2020 NCAAF Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
By Sascha Paruk
Updated:
- See the strength-of-schedule rankings for all 130 FBS teams in 2020
- The top of the list is dominated by the Big Ten and SEC
- Only one Pac-12 team ranks in the top 20
The 2020 college football season could be unlike any other thanks to coronavirus and the prospect of empty stadiums. But the on-field product should still look largely the same. The charts and graphs below set out the strength-of-schedule rankings for the season, assuming a modicum of home-field advantage still exists.
Even more so than strength of schedule calculations in the NFL, SOS in college football should not be purely based on last season’s power ratings. There is far too much roster turnover from year to year. The calculations and rankings below factor in opponents’ efficiency ratings from last season plus how much production teams are losing in 2020, recent recruiting rankings, and major incoming transfers.
Use the rankings below in conjunction with the 2020 NCAAF win totals to find soft spots in the underbelly of the college football futures.
Jump to: National Rankings | ACC Rankings | Big Ten Rankings | Big 12 Rankings | Pac-12 Rankings | SEC Rankings
2020 NCAAF Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | RANK | SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|
| Purdue | 1 | 255.22 |
| Georgia Tech | 2 | 223.97 |
| Michigan | 3 | 211.92 |
| Nebraska | 4 | 210.8 |
| Vanderbilt | 5 | 195.22 |
| Iowa | 6 | 190.39 |
| Michigan State | 7 | 183.86 |
| Colorado | 8 | 179.85 |
| South Carolina | 9 | 179.19 |
| Wisconsin | 10 | 170.24 |
| Arkansas | 11 | 159.38 |
| Northwestern | 12 | 139.78 |
| Houston | 13 | 135.17 |
| Ohio State | 14 | 133.95 |
| Alabama | 15 | 133.05 |
| South Florida | 16 | 132.41 |
| Indiana | 17 | 129.67 |
| Kansas | 18 | 129.51 |
| Maryland | 19 | Â 128.16 |
| LSU | 20 | 122.13 |
| West Virginia | 21 | 116.39 |
| USC | 22 | 115.12 |
| Notre Dame | 23 | 113.13 |
| TCU | 24 | 109.85 |
| Georgia | 25 | 108.32 |
| Tennessee | 26 | 104.4 |
| Rutgers | 27 | 102.75 |
| Louisville | 28 | 101.62 |
| Stanford | 29 | 100.29 |
| Minnesota | 30 | 97.62 |
| Penn State | 31 | 97.11 |
| Mississippi State | 32 | 95.98 |
| Baylor | 33 | 92.93 |
| Ole Miss | 34 | 92.19 |
| Oregon State | 35 | 86.95 |
| California | 36 | 85.5 |
| Kansas State | 37 | 80.02 |
| Oklahoma | 38 | 78.73 |
| Texas | 39 | 77.19 |
| Tulane | 40 | 70.12 |
| Kentucky | 41 | 61.48 |
| Washington | 42 | 61.37 |
| Illinois | 43 | 61.19 |
| Virginia | 44 | 60.59 |
| East Carolina | 45 | 59.11 |
| Iowa State | 46 | 57.82 |
| Oregon | 47 | 57.09 |
| Tulsa | 48 | 57.09 |
| Oklahoma State | 49 | 55.26 |
| Arizona | 50 | 53.81 |
| Missouri | 51 | 48.24 |
| Texas Tech | 52 | 47.86 |
| Miami (FL) | 53 | 45.65 |
| Pittsburgh | 54 | 42.24 |
| Auburn | 55 | 39.65 |
| Temple | 56 | 37.93 |
| Florida State | 57 | 31.77 |
| Wake Forest | 58 | 23.85 |
| Duke | 59 | 22.97 |
| Navy | 60 | 22.95 |
| BYU | 61 | 22.8 |
| Florida | 62 | 21.01 |
| Virginia Tech | 63 | 19.47 |
| Utah | 64 | 18.63 |
| Arizona State | 65 | 18.51 |
| Memphis | 66 | 16.95 |
| North Carolina | 67 | 14.33 |
| Cincinnati | 68 | 11.75 |
| Boston College | 69 | 11.52 |
| UCLA | 70 | 6.21 |
| Washington State | 71 | 1.26 |
| NC State | 72 | -4.3 |
| UCF | 73 | -15.19 |
| UNLV | 74 | -20.21 |
| Texas A&M | 75 | -28.97 |
| SMU | 76 | -30.41 |
| Kent State | 77 | -42.34 |
| Utah State | 78 | -47.16 |
| Clemson | 79 | -59.57 |
| Syracuse | 80 | -63.22 |
| Marshall | 81 | -67.86 |
| Arkansas State | 82 | -75.64 |
| Georgia State | 83 | -87.24 |
| Wyoming | 84 | -89.37 |
| Georgia Southern | 85 | -92.1 |
| Western Kentucky | 86 | -93.3 |
| UConn | 87 | -93.67 |
| Louisiana–Monroe | 88 | -125.36 |
| Boise State | 89 | -126.82 |
| Texas State | 90 | -128.15 |
| Air Force | 91 | -136.44 |
| South Alabama | 92 | -139.13 |
| Eastern Michigan | 93 | -141.18 |
| New Mexico | 94 | -141.96 |
| San Jose State | 95 | -142.41 |
| FIU | 96 | -146.83 |
| Ball State | 97 | -147.26 |
| UTSA | 98 | -156.97 |
| Miami (OH) | 99 | -159.15 |
| Western Michigan | 100 | -159.73 |
| Old Dominion | 101 | -160.47 |
| North Texas | 102 | -162.61 |
| Bowling Green | 103 | -163.62 |
| Buffalo | 104 | -171.31 |
| Florida Atlantic | 105 | -173.29 |
| Army | 106 | -173.39 |
| Middle Tennessee | 107 | -177.31 |
| Appalachian State | 108 | -182.23 |
| Southern Miss | 109 | -188.15 |
| Coastal Carolina | 110 | -189.01 |
| Charlotte | 111 | -189.66 |
| Northern Illinois | 112 | -190.44 |
| Colorado State | 113 | -192.53 |
| Rice | 114 | -194.47 |
| Fresno State | 115 | -197.39 |
| Hawaii | 116 | -202.44 |
| Akron | 117 | -214.49 |
| UTEP | 118 | -215.66 |
| Central Michigan | 119 | -217.53 |
| Toledo | 120 | -223.72 |
| Louisiana | 121 | -228.42 |
| UMass | 122 | -233.51 |
| Troy | 123 | -235.51 |
| New Mexico State | 124 | -240.02 |
| San Diego State | 125 | -250.42 |
| Louisiana Tech | 126 | -296.21 |
| Ohio | 127 | -298.99 |
| Liberty | 128 | -316.48 |
| Nevada | 129 | -316.64 |
| UAB | 130 | -319.64 |
Notes on the SOS ratings:
- The toughest hypothetical schedule (12 road games vs Clemson) would score 752.4.
- The toughest schedule a team could play against 12 different opponents would score 693.11.
- The toughest real schedule (Purdue) scores 255.2, which is 33.9% as tough as the toughest hypothetically schedule.
- The easiest hypothetical schedule against an FBS opponent (12 home games vs UTEP) would score -648
- The easiest real schedule scores -319.64, which is 46% as easiest hypothetical schedule.
- In theory, if FBS teams only played other FBS teams, the cumulative total of all the SOS scores would be zero. The team scores are a certain percentage above or below average. But in reality, the cumulative total of all the SOS scores is well below zero, because of dozens of games against FCS competition.
ACC Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | CONF. RANK | NAT’L RANK | SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia Tech | 1 | 2 | 223.97 |
| Louisville | 2 | 28 | 101.62 |
| Virginia | 3 | 44 | 60.59 |
| Miami (FL) | 4 | 53 | 45.65 |
| Pittsburgh | 5 | 54 | 42.24 |
| Florida State | 6 | 57 | 31.77 |
| Wake Forest | 7 | 58 | 23.85 |
| Duke | 8 | 59 | 22.97 |
| Virginia Tech | 9 | 63 | 19.47 |
| North Carolina | 10 | 67 | 14.33 |
| Boston College | 11 | 69 | 11.52 |
| NC State | 12 | 72 | -4.3 |
| Clemson | 13 | 79 | -59.57 |
| Syracuse | 14 | 80 | -63.22 |
Big Ten Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | CONF. RANK | NAT’L RANK | SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purdue | 1 | 1 | 255.22 |
| Michigan | 2 | 3 | 211.92 |
| Nebraska | 3 | 4 | 210.8 |
| Iowa | 4 | 6 | 190.39 |
| Michigan State | 5 | 7 | 183.86 |
| Wisconsin | 6 | 10 | 170.24 |
| Northwestern | 7 | 12 | 139.78 |
| Ohio State | 8 | 14 | 133.95 |
| Indiana | 9 | 17 | 129.67 |
| Maryland | 10 | 19 | 128.16 |
| Rutgers | 11 | 27 | 102.75 |
| Minnesota | 12 | 30 | 97.62 |
| Penn State | 13 | 31 | 97.11 |
| Illinois | 14 | 43 | 61.19 |
Big 12 Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | CONF. RANK | NAT’L RANK | SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas | 1 | 18 | 129.51 |
| West Virginia | 2 | 21 | 116.39 |
| TCU | 3 | 24 | 109.85 |
| Baylor | 4 | 33 | 92.93 |
| Kansas State | 5 | 37 | 80.02 |
| Oklahoma | 6 | 38 | 78.73 |
| Texas | 7 | 39 | 77.19 |
| Iowa State | 8 | 46 | 57.82 |
| Oklahoma State | 9 | 49 | 55.26 |
| Texas Tech | 10 | 52 | 47.86 |
Pac-12 Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | CONF. RANK | Â NAT’L RANK | Â SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | 1 | 8 | 179.85 |
| USC | 2 | 22 | 115.12 |
| Stanford | 3 | 29 | 100.29 |
| Oregon State | 4 | 35 | 86.95 |
| California | 5 | 36 | 85.5 |
| Washington | 6 | 42 | 61.37 |
| Oregon | 7 | 47 | 57.09 |
| Arizona | 8 | 50 | 53.81 |
| Utah | 9 | 64 | 18.63 |
| Arizona State | 10 | 65 | 18.51 |
| UCLA | 11 | 70 | 6.21 |
| Washington State | 12 | 71 | 1.26 |
SEC Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | CONF. RANK | NAT’L RANK | SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vanderbilt | 1 | 5 | 195.22 |
| South Carolina | 2 | 9 | 179.19 |
| Arkansas | 3 | 11 | 159.38 |
| Alabama | 4 | 15 | 133.05 |
| LSU | 5 | 20 | 122.13 |
| Georgia | 6 | 25 | 108.32 |
| Tennessee | 7 | 26 | 104.4 |
| Mississippi State | 8 | 32 | 95.98 |
| Ole Miss | 9 | 34 | 92.19 |
| Kentucky | 10 | 41 | 61.48 |
| Missouri | 11 | 51 | 48.24 |
| Auburn | 12 | 55 | 39.65 |
| Florida | 13 | 62 | 21.01 |
| Texas A&M | 14 | 75 | -28.97 |
Managing Editor
Sascha has been working in the sports-betting industry since 2014, and quickly paired his strong writing skills with a burgeoning knowledge of probability and statistics. He holds an undergraduate degree in linguistics and a Juris Doctor from the University of British Columbia.
