» Opp Win %

2010 Opponent’s Win %

Phil Steele — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:20:23 +0000

In Monday’s Blog, I analyzed which method of determining who plays the toughest schedule is more accurate; mine or the NCAA. I compared the preseason predictions of both and concluded that my method is superior because it takes two major factors into account. The first is my 9 sets of Power Ratings. This ensures that an FCS team like William & Mary who was 11-3 last year is rated much lower than Oklahoma which was 8-5 in 2009. 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.

Today’s blog will take a closer look at the toughest schedule debate by looking at this year’s opponents’ win/loss record from the 2009 season.

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 opps’ schedule, however you would count them as a 2-10 team!

The second flaw is basing it on pure overall records. If a team plays a FCS (IAA) school that was 11-1 in 2007, that would have 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 an FCS foe.

Below is a chart of all 120 teams and the combined 2009 opponents’ records from last year. It is ranked in order of highest % of opponent wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest % of opponent wins (or easiest schedule). This is the same chart that will be printed in this year’s college preview magazine.

2010′s Opponent Winning %

(Based on 2009 Records)

Rank		Foe Wins	Foe Losses	Foe Win %	Tms W/Win Rec
1	LSU	98	56	63.64%	9
2	Minnesota	96	55	63.58%	8
3	Iowa St	97	56	63.40%	9
4	S Carolina	98	58	62.82%	11
5	Miss St	96	57	62.75%	9
6	N Carolina	97	60	61.78%	9
7	Virginia Tech	95	59	61.69%	8
8	Duke	94	60	61.04%	8
9	San Jose St	100	65	60.61%	8
10	Pittsburgh	92	60	60.53%	8
11	Wyoming	91	60	60.26%	6
12	Miami, Fl	92	61	60.13%	9
12	Auburn	92	61	60.13%	9
14	Washington St	91	61	59.87%	10
15	Alabama	84	57	59.57%	8
16	Tennessee	91	62	59.48%	8
17	Texas A&M	91	63	59.09%	8
18	USF	89	62	58.94%	8
19	Illinois	90	63	58.82%	7
19	Oregon St	90	63	58.82%	8
21	NC State	91	64	58.71%	9
22	Syracuse	81	57	58.70%	7
23	Oklahoma	90	64	58.44%	8
23	UCLA	90	64	58.44%	8
25	UNLV	97	69	58.43%	9
26	Penn St	88	63	58.28%	6
27	Michigan	87	63	58.00%	6
28	Georgia Tech	87	64	57.62%	7
29	Vanderbilt	89	66	57.42%	10
30	Washington	88	66	57.14%	9
31	Louisville	86	65	56.95%	8
32	Iowa	86	66	56.58%	7
32	Notre Dame	86	66	56.58%	6
32	Florida St	86	66	56.58%	7
32	New Mexico	86	66	56.58%	7
36	Mississippi	85	66	56.29%	8
37	Temple	87	68	56.13%	7
38	Miami, Oh	86	68	55.84%	7
39	Connecticut	83	66	55.70%	7
40	Arkansas	84	67	55.63%	7
41	Florida	86	69	55.48%	9
42	Baylor	83	67	55.33%	5
42	West Virginia	83	67	55.33%	7
44	Texas Tech	84	70	54.55%	8
45	Rutgers	81	68	54.36%	7
46	Arizona St	81	69	54.00%	8
47	Oklahoma St	82	70	53.95%	5
47	Kansas St	82	70	53.95%	8
47	Virginia	82	70	53.95%	8
50	Louisiana Tech	83	71	53.90%	7
51	Colorado	82	71	53.59%	7
52	Arizona	80	70	53.33%	7
53	Marshall	82	72	53.25%	8
54	Tulane	80	71	52.98%	8
55	Memphis	81	72	52.94%	7
56	Michigan St	78	70	52.70%	4
57	Ohio St	80	72	52.63%	6
58	Toledo	81	73	52.60%	7
59	Maryland	79	72	52.32%	7
60	Texas	80	73	52.29%	7
61	Northwestern	78	72	52.00%	5
62	Nebraska	78	73	51.66%	6
62	Colorado St	78	73	51.66%	7
64	Rice	79	74	51.63%	6
65	California	77	73	51.33%	8
66	Georgia	78	74	51.32%	7
67	Nevada	84	80	51.22%	6
68	Stanford	76	73	51.01%	6
69	Fresno St	77	74	50.99%	5
69	Bowling Green	77	74	50.99%	5
71	Air Force	76	74	50.67%	6
71	Utah	76	74	50.67%	6
73	East Carolina	77	75	50.66%	7
73	Utah St	77	75	50.66%	6
75	TCU	75	74	50.34%	7
76	Kansas	77	76	50.33%	6
76	Wake Forest	77	76	50.33%	7
76	SMU	77	76	50.33%	6
79	San Diego St	75	75	50.00%	6
79	Cincinnati	75	75	50.00%	7
81	Southern Miss	74	75	49.66%	6
82	BYU	74	76	49.33%	6
82	WKU	74	76	49.33%	5
84	Indiana	73	75	49.32%	5
85	Louisiana	74	77	49.01%	6
86	Navy	73	76	48.99%	4
87	USC	80	84	48.78%	6
88	Hawaii	79	83	48.77%	6
89	UAB	73	79	48.03%	7
89	Boise St	73	79	48.03%	6
91	Kentucky	72	78	48.00%	7
91	Florida Atlantic	72	78	48.00%	4
93	Wisconsin	71	77	47.97%	3
94	Idaho	78	85	47.85%	5
95	Clemson	72	79	47.68%	7
96	Tulsa	72	80	47.37%	6
97	Missouri	71	79	47.33%	5
98	ULM	70	78	47.30%	6
99	Ball St	68	78	46.58%	4
100	FIU	69	80	46.31%	4
101	C Michigan	69	81	46.00%	6
102	Boston College	68	80	45.95%	4
103	Kent St	68	81	45.64%	5
104	Oregon	68	82	45.33%	7
104	New Mexico St	68	82	45.33%	4
106	Purdue	67	81	45.27%	3
106	Houston	67	81	45.27%	6
108	Arkansas St	67	82	44.97%	4
109	E Michigan	67	83	44.67%	4
110	UCF	66	82	44.59%	4
111	North Texas	65	83	43.92%	3
112	Army	65	84	43.62%	4
113	Akron	64	84	43.24%	5
113	Troy	64	84	43.24%	4
115	W Michigan	64	85	42.95%	4
116	N Illinois	63	85	42.57%	4
117	Ohio	62	85	42.18%	4
118	UTEP	59	89	39.86%	4
119	Middle Tenn	58	89	39.46%	2
120	Buffalo	59	91	39.33%	6

Using last year’s records for their opponents, LSU plays the toughest schedule this year with their opponents having 63.64 win % last year. Overall LSU faces 9 teams that had a winning record in ’09. The Tigers open up in the Georgia Dome against North Carolina and also play West Virginia in non-conf play. In SEC play they have to travel to Auburn, Florida and Arkansas who all won at least 8 games in ’09.

Minnesota’s 2010 opponents had a combined 63.58% win % in ’09. The Gophers hsave to travel to Middle Tennessee (10-3 in ’09) in the opener and also play USC in non-conferennce action. In conference play Minnesota gets Penn St, Ohio St and Iowa at home with road games at Wisconsin and Michigan St. The Gophers avoid Indiana and Michigan who were a combined 2-14 in conference play last year.

South Carolina plays 11 teams that had a winning record in 2009 while Middle Tennessee only plays two teams. According to their opponents win/loss record Purdue plays the easiest schedule (#106) among BCS schools while San Jose St (#9) plays the toughest schedule among non-BCS schools.

Again these are not my toughest schedule rankings so let’s pick out some teams to show you the flaws of just using last year’s overall opponent records. Based on 2009’s opponent records San Jose St plays the 9th toughest schedule. While they do play at Alabama, Wisconsin and Utah in non-conference, they also play two FCS foes in Southern Utah and UC Davis who were a combined 11-11 last year. The Spartans also play in the WAC conference, which will only have one Top 25 team at the start of the year. Does this sound like the #9 toughest schedule to you? Despite the three tough non-conference road games, I know a few BCS schools that would like to play 10 non-BCS teams this season.

According to their opponents win/loss record from 2009 Temple plays the 37th toughest schedule while Oregon takes on an easy #104 slate. Oregon’s cupcake schedule has them facing all 9 Pac-10 foes including road games at Cal, USC and Oregon St and an early non-conf road game at Tennessee. Meanwhile the Owls in addition to their MAC schedule get Villanova and Connecticut at home in non-conference with road games at Army and Penn St. Do you think Temple’s schedule is 67 spots tougher than Oregon’s?

Here are some other interesting tidbits when looking at who plays the toughest schedule…

Teams that faced the most ranked opponents in 2009 (ranked when played)

6-Alabama, Oklahoma and Oregon

5-Georgia Tech, Miami, Fl, Vanderbilt, Mississippi St, Michigan, Nebraska, Virginia, Oregon St, USC, Arkansas, South Carolina, Washington St, Indiana and USF

Teams that faced the fewest ranked opponents in 2009 (ranked when played)

1-Akron, Toledo, North Texas, Hawaii, Eastern Michigan, Temple, Kansas St, Florida Atlantic, ULM, Marshall, Houston, Pittsburgh and Idaho

0-Buffalo, Ohio, Central Michigan, Northern Illinois, Western Michigan, UAB, Army, Ball St, Kent St, Middle Tennessee and WKU

Teams that faced the most ranked opponents in 2009 (ranked at season’s end)

6-Florida St
5-Alabama, Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, Georgia Tech. Michigan St and Mississippi St

Teams that faced the fewest ranked opponents in 2009 (ranked at season’s end)

1-Eastern Michigan, Temple, Florida Atlantic, ULM, Houston, Ohio, Idaho and North Texas

0-UAB, Army, Ball St, Central Michigan, Middle Tennessee, Kent St, Western Michigan, WKU and Southern Miss

There were three teams did not face a ranked opponent either at the time the game was played or at season’s end. (Army, Central Michigan and WKU)

Southern Miss faced two opponents (Kansas #20 and Houston #15) that were ranked when the game was played but none at season’s end.

Florida St played just three opponents that were ranked at the time of the game (BYU #7, Georgia Tech #22 and Florida #1) but ended up playing six teams that finished in the AP Top 25 (Florida #3, BYU #12, Georgia Tech #13, Miami, Fl #19, Clemson #24 and West Virginia #25).

Predicting Who Plays the Toughest Schedule

Phil Steele — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:31:12 +0000

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.

Let’s first look at the NCAA rankings. Below is a chart of all 120 teams and the combined 2008 opponents’ records from last year. It is ranked in order of highest % of opponent wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest % of opponent wins (or easiest schedule). This is the same chart that was printed on page 317 in last year’s college preview magazine.

2009′s Opponent Winning % Preseason NCAA Method

(Based on 2008 Records)

rk	name	foe wins	foe loss	foe win %
1	Florida St	101	55	64.70%
2	Oklahoma St	97	55	63.80%
3	Syracuse	98	57	63.20%
4	S Carolina	98	58	62.80%
5	Auburn	96	58	62.30%
6	Baylor	95	58	62.10%
6	Miss St	95	58	62.10%
8	Wyoming	94	59	61.40%
9	Texas Tech	91	59	60.70%
10	Miami, Fl	93	61	60.40%
11	Minnesota	91	61	59.90%
12	Oklahoma	91	62	59.50%
13	Maryland	92	63	59.40%
14	New Mexico	89	63	58.60%
15	Clemson	90	64	58.40%
15	Virginia	90	64	58.40%
17	Louisville	89	65	57.80%
17	NC State	89	65	57.80%
19	Virginia Tech	90	66	57.70%
20	San Jose St	87	64	57.60%
21	UNLV	88	65	57.50%
21	Vanderbilt	88	65	57.50%
23	Arkansas	87	65	57.20%
23	Georgia Tech	87	65	57.20%
23	USF	87	65	57.20%
26	Iowa	87	66	56.90%
27	Indiana	85	65	56.70%
28	Illinois	86	66	56.60%
28	Michigan St	86	66	56.60%
30	Duke	87	67	56.50%
31	Nebraska	85	67	55.90%
31	West Virginia	85	67	55.90%
33	N Carolina	86	68	55.80%
33	Tennessee	86	68	55.80%
35	Oregon	83	68	55.00%
35	Utah St	83	68	55.00%
37	Miami, Oh	84	69	54.90%
37	Wake Forest	84	69	54.90%
39	East Carolina	85	70	54.80%
39	Pittsburgh	85	70	54.80%
41	Kansas	82	68	54.70%
41	Michigan	82	68	54.70%
43	Georgia	83	69	54.60%
44	Florida	82	69	54.30%
44	Kentucky	82	69	54.30%
46	UCF	83	70	54.20%
46	Wisconsin	83	70	54.20%
48	Colorado	81	70	53.60%
48	Colorado St	81	70	53.60%
50	Kansas St	80	70	53.30%
51	LSU	81	71	53.30%
51	Washington	81	71	53.30%
53	Boston College	82	72	53.20%
54	Missouri	79	70	53.00%
55	BYU	80	71	53.00%
55	Tulsa	80	71	53.00%
57	Arizona	79	71	52.70%
57	Texas	79	71	52.70%
59	Stanford	80	72	52.60%
60	Air Force	77	70	52.40%
61	Memphis	79	72	52.30%
62	Tulane	78	72	52.00%
63	Bowling Green	79	73	52.00%
63	Connecticut	79	73	52.00%
63	Purdue	79	73	52.00%
66	C Michigan	80	74	51.90%
67	Rice	79	74	51.60%
68	Texas A&M	76	73	51.00%
69	Cincinnati	77	74	51.00%
69	Houston	77	74	51.00%
71	SMU	78	75	51.00%
72	New Mexico St	82	79	50.90%
73	Rutgers	70	68	50.70%
74	Iowa St	75	73	50.70%
74	San Diego St	75	73	50.70%
76	California	76	74	50.70%
77	Washington St	77	75	50.70%
78	Utah	75	74	50.30%
79	UTEP	77	76	50.30%
80	Fresno St	76	76	50.00%
80	Nevada	76	76	50.00%
80	Ohio St	75	75	50.00%
80	Oregon St	75	75	50.00%
80	Toledo	75	75	50.00%
85	Navy	82	83	49.70%
86	Notre Dame	76	77	49.70%
87	FIU	75	76	49.70%
87	USC	75	76	49.70%
89	North Texas	74	76	49.30%
89	TCU	74	76	49.30%
91	WKU	73	75	49.30%
92	Mississippi	68	70	49.30%
93	Hawaii	80	83	49.10%
94	Arizona St	74	77	49.00%
95	Penn St	73	76	49.00%
96	UAB	74	78	48.70%
97	Temple	73	78	48.30%
98	E Michigan	72	78	48.00%
98	UCLA	72	78	48.00%
100	Louisiana Tech	71	77	48.00%
101	Marshall	72	79	47.70%
102	Ohio	70	79	47.00%
103	Boise St	77	87	47.00%
104	ULM	68	80	45.90%
105	Buffalo	66	80	45.20%
106	Southern Miss	68	83	45.00%
107	Akron	67	82	45.00%
108	Louisiana	66	81	44.90%
109	Idaho	68	84	44.70%
110	Alabama	67	83	44.70%
111	Northwestern	66	83	44.30%
112	N Illinois	65	83	43.90%
113	Arkansas St	64	83	43.50%
113	Troy	64	83	43.50%
115	W Michigan	65	86	43.00%
116	Army	64	85	43.00%
116	Middle Tenn	64	85	43.00%
118	Ball St	63	85	42.60%
119	Kent St	63	86	42.30%
120	Florida Atlantic	61	86	41.50%

Now let’s take a look at my rankings which were included on page 318 in last year’s magazine and are listed below.

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 Miami, Fl which was 7-6 in 2008.

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.

Phil Steele’s 2009 Toughest Schedules Preseason

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

Below is the final Opponent Winning % based on 2009 records. I have taken out the teams record in these rankings. For example, Ohio St’s opponents actual record were 82-70 (53.9%) on the season but when you take out the Buckeyes 11-2 record, the opponent record jumps to 80-59 (57.5%) On the flip side, Western Kentucky opponents finished 75-75 (50%) on the season but when you take out the Hilltoppers 0-12 record it falls to just 63-75 (45.7%). I don not think good teams should be penalized for beating a majority of their opponents while weaker teams get rewarded for not winning a majority of their games.

Final 2009 Opponent Winning % Preseason

(based on 2009 Records)

Rank	Team	Foe Wins	Foe Losses	Foe Win %
1	Miss St	97	47	67.36%
2	Florida St	91	50	64.54%
3	S Carolina	91	51	64.08%
4	Arkansas	89	52	63.12%
5	Minnesota	86	53	61.87%
5	West Virginia	86	53	61.87%
7	IOWA	85	53	61.59%
8	Virginia Tech	88	55	61.54%
9	Miami, Fl	86	54	61.43%
10	Georgia	86	55	60.99%
11	Syracuse	85	55	60.71%
12	Pittsburgh	83	54	60.58%
13	Virginia	87	57	60.42%
14	Oregon	84	56	60.00%
15	Michigan St	82	55	59.85%
16	Arizona	83	56	59.71%
16	Auburn	83	56	59.71%
16	Oklahoma	83	56	59.71%
19	Alabama	81	56	59.12%
20	Illinois	81	58	58.27%
20	LSU	81	58	58.27%
22	Louisville	81	59	57.86%
22	Oklahoma St	81	59	57.86%
24	Miami, OH	82	60	57.75%
25	Clemson	79	58	57.66%
26	Ohio St	80	59	57.55%
27	Connecticut	79	59	57.25%
27	N Carolina	79	59	57.25%
29	Baylor	80	62	56.34%
29	Wake Forest	80	62	56.34%
31	Florida	77	60	56.20%
32	Washington	79	62	56.03%
33	Tennessee	80	63	55.94%
34	Georgia Tech	76	60	55.88%
34	USF	76	60	55.88%
36	Wisconsin	77	61	55.80%
37	Colorado	79	63	55.63%
38	Penn St	76	61	55.47%
38	Texas	76	61	55.47%
38	Wyoming	76	61	55.47%
41	East Carolina	77	62	55.40%
42	Missouri	76	62	55.07%
43	Marshall	77	63	55.00%
44	TCU	75	62	54.74%
45	Texas Tech	76	63	54.68%
45	UNLV	76	63	54.68%
47	Notre Dame	77	64	54.61%
47	Utah St	77	64	54.61%
49	Mississippi	74	62	54.41%
50	Fresno St	75	63	54.35%
51	Kansas	76	64	54.29%
51	Tulane	76	64	54.29%
53	Oregon St	74	63	54.01%
54	Colorado St	75	64	53.96%
54	Maryland	75	64	53.96%
56	Memphis	76	65	53.90%
56	San Jose St	76	65	53.90%
56	Washington St	76	65	53.90%
59	Kansas St	74	64	53.62%
59	Kentucky	74	64	53.62%
59	USC	74	64	53.62%
62	Cincinnati	73	64	53.28%
63	FIU	74	65	53.24%
63	Purdue	74	65	53.24%
65	Vanderbilt	75	66	53.19%
66	Indiana	72	64	52.94%
67	NC ST	73	65	52.90%
68	Bowling Green	74	66	52.86%
69	Louisiana Tech	75	67	52.82%
70	Nebraska	71	64	52.59%
71	Air Force	72	65	52.55%
72	UCLA	72	66	52.17%
73	SMU	73	67	52.14%
74	Duke	71	66	51.82%
75	Buffalo	72	67	51.80%
75	San Diego St	72	67	51.80%
75	UCF	72	67	51.80%
78	Navy	76	71	51.70%
79	Rutgers	69	65	51.49%
80	California	71	67	51.45%
81	New Mexico	72	68	51.43%
82	Michigan	69	66	51.11%
83	Boston College	70	67	51.09%
83	BYU	70	67	51.09%
85	Arizona St	71	68	51.08%
86	Iowa St	69	67	50.74%
87	Texas A&M	70	68	50.72%
88	Rice	72	70	50.70%
89	Akron	70	69	50.36%
90	Utah	68	68	50.00%
91	Stanford	68	69	49.64%
92	Hawaii	75	77	49.34%
93	New Mexico St	73	75	49.32%
94	Ball St	69	72	48.94%
94	UAB	69	72	48.94%
96	Boise St	72	76	48.65%
97	Nevada	66	72	47.83%
98	Troy	65	71	47.79%
99	Temple	66	73	47.48%
100	Tulsa	66	74	47.14%
101	Louisiana	64	72	47.06%
102	ULM	63	73	46.32%
103	Idaho	63	75	45.65%
103	North Texas	63	75	45.65%
103	WKU	63	75	45.65%
106	E Michigan	62	76	44.93%
106	Florida Atlantic	62	76	44.93%
108	Arkansas St	61	75	44.85%
109	Houston	58	76	43.28%
109	Southern Miss	58	76	43.28%
111	C Michigan	57	75	43.18%
112	UTEP	60	79	43.17%
113	Northwestern	58	77	42.96%
114	Toledo	58	80	42.03%
115	Ohio	55	79	41.04%
116	Kent St	56	81	40.88%
117	N Illinois	55	81	40.44%
118	Army	52	85	37.96%
119	Middle Tenn	50	84	37.31%
120	W Michigan	50	85	37.04%

So who is more accurate the NCAA or Phil Steele when it comes to predicting strength of schedule?

Pre-Season Rankings Compared to Final	Phil Steele	NCAA
# of Predicted Rankings Exact	7	2
# of Pred Rank +/- 3	22	17
# of Pred Rank +/- 5	31	26
# of Pred Rank +/- 10	47	44
Overall Phil Steele 64-54-2

As you can see I predicted 7 teams’ schedule strength exactly right (Arkansas St, Army, Florida St, Louisiana, Minnesota, Virginia and Virginia Tech) compared to just 2 for the NCAA. I also came within 3 final ranking spots of 22 teams compared to just 17 for the NCAA and overall my preseason predictions ended up being more accurate than the NCAA for 64 teams (54%)!

Here are a couple of examples which prove why my rankings are superior. In the preseason the NCAA had New Mexico facing the 14th toughest schedule based on 2008 opponent records. The Lobos faced a grand total of 2 BCS conference teams! There are 65 BCS conference schools and ALL 65 would love to have traded their schedule for New Mexico’s, which my ratings ranked as the 73rd toughest schedule. When the 2009 season concluded New Mexico finished with the 81st toughest schedule based on opponent win % which was 67 spots lower than the NCAA predicted but just 8 spots below where I had them ranked in the preseason!

Also According to the NCAA’s method, NCSt played the 17th toughest schedule and Alabama faced the 110th toughest (11th easiest). Coming into the season Alabama’s opponents 2008 records were 67-83 (44.47%) while NC St opponnents were 89-65 (57.8%) in 2008. The two teams did have 2 mutual opponents in South Carolina and Virginia Tech but Alabama played in a much tougher conference. When the 2009 season concluded my schedule strength was far more accurate than the NCAA. Alabama opponents finished 81-56 (59.1%) while NC St opponents finished 73-65 (52.9%). The Crimson Tide finished with the 19th hardest schedule which was 91 spots higher than what the NCAA predicted! NC St meanwhile finished with 67th hardest schedule just 5 spots lower than what I predicted but 50 spots lower than what the NCAA predicted!

Ohio St opponents were just 75-75 in 2008 and the NCAA ranked the Buckeyes schedule as the 80th hardest in the preseason while I had them facing the 39th toughest schedule. When the season concluded Buckeye opponents went 80-59 (57.6%) and finished with the 26th toughest schedule which was 54 spots higher than the NCAA but just 13 spots higher than my rankings.

This year when you are looking at your favorite teams schedule make sure to check my rankings compared to what the NCAA has and see for yourself who is more accurate. I will be be back on Wednesday to take a look at this year’s toughest schedules.