There's Nothing Wrong with Putting Indiana as Preseason No. 1

Curt Cignetti is the first person who would admit that last year was last year, and this year is this year. He's right. Indiana's historic success in 2025 doesn't mean that his 2026 squad is guaranteed anything.

Well, it does mean that IU will likely be guaranteed its best preseason ranking in the AP Poll ever, and if the 14 first-place votes in the Coaches Poll was any indication, there's a not-so-crazy stance to take.

Indiana as preseason No. 1? It's not crazy at all

To be clear, that's not a prediction. I'm on record saying that IU will be around No. 5, even after the fall camp additions of Stephen Daley and Kellan Wyatt.

But again, go back to what those 14 coaches (or sports information directors) did by putting IU as the preseason No. 1. Are they telling us that they expect IU to repeat? Not necessarily. Personally, I don't believe preseason rankings should predict where teams finish, but I realize others operate differently.

What some of us could be telling the world is something a bit more simple — we're gonna need to see IU actually fall off before someone else is worthy of the top spot.

Is that such an outlandish statement? It's not, especially when you consider the questions that are facing those elite teams.

Ohio State and Notre Dame might end up being the betting preseason favorites, and what do they have in common? Both teams failed to win a Playoff game last year and they lost to the two best squads that they faced.

What about Miami? As in, the team that lost to IU in their own stadium and had even more first-round picks to replace?

Or how about Oregon? Like, the team that went 0-2 vs. IU and lost by a combined score of 86-42?

Shoot, how about Texas? You know, the preseason No. 1 from last year that missed the Playoff altogether because it couldn't get past 4-8 Florida?

Then what about Georgia? Well, the loaded defense and returning starting quarterback matter, but so does the zero Playoff victories in the last three seasons.

You see, you start to go through the contenders and you can talk yourself out of anyone

That's perhaps why IU is one of six teams with national title odds somewhere between +550-+900.

By that logic, couldn't you just default to the team that went 16-0 who retained its head coach and coordinators? Danny Kanell made the case for just that.

.@dannykanell makes the case for Indiana as the No. 1 team in the country. pic.twitter.com/xNJm3jErpl
— CBS Sports College Football 🏈 (@CBSSportsCFB) August 12, 2026

I can't disagree with that logic because preseason No. 1 is an inexact science. At a time when there's internet discourse about the logic of preseason polls and their purpose in the sport, what if ranking the previous national champion No. 1 was actually the way to satisfy all parties?

It's a pretty common practice for the Nick Sabans and Kirby Smarts of the world. Who's to say that Cignetti isn't about to be worthy of earning that type of preseason respect?

Of the 25 national champs in the 21st century, 12 of them started the following season at No. 1. Usually, that comes down to whether a team keeps its starting quarterback — 9 of the 12 brought back the same QB1 — which IU obviously didn't.

Take a wild guess who coached the three instances of a national champ starting as a preseason No. 1 with a new starting quarterback — Saban and Smart. In other words, the two coaches who have almost unanimously held the title of "best coach in the sport" for the 15 years before Cignetti did what he did.

If you want to default to that logic until actual games dictate such things, you're justified in doing so. Anybody who says that's lazy is probably defaulting to preseason magazines, tweets from beat reporters and general program vibes.

Again, it's an inexact science. In this crazy world of college football, a not-so-crazy thing to do is to reward the previous national champ after going 16-0.

Cignetti and Co. have a case to pick up exactly where they left off.

Add us as a preferred source on Google