Oregon Ducks Football vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats
The Oregon Ducks Football vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats tell the story of one of the most one-sided College Football Playoff semifinal performances of the 2025 season. Indiana defeated Oregon 56-22 in the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl, combining efficient quarterback play, explosive scoring, strong rushing production, and opportunistic defense to reach the national championship game. Oregon finished with 362 total yards, while Indiana produced 378, but the biggest difference came from efficiency and turnovers. Indiana committed no turnovers, while Oregon lost two fumbles and threw one interception.
The semifinal was especially notable because the teams entered the game with outstanding records. Indiana was ranked No. 1 and remained unbeaten at 15-0, while Oregon entered at No. 5 with a 13-2 record. The final score did not simply reflect a small advantage in total yardage. It reflected a major difference in how effectively each team converted its opportunities.
Oregon Ducks Football vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats at a Glance
The most important numbers immediately show why Indiana controlled the contest.
| Category | Oregon Ducks | Indiana Hoosiers |
| Final Score | 22 | 56 |
| Total Yards | 362 | 378 |
| Passing Yards | 285 | 177 |
| Rushing Yards | 93 | 185 |
| Total Plays | 66 | 60 |
| Yards Per Play | 5.5 | 6.3 |
| Passing Efficiency by Completion Rate | 60.0% | 85.0% |
| Rushing Average | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| First Downs | 18 | 20 |
| Third Down | 8/13 | 11/14 |
| Fourth Down | 0/2 | 0/0 |
| Turnovers | 3 | 0 |
| Fumbles Lost | 2 | 0 |
| Time of Possession | 28:47 | 31:13 |
| Penalties | 5-43 | 5-23 |
One of the most interesting aspects of the box score is that Oregon actually passed for significantly more yards. Dante Moore threw for 285 yards, compared with Fernando Mendoza’s 177. Yet Indiana scored 34 more points.
That contrast is critical.
Passing volume alone did not determine the result. Indiana created more value from each possession. Mendoza completed 17 of 20 attempts, threw five touchdown passes, and avoided an interception. Moore completed 24 of 39 attempts, threw two touchdown passes and one interception, and Oregon also lost two fumbles.
The result demonstrates why player statistics need context. A quarterback can throw for more yards and still lose decisively when the opposing offense is more efficient and the opposing defense wins the turnover battle.
Game Flow and Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring
Indiana established control immediately.
| Quarter | Oregon | Indiana |
| First | 7 | 14 |
| Second | 0 | 21 |
| Third | 8 | 7 |
| Fourth | 7 | 14 |
| Total | 22 | 56 |
Indiana led 14-7 after the opening quarter, then delivered the decisive stretch in the second quarter.
The Hoosiers scored 21 points in the second quarter while Oregon was held scoreless. That created a 35-7 halftime advantage and fundamentally changed the character of the game.
Oregon managed to score eight points in the third quarter, but Indiana responded with seven. The Ducks added another touchdown in the fourth quarter, yet Indiana scored 14 more points to close out the 34-point victory.
The scoring pattern shows that Indiana did not simply survive a close contest before pulling away late. The Hoosiers created separation early and maintained it.
Fernando Mendoza’s Five-Touchdown Performance
Fernando Mendoza was the most efficient offensive player on the field.
The Indiana quarterback completed 17 of 20 passes for 177 yards, averaging 8.9 yards per attempt. He threw five touchdown passes and no interceptions. His reported QBR was 98.5.
Those numbers are especially impressive because Mendoza did not need heavy passing volume.
He attempted only 20 passes.
Instead of relying on 35 or 40 throws to accumulate statistics, Mendoza consistently converted opportunities into scoring plays. His 85% completion rate also helped Indiana stay ahead of the chains and maintain offensive rhythm.
Mendoza’s performance can be summarized through four major numbers:
- 17 completions
- 20 attempts
- 177 passing yards
- 5 touchdowns
- 0 interceptions
- 98.5 QBR
The five touchdown passes are the standout statistic. Indiana scored 56 points, and Mendoza accounted directly for five passing touchdowns.
That production explains why Indiana could win comfortably without producing a huge passing-yard total.
Why Mendoza’s Efficiency Mattered
A common mistake when analyzing quarterback performances is to treat passing yards as the primary measure of success.
This game provides a clear counterexample.
Mendoza averaged 8.9 yards per attempt and completed 85% of his passes. More importantly, he avoided the negative plays that can destroy a high-level offense in a playoff environment.
There was no interception.
There was no need for Indiana to repeatedly recover from failed passing attempts.
The Hoosiers were able to pair Mendoza’s accuracy with 185 rushing yards, creating a balanced offense that Oregon struggled to contain.
Mendoza also contributed 28 rushing yards on six attempts, giving Indiana another way to move the ball.
Dante Moore’s 285 Passing Yards
Dante Moore’s statistics are more complicated.
The Oregon quarterback completed 24 of 39 attempts for 285 yards, two touchdowns and one interception. He averaged 7.3 yards per attempt and recorded a 67.9 QBR.
On the surface, 285 passing yards looks like a productive performance.
The problem was that Oregon needed much more than passing volume.
Moore was operating against an Indiana team that had already built a large lead. Oregon therefore had to throw more often, especially after falling behind 35-7 at halftime.
The final numbers show that Oregon’s passing game generated yards but could not consistently turn those yards into points.
Moore also rushed five times for negative 28 yards. That figure is important because it affected Oregon’s overall rushing output and indicates that quarterback rushing losses were a significant factor in the team’s ground-game statistics.
Comparing the Quarterbacks
| Statistic | Dante Moore | Fernando Mendoza |
| Completions | 24 | 17 |
| Attempts | 39 | 20 |
| Completion Rate | 61.5% | 85.0% |
| Passing Yards | 285 | 177 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 7.3 | 8.9 |
| Touchdowns | 2 | 5 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 0 |
| QBR | 67.9 | 98.5 |
| Rushing | 5 carries, -28 yards | 6 carries, 28 yards |
Moore led in passing yards, but Mendoza clearly led in efficiency and scoring impact.
That difference is arguably the central lesson from the quarterback statistics.
Oregon’s Rushing Attack
Oregon finished with 93 rushing yards on 26 attempts, averaging 3.6 yards per carry.
Dierre Hill Jr. was the Ducks’ leading rusher despite receiving only five carries.
He gained 86 yards, averaged 17.2 yards per attempt, and produced a long run of 71 yards.
That means Hill generated almost all of Oregon’s positive rushing production.
His 71-yard run was explosive enough to dramatically influence his average. Without that play, Oregon’s rushing production would have looked much less impressive.
Jay Harris received the largest workload, carrying the ball 16 times for 35 yards and a touchdown. His average was only 2.2 yards per carry.
Dante Moore added five rushing attempts for negative 28 yards.
Oregon Rushing Leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD | Long |
| Dierre Hill Jr. | 5 | 86 | 17.2 | 0 | 71 |
| Jay Harris | 16 | 35 | 2.2 | 1 | 7 |
| Dante Moore | 5 | -28 | -5.6 | 0 | 6 |
| Oregon Team | 26 | 93 | 3.6 | 1 | 71 |
The contrast between Hill and Harris is striking.
Hill demonstrated the Ducks had the ability to create explosive rushing plays. The issue was consistency.
A successful rushing offense in a playoff game generally needs more than isolated explosive plays. It needs the ability to generate manageable down-and-distance situations repeatedly.
Oregon did not get that consistency.
Indiana’s Rushing Production
Indiana rushed for 185 yards on 40 attempts, averaging 4.6 yards per carry.
That was twice Oregon’s rushing total.
Kaelon Black led the Hoosiers with 63 yards on 12 carries and scored two touchdowns. He averaged 5.3 yards per attempt and had a 23-yard long run.
Roman Hemby carried the ball 17 times for 53 yards.
Khobie Martin added 42 yards on only four attempts, averaging 10.5 yards per carry.
Mendoza also contributed 28 rushing yards.
Indiana Rushing Leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD | Long |
| Kaelon Black | 12 | 63 | 5.3 | 2 | 23 |
| Roman Hemby | 17 | 53 | 3.1 | 0 | Not listed |
| Khobie Martin | 4 | 42 | 10.5 | 0 | Not listed |
| Fernando Mendoza | 6 | 28 | 4.7 | 0 | Not listed |
| Indiana Team | 40 | 185 | 4.6 | 2 | Not listed |
Indiana’s rushing numbers helped explain the offensive balance.
The Hoosiers did not need Mendoza to throw 35 or 40 times because the ground game consistently produced positive yardage.
That allowed Indiana to control the clock, stay ahead of the chains and continue creating favorable scoring opportunities.
Receiving Statistics: Oregon’s Best Performers
Jamari Johnson led Oregon’s receiving group with four catches for 83 yards and one touchdown.
His 20.8 yards per reception was the highest major receiving average among the Ducks’ leading pass catchers.
Jeremiah McClellan caught five passes for 64 yards, while Jay Harris recorded three receptions for 32 yards.
Kenyon Sadiq also caught five passes, finishing with 29 yards.
Oregon Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD |
| Jamari Johnson | 4 | 83 | 20.8 | 1 |
| Jeremiah McClellan | 5 | 64 | 12.8 | 0 |
| Jay Harris | 3 | 32 | 10.7 | 0 |
| Kenyon Sadiq | 5 | 29 | 5.8 | 0 |
| Oregon Team | 24 | 285 | 11.9 | 2 |
Oregon’s receiving statistics again highlight the difference between yardage and scoring efficiency.
The Ducks produced 285 passing yards, but only two passing touchdowns.
Indiana produced just 177 passing yards but five passing touchdowns.
That is an enormous difference in red-zone efficiency and scoring impact.
Indiana’s Receiving Leaders
Elijah Sarratt was Indiana’s leading receiver.
He caught seven passes for 75 yards and two touchdowns.
Sarratt averaged 10.7 yards per reception and provided Mendoza with a dependable target throughout the game.
Charlie Becker caught two passes for 48 yards and one touchdown. His 24.0 yards per reception showed the explosive potential of Indiana’s passing attack.
Omar Cooper Jr. added three receptions for 17 yards and a touchdown.
Indiana Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD |
| Elijah Sarratt | 7 | 75 | 10.7 | 2 |
| Charlie Becker | 2 | 48 | 24.0 | 1 |
| Omar Cooper Jr. | 3 | 17 | 5.7 | 1 |
| Indiana Team | 17 | 177 | 10.4 | 5 |
Sarratt’s two touchdown receptions made him one of the most important skill-position players in the game.
The broader story, however, was distribution.
Indiana did not need one receiver to collect 150 yards. The offense spread its scoring production across multiple players.
That made it harder for Oregon’s defense to eliminate one specific target.
Defensive Player Stats
The defensive statistics provide another explanation for the final score.
Oregon recorded 61 total tackles, 41 solo tackles, one sack and five tackles for loss.
Bryce Boettcher led the Ducks with 11 total tackles, including seven solo stops.
Jerry Mixon recorded Oregon’s only sack.
Indiana finished with 60 total tackles, 30 solo tackles, three sacks and 10 tackles for loss.
Aiden Fisher led the Hoosiers with nine total tackles, including five solo tackles.
Jamari Sharpe recorded two sacks.
Defensive Comparison
| Defensive Category | Oregon | Indiana |
| Total Tackles | 61 | 60 |
| Solo Tackles | 41 | 30 |
| Sacks | 1 | 3 |
| Tackles for Loss | 5 | 10 |
| Passes Defended | 1 | 1 |
| Defensive TDs | 0 | 1 |
The raw tackle totals were almost identical.
That is another reason the game cannot be explained simply by saying Indiana tackled better.
The bigger difference was disruption.
Indiana produced twice as many tackles for loss and three times as many sacks. The Hoosiers also turned an interception into a defensive touchdown.
Those high-impact plays changed possessions and points.
D’Angelo Ponds’ Defensive Touchdown
One of the most important individual plays came from Indiana defensive back D’Angelo Ponds.
Ponds recorded an interception, returned it 25 yards and scored a defensive touchdown.
That play represents the type of swing that can turn a competitive game into a blowout.
Oregon had already been forced into a pass-heavy approach because of the deficit. Indiana’s defense took advantage of an opportunity and converted the turnover directly into seven points.
The value of an interception is therefore larger than the statistical entry of one turnover.
An interception can:
- End an offensive possession.
- Prevent the opponent from scoring.
- Give the defense possession.
- Create favorable field position.
- Produce points directly when returned for a touchdown.
Ponds achieved the final outcome.
Turnovers Were the Defining Difference
The turnover column may be the most important section of the entire box score.
Oregon committed three total turnovers:
- Two lost fumbles
- One interception
Indiana committed zero turnovers.
That produced a plus-three turnover margin for Indiana.
The significance is even greater because Indiana converted a defensive interception into a touchdown.
Oregon’s offense therefore did not simply lose possessions. One of those lost possessions directly produced points for Indiana.
In a College Football Playoff semifinal, those mistakes become extremely costly.
Third Down Efficiency
Indiana also had a clear advantage on third down.
The Hoosiers converted 11 of 14 third-down attempts.
That is a conversion rate of 78.6%.
Oregon converted 8 of 13 third downs, which equals 61.5%.
Both figures are strong, but Indiana’s was exceptional.
Converting nearly four out of every five third downs allowed the Hoosiers to extend drives and prevent Oregon from getting enough possessions to close the gap.
Third-down success also works together with rushing efficiency.
When a team consistently reaches third down in manageable situations, its offense has a much greater chance of sustaining drives.
Indiana’s 185 rushing yards and 11-of-14 third-down performance show how complementary football helped the Hoosiers control the game.
Time of Possession and Offensive Control
Indiana held the ball for 31:13.
Oregon had possession for 28:47.
The difference was only 2:26, so time of possession by itself was not the reason for the blowout.
That distinction matters.
It is easy to assume that the team winning by 34 points must have dominated possession. The statistics do not support that conclusion.
Instead, Indiana was more efficient with its opportunities.
The Hoosiers produced 56 points from 378 total yards.
Oregon produced 22 points from 362 total yards.
That means Indiana scored approximately 14.8 points per 100 total yards, while Oregon scored approximately 6.1 points per 100 total yards.
The gap illustrates how much more efficiently Indiana turned offensive production and defensive opportunities into points.
Total Yardage Tells Only Part of the Story
Indiana had 378 total yards.
Oregon had 362.
The 16-yard difference is relatively small compared with the 34-point difference on the scoreboard.
This is one of the most useful analytical lessons from the matchup.
If someone looked only at total yardage, the game could appear much more competitive than it actually was.
The major differences were:
- Indiana rushed for 185 yards compared with Oregon’s 93.
- Indiana completed 85% of its passes compared with Oregon’s 60%.
- Indiana threw five touchdown passes compared with Oregon’s two.
- Indiana committed zero turnovers compared with Oregon’s three.
- Indiana recorded three sacks compared with Oregon’s one.
- Indiana recorded 10 tackles for loss compared with Oregon’s five.
- Indiana scored a defensive touchdown.
The final score becomes much easier to understand when these categories are considered together.
Why Oregon’s 285 Passing Yards Did Not Translate Into a Close Game
Oregon’s 285 passing yards were impressive in isolation.
But the context matters.
The Ducks were forced to throw because Indiana built a large early lead. That naturally increased passing volume.
Moore attempted 39 passes, nearly twice Mendoza’s 20.
More attempts create more opportunities for yards, but they also create more opportunities for negative plays, incompletions and turnovers.
Oregon’s passing offense did produce two touchdowns, but the Ducks also threw one interception and lost two fumbles.
Indiana’s offense followed the opposite model.
Mendoza attempted only 20 passes but produced five touchdowns and no interceptions.
Indiana’s rushing attack then supplied 185 yards and two rushing touchdowns.
The result was a balanced offense that did not need excessive passing volume.
Why Indiana’s 177 Passing Yards Were Enough
A 177-yard passing performance normally would not stand out against a 56-point total.
But Indiana’s offense was not dependent on passing yardage.
Mendoza completed 17 of 20 attempts and averaged 8.9 yards per attempt.
Five of his completions resulted in touchdowns.
That means the passing attack was extremely productive in terms of points generated.
The Hoosiers also received 185 rushing yards.
Together, the passing and rushing attack produced 362 yards of offense, but the most important difference was how those yards were converted.
Indiana scored touchdowns.
Oregon accumulated yardage but repeatedly failed to match that scoring efficiency.
Special Teams Statistics
Special teams did not dominate the game, but several numbers are worth noting.
Oregon kicker Atticus Sappington finished 2-for-2 on extra points and did not convert his only field-goal attempt. He scored two points.
Indiana kicker Nico Radicic made all eight of his extra-point attempts and finished with eight points.
Oregon punter James Ferguson-Reynolds punted twice for 96 yards, averaging 48.0 yards per punt. One punt finished inside the 20-yard line, with a long of 50 yards.
Indiana punter Mitch McCarthy punted three times for 142 yards, averaging 47.3 yards. Two punts landed inside the 20, with a long of 49 yards.
Oregon also recorded two punt returns for 11 yards, while Indiana had two punt returns for 23 yards.
The special teams numbers were generally solid on both sides, but Indiana’s offensive and defensive production made field-position details less decisive than the turnover and scoring statistics.
The Most Important Oregon Player Performances
Several Oregon players stood out despite the loss.
Dierre Hill Jr.
Hill’s five carries for 86 yards were easily the most explosive rushing performance for Oregon.
His 71-yard run accounted for the majority of his production.
Jamari Johnson
Johnson caught four passes for 83 yards and a touchdown.
His 20.8 yards per reception made him Oregon’s most efficient major receiving target by average.
Jeremiah McClellan
McClellan led Oregon with five receptions and finished with 64 yards.
His workload demonstrated his importance within the Ducks’ passing game.
Bryce Boettcher
Boettcher recorded 11 tackles, including seven solo tackles.
Even though Oregon’s defense struggled to stop Indiana’s scoring attack, Boettcher was consistently involved in the defensive workload.
Dante Moore
Moore finished with 285 passing yards and two touchdown passes.
His production was not enough to overcome the turnover problems and Oregon’s struggles on the ground.
The Most Important Indiana Player Performances
Indiana had several players who contributed directly to the blowout.
Fernando Mendoza
Mendoza’s five touchdown passes and zero interceptions made him the clear offensive centerpiece.
His 85% completion rate and 98.5 QBR reflected an extremely efficient passing performance.
Elijah Sarratt
Sarratt led Indiana in receiving with seven catches for 75 yards and two touchdowns.
He was the most productive receiver in terms of both receptions and touchdown catches.
Kaelon Black
Black rushed for 63 yards on 12 attempts and scored twice.
His 5.3 yards per carry helped Indiana maintain a productive rushing attack.
Aiden Fisher
Fisher recorded nine tackles, including five solo tackles, to lead Indiana’s defense.
Jamari Sharpe
Sharpe recorded two sacks and helped Indiana create consistent pressure against Oregon’s passing game.
D’Angelo Ponds
Ponds produced the game’s defensive touchdown with his 25-yard interception return.
His play was one of the clearest examples of Indiana turning defensive execution into points.
What the Matchup Reveals About Winning Playoff Football
The Oregon Ducks Football vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats reveal a broader lesson about playoff football.
The best team is not always the team with the largest passing total or the most offensive yards.
Indiana won because several components worked together.
First, the Hoosiers were extremely efficient on third down.
Second, they ran the ball better.
Third, Mendoza protected the football.
Fourth, Indiana generated more defensive pressure.
Fifth, the Hoosiers converted a turnover into a defensive touchdown.
Sixth, the offense produced five passing touchdowns despite attempting only 20 passes.
Those factors created a level of efficiency that Oregon could not match.
Key Statistical Lessons From the Game
Several numbers deserve to be remembered when evaluating the matchup.
1. The turnover margin was +3 for Indiana
Oregon lost three possessions through turnovers.
Indiana lost none.
That is a massive advantage in a playoff game.
2. Indiana averaged 4.6 yards per rush
Oregon averaged only 3.6.
That one-yard difference per rushing attempt becomes meaningful across 40 Indiana carries and 26 Oregon attempts.
3. Indiana converted 78.6% of third downs
Going 11-for-14 kept drives alive and helped the Hoosiers maintain offensive control.
4. Mendoza threw five touchdown passes
Five passing touchdowns on only 20 attempts is extraordinary efficiency.
5. Oregon’s offense was more productive through the air than Indiana’s
The Ducks had 285 passing yards compared with Indiana’s 177.
Yet Indiana scored dramatically more points.
That demonstrates why yardage should always be interpreted alongside turnovers, touchdowns and efficiency.
6. Indiana recorded 10 tackles for loss
Oregon recorded five.
The Hoosiers consistently disrupted plays behind the line of scrimmage.
How to Read These Player Stats Correctly
When analyzing a football box score, it is useful to separate volume statistics from efficiency statistics.
Volume tells you how much a player participated.
Efficiency tells you what happened with those opportunities.
For example, Moore attempted 39 passes and gained 285 yards. That is a significant workload.
Mendoza attempted only 20 passes and gained 177 yards.
However, Mendoza produced five touchdowns without an interception, while Moore produced two touchdowns and one interception.
The same principle applies to rushing.
Hill averaged 17.2 yards per carry, but five carries were not enough to provide Oregon with a sustained rushing attack.
Black averaged 5.3 yards per carry across 12 attempts, while Hemby carried 17 times for 53 yards.
Indiana’s running backs collectively gave the offense a more reliable foundation.
This is why a serious player-stat analysis should not simply list leaders. It should explain how individual numbers affected the game.
Oregon Ducks Football vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats: Biggest Takeaways
The overall statistical picture is remarkably clear.
- Indiana won the passing efficiency battle.
- Indiana won the rushing battle.
- Indiana won the turnover battle.
- Indiana won the sack battle.
- Indiana won the tackles-for-loss battle.
- Indiana won the scoring battle by a huge margin.
Oregon did have individual bright spots.
Dierre Hill Jr. produced an explosive 86 rushing yards on only five carries. Jamari Johnson caught four passes for 83 yards and a touchdown. Dante Moore threw for 285 yards and two touchdowns.
But individual production could not compensate for the broader team-level disadvantages.
Indiana’s offense was balanced, its quarterback was highly efficient, and its defense created enough disruption to turn mistakes into points.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between Oregon and Indiana?
Indiana defeated Oregon 56-22 in the College Football Playoff semifinal at the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl.
Who was the best quarterback in the game?
Fernando Mendoza delivered the more efficient performance. He completed 17 of 20 passes for 177 yards, five touchdowns and zero interceptions, while Dante Moore completed 24 of 39 for 285 yards, two touchdowns and one interception.
Who led Oregon in rushing?
Dierre Hill Jr. led Oregon with 86 rushing yards on five carries. He averaged 17.2 yards per carry and had a 71-yard run.
Who led Indiana in rushing?
Kaelon Black led Indiana with 63 rushing yards on 12 carries and scored two touchdowns.
Who was Indiana’s leading receiver?
Elijah Sarratt led the Hoosiers with seven receptions for 75 yards and two touchdowns.
How important were turnovers in the game?
They were extremely important. Oregon committed three turnovers, including two lost fumbles and one interception. Indiana committed none and also returned an interception for a touchdown.
Conclusion
The Oregon Ducks Football vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats show that Indiana’s 56-22 victory was built on efficiency rather than simply overwhelming Oregon in total yardage.
The Hoosiers finished with only 16 more total yards, yet their offensive execution was substantially more effective. Fernando Mendoza completed 85% of his passes and threw five touchdowns without an interception. Indiana also rushed for 185 yards, converted 11 of 14 third downs and committed no turnovers.
Oregon’s statistical leaders still produced meaningful individual performances. Dante Moore threw for 285 yards and two touchdowns, Dierre Hill Jr. delivered 86 rushing yards with a 71-yard burst, and Jamari Johnson recorded 83 receiving yards and a touchdown. But the Ducks struggled to turn those individual gains into sustained scoring production.
The decisive numbers were efficiency, turnovers, rushing production and defensive disruption. Indiana’s three sacks, 10 tackles for loss and defensive touchdown complemented an offense that consistently converted opportunities into points.
Ultimately, the box score illustrates why playoff football is rarely decided by one statistic. Indiana combined accurate quarterback play, a productive rushing attack, disciplined ball security and timely defensive execution. That combination allowed the Hoosiers to turn a semifinal matchup between two elite teams into a 34-point victory.
