Daily Blog • March 15, 2014

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 Marshall as my most improved team in the country last year and they wound up getting to 10 wins. I also had Auburn as one of my most improved teams and they shockingly won the SEC Championship and fell just short of the National Championship. However, if you used the NCAA method you only got credit for playing two teams who were a combined 8-16 in 2012.

In 2012, 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.  

Three 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 Southern Miss was in an obvious rebuilding year in 2012 yet was still counted as a 12-2 team if you based strength of schedule on 2011’s record and they became the first team in college football history to go from 12 wins to 12 losses!

The second flaw is basing it on pure overall records. 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 2014. 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 128 teams and the combined 2013 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 lower than Florida that finished just 4-8 last year! The second factor is the amount of home and away games played.

Who Plays the Toughest Schedule in 2014?
(NCAA Method)

    FOE FOE FOE
RANK
 TEAM WINS LOSS WIN%
1
 Arkansas 103 54 65.61%
2
 Virginia 102 54 65.38%
3
 Tennessee 101 54 65.16%
4
 Notre Dame 103 56 64.78%
5
 Texas A&M 100 55 64.52%
6
 Kentucky 98 55 64.05%
7
 Iowa St 97 57 62.99%
8
 Syracuse 96 57 62.75%
9
 Rutgers 97 58 62.58%
9
 Wake Forest 97 58 62.58%
11
 Utah  98 59 62.42%
12
 West Virginia 97 59 62.18%
13
 South Carolina 96 59 61.94%
14
 Miami, Fl 96 60 61.54%
15
 Boston College 95 61 60.90%
16
 Auburn 93 60 60.78%
17
 California 94 61 60.65%
18
 FIU 92 60 60.53%
19
 Georgia 92 61 60.13%
20
 North Carolina 92 62 59.74%
21
 Illinois 90 61 59.60%
22
 Florida 91 62 59.48%
23
 NC State 89 61 59.33%
24
 Indiana 93 64 59.24%
25
 Nebraska 90 63 58.82%
26
 Texas 89 63 58.55%
26
 Mississippi 89 63 58.55%
28
 Clemson 89 65 57.79%
29
 USC 89 66 57.42%
30
 TCU 87 65 57.24%
31
 Wyoming 88 66 57.14%
32
 Oklahoma St 86 65 56.95%
32
 Army 86 65 56.95%
34
 Hawaii 95 72 56.89%
35
 Ohio St 87 66 56.86%
36
 Washington St 88 67 56.77%
37
 Temple 85 65 56.67%
38
 Kansas 86 66 56.58%
39
 Louisiana Tech 85 66 56.29%
40
 Maryland 86 67 56.21%
41
 San Jose St 87 68 56.13%
42
 Stanford 86 68 55.84%
43
 Purdue 84 67 55.63%
43
 Missouri 84 67 55.63%
43
 Georgia Tech 84 67 55.63%
46
 Minnesota 85 68 55.56%
47
 Florida St 83 68 54.97%
47
 SMU 83 68 54.97%
49
 Arizona 84 69 54.90%
49
 Oregon 84 69 54.90%
51
 Southern Miss 83 69 54.61%
52
 Arizona St 84 70 54.55%
52
 Tulane 84 70 54.55%
54
 Florida Atlantic 81 69 54.00%
55
 Michigan St 83 71 53.90%
55
 Virginia Tech 83 71 53.90%
57
 LSU 82 71 53.59%
58
 Eastern Michigan 80 70 53.33%
59
 Michigan 81 71 53.29%
60
 UCLA 82 72 53.25%
60
 Oregon St 82 72 53.25%
62
 Mississippi St 80 71 52.98%
62
 Tulsa 80 71 52.98%
64
 Nevada 81 73 52.60%
65
 Kansas St 79 72 52.32%
66
 Colorado 81 74 52.26%
67
 Baylor 78 72 52.00%
68
 Penn St 79 73 51.97%
69
 Vanderbilt 78 73 51.66%
70
 Toledo 80 75 51.61%
71
 New Mexico 79 75 51.30%
72
 Georgia St 75 72 51.02%
73
 UCF 77 74 50.99%
74
 Pittsburgh 78 75 50.98%
74
 Boise St 78 75 50.98%
76
 UTEP 76 74 50.67%
77
 Washington 85 83 50.60%
78
 Northwestern 76 76 50.00%
78
 Miami, Oh 76 76 50.00%
80
 Louisville 75 76 49.67%
81
 Texas Tech 74 75 49.66%
81
 Connecticut 74 75 49.66%
83
 East Carolina 74 76 49.33%
83
 USF 74 76 49.33%
85
 Iowa 68 70 49.28%
86
 Fresno St 74 77 49.01%
87
 Wisconsin 74 78 48.68%
88
 WKU 73 77 48.67%
88
 Massachusetts 73 77 48.67%
90
 South Alabama 72 76 48.65%
91
 UNLV 73 79 48.03%
91
 Kent St 73 79 48.03%
93
 Oklahoma 71 78 47.65%
94
 Akron 72 80 47.37%
95
 Alabama 71 79 47.33%
96
 Navy 69 78 46.94%
97
 BYU 71 81 46.71%
98
 UTSA 70 80 46.67%
99
 Ohio 71 82 46.41%
100
 Western Michigan 70 81 46.36%
101
 Duke 69 82 45.70%
102
 Cincinnati 68 82 45.33%
103
 Bowling Green 67 81 45.27%
103
 Louisiana 67 81 45.27%
105
 UAB 67 82 44.97%
106
 Air Force 68 84 44.74%
107
 Old Dominion 67 83 44.67%
108
 Idaho 65 81 44.52%
109
 San Diego St 66 83 44.30%
110
 Central Michigan 66 84 44.00%
111
 New Mexico St 64 82 43.84%
111
 Appalachian St 64 82 43.84%
113
 Memphis 65 85 43.33%
114
 Houston 64 84 43.24%
114
 Arkansas St 64 84 43.24%
116
 Rice 64 85 42.95%
117
 Utah St 68 94 41.98%
118
 ULM 61 87 41.22%
119
 Troy 60 87 40.82%
120
 Ball St 60 89 40.27%
121
 Buffalo 59 88 40.14%
122
 Marshall 59 89 39.86%
123
 Texas St 57 88 39.31%
124
 Middle Tennessee 58 90 39.19%
125
 Colorado St 57 91 38.51%
126
 Northern Illinois 55 91 37.67%
127
 North Texas 55 92 37.41%
128
 Georgia Southern 51 95 34.93%