It's never too soon to start the mostly-irrelevant arguments about schedule strength, although it is way too soon to have any objective measurement of how strong a team's opponents are. Instead, I'll just use last year's rankings, defined to be the best rank for which at least 50 percent of 112 computer rankings agree the team should be at least that highly ranked.
There are nearly an infinite number of ways to define schedule strength, and a case can be made for (or against) any of them. For FBS football, I prefer to emphasize the overall season: one game doesn't make a schedule "strong" even if it's against the #1 team any more than one game makes a schedule "weak" because it's against an unranked (non-FBS) team.
So I use a "weighted average" with over 75% of the weight assigned to the middle third of a team's schedule. For a 12-game season, the 5th through 8th -best teams contribute over three times as much as the 1st through 4th and 9th through 12th -best combined.
Last time I wrote Arizona State only has three non-conference slots to fill. To use even one of them to play a non-FBS team is a misdemeanor, and to use two ought to be a felony. That only applies to the effect of the Sun Devils' schedule on field connectivity: only 14 teams have a stronger overall schedule, and those two games come at the beginning of the season, so it's not like they're taking extra bye weeks during the year.
The 15 toughest schedules include only Pac 10, SEC and ACC teams (the top 10 only Pac 10 and SEC.) When the conference schedule includes seven or eight top-50 teams, it doesn't take many strong non-conference opponents to have the middle third of the schedule be strong.
It's the non-conference schedule that teams set for themselves. As shown by the Arizona State example, a team doesn't need to schedule tough non-conference games to have a difficult schedule. But teams from non-AQ conferences do need to if they are to finish with a high BCS Computer-ranking (and they need to win tough games in order to impress the poll-voters.)
Wyoming, Oregon State and Miami(Ohio) each have two non-conference opponents who finished in the top 10 last year for the strongest non-conference schedules. On the other end of the spectrum, Indiana plays no non-conference opponent who finished in the top 100! (On the other hand, it's arguable that Indiana plays no one very much worse than them... the Hoosiers finished 2009 in 90th place.)
The algorithm is as is described above, with weights for highest to lowest -ranked opponents' ranks being weighted by the percentages in this table:
|
|
I chose to include the two best non-conference opponents to keep from penalizing teams that have fewer than 8 conference games - non-conference scheduling is difficult enough without having to find five teams with compatible available dates. I chose to weight the top-ranked opponent lower to account for the fact that more available dates should make it easier to find a top-ranked opponent if the team chooses to look for one.
The order for this list is best to worst -opponent's rank.
All of the lists include the teams' 2009 final ranks to make it easier to compare the team to its 2010 opponents and links to the teams' schedules and results pages.