[h=1]Why SEC teams again play college football's toughest schedules[/h]
Phil SteeleESPN Staff Writer
ESPN INSIDER
Editor's note: This article was adapted from Phil Steele's college football preview magazine, which is available here.
It's one of the most argued things in college football: Who plays the nation's toughest schedule?
Here's a look at how every team's schedule ranks, Nos. 1 to 128. And no, an SEC team doesn't play the hardest schedule ... but you anti-SECers out there might want to hold off on gloating until you see the top 10.
[h=2]Methodology[/h]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.
One big flaw is basing the ratings on opponent's records from the previousseason. My method includes both last season's records and projections for this year.
Let's first look at the NCAA rankings. Below is a chart of 25 of the combined 2015 opponents' records (for entire table, scroll to the bottom of the page). It is ranked in order of highest percentage of opponent wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest percentage of opponent wins (or easiest schedule). I also list the amount of ranked teams faced, bowl teams and those that finished with a winning record in 2015.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">2016 Opponent Winning Percentage</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody></aside>Below are my rankings for the nation's toughest schedules this year. These rankings take two major factors into account.
The first is my nine sets of power ratings. This ensures that an FCS team is rated much lower than Nebraska or Arizona State, two Power 5 teams that finished a combined 12-14 last season.
The second factor is the amount of home and away games played. As an example, this season, some teams will have as many as eight home games, while others play as many as eight on the road.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">STEELE'S 2016 TOUGHEST SCHEDULES</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody></aside>The box with this year's toughest schedules ranks them from the most difficult to the easiest. The toughest schedule this year, according to my rankings, belongs to USC, while the easiest belongs to UTEP.
Here are the teams with the biggest discrepancy in the two methods of determining toughest schedule. You can check out each team's schedules to see which method you think is better.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Most OVERRATED Schedules</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody></aside><aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Most UNDERRATED Schedules</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody></aside>In 2004, I added a new feature to this article and took a look at the teams that have much easier or much tougher schedules than the previous year. In 2015, of the 22 teams in the "Going Up" box, 16 improved their record, three had the same and only three had a weaker record. Southern Miss went from 3-9 to the Conference-USA Title game. Washington State went from 3-9 to 9-4. And North Carolina went from 6-7 to the ACC Championship game. In the 11 years of the "Going Up" box, 138 out of the 173 teams (79.8 percent) have the same or a better record the next year.
Here are 12 teams with easier schedules that should have better success in 2015. The number in the parentheses is the difference (easier) from last year's schedule.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Going Up</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody><tfoot style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tfoot></aside>In 2004, I took a look at the 10 teams that faced a tougher schedule and said their records might drop because of it. In 2015, there were 13 teams in the "Going Down" box and nine had weaker records, two had the same record and only two improved. Over 11 years, 85 percent of the teams in the "Going Down" box have had the same or a weaker record the next year. Last season, Utah State and Arizona State fell from double-digit-win seasons to losing records.
Here are the teams with harder schedules that might see some drop-off in 2015. The number in the parentheses is the difference (harder) from last year's schedule. This year, Wisconsin tops the list, as I have the Badgers as playing the No. 9 toughest schedule in 2016, after coming off a season during which they played my No. 68 toughest schedule.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Going Down</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody><tfoot style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tfoot></aside>And in case you were wondering where your team ranks on the full rundown of both the NCAA schedule breakdown, as well as my overall rankings, here are the rest of the 128 FBS teams.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">2016 Opponent Winning Percentage (26-128)</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody></aside><aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">STEELE'S 2016 TOUGHEST SCHEDULES (26-128)</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody></aside>
Phil SteeleESPN Staff Writer
ESPN INSIDER
Editor's note: This article was adapted from Phil Steele's college football preview magazine, which is available here.
It's one of the most argued things in college football: Who plays the nation's toughest schedule?
Here's a look at how every team's schedule ranks, Nos. 1 to 128. And no, an SEC team doesn't play the hardest schedule ... but you anti-SECers out there might want to hold off on gloating until you see the top 10.
[h=2]Methodology[/h]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.
One big flaw is basing the ratings on opponent's records from the previousseason. My method includes both last season's records and projections for this year.
Let's first look at the NCAA rankings. Below is a chart of 25 of the combined 2015 opponents' records (for entire table, scroll to the bottom of the page). It is ranked in order of highest percentage of opponent wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest percentage of opponent wins (or easiest schedule). I also list the amount of ranked teams faced, bowl teams and those that finished with a winning record in 2015.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
| RANK | TEAM | FOE W | FOE L | FOE WIN % | RANKED TEAMS | TM W | POST SSN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LSU | 108 | 52 | 67.50% | 4 | 10 | 10 |
| 2 | Arkansas | 104 | 52 | 66.67% | 5 | 10 | 9 |
| 3 | Mississippi | 102 | 52 | 66.23% | 3 | 10 | 10 |
| 4 | Auburn | 100 | 56 | 64.10% | 4 | 9 | 9 |
| 5 | USC | 101 | 58 | 63.52% | 5 | 9 | 11 |
| 6 | Wisconsin | 98 | 57 | 63.23% | 6 | 7 | 10 |
| 7 | BYU | 97 | 57 | 62.99% | 2 | 10 | 11 |
| 8 | Alabama | 97 | 58 | 62.58% | 3 | 10 | 10 |
| 9 | Northwestern | 97 | 59 | 62.18% | 4 | 7 | 10 |
| 10 | Florida St | 96 | 61 | 61.15% | 4 | 9 | 9 |
| 11 | Ohio St | 95 | 61 | 60.90% | 5 | 7 | 10 |
| 11 | Iowa St | 95 | 61 | 60.90% | 5 | 8 | 10 |
| 13 | SMU | 93 | 60 | 60.78% | 5 | 8 | 8 |
| 14 | Illinois | 94 | 61 | 60.65% | 6 | 7 | 9 |
| 15 | Texas A&M | 91 | 60 | 60.26% | 3 | 9 | 8 |
| 16 | Kent St | 93 | 62 | 60.00% | 1 | 9 | 8 |
| 17 | Pittsburgh | 92 | 62 | 59.74% | 3 | 9 | 8 |
| 18 | Michigan St | 90 | 61 | 59.60% | 5 | 7 | 8 |
| 19 | Syracuse | 93 | 64 | 59.24% | 3 | 9 | 10 |
| 20 | Georgia Tech | 91 | 63 | 59.09% | 2 | 8 | 8 |
| 21 | Oregon St | 91 | 64 | 58.71% | 3 | 9 | 10 |
| 22 | Kansas | 89 | 63 | 58.55% | 4 | 8 | 9 |
| 22 | South Carolina | 89 | 63 | 58.55% | 2 | 7 | 6 |
| 24 | NC State | 90 | 64 | 58.44% | 4 | 7 | 7 |
| 25 | Notre Dame | 91 | 65 | 58.33% | 3 | 9 | 9 |
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">2016 Opponent Winning Percentage</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody>
The first is my nine sets of power ratings. This ensures that an FCS team is rated much lower than Nebraska or Arizona State, two Power 5 teams that finished a combined 12-14 last season.
The second factor is the amount of home and away games played. As an example, this season, some teams will have as many as eight home games, while others play as many as eight on the road.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
| RANK | TEAM |
|---|---|
| 1 | USC |
| 2 | Mississippi |
| 3 | Alabama |
| 4 | California |
| 5 | Auburn |
| 6 | Iowa St |
| 7 | Texas A&M |
| 8 | Arkansas |
| 9 | Wisconsin |
| 10 | Syracuse |
| 11 | LSU |
| 12 | Texas |
| 13 | Kansas |
| 14 | Florida St |
| 15 | Oregon St |
| 16 | Colorado |
| 17 | West Virginia |
| 18 | Stanford |
| 19 | Oklahoma |
| 20 | Ohio St |
| 21 | Virginia |
| 22 | Notre Dame |
| 23 | NC State |
| 24 | Utah |
| 25 | Duke |
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">STEELE'S 2016 TOUGHEST SCHEDULES</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody>
Here are the teams with the biggest discrepancy in the two methods of determining toughest schedule. You can check out each team's schedules to see which method you think is better.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
| TEAMS THAT FACE AN EASIER SLATE THAN THE NCAA'S % RANKINGS | |
|---|---|
| Kent St | -64 |
| Akron | -49 |
| North Texas | -46 |
| Old Dominion | -40 |
| SMU | -39 |
| Georgia St | -38 |
| UL Lafayette | -36 |
| ULM | -32 |
| Troy | -32 |
| Tennessee | -31 |
| Miami, Oh | -31 |
| Western Michigan | -30 |
| Michigan St | -29 |
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Most OVERRATED Schedules</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody>
| TEAMS THAT FACE A TOUGHER SLATE THAN THE NCAA'S % RANKINGS | |
|---|---|
| Clemson | 47 |
| Florida | 41 |
| Stanford | 55 |
| Oregon | 60 |
| Utah | 45 |
| Maryland | 42 |
| Boston College | 38 |
| Kansas St | 36 |
| Missouri | 31 |
| Baylor | 29 |
| California | 29 |
| Georgia | 27 |
| Oklahoma St | 28 |
| Wake Forest | 37 |
| Duke | 36 |
| West Virginia | 31 |
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Most UNDERRATED Schedules</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody>
Here are 12 teams with easier schedules that should have better success in 2015. The number in the parentheses is the difference (easier) from last year's schedule.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
| RANK | TEAM | DIFFERENCE |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Minnesota | (67) |
| 2. | Maryland | (61) |
| 3. | Purdue | (46) |
| 4. | Washington | (40) |
| 4. | Western Michigan | (40) |
| 6. | Michigan | (32) |
| 7. | Nebraska | (28) |
| 7. | Air Force | (28) |
| 9. | Ball St | (27) |
| 10. | South Carolina | (26) |
| 10. | North Texas | (26) |
| 12. | UTSA | (23) |
| 79.8% chance of better or same record than 2015 |
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Going Up</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody><tfoot style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tfoot>
Here are the teams with harder schedules that might see some drop-off in 2015. The number in the parentheses is the difference (harder) from last year's schedule. This year, Wisconsin tops the list, as I have the Badgers as playing the No. 9 toughest schedule in 2016, after coming off a season during which they played my No. 68 toughest schedule.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
| RANK | TEAM | DIFFERENCE |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Wisconsin | (72) |
| 2. | Duke | (53) |
| 3. | NC State | (49) |
| 4. | Syracuse | (40) |
| 5. | North Carolina | (38) |
| 6. | BYU | (34) |
| 7. | Ohio St | (33) |
| 8. | Marshall | (29) |
| 9. | Appalachian St | (27) |
| 10. | Akron | (27) |
| 11. | Mississippi | (26) |
| 11. | Houston | (26) |
| 13. | Colorado St | (25) |
| 14. | Oklahoma St | (24) |
| 15. | West Virginia | (23) |
| 85% chance of weaker or same record than 2015 |
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Going Down</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody><tfoot style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tfoot>
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
| RANK | TEAM | FOE W | FOE L | FOE WIN % | RANKED TEAMS | TM W | POST SSN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | Texas | 89 | 64 | 58.17% | 5 | 8 | 9 |
| 26 | Tennessee | 89 | 64 | 58.17% | 2 | 7 | 7 |
| 28 | Colorado | 90 | 65 | 58.06% | 4 | 9 | 10 |
| 29 | North Carolina | 88 | 64 | 57.89% | 1 | 9 | 9 |
| 30 | Mississippi St | 87 | 64 | 57.62% | 3 | 8 | 7 |
| 31 | California | 90 | 67 | 57.32% | 3 | 8 | 9 |
| 32 | Rutgers | 88 | 66 | 57.14% | 4 | 7 | 9 |
| 32 | Washington | 88 | 66 | 57.14% | 3 | 8 | 9 |
| 34 | Penn St | 88 | 67 | 56.77% | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| 35 | Oklahoma | 87 | 67 | 56.49% | 5 | 7 | 8 |
| 35 | Arizona St | 87 | 67 | 56.49% | 2 | 10 | 9 |
| 37 | Virginia | 88 | 68 | 56.41% | 2 | 9 | 10 |
| 38 | Vanderbilt | 85 | 66 | 56.29% | 3 | 7 | 7 |
| 39 | Arizona | 87 | 69 | 55.77% | 2 | 8 | 8 |
| 40 | Purdue | 85 | 68 | 55.56% | 3 | 7 | 9 |
| 41 | Utah St | 86 | 69 | 55.48% | 0 | 10 | 9 |
| 42 | Akron | 83 | 67 | 55.33% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| 43 | UCLA | 86 | 70 | 55.13% | 2 | 8 | 9 |
| 44 | Texas Tech | 83 | 68 | 54.97% | 4 | 6 | 8 |
| 45 | West Virginia | 82 | 68 | 54.67% | 4 | 6 | 7 |
| 45 | ULM | 82 | 68 | 54.67% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| 47 | Miami, Fl | 83 | 69 | 54.61% | 3 | 8 | 8 |
| 47 | North Texas | 83 | 69 | 54.61% | 2 | 7 | 6 |
| 47 | UCF | 83 | 69 | 54.61% | 3 | 6 | 7 |
| 50 | Kentucky | 84 | 70 | 54.55% | 2 | 7 | 7 |
| 50 | Memphis | 84 | 70 | 54.55% | 4 | 7 | 8 |
| 52 | Duke | 82 | 69 | 54.30% | 3 | 8 | 7 |
| 53 | Louisville | 83 | 70 | 54.25% | 3 | 6 | 6 |
| 54 | Bowling Green | 81 | 69 | 54.00% | 1 | 8 | 7 |
| 55 | Miami, Oh | 83 | 71 | 53.90% | 2 | 8 | 8 |
| 56 | Kansas St | 81 | 70 | 53.64% | 5 | 7 | 7 |
| 56 | Tulsa | 81 | 70 | 53.64% | 3 | 6 | 6 |
| 58 | Hawai'i | 89 | 77 | 53.61% | 1 | 9 | 9 |
| 59 | Washington St | 82 | 71 | 53.59% | 2 | 8 | 8 |
| 60 | Stanford | 83 | 72 | 53.55% | 2 | 8 | 9 |
| 61 | Oklahoma St | 80 | 71 | 52.98% | 3 | 7 | 8 |
| 62 | Navy | 81 | 72 | 52.94% | 2 | 6 | 8 |
| 63 | Utah | 82 | 73 | 52.90% | 1 | 8 | 10 |
| 64 | Virginia Tech | 79 | 71 | 52.67% | 2 | 7 | 6 |
| 65 | Nebraska | 80 | 72 | 52.63% | 5 | 5 | 7 |
| 66 | UL Lafayette | 78 | 71 | 52.35% | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| 67 | USF | 79 | 73 | 51.97% | 3 | 7 | 7 |
| 68 | Western Michigan | 77 | 72 | 51.68% | 1 | 7 | 6 |
| 69 | TCU | 78 | 73 | 51.66% | 3 | 7 | 8 |
| 69 | Texas St | 78 | 73 | 51.66% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| 71 | Iowa | 79 | 74 | 51.63% | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| 72 | Cincinnati | 78 | 74 | 51.32% | 2 | 6 | 7 |
| 73 | San Jose St | 79 | 75 | 51.30% | 1 | 7 | 8 |
| 74 | Indiana | 77 | 74 | 50.99% | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 75 | Rice | 76 | 74 | 50.67% | 3 | 6 | 5 |
| 75 | Old Dominion | 76 | 74 | 50.67% | 1 | 6 | 5 |
| 77 | Michigan | 78 | 76 | 50.65% | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 77 | Oregon | 78 | 76 | 50.65% | 2 | 6 | 8 |
| 79 | Toledo | 77 | 76 | 50.33% | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| 80 | Missouri | 75 | 75 | 50.00% | 2 | 7 | 7 |
| 80 | Troy | 76 | 76 | 50.00% | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| 80 | Georgia St | 75 | 75 | 50.00% | 1 | 6 | 5 |
| 83 | New Mexico St | 74 | 75 | 49.66% | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| 84 | Northern Illinois | 75 | 77 | 49.34% | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| 85 | Georgia | 74 | 76 | 49.33% | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| 86 | Fresno St | 75 | 79 | 48.70% | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 87 | East Carolina | 74 | 78 | 48.68% | 2 | 7 | 8 |
| 88 | Minnesota | 73 | 77 | 48.67% | 3 | 5 | 6 |
| 88 | South Alabama | 73 | 77 | 48.67% | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| 90 | Wyoming | 75 | 80 | 48.39% | 0 | 7 | 9 |
| 91 | Wake Forest | 73 | 78 | 48.34% | 2 | 5 | 6 |
| 91 | Tulane | 73 | 78 | 48.34% | 3 | 5 | 6 |
| 93 | Baylor | 72 | 77 | 48.32% | 3 | 5 | 6 |
| 94 | Marshall | 72 | 78 | 48.00% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| 94 | Louisiana Tech | 72 | 78 | 48.00% | 1 | 6 | 5 |
| 96 | Army West Point | 71 | 77 | 47.97% | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| 97 | Florida Atlantic | 71 | 78 | 47.65% | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| 98 | Houston | 71 | 79 | 47.33% | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| 98 | Ball St | 71 | 79 | 47.33% | 0 | 6 | 7 |
| 98 | Connecticut | 71 | 79 | 47.33% | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| 101 | Boston College | 71 | 80 | 47.02% | 2 | 5 | 6 |
| 101 | Maryland | 71 | 80 | 47.02% | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| 103 | Florida | 69 | 78 | 46.94% | 2 | 5 | 5 |
| 104 | UTSA | 70 | 80 | 46.67% | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| 104 | Charlotte | 70 | 80 | 46.67% | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| 106 | UNLV | 70 | 82 | 46.05% | 0 | 6 | 7 |
| 107 | WKU | 68 | 81 | 45.64% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| 108 | Clemson | 67 | 81 | 45.27% | 1 | 6 | 5 |
| 109 | Middle Tennessee | 67 | 82 | 44.97% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| 110 | Colorado St | 68 | 84 | 44.74% | 0 | 5 | 6 |
| 111 | Eastern Michigan | 67 | 83 | 44.67% | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| 112 | Arkansas St | 66 | 82 | 44.59% | 0 | 4 | 5 |
| 112 | Georgia Southern | 66 | 82 | 44.59% | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| 114 | Buffalo | 66 | 85 | 43.71% | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| 115 | FIU | 65 | 85 | 43.33% | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| 115 | Appalachian St | 65 | 85 43.33% | 0 | 4 | 5 | |
| 117 | Boise St | 66 | 87 | 43.14% | 0 | 5 | 7 |
| 118 | Air Force | 65 | 86 | 43.05% | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| 119 | Massachusetts | 64 | 85 | 42.95% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| 120 | San Diego St | 65 | 87 | 42.76% | 0 | 5 | 7 |
| 121 | Central Michigan | 63 | 85 | 42.57% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| 121 | Ohio | 63 | 85 | 42.57% | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| 123 | Idaho | 62 | 86 | 41.89% | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| 124 | Nevada | 62 | 88 | 41.33% | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| 125 | Southern Miss | 59 | 85 | 40.97% | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| 126 | New Mexico | 62 | 90 | 40.79% | 0 | 4 | 6 |
| 127 | Temple | 56 | 91 | 38.10% | 0 | 4 | 5 |
| 128 | UTEP | 52 | 94 | 35.62% | 0 | 2 | 2 |
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">2016 Opponent Winning Percentage (26-128)</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody>
| RANK | TEAM |
|---|---|
| 26 | Mississippi St |
| 27 | Kansas St |
| 28 | Illinois |
| 29 | Georgia Tech |
| 30 | Rutgers |
| 31 | Pittsburgh |
| 32 | Northwestern |
| 33 | Texas Tech |
| 34 | Oklahoma St |
| 35 | UCLA |
| 36 | Oregon |
| 37 | BYU |
| 38 | Arizona |
| 39 | Miami, Fl |
| 40 | Washington St |
| 41 | Virginia Tech |
| 42 | Penn St |
| 43 | Kentucky |
| 44 | Vanderbilt |
| 45 | Michigan St |
| 46 | Arizona St |
| 47 | North Carolina |
| 48 | TCU |
| 49 | South Carolina |
| 50 | Louisville |
| 51 | Missouri |
| 52 | SMU |
| 53 | Indiana |
| 54 | Utah St |
| 55 | Florida |
| 56 | Washington |
| 57 | Georgia |
| 58 | Tennessee |
| 59 | Iowa |
| 60 | Purdue |
| 61 | Clemson |
| 62 | Maryland |
| 63 | Baylor |
| 64 | Wake Forest |
| 65 | Hawai'i |
| 66 | Nebraska |
| 67 | Michigan |
| 68 | Boston College |
| 69 | Navy |
| 70 | UCF |
| 71 | Wyoming |
| 72 | Memphis |
| 73 | San Jose St |
| 74 | Cincinnati |
| 75 | Minnesota |
| 76 | USF |
| 77 | ULM |
| 78 | Bowling Green |
| 79 | Tulsa |
| 80 | Fresno St |
| 81 | Kent St |
| 82 | East Carolina |
| 83 | UNLV |
| 84 | South Alabama |
| 85 | Rice |
| 86 | Northern Illinois |
| 87 | Houston |
| 88 | Miami, Oh |
| 89 | Colorado St |
| 90 | Connecticut |
| 91 | Akron |
| 92 | Toledo |
| 93 | North Texas |
| 94 | Florida Atlantic |
| 95 | Texas St |
| 96 | New Mexico St |
| 97 | Boise St |
| 98 | Marshall |
| 99 | Appalachian St |
| 100 | Western Michigan |
| 101 | Tulane |
| 102 | Massachusetts |
| 103 | Georgia Southern |
| 104 | Temple |
| 105 | UL Lafayette |
| 106 | Central Michigan |
| 107 | Ball St |
| 108 | Eastern Michigan |
| 109 | Troy |
| 110 | Nevada |
| 111 | WKU |
| 112 | Army West Point |
| 113 | Buffalo |
| 114 | Louisiana Tech |
| 115 | Charlotte |
| 116 | Old Dominion |
| 117 | UTSA |
| 118 | Air Force |
| 119 | FIU |
| 120 | Georgia St |
| 121 | Ohio |
| 122 | Southern Miss |
| 123 | New Mexico |
| 124 | Middle Tennessee |
| 125 | Idaho |
| 126 | Arkansas St |
| 127 | San Diego St |
| 128 | UTEP |
<caption style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(43, 44, 45); height: 44px; line-height: 2.8; position: relative; text-align: left; text-transform: capitalize; z-index: 1000020; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">STEELE'S 2016 TOUGHEST SCHEDULES (26-128)</caption><thead style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</thead><tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody>
