Daily Blog •July 6, 2012

 

Who Plays The Toughest Schedule in 2012?

The question arises each year, “who plays the toughest schedule?” At the beginning of the season, the NCAA usually releases a rating of each team’s schedule based on their opponents’ win/loss record from the previous season. This is a good method but it does have its obvious flaws.

The first flaw is basing the ratings on opponent’s records from the PREVIOUS season. Let’s look at a couple of examples. At the start of ‘07 I had Illinois rated as one of the top teams in the Big Ten and they went on to knock off #1 Ohio St and play in the ROSE BOWL. My ratings had them as an above avg opponent at the start of the year and they finished the regular season #13 (AP). Using 2006’s record as the criteria for determining the strength of an opponent’s schedule however, you would count them as a 2-10 team! Last year I had Houston in my Top 25 and they finished 13-1 and ranked #18. I also had Georgia and Clemson on my Most Improved Teams List and counted them as a ranked tm for the upcoming schedule and they finished the regular season ranked #12 and #21. If you used the NCAA method you only got credit for playing 3 tms with losing records (all below .500 in ‘10). On the flip side of the coin Notre Dame was in an obvious rebuilding year in ‘07 yet was still counted as a 10-3 team if you based strength of schedule on 2006’s record, and they were far from a January bowl team in ‘07 at just 3-9!

The second flaw is basing it on pure overall records. If a team played an FCS school that was 11-1 in 2007, that counted as a MUCH tougher game in the NCAA ratings than facing a team like Alabama who was 7-6 in ‘07 but #1 at the end of ‘08 regular season! My ratings had Bama ranked as a MUCH tougher team than any FCS foe. In ‘02, my ratings foresaw that teams playing Kansas St were facing a Top 10 team based on my preseason ratings. The NCAA strength of schedule ranking rated a game against Kansas St as just a game vs a 6-6 opp (‘01 record). Kansas St finished #7 AP for ‘02 and walloped their opponent’s by an avg of 45-12, not exactly numbers from a typical middle-of-the-road opponent. On the flip side let’s look at 2009’s Ball St team. They were in an obvious rebuilding year and my power ratings had them only winning 2 or 3 games. My methods gave teams credit for a weak foe when facing Ball St but basing it on the previous year’s record, teams were given credit for playing a 12-2 team which is what they finished in 2008! That is a MAJOR flaw!

Now let’s turn our attention to 2012. This year I again decided to see what the NCAA method would come up with for toughest opp’s faced and compared it to my chart, which I always list in the magazine. Let’s first look at the NCAA rankings. Below is a chart of all 124 teams and the combined 2011 opp’s records. It is ranked in order of highest % of opp wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest % of opp wins (or easiest schedule).

NCAA Method (Opponent Win % from 2011)

Rank School Foe Wins Foe Losses Foe Win %
1 Texas A&M 105 51 67.30%
2 Kansas 102 51 66.70%
3 Baylor 100 55 64.50%
4 Notre Dame 97 56 63.40%
5 TCU 97 56 63.40%
6 Iowa St 95 57 62.50%
7 Mississippi 98 59 62.40%
8 Oklahoma 94 57 62.30%
9 Florida 95 58 62.10%
10 Arkansas 93 59 61.20%
11 Arizona 94 60 61.00%
12 Texas Tech 91 60 60.30%
13 Auburn 94 62 60.30%
14 Nebraska 94 63 59.90%
15 West Virginia 91 62 59.50%
16 Washington 90 62 59.20%
17 Kentucky 90 62 59.20%
18 South Carolina 91 63 59.10%
19 Minnesota 91 64 58.70%
20 Miami, Fl 89 63 58.60%
21 Maryland 89 64 58.20%
22 Kansas St 87 63 58.00%
23 LSU 88 64 57.90%
24 Texas 87 65 57.20%
25 Syracuse 87 65 57.20%
26 Michigan 88 66 57.10%
27 Duke 88 66 57.10%
28 Oklahoma St 86 65 57.00%
29 Indiana 86 66 56.60%
30 Mississippi St 83 64 56.50%
31 California 86 67 56.20%
32 Oregon St 87 68 56.10%
33 Iowa 87 68 56.10%
34 USF 84 66 56.00%
35 SMU 85 67 55.90%
36 Army 85 67 55.90%
37 Idaho 83 66 55.70%
38 Boston College 86 69 55.50%
39 North Texas 82 66 55.40%
40 Eastern Michigan 84 68 55.30%
41 Ohio St 85 69 55.20%
42 Penn St 86 70 55.10%
43 Pittsburgh 82 67 55.00%
44 Louisville 83 68 55.00%
45 Missouri 82 69 54.30%
46 Clemson 82 69 54.30%
47 Buffalo 82 69 54.30%
48 Michigan St 83 70 54.20%
49 Purdue 83 70 54.20%
50 UTEP 84 71 54.20%
51 UCLA 82 70 53.90%
52 Virginia 82 70 53.90%
53 Alabama 81 70 53.60%
54 USC 83 73 53.20%
55 ULM 79 70 53.00%
56 Tennessee 80 72 52.60%
57 Marshall 80 72 52.60%
58 East Carolina 80 72 52.60%
59 Washington St 81 73 52.60%
60 Virginia Tech 79 72 52.30%
61 Fresno St 80 73 52.30%
62 Colorado 79 73 52.00%
63 FAU 75 71 51.40%
64 Vanderbilt 77 73 51.30%
65 Wisconsin 78 75 51.00%
66 Akron 75 73 50.70%
67 Oregon 76 74 50.70%
68 Connecticut 76 74 50.70%
69 Georgia Tech 77 75 50.70%
70 UAB 77 75 50.70%
71 Central Michigan 75 74 50.30%
72 Rice 77 76 50.30%
73 Arizona St 76 76 50.00%
74 Colorado St 77 78 49.70%
75 Wake Forest 75 76 49.70%
76 Northwestern 75 76 49.70%
77 Southern Miss 74 75 49.70%
78 Cincinnati 74 75 49.70%
79 WKU 74 75 49.70%
80 Boise St 76 78 49.40%
81 Georgia 75 77 49.30%
82 Illinois 75 78 49.00%
83 Rutgers 73 76 49.00%
84 NC State 72 75 49.00%
85 Hawaii 72 75 49.00%
86 San Jose St 72 75 49.00%
87 Ball St 74 78 48.70%
88 UCF 73 79 48.00%
89 BYU 72 78 48.00%
90 Tulane 72 78 48.00%
91 Toledo 71 77 48.00%
92 UNLV 78 85 47.90%
93 Miami, Ohio 70 77 47.60%
94 New Mexico St 70 77 47.60%
95 Arkansas St 69 76 47.60%
96 Stanford 72 80 47.40%
97 North Carolina 71 79 47.30%
98 Nevada 71 79 47.30%
99 Florida St 70 79 47.00%
100 Utah St 69 78 46.90%
101 New Mexico 76 87 46.60%
102 Troy 68 78 46.60%
103 Temple 63 73 46.30%
104 Louisiana Tech 69 80 46.30%
105 Middle Tenn 67 78 46.20%
106 Wyoming 69 81 46.00%
107 Kent St 68 80 45.90%
108 Tulsa 69 82 45.70%
109 Texas St 67 80 45.60%
110 Louisiana 61 75 44.90%
111 Bowling Green 66 82 44.60%
112 Western Michigan 65 81 44.50%
113 Utah 67 84 44.40%
114 Massachusetts 67 84 44.40%
115 Houston 67 84 44.40%
116 Memphis 66 83 44.30%
117 San Diego St 66 84 44.00%
118 Ohio 64 82 43.80%
119 South Alabama 68 91 42.80%
120 Air Force 60 89 40.30%
121 FIU 58 87 40.00%
122 Northern Illinois 57 88 39.30%
123 UTSA 54 87 38.30%
124 Navy 53 93 36.30%

Below are my rankings for the nation’s toughest schedules this year. These rankings take two major factors into account. The first is my 9 sets of Power Ratings. This ensures that an FCS team is rated much lower than Ohio St or USF, two teams that finished with losing records last year!

The second factor is the amount of home and away games played. As an example, this year some teams will have as many as 8 home games, while others play as many as 8 on the road. Last year Central Michigan played 7 road games and this year they have 7 at home.

The toughest schedule this year according to my rankings belongs to Notre Dame while the easiest belongs to UTSA.

Phil Steele's 2012 Toughest Schedules

Rk
 School
Rk
 School
Rk
 School
1
 Notre Dame
43
 Washington St
85
 North Carolina
2
 Mississippi
44
 Virginia Tech
86
 ULM
3
 Iowa St
45
 UTEP
87
 Rutgers
4
 Michigan
46
 Tennessee
88
 Cincinnati
5
 Florida
47
 Vanderbilt
89
 Hawaii
6
 Washington
48
 Georgia Tech
90
 East Carolina
7
 Baylor
49
 Clemson
91
 Wyoming
8
 Texas A&M
50
 Texas Tech
92
 UNLV
9
 Miami, Fl
51
 Virginia
93
 Troy
10
 Kentucky
52
 Purdue
94
 Tulane
11
 Kansas
53
 Indiana
95
 WKU
12
 Stanford
54
 Illinois
96
 Arkansas St
13
 South Carolina
55
 Oregon
97
 New Mexico
14
 Arizona
56
 Wisconsin
98
 Louisiana
15
 California
57
 USF
99
 Miami, Ohio
16
 TCU
58
 Ball St
100
 San Diego St
17
 Auburn
59
 Northwestern
101
 San Jose St
18
 Arkansas
60
 Eastern Michigan
102
 Nevada
19
 Missouri
61
 NC State
103
 New Mexico St
20
 Oklahoma
62
 Marshall
104
 Utah St
21
 Michigan St
63
 Utah
105
 Toledo
22
 Oklahoma St
64
 Connecticut
106
 Army
23
 Ohio St
65
 Louisville
107
 Tulsa
24
 Oregon St
66
 Idaho
108
 FIU
25
 Nebraska
67
 UAB
109
 Bowling Green
26
 UCLA
68
 Iowa
110
 Kent St
27
 Arizona St
69
 Temple
111
 Louisiana Tech
28
 Alabama
70
 Florida St
112
 Central Michigan
29
 LSU
71
 Boise St
113
 Texas St
30
 USC
72
 Georgia
114
 Colorado St
31
 West Virginia
73
 Rice
115
 Middle Tenn
32
 Colorado
74
 Fresno St
116
 Navy
33
 Maryland
75
 SMU
117
 Memphis
34
 Kansas St
76
 Pittsburgh
118
 Houston
35
 Duke
77
 Buffalo
119
 Air Force
36
 Texas
78
 Massachusetts
120
 South Alabama
37
 Penn St
79
 North Texas
121
 Western Michigan
38
 Mississippi St
80
 Southern Miss
122
 Northern Illinois
39
 Wake Forest
81
 BYU
123
 Ohio
40
 Syracuse
82
 Akron
124
 UTSA
41
 Boston College
83
 UCF
 
42
 Minnesota
84
 Florida Atlantic    

Let’s pick out 2 teams to show you the flaws of just using last year’s overall opp records. Based on 2011’s opponent records Army ties for the 36th toughest schedule while Stanford takes on an easy #96 slate. Stanford’s “cupcake” #96 schedule features 6 road trips vs BCS foes, USC, Oregon, 11 AQ conf foes and their lone game vs a non-AQ is San Jose St which I think will be bowl eligible. Army’s much “tougher” slate has just 4 AQ teams (WF, Rut, BC and Temple), none of which will be ranked and also one FCS team. Put Stanford vs the #36 Army schedule and they are double-digit favorites in ALL 12 games! Army could be favored in 6 or 7 games TY vs their #36 sked but would be favored in ONE gm vs Stanford’s #96 sked. Do you really think Rich Ellerson would trade schedules? MY SOS has Stanford at #12 and Army’s at #106.

Let’s pick out 2 more teams to show you the flaws of just using last year’s overall opp records. Based on 2011’s opponent records Central Michigan has the 71st toughest schedule while Utah takes on an easy #113 slate. Utah’s “cupcake” #96 schedule features 6 road trips vs BCS foes, USC, 9 AQ conf foes and a non-conf gm against a BYU team that could win 9-10 games this year. Central Michigan’s much “tougher” slate has just two AQ teams (MSU and Iowa). Put Utah vs the #71 Central Michigan schedule and they are double-digit favorites in 10 games! Central Michigan could be favored in 5 or 6 games TY vs their #71 sked but would be favored in ONE gm vs Utah’s #113 sked. Do you really think Dan Enos would trade schedules? MY SOS has Utah at #63 and Central Michigan’s at #112.

Here are the teams with the biggest discrepancy in the two methods of determining toughest schedule and you can check out each team’s schedules to see which method you think is better. I list the difference in rankings between the two in ( )’s. Most UNDERRATED schedules (tms that face a tougher slate than the NCAA’s % rankings): 1. Stanford (84) 2. Utah (50) 3. Ariz St (46) 4. Wake Forest (36) 5. Massachusetts (35) 6. Temple (34) 7. Colorado (30) 8. Florida St (29) 8. Ball St (29) 10. Illinois (28).

Here are the Most OVERRATED Schedules (teams that face an easier slate than the NCAA’s % rankings): 1. Army (71) 2. CMU (41) 3. Colo St (40) 3. N Texas (40) 3. SMU (40) 6. Texas Tech (38) 7. Iowa (36) 8. E Carolina (34) 9. Pitt (33) 10. Buffalo (32).

Naturally teams would much rather face a team from a non-BCS conf like Houston that went 13-1 LY (but does lose Keenum) than say a team like Ohio St that went 6-7 but will be ranked this year. Temple (9-4 LY) will likely have a losing season. Based only on LY’s record, Temple is a vastly superior squad to Ohio St (major flaw).

So which method do you think is better?

Respond back with your questions/comments via Facebook or Twitter!

Only 55 Days Until the First College Football Game!!!