Daily Blog •March 28, 2013

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. Last year, I had Florida as my surprise winner of the SEC East and they wound up going 11-1 in the regular season. I also had UCF as one of my top non-BCS teams and they finished with 10 wins. However, if you used the NCAA method you only got credit for playing two teams who were a combined 12-13 in 2011.

Two years ago, 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 team 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 teams 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 obviously had Bama ranked as a MUCH tougher team than any FCS foe.

Another great example came from last year. In 2011, Ohio St went 6-7 and any team FCS team that had a winning record in 2011 would have counted as a tougher game in the NCAA method than facing a Buckeyes team who would go to be the only school in the country to finish the season unbeaten in 2012.  

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 2013. This year I again decided to see what the NCAA method would come up with for toughest opponent’s faced, which I always list in the magazine. Below is a chart of all 126 teams and the combined 2012 opponents’ records. It is ranked in order of highest % of opponent wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest % of opponent wins (or easiest schedule).

Again this is the NCAA's method and not MINE!

When I release my toughest schedule rankings in the upcoming magazine my 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 USC and Virginia Tech, two teams that finished just 7-6 last year! The second factor is the amount of home and away games played.

 

Who Plays the Toughest Schedule in 2013?

(NCAA Method)

Rank
 Team
FOE WINS		 FOE LOSSES WIN%
1
 Kentucky 103 50 67.32%
2
 Arkansas 99 54 64.71%
3
 Purdue 96 56 63.16%
3
 Missouri 96 56 63.16%
5
 Kansas 96 57 62.75%
6
 Akron 97 58 62.58%
7
 Florida 96 58 62.34%
8
 Oklahoma 96 60 61.54%
9
 California 93 60 60.78%
9
 South Carolina 93 60 60.78%
11
 Illinois 92 60 60.53%
12
 LSU 93 61 60.39%
13
 Pittsburgh 91 63 59.09%
14
 Colorado 90 63 58.82%
14
 TCU 90 63 58.82%
16
 NC State 88 62 58.67%
17
 Oklahoma St 89 63 58.55%
18
 Utah  90 64 58.44%
19
 Memphis 87 62 58.39%
20
 Eastern Michigan 88 63 58.28%
21
 Iowa St 89 64 58.17%
21
 Tennessee 89 64 58.17%
23
 Notre Dame 90 65 58.06%
24
 Georgia Tech 87 63 58.00%
25
 BYU 88 64 57.89%
26
 SMU 87 64 57.62%
27
 Stanford 88 65 57.52%
28
 Virginia 87 65 57.24%
29
 Baylor 88 66 57.14%
29
 Nevada 88 66 57.14%
31
 Michigan 86 65 56.95%
31
 Mississippi St 86 65 56.95%
31
 Georgia 86 65 56.95%
34
 Iowa 80 61 56.74%
35
 Houston 85 65 56.67%
35
 USF 85 65 56.67%
37
 Colorado St 94 72 56.63%
38
 Auburn 86 66 56.58%
39
 Arizona St 87 67 56.49%
40
 Kansas St 88 68 56.41%
41
 Georgia St 84 65 56.38%
42
 Indiana 85 66 56.29%
43
 Texas A&M 87 68 56.13%
44
 Penn St 87 69 55.77%
45
 Clemson 84 67 55.63%
46
 Buffalo 83 68 54.97%
47
 UNLV 84 69 54.90%
48
 Temple 82 68 54.67%
48
 South Alabama 82 68 54.67%
50
 Texas Tech 83 69 54.61%
51
 Connecticut 81 68 54.36%
52
 West Virginia 82 69 54.30%
53
 Syracuse 83 70 54.25%
53
 Hawaii 83 70 54.25%
55
 Mississippi 81 69 54.00%
56
 Air Force 82 70 53.95%
56
 San Diego St 82 70 53.95%
56
 Massachusetts 82 70 53.95%
59
 Toledo 82 71 53.59%
60
 North Carolina 81 71 53.29%
60
 San Jose St 81 71 53.29%
62
 Texas 82 72 53.25%
63
 Boston College 80 71 52.98%
63
 Washington St 80 71 52.98%
65
 Oregon St 81 72 52.94%
66
 UCLA 81 73 52.60%
67
 Maryland 79 72 52.32%
67
 Wyoming 79 72 52.32%
67
 North Texas 79 72 52.32%
70
 USC 86 79 52.12%
71
 Florida St 78 72 52.00%
71
 Idaho 78 72 52.00%
73
 Washington 79 73 51.97%
74
 Wake Forest 78 73 51.66%
74
 Tulane 78 73 51.66%
76
 Kent St 77 73 51.33%
77
 Northwestern 77 74 50.99%
77
 Boise St 77 74 50.99%
79
 Alabama 75 73 50.68%
80
 Michigan St 76 74 50.67%
81
 Western Michigan 77 75 50.66%
82
 Vanderbilt 75 74 50.34%
83
 Minnesota 76 76 50.00%
83
 Rutgers 74 74 50.00%
85
 Duke 74 75 49.66%
85
 Tulsa 74 75 49.66%
87
 Central Michigan 75 77 49.34%
88
 FIU 73 75 49.32%
89
 New Mexico 74 77 49.01%
90
 Louisville 72 75 48.98%
91
 Arizona 73 77 48.67%
92
 Wisconsin 72 76 48.65%
92
 Southern Miss 72 76 48.65%
94
 Miami, Fl 73 78 48.34%
94
 Navy 73 78 48.34%
94
 Troy 73 78 48.34%
97
 UTEP 72 77 48.32%
98
 UCF 71 76 48.30%
99
 Nebraska 73 79 48.03%
100
 ULM 71 78 47.65%
101
 UAB 70 77 47.62%
102
 Virginia Tech 71 79 47.33%
103
 Army 70 78 47.30%
104
 Fresno St 71 80 47.02%
105
 Ohio St 70 79 46.98%
106
 Old Dominion 60 68 46.88%
107
 Bowling Green 69 81 46.00%
107
 UTSA 69 81 46.00%
109
 Miami, Oh 69 82 45.70%
109
 Ball St 69 82 45.70%
111
 Marshall 67 81 45.27%
112
 New Mexico St 68 83 45.03%
113
 Oregon 67 83 44.67%
113
 Utah St 67 83 44.67%
115
 Arkansas St 66 82 44.59%
115
 Western Kentucky 66 82 44.59%
117
 East Carolina 65 83 43.92%
118
 Cincinnati 64 82 43.84%
119
 Texas St 65 84 43.62%
120
 Louisiana 62 86 41.89%
121
 Rice 61 86 41.50%
122
 Northern Illinois 62 88 41.33%
123
 Ohio 60 88 40.54%
124
 Louisiana Tech 54 93 36.73%
125
 Middle Tennessee 50 95 34.48%
126
 Florida Atlantic 50 96 34.25%