SEC
With spring football in full swing – two teams play spring games Saturday – let’s see how the NCAA would rank the 2014 college football strength of schedule.
RELATED: 2014 SEC Strength of Schedule
This is based on opponents’ win-loss record from the previous year; so, it’s not perfect. The opponents’ win percentage is calculated by adding up the total wins and losses for the 12 teams on the schedule.
A couple flaws exist ranking schedules this way, as noted by Phil Steele. The first flaw would be a 10-2 FCS opponent shouldn’t carry the same weight as a 7-6 FBS team. In this method, they carry more weight. Secondly, the records are from the previous season, which was an entirely different team.
But it’s fun to look at where the SEC’s strength of schedule compares to other teams around the country. SDS will rank our own schedules closer to the season.
The NCAA would say Arkansas has the country’s toughest schedule, followed by Tennessee, Texas A&M and Kentucky in the top 10. All SEC teams are bolded below:
RELATED: 2014 SEC football schedules
| 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% |
| 10 | 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 | California | 94 | 61 | 60.65% |
| 17 | FIU | 92 | 60 | 60.53% |
| 18 | Auburn | 93 | 61 | 60.53% |
| 19 | Georgia | 92 | 61 | 60.13% |
| 20 | North Carolina | 92 | 62 | 59.74% |
| 21 | Illinois | 90 | 61 | 59.60% |
| 22 | NC State | 89 | 61 | 59.33% |
| 23 | Indiana | 93 | 64 | 59.24% |
| 24 | Nebraska | 90 | 63 | 58.82% |
| 25 | Texas | 89 | 63 | 58.55% |
| 25 | Mississippi | 89 | 63 | 58.55% |
| 27 | Clemson | 89 | 65 | 57.79% |
| 28 | USC | 89 | 66 | 57.42% |
| 29 | TCU | 87 | 65 | 57.24% |
| 30 | Wyoming | 88 | 66 | 57.14% |
| 31 | Oklahoma St | 86 | 65 | 56.95% |
| 31 | Army | 86 | 65 | 56.95% |
| 33 | Hawaii | 95 | 72 | 56.89% |
| 34 | Florida | 87 | 66 | 56.86% |
| 34 | 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% |
Photo Credit: Nelson Chenault-USA TODAY Sports
Why are we playing the fun schedules during our down years? feelsbadman
Why do SOS people and ranking voters continually fail to put head to head results as nearly the complete ranking criteria. For example: sometimes teams are ranked below teams they beat. This can be unavoidable in some cases so why then don’t they look at comparative scores between common opponents. In non-conference games of course there are few common opponents BUT head to head results between same conference can be used to arrive at the same estimate. Finally even last year’s bowl results to rate conferences and therefore inter-conference results are far valid than simply looking at the win-loss records of opponents.
Looks like Alabama is stepping up big time again. Kudos to them for always stepping up to the plate with their out of conference scheduling.
Two things there: 1) They didn’t know West Virginia was going to be mediocre when they signed on to play them, & 2) In the last 5 or 6 years, playing y’all has kind of hurt their strength of schedule…..
Oh yea, I forgot the Black Bear Renaissance … wait … when your coach wins six regular season games you call it a turnaround, when our coach wins five regular season games, we fire him. The Black Bears will never break out of the “win six or seven regular season games plus a terrible bowl.” Mark this post: the Bears will be paying State to try to win six total this year unless Presbyterian sneaks up because everyone returned to the grove at halftime due to alcohol withdrawal (aka Jacksonville State in 2010). Back to reality.
I really don’t see how you people don’t get this. (Well, you’re a UT fan, so I have a pretty good idea). Notice a trend here? The “toughest” schedules all belong to teams who just didn’t do that well, and the easiest ones belong to teams who did.
Simply put, take UT and Alabama: if UT plays Alabama, it’s considered a tough game for them because they’ve been awful, but an easy game for Alabama because they’ve been top tier. It’s hard to build a stronger strength of schedule when there simple aren’t teams that are considered a step up.
Actually apparently you don’t get it. This list goes by opponent win/loss record. Sure, when Alabama is #1 they can’t play #1, but they can play #’s 2-10. Alabama has it pretty tough playing in the SEC west, but difficulty comes from Out-of-Conference schedule. That is, Tennessee plays Utah State, Arkansas state, and Oklahoma (in Norman) where Alabama plays West Virginia(Atlanta), Florida Atlantic, Southern Miss, and Western Carolina all at home. Strength of Schedule has literally nothing to do with a team to win it simply has to do with the Strength of the schedule. That being said Alabama (AGAIN) has a cupcake schedule, you know comparatively.
WPS. I couldn’t help but see my team right away. All Swine, all the Time.
IMAGINE THAT. Alabama has a joke of a schedule. And it’s nice to see MSU improve on their easiest non-conference schedule in the nation title. Funny that they barely made a bowl game last year with 4 guaranteed wins. Hopefully the Dak Attack can give them 7 wins this year. I hear a heisman is all but guaranteed to be his.
Well, they did play OK St. last year.
They still beat your pitiful thug laden team. Manning u is not so great that u can talk crap about a team that has beat u 4 of the last 5 years or has a no better than .500 record against for the last 20 plus years. Your team doesn’t have a winning tradition in the college game since the early 60’s when any tradition meant zilch before integration. But you keep thinking u are superior and MSU will just continue mounting up the wins. Also bet you a months pay that Dak has better numbers than that schmuck thug Wallace this year.
Here we go again! Preseason strength of schedule rankings are a joke! How can you really determine a schedules strength until the schedule has actually been played. Imagine having Missouri or Auburn on your schedule at the beginning of last season. Seems to me a more realistic evaluation of true SOS could only be determined at the end of the season. Makes sense to me!
Based on the Sagarin final end of season SOS rankings here are the average rankings over the 4 year period for the 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.season. I didn’t cherry pick I just chose the 4 season over which Alabama won their 3 National Championships, especially since some of you continue to insinuate that Bama wins championships because of their weak schedule. I think the end of season SOS rankings below kind of blow that theory out of the water!
LSU 11
Auburn 12
Alabama 13
Arkansas 13
Florida 16
South Carolina 18
Texas A&M 18
Georgia 23
Missouri 25
Tennessee 25
Ole Miss 27
Miss St 27
Vandy 33
Kentucky 37
I just realized that not only does Tennessee suck but so does their SOS
Tennessee and Georgia, you might not want to see this! According to ESPN here’s a look at how all 14 teams in the SEC have fared in the last five seasons against top 25 teams in the final BCS standings:
Alabama: 16-6 (.727)
LSU: 14-11 (.560)
Auburn: 13-13 (.500)
South Carolina: 10-10 (.500)
Arkansas: 7-17 (.292)
Missouri: 5-14 (.263)
Georgia: 6-17 (.261)
Florida: 6-18 (.250)
Texas A&M: 5-17 (.227)
Ole Miss: 3-20 (.130)
Vanderbilt: 1-15 (.063)
Kentucky: 1-16 (.059)
Tennessee: 1-21 (.045)
Mississippi State 0-24 (.000)
http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/76370/sizing-up-the-sec-resumes