NCAAF Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
Updated:
- See the college football strength-of-schedule rankings for all 134 FBS teams in 2024
- The Florida Gators have the toughest strength of schedule in the nation this year by a wide margin
- No Group of Five team has a schedule tougher than 69th (Old Dominion)
The 2023 college football season is underway. The charts and graphs below set out the strength-of-schedule rankings for the season.
Even more so than strength of schedule calculations in the NFL, SOS in college football should not be based too heavily 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, recent recruiting rankings, and major incoming transfers.
Use the rankings below in conjunction with the 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  | SEC Rankings
2024 NCAAF Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | RANK | SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | 1 | 121.30 |
| Michigan | 2 | 98.19 |
| Mississippi State | 3 | 95.98 |
| UCLA | 4 | 89.60 |
| Wisconsin | 5 | 82.86 |
| Georgia | 6 | 79.26 |
| Alabama | 7 | 77.20 |
| USC | 8 | 74.70 |
| Oklahoma | 9 | 71.16 |
| Houston | 10 | 70.80 |
| Kentucky | 11 | 68.90 |
| LSU | 12 | 67.24 |
| Virginia Tech | 13 | 60.97 |
| Purdue | 14 | 60.89 |
| West Virginia | 15 | 60.80 |
| Maryland | 16 | 58.19 |
| Arkansas | 17 | 57.20 |
| Washington | 18 | 55.70 |
| Oregon | 19 | 54.89 |
| South Carolina | 20 | 50.38 |
| Vanderbilt | 21 | 46.42 |
| Texas | 22 | 45.88 |
| Notre Dame | 23 | 43.31 |
| Nebraska | 24 | 42.00 |
| Auburn | 25 | 41.89 |
| Ohio State | 26 | 41.71 |
| Colorado | 27 | 41.60 |
| Iowa | 28 | 41.19 |
| Penn State | 29 | 39.35 |
| Ole Miss | 30 | 39.18 |
| Oklahoma State | 31 | 38.48 |
| Virginia | 32 | 38.47 |
| Florida State | 33 | 38.11 |
| Michigan State | 34 | 38.10 |
| Arizona State | 35 | 37.50 |
| BYU | 36 | 36.00 |
| Louisville | 37 | 35.31 |
| Georgia Tech | 38 | 33.16 |
| Minnesota | 39 | 32.30 |
| UCF | 40 | 28.99 |
| Illinois | 41 | 28.99 |
| Kansas State | 42 | 24.50 |
| Pitt | 43 | 24.15 |
| Texas A&M | 44 | 23.93 |
| Stanford | 45 | 23.25 |
| Iowa State | 46 | 22.00 |
| Texas Tech | 47 | 21.70 |
| Tennessee | 48 | 20.34 |
| Cincinnati | 49 | 20.10 |
| North Carolina State | 50 | 18.82 |
| Missouri | 51 | 17.80 |
| Utah | 52 | 16.90 |
| Clemson | 53 | 16.71 |
| Baylor | 54 | 16.70 |
| Arizona | 55 | 15.40 |
| Boston College | 56 | 12.69 |
| Kansas | 57 | 10.60 |
| California | 58 | 10.41 |
| Rutgers | 59 | 9.11 |
| 8.92 | 60 | 8.92 |
| Miami (FL) | 61 | 8.57 |
| Northwestern | 62 | 4.26 |
| SMU | 63 | 4.12 |
| Syracuse | 64 | 2.36 |
| TCU | 65 | 1.41 |
| Indiana | 66 | -3.51 |
| Duke | 67 | -13.20 |
| North Carolina | 68 | -14.14 |
| Old Dominion | 69 | -44.58 |
| Oregon State | 70 | -45.85 |
| Charlotte | 71 | -48.30 |
| Louisiana-Monroe | 72 | -56.30 |
| Georgia State | 73 | -56.93 |
| South Florida | 74 | -62.54 |
| Temple | 75 | -64.13 |
| Arkansas State | 76 | -66.30 |
| San Jose State | 77 | -67.29 |
| UNLV | 78 | -69.50 |
| Georgia Southern | 79 | -69.53 |
| Troy | 80 | -69.73 |
| Nevada | 81 | -69.90 |
| Wyoming | 82 | -73.10 |
| Boise State | 83 | -73.30 |
| Tulane | 84 | -73.40 |
| App State | 85 | -74.23 |
| UTSA | 86 | -80.10 |
| Fresno State | 87 | -82.80 |
| Akron | 88 | -83.79 |
| Washington State | 89 | -84.50 |
| UAB | 90 | -85.12 |
| Miami (OH) | 91 | -86.59 |
| Bowling Green | 92 | -90.42 |
| Marshall | 93 | -91.13 |
| Utah State | 94 | -92.20 |
| UMass | 95 | -93.14 |
| Ball State | 96 | -94.19 |
| Navy | 97 | -95.30 |
| New Mexico | 98 | -97.30 |
| UTEP | 99 | -97.70 |
| Kent State | 100 | -98.41 |
| Coastal Carolina | 101 | -98.60 |
| Southern Mississippi | 102 | -100.10 |
| Memphis | 103 | -100.90 |
| Western Kentucky | 104 | -101.84 |
| Rice | 105 | -103.10 |
| Jacksonville State | 106 | -103.43 |
| Colorado State | 107 | -103.50 |
| Hawaii | 108 | -107.00 |
| San Diego State | 109 | -108.85 |
| Louisiana | 110 | -110.03 |
| Sam Houston State | 111 | -110.20 |
| South Alabama | 112 | -111.10 |
| James Madison | 113 | -112.27 |
| Middle Tennessee State | 114 | -112.74 |
| UConn | 115 | -113.78 |
| Texas State | 116 | -113.80 |
| North Texas | 117 | -116.80 |
| Western Michigan | 118 | -120.91 |
| Air Force | 119 | -122.20 |
| Tulsa | 120 | -123.70 |
| Army | 121 | -124.00 |
| Central Michigan | 122 | -125.09 |
| New Mexico State | 123 | -127.50 |
| Florida Atlantic | 124 | -127.50 |
| Toledo | 125 | -129.27 |
| Kennesaw State | 126 | -131.70 |
| Louisiana Tech | 127 | -132.32 |
| Buffalo | 128 | -135.52 |
| East Carolina | 129 | -136.80 |
| Florida International | 130 | -139.50 |
| Northern Illinois | 131 | -141.91 |
| Ohio | 132 | -146.06 |
| Liberty | 133 | -155.50 |
| Eastern Michigan | 134 | -155.52 |
Notes on the SOS ratings:
- The toughest hypothetical schedule this year (12 games at Georgia) would score 352.8.
- The toughest schedule a team could play against 12 different opponents would score 234.65.
- The toughest real schedule (Florida Gators) scores 121.30, which is 34.4% as tough as the toughest hypothetical schedule.
- The easiest Power Conference schedule belongs to North Carolina,
which is 68th in the nation. - The toughest Group of 5 schedule belongs to the Old Dominion (-44.58) which is 69th in the nation.
- The remaining “Pac 2” teams – Oregon State and Washington State – rank 70th and 89th, respectively
- The easiest hypothetical schedule against an FBS opponent (12 home games vs Kent State) would score -319.2.
- The easiest real schedule (Eastern Michigan) scores -155.52, which is 48.7% as easy as the easiest hypothetical schedule.
- In theory, if FBS teams only played other FBS teams, the cumulative total of all the SOS scores would be zero. (All the cumulative team scores are a certain percentage above or below the average of zero.) But in reality, the cumulative total of all the SOS scores is well below zero because of dozens of games against FCS competition, who rank well below average as a group.
ACC Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | CONF. RANK | NAT’L RANK | SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia Tech | 1 | 13 | 60.97 |
| Virginia | 2 | 32 | 38.47 |
| Florida State | 3 | 33 | 38.11 |
| Louisville | 4 | 37 | 35.31 |
| Georgia Tech | 5 | 38 | 33.16 |
| Pitt | 6 | 43 | 24.15 |
| Stanford | 7 | 45 | 23.25 |
| North Carolina State | 8 | 50 | 18.82 |
| Clemson | 9 | 53 | 16.71 |
| Boston College | 10 | 56 | 12.69 |
| California | 11 | 58 | 10.41 |
| Wake Forest | 12 | 60 | 8.92 |
| Miami | 13 | 61 | 2.2 |
| SMU | 14 | 63 | 4.12 |
| Syracuse | 15 | 64 | 2.36 |
| Duke | 16 | 67 | -13.20 |
| North Carolina | 17 | 68 | -14.14 |
Big Ten Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | CONF. RANK | NAT’L RANK | SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | 1 | 2 | 98.19 |
| UCLA | 2 | 4 | 89.60 |
| Wisconsin | 3 | 5 | 82.86 |
| USC | 4 | 8 | 74.70 |
| Purdue | 5 | 14 | 60.89 |
| Maryland | 6 | 16 | 58.19 |
| Washington | 7 | 18 | 55.70 |
| Oregon | 8 | 19 | 54.89 |
| Nebraska | 9 | 24 | 42.00 |
| Ohio State | 10 | 26 | 41.71 |
| Iowa | 11 | 28 | 41.19 |
| Penn State | 12 | 29 | 39.35 |
| Michigan State | 13 | 34 | 38.10 |
| Minnesota | 14 | 39 | 32.30 |
| Illinois | 15 | 41 | 28.99 |
| Rutgers | 16 | 59 | 9.11 |
| Northwestern | 17 | 62 | 4.26 |
| Indiana | 18 | 66 | -3.51 |
Big 12 Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | CONF. RANK | NAT’L RANK | SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Houston | 1 | 10 | 70.80 |
| West Virginia | 2 | 15 | 60.80 |
| Colorado | 3 | 27 | 41.60 |
| Oklahoma State | 4 | 31 | 38.48 |
| Arizona State | 5 | 35 | 37.50 |
| BYU | 6 | 35 | 36.00 |
| UCF | 7 | 40 | 30.30 |
| Kansas State | 8 | 42 | 24.50 |
| Iowa State | 9 | 46 | 22.00 |
| Texas Tech | 10 | 47 | 21.70 |
| Cincinnati | 11 | 49 | 20.10 |
| Utah | 12 | 52 | 16.90 |
| Baylor | 13 | 54 | 16.70 |
| Arizona | 14 | 55 | 15.40 |
| Kansas | 15 | 57 | 10.60 |
| TCU | 16 | 65 | 1.41 |
SEC Strength-of-Schedule Rankings
| TEAM | CONF. RANK | NAT’L RANK | SOS TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | 1 | 1 | 121.30 |
| Mississippi State | 2 | 3 | 79.26 |
| Georgia | 3 | 6 | 79.26 |
| Alabama | 4 | 7 | 77.20 |
| Oklahoma | 5 | 9 | 71.16 |
| Kentucky | 6 | 11 | 68.90 |
| LSU | 7 | 12 | 67.24 |
| Arkansas | 8 | 17 | 57.20 |
| South Carolina | 9 | 20 | 50.38 |
| Vanderbilt | 10 | 21 | 46.42 |
| Texas | 11 | 22 | 45.88 |
| Auburn | 12 | 25 | 41.89 |
| Ole Miss | 13 | 30 | 39.18 |
| Texas A&M | 14 | 44 | 23.93 |
| Tennessee | 15 | 48 | 20.34 |
| Missouri | 16 | 51 | 17.80 |
Sports Betting Bonuses for College Football Betting
No matter what team you’re betting on and what their NCAAF strength of schedule looks like, claiming some sportsbook bonuses can help take your wagering success to the next level.
Whether you’re a new customer signing up at a sportsbook, or an existing user who’s on the hunt for the best odds boosts and profit boost tokens, the best sportsbooks are always offering some valuable bonuses during college football season.
Some of the best sportsbooks with top-notch NCAAF betting bonuses include the following options:
- ESPN Bet promo code
- DraftKings promo code
- BetMGM promo code
- Bet365 bonus code
- FanDuel promo code
- Caesars Sportsbook promo code
Click the links above to get more details on the best sports betting bonuses for NCAAF betting available at each sportsbook.
Evergreen Manager; Sportsbook Expert
Following a sports journalism career with his work appearing in outlets like theScore, The Province, and VICE Sports, Patrick moved into the world of content marketing to bridge the gap between great writing and SEO success. He’s brought that same mindset to lead evergreen content efforts at SBD.
