten schedules this year with the number of ranked opponents, using the FB Schedules website ... not sure where they got their preseason rankings, but it is all we have:

Illinois: at #17 Indiana, vs. #5 Ohio State
Indiana: vs. #11 Illinois, at #8 Oregon, at #1 Penn State
Iowa: at #14 Iowa State, vs. #17 Indiana, vs. #1 Penn State, vs #8 Oregon
Maryland: vs. #17 Indiana, at #11 Illinois, vs. #20 Michigan
Michigan: at #25 Oklahoma, vs. #5 Ohio State
MSU: at #17 Indiana, vs. #20 Michigan, vs #1 Penn State
Minnesota: at #5 Ohio State, at #8 Oregon
Nebraska: vs. #20 Michigan, at #1 Penn State
Northwestern: vs. #8 Oregon, at #1 Penn State, vs. #20 Michigan, at #11 Illinois
Ohio State: vs. #3 Texas, at #11 Illinois, vs. #1 Penn State, at #20 Michigan
Oregon: at #1 Penn State, vs. #17 Indiana
Penn State: vs. #8 Oregon, at #5 Ohio State, vs #17 Indiana
Purdue: at #7 Notre Dame, vs. #11 Illinois, at #20 Michigan, vs. #5 Ohio State, vs. #17 Indiana
Rutgers: vs. #8 Oregon, at #11 Illinois, at #5 Ohio State, vs. #1 Penn State
UCLA: vs. #1 Penn State, at #17 Indiana, at #5 Ohio State
USC: at #11 Illinois, vs. #20 Michigan, at #7 Notre Dame, at #8 Oregon
Washington: vs. #5 Ohio State, at #20 Michigan, vs. #11 Illinois, vs. #8 Oregon
Wisconsin: at #9 Alabama, at #20 Michigan, vs. #5 Ohio State, at #8 Oregon, at #17 Indiana, vs. #11 Illinois

So it varies quite a bit and obviously preseason rankings will change a lot, but ... ZERO of the 18 Big Ten teams are projected to play fewer than two ranked teams, and 16 of 18 will play three or more. So, I think it is safe to say IU definitely got super lucky with its schedule last year!

P.S. Holy shlt, Wisconsin has a brutal schedule. Simply losing those incredibly tough games listed above gives them zero margin for error for making a bowl. I'd be worried if I were Fickell!

Sure but if this were the metric then last year IU had two preseason top 25 (and in fact both were top-10 per AP preseason rankings) Big Ten teams on their schedule. The problem is that Michigan dropped out in between the preseason ranking and when they played. Imagine if Indiana drops out of the top-25 before we play them this upcoming season and nobody else we play jumps into the top-25 for our games against them. It'd be a similar situation. IU just got really lucky. On paper their schedule did look easy (in the same way ours for this year does) but not absurdly so like it shook out.

 

[Illini2010-11]

Sure but if this were the metric then last year IU had two preseason top 25 (and in fact both were top-10 per AP preseason rankings) Big Ten teams on their schedule. The problem is that Michigan dropped out in between the preseason ranking and when they played. Imagine if Indiana drops out of the top-25 before we play them this upcoming season and nobody else we play jumps into the top-25 for our games against them. It'd be a similar situation. IU just got really lucky. On paper their schedule did look easy (in the same way ours for this year does) but not absurdly so like it shook out.

IU will almost certainly be ranked when Illini head to Bloomington, but I will be beyond glad if they weren't ranked. That would mean that IU loses to one of Old Dominion, Kennesaw State, or Indiana State (or they were beyond sloppy in all three games to get passed up by 9 teams).

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

IU will almost certainly be ranked when Illini head to Bloomington, but I will be beyond glad if they weren't ranked. That would mean that IU loses to one of Old Dominion, Kennesaw State, or Indiana State (or they were beyond sloppy in all three games to get passed up by 9 teams).

agree, but there's honestly zero chance any of those games are within 4 touchdowns. Indiana State lost 49-0 to the worst Purdue team in history last season, Kennesaw State went 2-10, and Old Dominion went 5-7.

It's truly.... something.

 

[mhuml32]

That is indeed how they are categorized but the better question is whether it's actually a good indicator. It isn't. I'm sorry, but our wins over Kansas and Nebraska, which seemed really impressive at the time, were in actually not that impressive (still not bad, but not what we thought they were). Same with Michigan. Talk about ranked opportunities all you want, but IU also beat both of the ranked Big Ten teams we beat, just they had the misfortune of playing them after we had already exposed them as paper tigers. The Nebraska one is especially instructive. Are we really to believe that we should get props for beating Nebraska in overtime, but IU should not get props for dismantling the same Nebraska team 56-7 just one month later (Nebraska won both their games in between those two meetings so it's not like they were in freefall)?

A solution is using Connelly's final regular season SP+, which bakes in a lot of factors and provides a better reflection on your season's plaudits:

Texas' regular season wins:

#94 Colorado State
#26 @Michigan
#64 UTSA
#122 UL Monroe
#88 Mississippi State
#33 Oklahoma
#52 Vanderbilt
#20 Florida
#24 Arkansas
#45 Kentucky
#13 Texas A&M

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1948462709118566811