Daily Blog • Friday, March 30th
Blog Archives

The MAC officially announced their 2012 schedules yesterday which now completes the 2012 schedules for all the 124 FBS teams. You can find your favorites team's schedule here. Immediately I wanted to get a calculation on who plays the toughest schedule according to last year's win/loss records which is the way the NCAA figures who will play the toughest schedule in 2012. This is NOT my method and the NCAA will probably officially release these calculations in a week or two but I wanted to get a jump start on the information.

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 opponents records from the previous season. Let’s look at a couple of examples. At the start of 2007 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! In 2008, I had teams like Ole Miss and Minnesota on my Most Improved Teams List meaning I thought they were bowl caliber but using the previous year’s record you would have counted them as 3-9 and 1-11 teams (both made bowls, Ole Miss finished #14). 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 2007 at just 3-9!

The second flaw is basing it on pure overall records. If a team plays an FCS (IAA) school that was 11-1 in 2007, that counts 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. To give you an example from 2002, 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 (2001 record). Kanas St finished #7 AP for 2002 and walloped their opp’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!

Here are the NCAA rankings for 2012’s Opponent Winning % which I am proud to say have not yet been released.

NCAA Method (Opponent Win %)


    FOE FOE FOE Tms W/
Foes That
Rank   WINS LOSS WIN% Win Rec
Plyd in Bowls
1 TEXAS A&M 105 51 67.31% 11 9
2 KANSAS 102 51 66.67% 8 9
3 BAYLOR 100 55 64.52% 8 8
4 NOTRE DAME 97 56 63.40% 7 9
4 TCU 97 56 63.40% 9 9
6 IOWA ST 95 57 62.50% 9 9
7 MISSISSIPPI 98 59 62.42% 9 9
8 OKLAHOMA 94 57 62.25% 8 8
9 FLORIDA 95 58 62.09% 8 8
10 ARKANSAS 93 59 61.18% 9 8
11 ARIZONA 94 60 61.04% 8 9
12 TEXAS TECH 91 60 60.26% 7 8
13 AUBURN 94 62 60.26% 8 8
14 NEBRASKA 94 63 59.87% 7 10
15 WEST VIRGINIA 91 62 59.48% 8 8
16 WASHINGTON 90 62 59.21% 8 7
16 KENTUCKY 90 62 59.21% 9 8
18 S CAROLINA 91 63 59.09% 7 7
19 MINNESOTA 91 64 58.71% 9 9
20 MIAMI, FL 89 63 58.55% 9 8
21 MARYLAND 89 64 58.17% 8 9
22 KANSAS ST 87 63 58.00% 6 7
23 LSU 88 64 57.89% 9 8
24 TEXAS 87 65 57.24% 7 8
24 SYRACUSE 87 65 57.24% 7 8
26 MICHIGAN 88 66 57.14% 8 10
26 DUKE 88 66 57.14% 8 9
28 OKLAHOMA ST 86 65 56.95% 7 8
29 INDIANA 86 66 56.58% 7 8
30 MISS ST 83 64 56.46% 7 5
31 CALIFORNIA 86 67 56.21% 7 9
32 IOWA 87 68 56.13% 7 8
32 OREGON ST 87 68 56.13% 7 9
34 USF 84 66 56.00% 6 7
35 SMU 85 67 55.92% 7 6
35 ARMY 85 67 55.92% 6 6
37 IDAHO 83 66 55.70% 7 6
38 BOSTON COLL 86 69 55.48% 7 8
39 N TEXAS 82 66 55.41% 7 5
40 E MICHIGAN 84 68 55.26% 7 6
41 OHIO ST 85 69 55.19% 8 8
42 PENN ST 86 70 55.13% 8 10
43 PITTSBURGH 82 67 55.03% 7 6
44 LOUISVILLE 83 68 54.97% 6 7
45 MISSOURI 82 69 54.30% 5 7
45 CLEMSON 82 69 54.30% 7 7
45 BUFFALO 82 69 54.30% 5 6
48 MICHIGAN ST 83 70 54.25% 6 8
48 PURDUE 83 70 54.25% 8 8
50 UTEP 84 71 54.19% 6 6
51 UCLA 82 70 53.95% 6 7
51 VIRGINIA 82 70 53.95% 7 8
53 ALABAMA 81 70 53.64% 8 7
54 USC 83 73 53.21% 6 8
55 ULM 79 70 53.02% 8 6
56 TENNESSEE 80 72 52.63% 7 8
56 E CAROLINA 80 72 52.63% 6 5
56 MARSHALL 80 72 52.63% 6 6
59 WASHINGTON ST 81 73 52.60% 7 8
60 VIRGINIA TECH 79 72 52.32% 6 7
61 FRESNO ST 80 73 52.29% 7 7
62 COLORADO 79 73 51.97% 5 7
63 FLORIDA ATL 75 71 51.37% 6 4
64 VANDERBILT 77 73 51.33% 5 7
65 WISCONSIN 78 75 50.98% 7 7
66 AKRON 75 73 50.68% 4 4
67 OREGON 76 74 50.67% 6 6
67 CONNECTICUT 76 74 50.67% 6 7
69 GEORGIA TECH 77 75 50.66% 6 6
69 UAB 77 75 50.66% 5 6
71 C MICHIGAN 75 74 50.34% 5 5
72 RICE 77 76 50.33% 6 7
73 ARIZONA ST 76 76 50.00% 6 7
74 COLORADO ST 77 78 49.68% 6 5
75 NORTHWESTERN 75 76 49.67% 6 7
75 WAKE FOREST 75 76 49.67% 7 7
77 CINCINNATI 74 75 49.66% 5 6
77 SOUTHERN MISS 74 75 49.66% 6 5
77 WESTERN KENTUCKY 74 75 49.66% 5 5
80 BOISE ST 76 78 49.35% 6 6
81 GEORGIA 75 77 49.34% 6 6
82 ILLINOIS 75 78 49.02% 6 9
83 RUTGERS 73 76 48.99% 4 5
84 NC STATE 72 75 48.98% 5 5
84 HAWAII 72 75 48.98% 7 6
84 SAN JOSE ST 72 75 48.98% 5 5
87 BALL ST 74 78 48.68% 5 5
88 UCF 73 79 48.03% 6 7
89 BYU 72 78 48.00% 5 5
89 TULANE 72 78 48.00% 5 5
91 TOLEDO 71 77 47.97% 5 4
92 UNLV 78 85 47.85% 7 7
93 MIAMI, OH 70 77 47.62% 3 4
93 NEW MEXICO ST 70 77 47.62% 5 5
95 ARKANSAS ST 69 76 47.59% 6 4
96 STANFORD 72 80 47.37% 5 6
97 N CAROLINA 71 79 47.33% 5 6
97 NEVADA 71 79 47.33% 5 5
99 FLORIDA ST 70 79 46.98% 5 5
100 UTAH ST 69 78 46.94% 5 4
101 NEW MEXICO 76 87 46.63% 5 5
102 TROY 68 78 46.58% 6 4
103 TEMPLE 63 73 46.32% 4 5
104 LOUISIANA TECH 69 80 46.31% 5 5
105 MIDDLE TENN 67 78 46.21% 7 4
106 WYOMING 69 81 46.00% 7 6
107 KENT ST 68 80 45.95% 4 3
108 TULSA 69 82 45.70% 4 5
109 TEXAS ST 67 80 45.58% 5 4
110 LOUISIANA 61 75 44.85% 5 4
111 BOWLING GREEN 66 82 44.59% 4 4
112 W MICHIGAN 65 81 44.52% 3 3
113 UTAH  67 84 44.37% 5 7
113 HOUSTON 67 84 44.37% 4 5
113 UMASS 67 84 44.37% 4 5
116 MEMPHIS 66 83 44.30% 4 4
117 SAN DIEGO ST 66 84 44.00% 5 5
118 OHIO 64 82 43.84% 3 2
119 SOUTH ALABAMA 68 91 42.77% 5 5
120 UTSA 56 83 40.29% 4 2
121 AIR FORCE 60 89 40.27% 4 4
122 FIU 58 87 40.00% 5 3
123 N ILLINOIS 57 88 39.31% 3 3
124 NAVY 53 93 36.30% 3 3

According to this method Texas A&M will play the toughest schedule in the country this year as they jump to the SEC with games against LSU and Alabama. Also keep in mind they play FCS Sam Houston St who went 14-1 last year which helps their win % here. The Big 12 adds two teams in TCU and West Virginia who both won at least 10 games last year which helped the conference place five teams in the top 10 as they will play all nine conference opponents. Finally, Notre Dame has a daunting schedule this year with six opponents having won 10 games or more last year! At the bottom of the rankings is Navy as they play just three teams who had winning records last year including their first two opponents Notre Dame and Penn St.

When I release my 2012 toughest schedules in this year's magazine, they take two major factors into account. The first are my 9 sets of Power Ratings. This ensures that an FCS team is rated much lower than Ohio St a probable Top 20 team that finished with a losing record 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.