Never Apologize for Winning. But Indiana’s Win at Nebraska Leaves Work to Do.

Coach Griff’s perspective: The Hoosiers earned a tough road victory, but offensive variety, tackling and takeaway production deserve an honest look before Ohio State.

You should never apologize for winning.

Indiana went into Lincoln, found itself down two scores in the fourth quarter and came home with a 20–17 victory. That takes toughness, belief and players who deliver under pressure. The Hoosiers deserve credit for finding a way.

But winning does not eliminate the need for an honest evaluation.

After six games, do I see reasons for concern on both sides of the football?

Yes.

That does not diminish what Indiana accomplished Saturday. It is the same evaluation a coaching staff must make after every game: What worked? What needs to improve? And what might the next opponent expose?

With Ohio State coming next, those questions carry some urgency.

The Running Game Needs More Ways to Stress a Defense

Indiana entered Saturday averaging 252.6 rushing yards per game. Nebraska held the Hoosiers to 65 yards on 22 attempts, including just 12 yards in the first half. This was a significant departure from what Indiana had established through its first five games.

My concern is how Indiana responds when its base running game is not working.

From what I have watched, too much of the rushing attack is concentrated between the B gaps. Inside zone and duo appear to carry much of the workload, while the perimeter and a complementary power or counter package have received relatively little attention.

Those base concepts can be productive. Indiana has already demonstrated that.

But against a stout defensive front, I do not believe this offensive line can consistently create movement inside without some help from the structure of the offense.

Make defenders move before the snap. Change their leverage. Give linebackers something else to read. Force the defense to defend more of the field.

That can come through formations, motion, perimeter runs or a few complementary blocking schemes. Even a familiar run can become more effective when the presentation changes.

I am not asking Indiana to reinvent its offense. I want to see more answers when the first answer gets taken away.

Becker and Marsh Can Help Beyond the Passing Game

Charlie Becker has tremendous speed. Nick Marsh brings size, strength and the ability to turn a touch into an explosive play.

I would like to see Indiana find ways to involve both in the running game.

Speed sweeps, end-arounds and motion handoffs give those players opportunities without requiring Hoover to complete a pass. Their movement can also influence the defense when they never receive the ball.

If a defender must widen with motion or hesitate to account for a sweep, that can help the interior running game, too.

In my view, Indiana has leaned toward an inside-first approach over the past two seasons. That has been a choice within a successful system. But the talent exists to ask more questions of a defense on the edges.

The same applies to power and counter. I would like to see those concepts become more meaningful complements, with an occasional designed quarterback run where the situation and defensive look justify it.

Every addition should have a purpose. The goal is to make Indiana’s existing offense harder to defend.

Give Hoover More Opportunities Outside the Pocket

The RPO system has been friendly to Indiana’s quarterbacks, and Saturday’s comeback showed its value.

I still believe the passing game could benefit from more boots and sprint-out passes that move Josh Hoover’s launch point and complement the running action.

Those calls can change pursuit angles, create defined reads and put pressure on defenders responsible for both the run and the pass.

I would also like to see hard play-action shots on early downs built into the opening 15-to-20-play script when the matchup supports them.

Make the defense honor the possibility of an explosive pass before Indiana gets into an obvious throwing situation. With Becker and Marsh available, there is good reason to create those opportunities deliberately.

The fourth-and-one touchdown to Marsh was an excellent example of using the defense’s expectation against it. Indiana showed a short-yardage situation, Nebraska attacked the run, and the Hoosiers produced the winning touchdown through play action.

I want to see that kind of conflict created more consistently.

Near the Goal Line, the Details Matter

My concern about goal-line creativity continues as well.

Indiana has scored touchdowns on 18 of its 24 red-zone possessions this season. That is a 75 percent touchdown rate, so it would be unfair to describe the entire red-zone offense as ineffective. Those numbers, however, do not isolate the snaps from the five-yard line and closer.

That tight area is where my concern lies.

When the defense compresses the field and crowds the interior, what is Indiana’s next answer? Can motion change the strength? Can a formation create leverage? Can the offense threaten the edge or move the quarterback?

My impression last season was that Indiana became more creative in its presentations and answers when early problems surfaced. I would like to see that same adjustment now.

A few well-chosen wrinkles could improve efficiency on normal downs and near the goal line.

Defensively, Finish the Tackle

On defense, the most noticeable concern to my eye is tackling.

I am seeing more diving, more attempts without a secure wrap and more opportunities for ball carriers to escape first contact than I have come to expect from Indiana.

That is a film observation, rather than a claim based on a verified season-long missed-tackle count. But it deserves attention because sound tackling has been such an important part of this defense’s identity.

Close under control. Maintain leverage. Wrap up. Bring your feet through contact. Give the next defender a chance to finish.

Against a mobile quarterback, those details become even more important. Pressure accomplishes little if the quarterback escapes and turns a potential negative play into a first down.

Nebraska converted 10 of 19 third downs Saturday, including eight of 11 in the first half. Indiana’s defense eventually delivered the stops needed to win, but too many earlier opportunities extended possessions.

The late response deserves credit. The earlier execution still needs correction.

The Takeaway Production Is Behind Last Year

The turnover numbers support another concern.

Through six games in 2025, Indiana had 10 takeaways and three giveaways—a plus-seven margin.

Through six games this season, the Hoosiers have four takeaways and one giveaway—a plus-three margin. All four takeaways have been interceptions; Indiana has yet to recover an opponent’s fumble.

Protecting the football has been a strength. The difference is that the defense has not supplied the same volume of extra possessions.

Turnovers can arrive in bunches, and fumble recoveries involve some randomness. Still, disciplined pressure, sound coverage and physical tackling give a defense opportunities to take the ball away.

Indiana needs more of those opportunities to become possessions.

Appreciate the Win. Address the Details.

Nothing about this evaluation changes the value of Saturday’s victory.

Indiana showed resilience. Its playmakers delivered. Its defense finished the game.

But an unbeaten record should never close the door on improvement.

My concerns are specific: more variety in the running game, more ways to involve Becker and Marsh, more movement throws and early-down play action, better answers near the goal line, more reliable tackling and more takeaways.

These are adjustments within an offense and defense that have already accomplished a great deal.

Celebrate the win in Lincoln.

Then get back to the details, because Ohio State will test them.

Statistical sources: Indiana–Nebraska official box score, Indiana’s 2026 cumulative statistics and Indiana’s 2025 game notes following its sixth game.