Monday, November 09, 2009

NCAA Football Strength of Schedule - Week 10

The following ranking is dependent on Opponent's Winning Percentage (OW%). It takes into account only teams that have been played and not future opponents. FCS (I-AA) teams' records are only reflective of games they have played against FBS (I-A) opponents. This means that if an FCS opponent plays one game against an FBS (I-A) opponent and lose, their record is reflected as 0-1. Teams of note have been written in bold.

HARDEST

1. San Jose State [OW%: 0.742]

2. Virginia Tech [OW%: 0.707]

3. Mississippi State [OW%: 0.697]

4. Florida State [OW%: 0.689]

5. Connecticut [OW%: 0.681]

6. Syracuse [OW%: 0.680]

7. Louisville [OW%: 0.667]

8. Washington [OW%: 0.667]

9. Miami (OH) [OW%: 0.656]

10. Virginia [OW%: 0.640]

11. Oklahoma [OW%: 0.640]

12. Oregon State [OW%: 0.630]

13. Colorado State [OW%: 0.628]

14. Arkansas [OW%: 0.627]

15. Washington State [OW%: 0.625]

16. Clemson [OW%: 0.618]

17. Wake Forest [OW%: 0.607]

18. Purdue [OW%: 0.606]

19. UCLA [OW%: 0.605]

20. Michigan State [OW%: 0.598]

21. Georgia [OW%: 0.592]

22. Iowa State [OW%: 0.588]

23. Wisconsin [OW%: 0.588]

24. Bowling Green [OW%: 0.585]

25. Oregon [OW%: 0.585]

26. Minnesota [OW%: 0.583]

27. Vanderbilt [OW%: 0.583]

28. Colorado [OW%: 0.578]

29. Tennessee [OW%: 0.578]

30. Tulane [OW%: 0.575]

31. Kentucky [OW%: 0.571]

32. Louisiana Tech [OW%: 0.571]

33. Arkansas State [OW%: 0.569]

34. Missouri [OW%: 0.568]

35. LSU [OW%: 0.566]

36. Boston College [OW%: 0.560]

37. Miami (FL) [OW%: 0.560]

38. Iowa [OW%: 0.558]

39. Florida International [OW%: 0.557]

40. UNLV [OW%: 0.554]

41. Oklahoma State [OW%: 0.554]

42. Western Kentucky [OW%: 0.554]

43. Fresno State [OW%: 0.554]

44. Utah State [OW%: 0.554]

45. Akron [OW%: 0.553]

46. Penn State [OW%: 0.552]

47. Illinois [OW%: 0.550]

48. Maryland [OW%: 0.548]

49. Memphis [OW%: 0.548]

50. Ohio State [OW%: 0.547]

51. North Carolina [OW%: 0.545]

52. Arizona [OW%: 0.545]

53. Rice [OW%: 0.542]

54. Alabama [OW%: 0.537]

55. Eastern Michigan [OW%: 0.536]

56. South Florida [OW%: 0.534]

57. Indiana [OW%: 0.534]

58. Buffalo [OW%: 0.533]

59. Florida [OW%: 0.533]

60. Baylor [OW%: 0.532]

61. Texas [OW%: 0.531]

62. New Mexico [OW%: 0.530]

63. Texas Tech [OW%: 0.527]

64. Arizona State [OW%: 0.527]

65. South Carolina [OW%: 0.524]

66. Florida Atlantic [OW%: 0.521]

67. Wyoming [OW%: 0.520]

68. Southern Cal [OW%: 0.519]

69. Auburn [OW%: 0.518]

70. Notre Dame [OW%: 0.518]

71. NC State [OW%: 0.515]

72. Southern Methodist [OW%: 0.514]

73. Hawaii [OW%: 0.513]

74. North Texas [OW%: 0.513]

75. Mississippi [OW%: 0.507]

76. Kansas [OW%: 0.507]

77. San Diego State [OW%: 0.506]

78. UTEP [OW%: 0.506]

79. Navy [OW%: 0.505]

80. Kansas State [OW%: 0.500]

81. Nebraska [OW%: 0.500]

82. Pittsburgh [OW%: 0.500]

83. Houston [OW%: 0.500]

84. Air Force [OW%: 0.500]

85. Texas Christian [OW%: 0.500]

86. Georgia Tech [OW%: 0.494]

87. West Virginia [OW%: 0.493]

88. Central Florida [OW%: 0.493]

89. East Carolina [OW%: 0.493]

90. Marshall [OW%: 0.493]

91. Rutgers [OW%: 0.491]

92. Michigan [OW%: 0.489]

93. California [OW%: 0.486]

94. Cincinnati [OW%: 0.486]

95. UAB [OW%: 0.475]

96. Duke [OW%: 0.462]

97. Western Michigan [OW%: 0.460]

98. Ball State [OW%: 0.459]

99. Louisiana-Monroe [OW%: 0.458]

100. Texas A&M [OW%: 0.458]

101. Brigham Young [OW%: 0.458]

102. Tulsa [OW%: 0.452]

103. Stanford [OW%: 0.450]

104. Southern Miss [OW%: 0.446]

105. New Mexico State [OW%: 0.440]

106. Northwestern [OW%: 0.438]

107. Troy [OW%: 0.425]

108. Toledo [OW%: 0.424]

109. Idaho [OW%: 0.422]

110. Army [OW%: 0.422]

111. Nevada [OW%: 0.410]

112. Central Michigan [OW%: 0.400]

113. Boise State [OW%: 0.392]

114. Northern Illinois [OW%: 0.377]

115. Louisiana-Lafayette [OW%: 0.375]

116. Kent State [OW%: 0.372]

117. Temple [OW%: 0.368]

118. Utah [OW%: 0.361]

119. Middle Tennessee [OW%: 0.338]

120. Ohio [OW%: 0.316]

EASIEST


These rankings and numeric values are the sole property of ZONQ Sports. Any written use must be approved.

0 comments: