Curt Cignetti is not happy with the College Football Playoff committee. Indiana dropped in the rankings even though it did not play a game on Saturday during its bye week.
Its head coach does not understand why!
Not only did Cignetti express his frustrations on X, his post implied further criticism that got deleted. The college football coach made a revision.
Indiana dropped in the College Football Playoff rankings after a bye week.
The Hoosiers were ranked No. 4 in the first College Football Playoff rankings last week. They dropped to No. 9 on Tuesday even though they did not play a game on Saturday during the bye week.
Indiana would earn a first-round bye ranked at No. 4. It would not even host a first-round game ranked at No. 9.
Now, to be fair, most people thought the initial rankings probably had the reigning national champions a little bit too high. This second set of rankings seemed to (over)correct the things that the first set of rankings got wrong. And the rankings will probably play themselves out on the field anyway. Especially this season— which is the craziest season since 2007.
Although Indiana does not have a “signature win” at 8-1, its only loss was to Ohio State by a matter of inches. Three SEC teams with two losses are ranked ahead of the Hoosiers. Even No. 1 Georgia has a worse single loss to Auburn. So why the drop?
Committee chairman Hunter Yurachek said on Tuesday that Indiana was “probably the victim of having a bye week at the wrong time.” The strength of schedule (or lack thereof, in the Hoosiers’ case) proved to be the deciding factor here.
Curt Cignetti probably held back his criticism.
Two days after Indiana dropped from No. 4 to No. 9, Curt Cignetti made the following post on X:
The head coach questioned how bad losses are not considered in the rankings. He was hinting at Georgia’s loss to Auburn and Texas’ losses to unranked Oklahoma and Florida— not to mention Alabama’s two losses, Notre Dame’s loss to BYU, or Tennessee’s to South Carolina, among others.
However, it appeared as though Cignetti actually bit his tongue. His post was edited.
The post that went live reads as: “Bad losses don’t count anymore?”
The post that was edited featured a “to” that got deleted: “Bad losses to don’t count anymore?”
Hm……… What was he wanting to say? Bad losses to who? Was Cignetti going to name names? Was he going to go even further?
I would love to know how many revisions Cignetti went through. A guy who is not known to bite his tongue chose to do so.