Indiana’s model for building a Champion

#1
AdoptedVOL

AdoptedVOL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
2,987
Likes
5,909
#1
I asked ChatGPT “With consideration for current college football landscape of paying players via NIL, how would Indiana best be characterized? Example: A bought team of 5 stars elite athletes? A well-coached team of 3 and 4 star talent?”

The feedback gives me hope!…


In the current college football NIL / transfer-portal landscape, Indiana is best characterized as:

A well-coached, development-focused program built on mostly 3- and 4-star talent — not a bought super-team

Here’s how that breaks down in today’s terms.

⭐ Talent Profile

- Recruiting base: Primarily 3-star and some 4-star high school recruits
- Very few 5-stars, and virtually none that arrived because of massive NIL bidding wars
- Portal additions tend to be experienced contributors, not headline NIL splashes

Indiana simply does not recruit or retain elite 5-star talent at the level of:
  • Ohio State
  • Michigan
  • Alabama
  • Georgia
  • Texas
  • Oregon
Those programs are operating with large, coordinated NIL collectives that can functionally “buy” top-tier rosters.

💰 NIL Reality at Indiana
  • NIL exists, but it’s modest by Power Five standards
  • Focus is more on:
    • Retention of starters
    • Filling specific needs via the portal
    • Regional and developmental fits

  • Indiana’s NIL model is not pay-for-play at scale, but closer to:
    “Competitive enough to stay afloat, not dominate the market.”
They are not assembling rosters by outbidding others for elite recruits.

🧠 Program Identity

Indiana is best understood as:

A program trying to win with organization, player development, and culture — not raw NIL firepower

Key traits:
  • Emphasis on scheme fit
  • Development of under-recruited players
  • Reliance on coaching continuity and execution
  • Success comes from cohesion, not star accumulation
When Indiana has had success (e.g., the late-2010s/early-2020s high points), it was because:
  • Players outperformed recruiting rankings
  • Defense and fundamentals were strong
  • The team was older and experienced
🆚 Compared to NIL “Bought Teams”

Indiana is not comparable to programs that can fairly be labeled:
  • “Bought teams”
  • “NIL super-rosters”
  • “Five-star collectives”
Those labels fit programs that:
  • Regularly flip elite recruits late
  • Rely heavily on portal stars with large NIL deals
  • Replace entire position groups annually with high-priced talent
Indiana does none of that at scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volanta, General Jack and SpookyAction
#2
#2
As a follow up, I asked ChatGPT if the Indiana model was sustainable?

The short answer was YES, a program can survive, compete, and play bowl games.

However, this model will not produce championships…

In today’s landscape:
  • Every national champion will have elite NIL backing
  • Champions consistently stack:
    • 5-star recruits
    • Top-10 transfer talent
    • High retention via NIL


Welcome to the era of haves and have nots. A split NCAA unless there are major changes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Volanta
#4
#4
AdoptedVOL said:
I asked ChatGPT “With consideration for current college football landscape of paying players via NIL, how would Indiana best be characterized? Example: A bought team of 5 stars elite athletes? A well-coached team of 3 and 4 star talent?”

The feedback gives me hope!…


In the current college football NIL / transfer-portal landscape, Indiana is best characterized as:

A well-coached, development-focused program built on mostly 3- and 4-star talent — not a bought super-team

Here’s how that breaks down in today’s terms.

⭐ Talent Profile

- Recruiting base: Primarily 3-star and some 4-star high school recruits
- Very few 5-stars, and virtually none that arrived because of massive NIL bidding wars
- Portal additions tend to be experienced contributors, not headline NIL splashes

Indiana simply does not recruit or retain elite 5-star talent at the level of:
  • Ohio State
  • Michigan
  • Alabama
  • Georgia
  • Texas
  • Oregon
Those programs are operating with large, coordinated NIL collectives that can functionally “buy” top-tier rosters.

💰 NIL Reality at Indiana
  • NIL exists, but it’s modest by Power Five standards
  • Focus is more on:
    • Retention of starters
    • Filling specific needs via the portal
    • Regional and developmental fits

  • Indiana’s NIL model is not pay-for-play at scale, but closer to:
    “Competitive enough to stay afloat, not dominate the market.”
They are not assembling rosters by outbidding others for elite recruits.

🧠 Program Identity

Indiana is best understood as:

A program trying to win with organization, player development, and culture — not raw NIL firepower

Key traits:
  • Emphasis on scheme fit
  • Development of under-recruited players
  • Reliance on coaching continuity and execution
  • Success comes from cohesion, not star accumulation
When Indiana has had success (e.g., the late-2010s/early-2020s high points), it was because:
  • Players outperformed recruiting rankings
  • Defense and fundamentals were strong
  • The team was older and experienced
🆚 Compared to NIL “Bought Teams”

Indiana is not comparable to programs that can fairly be labeled:
  • “Bought teams”
  • “NIL super-rosters”
  • “Five-star collectives”
Those labels fit programs that:
  • Regularly flip elite recruits late
  • Rely heavily on portal stars with large NIL deals
  • Replace entire position groups annually with high-priced talent
Indiana does none of that at scale.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of Moneyball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volanta and BernardKingGOAT
#6
#6
Mendoza is a great QB. You could see it at Cal last year. Kirby really tried to get him to Athens. I heard them compared to Pats with Brady & Belicheck. Elite QB (largely due to his prep), with even more elite talent evaluations and coaching. Albeit a lot of the shine is off if Belicheck 's coaching prowess at this point. I will be curious to see how IU cares after Mendoza.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volanta
#8
#8
I dont know what ChatGPT says,but I would say from anything I've heard is a very strong donor base coming from the largest alumni base including Mark Cuban. That,and having a coach that has always been known as a great evaluator of talent everywhere he's been and got the best of lower star talent everywhere he goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpfvol, HeuperDrive, Good Ol' Charlie Brown and 1 other person
#10
#10
Pennheel said:
I dont know what ChatGPT says,but I would say from anything I've heard is a very strong donor base coming from the largest alumni base including Mark Cuban. That,and having a coach that has always been known as a great evaluator of talent everywhere he's been and got the best of lower star talent everywhere he goes.
Click to expand...

My thoughts based on ChatGPT feedback:
1. It’s Indiana’s coaches being strategic and maximizing limited funds that’s made this team a Championship contender. This includes targeting gaps, developing players, game time Xs/Os.
2. The landscape of college football is changing and dollars will take over going forward. The haves will be on top with teams full of bought elite athletes.. The have-nots will survive but not win the big stage.


Indiana’s Donor Support in Context

Overall Athletic Donations
  • Historically, long-term cumulative booster donations for Indiana University’s athletics (including football) rank well below the blue-blood programs but solidly within the Power Five. For example, in analyses that aggregated booster contributions from ~2005–2022, Indiana was ranked around #28 nationally among FBS schools (with roughly $350M in total contributions) — behind top donors like Oregon, Texas A&M, Ohio State, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
NIL Collective Fundraising
  • Indiana’s official NIL collectives (Hoosiers For Good and Hoosiers Connect) have raised and matched significant funds (on the order of $1–2+ million in specific campaigns), showing successful donor engagement in the NIL era — though this is still small compared to the estimated average NIL collective funding of nearly $9.8M for Power 5 schools (with some elite programs far above that level).
Top Donor Programs (Booster Giving)
  • Programs with the largest cumulative booster donations historically include:
    • Oregon (led by Phil Knight – Nike founder)
    • Texas A&M
    • Texas
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Oklahoma
    • Alabama
    • Ohio State
  • These schools frequently receive 500M–900M+ in booster contributions over extended periods — significantly higher than Indiana’s cumulative totals.
Relative Challenges for Indiana
  • Compared to the historic powerhouse programs, Indiana’s overall donor contributions are smaller on an absolute scale — especially relative to schools with decades of elite performance and massive donor networks.
  • Its NIL fundraising, while growing, is not yet on par with the biggest Power Five collectives by total annual dollars raised.
 
#12
#12
AdoptedVOL said:
My thoughts based on ChatGPT feedback:
1. It’s Indiana’s coaches being strategic and maximizing limited funds that’s made this team a Championship contender. This includes targeting gaps, developing players, game time Xs/Os.
2. The landscape of college football is changing and dollars will take over going forward. The haves will be on top with teams full of bought elite athletes.. The have-nots will survive but not win the big stage.


Indiana’s Donor Support in Context

Overall Athletic Donations
  • Historically, long-term cumulative booster donations for Indiana University’s athletics (including football) rank well below the blue-blood programs but solidly within the Power Five. For example, in analyses that aggregated booster contributions from ~2005–2022, Indiana was ranked around #28 nationally among FBS schools (with roughly $350M in total contributions) — behind top donors like Oregon, Texas A&M, Ohio State, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
NIL Collective Fundraising
  • Indiana’s official NIL collectives (Hoosiers For Good and Hoosiers Connect) have raised and matched significant funds (on the order of $1–2+ million in specific campaigns), showing successful donor engagement in the NIL era — though this is still small compared to the estimated average NIL collective funding of nearly $9.8M for Power 5 schools (with some elite programs far above that level).
Top Donor Programs (Booster Giving)
  • Programs with the largest cumulative booster donations historically include:
    • Oregon (led by Phil Knight – Nike founder)
    • Texas A&M
    • Texas
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Oklahoma
    • Alabama
    • Ohio State
  • These schools frequently receive 500M–900M+ in booster contributions over extended periods — significantly higher than Indiana’s cumulative totals.
Relative Challenges for Indiana
  • Compared to the historic powerhouse programs, Indiana’s overall donor contributions are smaller on an absolute scale — especially relative to schools with decades of elite performance and massive donor networks.
  • Its NIL fundraising, while growing, is not yet on par with the biggest Power Five collectives by total annual dollars raised.
Click to expand...
In 2003 the Florida Marlins won the world series with the lowest paid roster ($54 million) against the Yankees’ highest paid roster ($164 million).

Indiana is much closer to the top than the bottom of NIL spent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31, Pennheel and Good Ol' Charlie Brown
#13
#13
adam.vol said:
In 2003 the Florida Marlins won the world series with the lowest paid roster ($54 million) against the Yankees’ highest paid roster ($164 million).

Indiana is much closer to the top than the bottom of NIL spent.
Click to expand...
That’s certainly an extreme (and great) example. Why did Miami get that result with that team? It’s important to understand.

What are the odds a college football team with payroll in the bottom 30 percentile will win a National title or even a P4 conference championship?

I want to hope for the little guys but I wouldn’t gamble a dollar on them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31 and adam.vol
#14
#14
AdoptedVOL said:
That’s certainly an extreme (and great) example. Why did Miami get that result with that team? It’s important to understand.

What are the odds a college football team with payroll in the bottom 30 percentile will will a National title or even a P4 conference championship?

I want to hope for the little guys but I wouldn’t gamble a dollar on them.
Click to expand...
That’s wise. Miami vs Indiana is certainly fishy.
 
#17
#17
I think Chat BFD is full of it. Indiana wins with experience and discipline. Someone said once, " The team that makes the fewest mistakes wins." They execute and don't make mistakes.
And as far as funding, it ain't like Indiana is using EBT cards. They have a large and passionate fanbase, historically the energy has been directed towards basketball, but now they are all in for football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol
#18
#18
rikberry31 said:
I think Chat BFD is full of it. Indiana wins with experience and discipline. Someone said once, " The team that makes the fewest mistakes wins." They execute and don't make mistakes.
And as far as funding, it ain't like Indiana is using EBT cards. They have a large and passionate fanbase, historically the energy has been directed towards basketball, but now they are all in for football.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you and ChatGPT are far apart. You sound a bit more optimistic on Indiana dollars. Quite a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31
#20
#20
1. Play a weak schedule.
2. Play in a weak conference.
3. Wait for SEC teams to beat each other up.
4. Draw the weakest Alabama squad since Shula in the CFP.
5. Cheat.

And if by chance IU loses to Miami, playing for the national title in their home stadium, then everything IU and Cignetti’s accomplished over the last two seasons is meaningless.

- Anonymous
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpfvol, 207 others, volfan102455 and 2 others
#22
#22
Pennheel said:
I dont know what ChatGPT says,but I would say from anything I've heard is a very strong donor base coming from the largest alumni base including Mark Cuban. That,and having a coach that has always been known as a great evaluator of talent everywhere he's been and got the best of lower star talent everywhere he goes.
Click to expand...
So what is UNC's problem? (FB or MBB?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#23
#23
YankeeVol said:
So what is UNC's problem? (FB or MBB?)
Click to expand...

Lol I wish i could answer either of those questions. They're better in basketball this year,but in football, they make odd coaching hires like Petrino and Belichick thinking its going to work. In Carolinas case,its just throwing money at a problem instead of finding practical ways to fix them with money.
 
#24
#24
Pennheel said:
Lol I wish i could answer either of those questions. They're better in basketball this year,but in football, they make odd coaching hires like Petrino and Belichick thinking its going to work. In Carolinas case,its just throwing money at a problem instead of finding practical ways to fix them with money.
Click to expand...
The Bill hire was DAF from Day 1. I actually like the Petrino hire as OC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#25
#25
YankeeVol said:
The Bill hire was DAF from Day 1. I actually like the Petrino hire as OC.
Click to expand...

Yeah,Petrino might work out. I think he was probably the best choice out there. They're going to have to a lot better hitting the portal this year. I look forward to seeing how that pans out.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top