A Non-Conference Scheduling Report: Who Likes a Challenge?

Alright, let's start putting this new season in perspective, shall we?

This study attempts to quantify each DI-A team's tendencies when it comes to arranging their non-conference schedules - do they prefer to play a challenging schedule, an easy schedule, or somewhere in between? The table below lists each team along with relevant numbers and figures for the past ten (BCS) years in four major categories. I chose these particular categories not only because is there a proven correlation between them and how difficult an opponent actual ends up being, but also because these are some of the general areas that coaches and administrators take into account when arranging non-conf schedules. Onto the categories...

Category #1. Home vs Away games (light red): Mathematically, playing at home always provides an advantage. In the history of college football, home teams have won an average of 64.1% of the games and have never failed to win at least 54.5% of a single season's games. During the BCS years, the home team has won an even higher average of 62.3% of the games. So a team that is willing to play on the road is accepting a more difficult challenge than those who stay at home.

Category #2. BCS vs non-BCS vs I-AA teams (orange): It’s probably no surprise that with few exceptions, I-A teams beat up on I-AA teams – BCS and non-BCS teams have winning percentages of 93.7% and 82.6% against I-AA teams respectively. It might be somewhat shocking to see that BCS teams beat up on non-BCS teams with about the same regularity, racking up an 82.4% winning percentage during the ten years of the BCS. And when a BCS team plays at home against a non-BCS foe, that winning percentage goes up to 87.4%. So overall, teams that schedule BCS teams as opposed to non-BCS or I-AA teams are accepting a more difficult challenge than those who don’t. Of course, there are stronger and weaker BCS or non-BCS teams – that’s where category #3 comes in.

Category #3. Wins – 5-Year Average & Highest Win Season (yellow): The first one’s pretty self-explanatory – the higher the average wins over the last five seasons, the more challenging the opponent. The highest win component speaks more towards risk and predictability – the bigger the difference between a team’s average wins and their highest win total, the more erratic their performance. For instance, if a team averages 5 wins per season and their highest win total over those seasons is 7, they’re a pretty reliable .500 team. However, if they average 5 wins and their highest total is 11 wins, they’re much less predictable – they could be really good or really bad any given year. Teams looking for a challenge aren’t afraid to schedule teams with a high 5-year average or high win total.

The math backs up these categories too - in matchups, the team with the higher 5-year win average wins 67.4% of games, and the team with the higher seasonal win total wins 68.1% of games. Not only that, but the bigger the difference between teams' averages, the more likely it is that the team with the better average will win. (If you're interested in seeing all of the data and tables that support these assertions, click here.)

Category #4. Votes in the Final Coach’s Poll – Top 10’s & Zero votes (green): Finally, these two categories look at both ends of the voting spectrum, measuring how many opponents have either a top 10 ranking (called "elite" teams in this study) or zero votes in the last five final Coach’s polls. The rankings are important because they show what the coaches actually thought of their competition once the season ended - it's relevant info coming directly from the people who make the decision on who their teams will play. This is a different way of looking at strength and predictability – a team with a top 10 finish in the last five years is going to be more challenging that one that doesn’t, while a team with zero votes in the last five years isn’t going to be as challenging as one who has earned votes. (Again, the math backs up these categories as well - in matchups, the team with more votes in the last 5 years wins 68.6% of games, and the percentage goes up as the difference in votes does.)

A few quick points...

• Most importantly, this is NOT a study of how difficult a team’s non-conf schedule actually was. Instead, this study attempts to measure how difficult a non-conf schedule a team tried to arrange. For instance, Illinois and Missouri played one of the toughest, most important non-conf games of the season in 2007, the Tigers finishing with 12 wins and the Illini making it to the Rose Bowl. Even though the game ended up being difficult for each of them, their opponents' previous seasons don't indicate that they were trying to set up such a challenging game when they scheduled each other. (They probably thought they'd be getting a solid, but average BCS team.)

• Also important is that this isn’t an attempt to determine or prove any of the underlying reasons teams schedule challenging or non-challenging non-conf games. Common sense might say that in an LSU-Louisiana Tech matchup, LSU gets an easy home win and stadium revenues, while Louisiana Tech gets a payout and the chance for a program-building upset. But I’ve tried to stay away from getting into those reasons here, mainly because I don’t have the evidence to support it.

• All of the statistics cover a team’s performance from the five previous seasons. So the data from Ohio State in 2004 are their wins, averages, and votes from 1999-2003. There’s a couple of reasons I chose a 5-year span. First, it covers the vast majority, if not all, of the time when non-conference games are scheduled. Five years ahead of time is usually the max, and the minimum can be up to 6 months before kickoff, as we’ve seen this off-season. And normal scheduling time is 2-3 years beforehand, which falls right in the middle of our timespan.

• Bowl games, while non-conf by nature, are NOT included for the sole reason that teams don’t get to choose their bowl opponents.

• I-AA teams count as zeros across the board as far as average wins, votes, etc. (I use “zAA” as a designator for I-AA in some places – it’s just shorthand I picked up along the way.)

• Notre Dame and other Independent teams aren’t included because their seasons are made up entirely of non-conference opponents. However, those Independent teams are included on other teams’ non-conference schedules.

The columns are sortable and the headers pretty straightforward, but you can click on the "legend" link in the upper left corner above the table for an explanation if you need. If the value or percentage is in blue, it means that it's ranked in the top 20 compared to the other values or percentages. Red means that it's ranked in the bottom 20. *Click on each individual team name to see my analysis of them, a list of all their non-conf opponents, and what they have in store for 2008.

(legend)

Non-Conference Scheduling
Conf	Team	Gm	vs	@	v	%vs	BCS	non	AA	%BCS	avW	10+	10+%	T10	T%	0	0%
ACC	Boston College	42	25	17	0	59.5%	16	22	4	38.1%	4.6	11	26.2%	1	02.4%	16	38.1%
ACC	Clemson	34	25	8	1	73.5%	17	12	5	50.0%	4.5	6	17.6%	4	11.8%	16	47.1%
ACC	Duke	34	18	16	0	52.9%	17	12	5	50.0%	4.5	10	29.4%	5	14.7%	14	41.2%
ACC	Florida St	37	21	12	4	56.8%	26	10	1	70.3%	7.4	23	62.2%	19	51.4%	7	18.9%
ACC	Georgia Tech	35	22	12	1	62.9%	20	11	4	57.1%	5.7	15	42.9%	11	31.4%	12	34.3%
ACC	Maryland	35	22	11	2	62.9%	16	13	6	45.7%	3.7	6	17.1%	3	08.6%	21	60.0%
ACC	Miami (FL)	41	26	13	2	63.4%	21	15	5	51.2%	6.3	20	48.8%	18	43.9%	14	34.1%
ACC	NC State	36	25	10	1	69.4%	11	17	8	30.6%	4.4	4	11.1%	3	08.3%	22	61.1%
ACC	North Carolina	35	20	14	1	57.1%	19	12	4	54.3%	5.6	12	34.3%	6	17.1%	13	37.1%
ACC	Virginia	36	21	15	0	58.3%	18	16	2	50.0%	5.9	15	41.7%	10	27.8%	12	33.3%
ACC	Virginia Tech	42	30	11	1	71.4%	16	21	5	38.1%	5.4	7	16.7%	4	09.5%	19	45.2%
ACC	Wake Forest	34	21	13	0	61.8%	13	16	5	38.2%	4.5	7	20.6%	1	02.9%	15	44.1%
Big10	Illinois	34	22	9	3	64.7%	14	15	5	41.2%	4.1	4	11.8%	3	08.8%	18	52.9%
Big10	Indiana	34	21	13	0	61.8%	14	15	5	41.2%	4.4	3	08.8%	3	08.8%	19	55.9%
Big10	Iowa	35	23	10	2	65.7%	18	15	2	51.4%	5.2	10	28.6%	4	11.4%	18	51.4%
Big10	Michigan	35	26	9	0	74.3%	16	18	1	45.7%	6.0	14	40.0%	5	14.3%	14	40.0%
Big10	Michigan St	36	26	10	0	72.2%	19	17	0	52.8%	5.9	11	30.6%	2	05.6%	14	38.9%
Big10	Minnesota	34	24	9	1	70.6%	2	26	6	05.9%	3.5	8	23.5%	1	02.9%	25	73.5%
Big10	Northwestern	36	20	15	1	55.6%	11	23	2	30.6%	4.6	9	25.0%	2	05.6%	20	55.6%
Big10	Ohio St	36	28	7	1	77.8%	15	20	1	41.7%	6.3	17	47.2%	10	27.8%	12	33.3%
Big10	Penn St	36	27	8	1	75.0%	18	17	1	50.0%	5.6	8	22.2%	5	13.9%	17	47.2%
Big10	Purdue	36	24	12	0	66.7%	16	17	3	44.4%	5.5	11	30.6%	2	05.6%	15	41.7%
Big10	Wisconsin	38	27	10	1	71.1%	10	24	4	26.3%	4.9	8	21.1%	3	07.9%	19	50.0%
Big12	Baylor	34	21	12	1	61.8%	7	20	7	20.6%	3.4	4	11.8%	4	11.8%	23	67.6%
Big12	Colorado	34	18	7	9	52.9%	14	19	1	41.2%	7.0	19	55.9%	8	23.5%	6	17.6%
Big12	Iowa St	35	24	10	1	68.6%	11	16	8	31.4%	4.2	8	22.9%	6	17.1%	20	57.1%
Big12	Kansas	35	27	8	0	77.1%	5	21	9	14.3%	3.5	5	14.3%	1	02.9%	24	68.6%
Big12	Kansas St	36	30	4	2	83.3%	7	20	9	19.4%	3.9	6	16.7%	3	08.3%	25	69.4%
Big12	Missouri	34	21	9	4	61.8%	9	19	6	26.5%	3.9	7	20.6%	3	08.8%	25	73.5%
Big12	Nebraska	37	29	8	0	78.4%	16	17	4	43.2%	5.1	6	16.2%	2	05.4%	17	45.9%
Big12	Oklahoma	35	26	9	0	74.3%	11	23	1	31.4%	5.4	11	31.4%	8	22.9%	15	42.9%
Big12	Oklahoma St	34	22	9	3	64.7%	5	22	7	14.7%	3.6	2	05.9%	2	05.9%	24	70.6%
Big12	Texas	35	24	11	0	68.6%	11	23	1	31.4%	5.3	8	22.9%	8	22.9%	20	57.1%
Big12	Texas A&M	35	24	8	3	68.6%	10	21	4	28.6%	5.2	7	20.0%	4	11.4%	15	42.9%
Big12	Texas Tech	36	21	15	0	58.3%	6	24	6	16.7%	4.2	5	13.9%	3	08.3%	22	61.1%
BigEast	Cincinnati	44	25	19	0	56.8%	20	19	5	45.5%	5.7	20	45.5%	8	18.2%	16	36.4%
BigEast	Connecticut	19	13	6	0	68.4%	7	8	4	36.8%	3.0	1	05.3%	0	00.0%	15	78.9%
BigEast	Louisville	44	26	17	1	59.1%	27	12	5	61.4%	4.7	12	27.3%	8	18.2%	19	43.2%
BigEast	Pittsburgh	45	30	15	0	66.7%	19	20	6	42.2%	5.4	16	35.6%	7	15.6%	20	44.4%
BigEast	Rutgers	45	28	17	0	62.2%	14	24	7	31.1%	3.5	11	24.4%	3	06.7%	26	57.8%
BigEast	South Florida	20	11	8	1	55.0%	9	5	6	45.0%	3.7	3	15.0%	3	15.0%	13	65.0%
BigEast	Syracuse	46	26	19	1	56.5%	23	22	1	50.0%	6.4	23	50.0%	11	23.9%	13	28.3%
BigEast	West Virginia	45	29	15	1	64.4%	19	22	4	42.2%	5.5	14	31.1%	10	22.2%	19	42.2%
CUSA	East Carolina	40	18	20	2	45.0%	34	4	2	85.0%	5.7	13	32.5%	9	22.5%	10	25.0%
CUSA	Houston	40	19	20	1	47.5%	22	15	3	55.0%	5.7	18	45.0%	12	30.0%	18	45.0%
CUSA	Marshall	33	16	17	0	48.5%	19	3	11	57.6%	4.7	15	45.5%	15	45.5%	16	48.5%
CUSA	Memphis	40	25	15	0	62.5%	22	11	7	55.0%	4.8	13	32.5%	5	12.5%	19	47.5%
CUSA	Rice	35	11	23	1	31.4%	21	13	1	60.0%	5.9	15	42.9%	11	31.4%	14	40.0%
CUSA	SMU	37	19	18	0	51.4%	19	16	2	51.4%	5.6	11	29.7%	6	16.2%	9	24.3%
CUSA	Southern Miss	40	16	22	2	40.0%	26	9	5	65.0%	6.0	23	57.5%	17	42.5%	13	32.5%
CUSA	Tulane	41	19	20	2	46.3%	15	20	6	36.6%	4.5	10	24.4%	6	14.6%	22	53.7%
CUSA	Tulsa	37	19	17	1	51.4%	17	14	6	45.9%	4.8	11	29.7%	6	16.2%	17	45.9%
CUSA	UAB	36	14	22	0	38.9%	22	10	4	61.1%	4.8	12	33.3%	10	27.8%	18	50.0%
CUSA	UCF	22	9	13	0	40.9%	17	2	3	77.3%	6.0	9	40.9%	4	18.2%	5	22.7%
CUSA	UTEP	37	17	19	1	45.9%	14	16	7	37.8%	4.8	7	18.9%	5	13.5%	21	56.8%
MAC	Akron	33	9	23	1	27.3%	20	10	3	60.6%	5.1	9	27.3%	7	21.2%	16	48.5%
MAC	Ball St	37	10	27	0	27.0%	25	6	6	67.6%	4.8	10	27.0%	6	16.2%	15	40.5%
MAC	Bowling Green	34	11	22	1	32.4%	21	7	6	61.8%	4.6	9	26.5%	5	14.7%	18	52.9%
MAC	Buffalo	31	11	20	0	35.5%	20	7	4	64.5%	3.9	8	25.8%	3	09.7%	17	54.8%
MAC	Central Michigan	35	13	22	0	37.1%	19	8	8	54.3%	4.3	7	20.0%	4	11.4%	17	48.6%
MAC	Eastern Michigan	36	14	20	2	38.9%	17	10	9	47.2%	3.8	8	22.2%	7	19.4%	22	61.1%
MAC	Kent St	34	12	22	0	35.3%	17	8	9	50.0%	3.9	8	23.5%	5	14.7%	16	47.1%
MAC	Miami (OH)	36	9	27	0	25.0%	24	11	1	66.7%	5.9	13	36.1%	9	25.0%	10	27.8%
MAC	Northern Illinois	37	16	20	1	43.2%	20	7	10	54.1%	4.3	13	35.1%	11	29.7%	17	45.9%
MAC	Ohio	34	12	22	0	35.3%	23	4	7	67.6%	4.6	6	17.6%	5	14.7%	12	35.3%
MAC	Temple	35	17	18	0	48.6%	11	20	4	31.4%	4.8	12	34.3%	4	11.4%	17	48.6%
MAC	Toledo	35	20	15	0	57.1%	19	8	8	54.3%	4.3	5	14.3%	2	05.7%	18	51.4%
MAC	Western Michigan	35	13	22	0	37.1%	23	4	8	65.7%	5.1	12	34.3%	11	31.4%	15	42.9%
Mtn West	Air Force	41	23	15	3	56.1%	13	22	6	31.7%	4.0	12	29.3%	3	07.3%	17	41.5%
Mtn West	BYU	44	23	20	1	52.3%	27	14	3	61.4%	6.0	17	38.6%	6	13.6%	13	29.5%
Mtn West	Colorado St	42	15	19	8	35.7%	19	18	5	45.2%	5.8	21	50.0%	13	31.0%	10	23.8%
Mtn West	New Mexico	43	23	20	0	53.5%	15	21	7	34.9%	3.9	4	09.3%	3	07.0%	27	62.8%
Mtn West	San Diego St	42	19	23	0	45.2%	26	9	7	61.9%	5.4	18	42.9%	15	35.7%	13	31.0%
Mtn West	TCU	35	18	17	0	51.4%	18	15	2	51.4%	4.5	7	20.0%	7	20.0%	22	62.9%
Mtn West	UNLV	41	17	23	1	41.5%	18	22	1	43.9%	5.6	14	34.1%	9	22.0%	15	36.6%
Mtn West	Utah	38	20	18	0	52.6%	21	16	1	55.3%	5.2	13	34.2%	8	21.1%	20	52.6%
Mtn West	Wyoming	40	20	19	1	50.0%	17	17	6	42.5%	5.3	15	37.5%	6	15.0%	18	45.0%
Pac10	Arizona	34	23	11	0	67.6%	9	20	5	26.5%	5.3	11	32.4%	7	20.6%	13	38.2%
Pac10	Arizona St	33	24	9	0	72.7%	13	17	3	39.4%	5.2	9	27.3%	8	24.2%	15	45.5%
Pac10	California	33	18	14	1	54.5%	15	16	2	45.5%	6.1	14	42.4%	8	24.2%	10	30.3%
Pac10	Oregon	32	22	10	0	68.8%	11	18	3	34.4%	5.8	12	37.5%	6	18.8%	11	34.4%
Pac10	Oregon St	33	20	13	0	60.6%	5	20	8	15.2%	5.1	10	30.3%	3	09.1%	15	45.5%
Pac10	Stanford	30	19	11	0	63.3%	15	14	1	50.0%	6.0	14	46.7%	3	10.0%	10	33.3%
Pac10	UCLA	32	19	13	0	59.4%	18	14	0	56.3%	6.6	19	59.4%	12	37.5%	9	28.1%
Pac10	USC	37	21	14	2	56.8%	24	13	0	64.9%	7.2	22	59.5%	9	24.3%	4	10.8%
Pac10	Washington	33	23	10	0	69.7%	14	19	0	42.4%	7.2	18	54.5%	13	39.4%	7	21.2%
Pac10	Washington St	33	17	11	5	51.5%	8	22	3	24.2%	4.5	9	27.3%	6	18.2%	17	51.5%
SEC	Alabama	36	26	4	6	72.2%	6	28	2	16.7%	5.4	9	25.0%	6	16.7%	15	41.7%
SEC	Arkansas	34	20	4	10	58.8%	4	25	5	11.8%	3.8	6	17.6%	4	11.8%	26	76.5%
SEC	Auburn	34	31	3	0	91.2%	10	18	6	29.4%	4.4	6	17.6%	3	08.8%	20	58.8%
SEC	Florida	34	28	6	0	82.4%	12	18	4	35.3%	5.9	13	38.2%	13	38.2%	19	55.9%
SEC	Georgia	34	28	6	0	82.4%	14	15	5	41.2%	5.2	9	26.5%	2	05.9%	17	50.0%
SEC	Kentucky	34	25	9	0	73.5%	11	17	6	32.4%	4.0	6	17.6%	3	08.8%	23	67.6%
SEC	LSU	34	29	5	0	85.3%	7	23	4	20.6%	4.4	8	23.5%	6	17.6%	24	70.6%
SEC	Mississippi	34	25	9	0	73.5%	5	25	4	14.7%	3.8	2	05.9%	2	05.9%	23	67.6%
SEC	Mississippi St	34	22	11	1	64.7%	6	22	6	17.6%	4.0	7	20.6%	7	20.6%	25	73.5%
SEC	South Carolina	34	26	8	0	76.5%	15	16	3	44.1%	4.7	2	05.9%	0	00.0%	17	50.0%
SEC	Tennessee	34	26	7	1	76.5%	12	22	0	35.3%	6.1	10	29.4%	5	14.7%	14	41.2%
SEC	Vanderbilt	34	24	10	0	70.6%	12	14	8	35.3%	3.3	7	20.6%	1	02.9%	23	67.6%
SunBelt	Arkansas St	48	18	27	3	37.5%	22	17	9	45.8%	4.5	9	18.8%	5	10.4%	22	45.8%
SunBelt	FL Atlantic	14	2	10	2	14.3%	13	0	1	92.9%	6.4	5	35.7%	3	21.4%	2	14.3%
SunBelt	Florida Intl	14	4	10	0	28.6%	11	1	2	78.6%	6.8	9	64.3%	6	42.9%	3	21.4%
SunBelt	LA Lafayette	35	14	21	0	40.0%	15	14	6	42.9%	5.0	7	20.0%	5	14.3%	18	51.4%
SunBelt	LA Monroe	34	11	20	3	32.4%	18	9	7	52.9%	4.9	8	23.5%	7	20.6%	14	41.2%
SunBelt	Middle Tenn St	33	11	20	2	33.3%	22	7	4	66.7%	5.3	12	36.4%	9	27.3%	14	42.4%
SunBelt	North Texas	50	16	33	1	32.0%	27	20	3	54.0%	5.4	21	42.0%	16	32.0%	19	38.0%
SunBelt	Troy	18	5	13	0	27.8%	12	3	3	66.7%	6.1	7	38.9%	6	33.3%	5	27.8%
WAC	Boise St	46	26	18	2	56.5%	13	22	11	28.3%	4.5	14	30.4%	11	23.9%	17	37.0%
WAC	Fresno St	41	17	24	0	41.5%	26	10	5	63.4%	6.7	27	65.9%	20	48.8%	9	22.0%
WAC	Hawaii	44	37	6	1	84.1%	18	18	8	40.9%	4.7	15	34.1%	13	29.5%	20	45.5%
WAC	Idaho	49	9	35	5	18.4%	25	12	12	51.0%	5.2	27	55.1%	18	36.7%	17	34.7%
WAC	Louisiana Tech	27	4	21	2	14.8%	21	4	2	77.8%	6.6	14	51.9%	10	37.0%	5	18.5%
WAC	Nevada	41	20	20	1	48.8%	12	25	4	29.3%	5.3	15	36.6%	5	12.2%	18	43.9%
WAC	New Mexico St	52	20	32	0	38.5%	19	27	6	36.5%	5.1	15	28.8%	10	19.2%	22	42.3%
WAC	San Jose St	38	11	26	1	28.9%	27	4	7	71.1%	5.0	12	31.6%	9	23.7%	13	34.2%
WAC	Utah St	38	14	24	0	36.8%	14	20	4	36.8%	6.0	17	44.7%	14	36.8%	11	28.9%

When it comes to determining the most challenging non-conf schedules over the BCS years, a lot of it depends on how much you personally value each category, making the task pretty subjective.

But as difficult as that is, determining the least challenging non-conf schedules is rather easy - you just find the ones that are at the bottom of all categories. In the BCS years, looking at over 1,200 team-seasons, there are 11 instances of teams scheduling all of their season's non-conf games...

* at home
* against only non-BCS or I-AA opponents
* against opponents who combined to average under 4 wins per season for the previous five seasons
* against opponents who had 0 10+win seasons in the previous five seasons
* against opponents who had 0 Top 10 finishes in the previous five seasons
* against opponents who had 0 votes in the previous five final coach's polls.

In order of weakness of non-conf schedule, those teams are...

Least Challenging Non-Conf Schedules of the BCS Era
Team	Year	Opp Avg W	Opponents (avg W)
Texas Tech	2005	0	I-AA Sam Houston State (0), I-AA Indiana State (0), Florida International (0)
Kansas	2005	1.7	I-AA Appalachian State (0), Florida Atlantic (0), Louisiana Tech (5.0)
Kansas State	1998	1.8	I-AA Indiana State (0), Northern Illinois (2.4), LA-Monroe (3.0)
Auburn	1999	2.2	I-AA Appalachian State (0), Idaho (2.8), UCF (3.8)
Auburn	2004	2.6	I-AA Citadel (0), LA-Monroe (2.4), Louisiana Tech (5.4)
LSU	2000	2.7	I-AA Western Carolina (0), UAB (3.8), Houston (4.4)
Minnesota	1999	2.7	I-AA Illinois State (0), LA-Monroe (4.0), Ohio (4.2)
Baylor	2001	2.8	I-AA Southern Illinois (0), Arkansas State (3.0), New Mexico (5.4)
LSU	1999	3.1	North Texas (2.8), Houston (3.2), San Jose State (3.4)
Mississippi State	2004	3.5	I-AA Maine (0), Tulane (5.0), UAB (5.6)
Alabama	2004	3.9	I-AA Western Carolina (0), Utah State (4.0), Southern Miss (7.8)