The production vs. potential debate shifted decidedly toward production when Indiana went 16-0 on the way to the 2025 college football national championship. Tennessee footballshould have taken note.
Indiana coach Curt Cignetti has long favored production over potential. That core principle provided the foundation for his sudden success at a program that for decades had wobbled around the bottom of the Big Ten.
His emphasis on production factored into how he bolstered the roster with transfers, some of whom figured prominently in his success at James Madison. He wanted players who had been productive, not those with the potential for production.
Cignetti is also detail-oriented and meticulous in how he evaluates players. But production-over-potential
has long been the cornerstone of his football philosophy.
His beliefs have been confirmed through decades of experience as an assistant and head coach. Former Tennessee star player and coach Johnny Majors was part of his experience, as you might have read or heard while the national media was chronicling Indiana’s national championship run.
Cignetti was on Majors’ staff during Majors' second coaching stint at Pittsburgh from 1993-96. The Majors-Pitt sequel was nothing like the original, which culminated with an unbeaten season and a national championship in 1976.
“We probably took too many chances on potential,” Cignetti said of their lack of success in the 1990s. “But we were in a position where we didn’t have much, either. We didn’t have resources. We didn’t have facilities. Those things mattered.
"Back then, we didn’t have a lot to sell. Those were the kind of guys we got. And a lot of them didn’t pan out.”
Majors also had to take chances on potential when he arrived at Tennessee in 1977. His rebuilding went slowly but led to success in the late 1980s and early 1990s for him and his successor, Phillip Fulmer.
Tennessee doesn’t have to take as many chances on potential now. It’s not a championship program, but it’s a winning one through five seasons under coach Josh Heupel.
Advancing to the next level could hinge on how effectively the Vols capitalize on the transfer portal. Improving in that area isn’t just about raising more NIL money. It’s also about player evaluation.
Tennessee missed big on pass rusher Chaz Coleman, the Penn State transfer who lasted about two weeks in Knoxville. In June, UT announced that Coleman was no longer on the roster had been “medically disqualified.”
The Vols added Coleman based on his potential, not his production. Last season, as a Penn State freshman, he had eight tackles, three tackles for loss and a sack.
It’s OK to take a chance on potential. But as Cignetti pointed out from his Pitt experience, you can’t take too many chances.
Jordan Norman, who is apt to replace Coleman on UT’s defensive front, has been more productive than Coleman. Moreover, he has improved his production in each of his three seasons, including two at South Alabama and one at Tulane.
In 2024, Norman had 25 tackles, 4.0 tackles for loss and 2.5 sacks for South Alabama. Last season at Tulane, he had 28 tackles, 8.0 tackles for loss and 6.0 sacks.
Norman not only moved up in competition. He became more productive.
Such progress from one season to the next is another factor Cignetti weighs heavily in evaluating players. Cignetti also might have given a thumbs up to Tennessee’s signing of linebacker Amare Campbell.
Campbell had 76 tackles for UNC in 2024. After transferring to Penn State last year, he upped his tackle total to 103 while playing in a tougher conference.
The Vols missed on Coleman. But they still might come out ahead if Norman and Campbell are as productive in the SEC as they were elsewhere.
John Adams is a senior columnist. He may be reached at 865-342-6284 or john.adams@knoxnews.com.
This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Frank Cignetti learned from Johnny Majors at Pitt. Potential for Tennessee? | Adams
