Maybe, maybe not. I think one difference is that Cignetti came to Indiana with a blank slate and zero expectations. Fleck inherited a somewhat messier situation. Cignetti appears to be more single-minded about football than Fleck and while coaches like Cignetti aren't exactly a new breed, I think that approach is probably going to be heralded more as college football becomes more professionalized.
As for Indiana's magic season, I think it's more than lightning in a bottle. Things really fell together for them, but it didn't exactly fall out of the sky. Cignetti's a very good coach. They kept around a set of solid performers that improved with experience and probably better coaching (or at least a system that more closely aligned with their particular talents). They have hit the portal effectively. And they have a big-time booster (which isn't everything but clearly helps).
Going forward, we'll have to see if Indiana assistant coaches are pursued and how Indiana responds. The assistant coaching angle gets played a lot (somewhat overplayed in my book) but having the right coaches to instruct but as importantly construct and maintain a system (and then recruit to that system) is very important. We're not reliving the Brewster era in terms of assistant coaching retention, but we've had a lot of turnover over the past three seasons especially among the coordinator positions. I'm not insinuating that keeping Hetherman or Harasymiak or Ciarrocca would put us on the doorstep of a national championship, but consistency can be valuable.
