Latest news with #FootballChampionshipSubdivision
New York Times
14 hours ago
- Business
- New York Times
Why does the Big Ten want four automatic CFP bids? The league's case has a long history
Five months after winning its second consecutive College Football Playoff national championship, the Big Ten has emerged bruised and battered from the process of proposing automatic qualifiers for an expanded CFP beginning with the 2026 season. The Big Ten has for months recommended a CFP plan that would give four automatic bids to itself and the SEC, two each to the ACC and Big 12 and one for the top conference champion from the other six leagues (4+4+2+2+1). If the size of the postseason expands from 12 to 16, as almost all stakeholders expect, the format allows for three at-large selections to make the field. Advertisement Other conferences have come out against it, strongly so in some cases. The ACC and Big 12 are in lockstep with a '5+11' plan, which would give the five highest-ranked conference champions and 11 highest-ranked at-large teams entry into the Playoff. The SEC appears to be trending in that direction, too, after commissioner Greg Sankey supplied media with a multi-page breakdown of his league's strength-of-schedule prowess last week. No longer wounded by their 1-5 record against the Big Ten during the 2024-25 postseason, Sankey and SEC officials have successfully flipped the narrative. The Big Ten now looks like the arrogant bad actor hell-bent on enriching itself at the expense of its competition and the sport. Despite the Big Ten's prolonged silence on this topic and others, people in and around the league have expressed that's not the case. The Big Ten is willing to budge on guaranteed CFP qualifiers, but the uneven number of conference games among the power leagues gives the Big Ten pause on allowing a selection committee to wield the power of placing 11 at-large teams in the CFP field. The Big Ten and Big 12 play nine league games; the SEC and ACC play eight. Thirteen of the Big Ten's 18 teams compete against at least 10 power-conference opponents in 2025; 13 of the SEC's 16 teams face only nine power-conference teams. Unless the SEC moves to nine league games, don't expect the Big Ten to move on wanting guaranteed CFP slots. There's too much scheduling variance. The Big Ten has historical grounds to distrust a system that was supposed to reward strength of schedule and other concrete metrics and instead leaned into subjectivity to make prior selections. In July 2015, former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany brought out slides and unveiled his '1910' scheduling plan, designed to make his conference champion competitive for the four-team CFP. The numbers represented one title game, nine league games, one intersectional power-conference opponent and no contests against Football Championship Subdivision competition. Delany believed his strategy would position the Big Ten well for its best team to earn a CFP spot and for non-champions to make New Year's Six bowl games. Advertisement 'I think that's responsive to what the College Football Playoff committee is looking for,' Delany said at the time. 'We think it's what our fans want. We think it's what our players want. And we think it's what the College Football Playoff committee wants.' Delany found out he was wrong, and he was furious. In 2017 and 2018, Big Ten champion Ohio State missed the CFP. It played nonconference games against Oklahoma in '17 and TCU in '18. The 2017 Buckeyes beat No. 6 Wisconsin, No. 9 Penn State and No. 16 Michigan State, but they finished fifth, behind Alabama, which beat only two teams that made the final rankings (No. 17 LSU, No. 23 Mississippi State) and didn't win its division. Considering Alabama won the national title that year, that was more of a disappointment than a snub to Delany. But in 2018, the committee disregarded the strategy with stakes one rung below the Playoff. In the final CFP rankings, Florida came in at No. 10 with LSU at No. 11 and Penn State at No. 12. All three teams were 9-3, but the SEC teams moved up to New Year's Six bowls. Again, the strength of schedule disparity chapped Delany most. Florida played four nonconference games: two FCS opponents, Colorado State (3-9) and Florida State (5-7). The Gators' three losses came by an average of 17 points. Penn State played three nonconference games, including one against ACC Coastal Division champion Pittsburgh and 11-2 Appalachian State. Penn State's losses came to 13-1 Ohio State, 10-3 Michigan and 7-6 Michigan State. Yet Delany felt the committee ignored nonconference scheduling when stacking those teams. 'The actual language in the founding document says, 'When comparing teams with similar records and similar resumes, should look at strength of schedule as well as winning conference championships,'' Delany said in 2019. 'I'm not sure that the strength of schedule or the conference championship has been adequately rewarded, in my personal view.' Advertisement The recent disagreements over selection criteria for the 12-team CFP date to what transpired in 2017 and 2018. Last year, Indiana finished 11-1 in the regular season, but a trio of 9-3 SEC teams barked about scheduling when the Hoosiers earned a CFP spot over them. Indiana's overall strength of schedule metrics were weak, but by the end of the postseason, it was the only team in the nation to play both the 2023 (Michigan, Washington) and 2024 CFP finalists (Ohio State, Notre Dame). The Hoosiers were one of just two Big Ten squads to face only nine power-conference opponents last year, but the trio of SEC teams had also played just nine power-conference teams. The nine-game schedule matters to the Big Ten because of the risks involved — it creates one extra loss for half the league compared to the SEC. Ohio State's lone conference losses in each of the 2017 and 2018 seasons came at West Division schools. Had the Big Ten played only eight league contests those years, Ohio State might not have traveled to those venues. Although the push for four guaranteed slots appears self-serving, out of the Power 4 leagues, only the Big Ten would have seen its number of CFP participants drop in the last four years with that plan compared to the 5+11 model, based on each power conference's current composition. With the 5+11 plan, the Big Ten would have qualified 20 teams, one more than the SEC (19), while the Big 12 and ACC would have 10 and nine, respectively. In a 4-4-2-2-1 model, the SEC and ACC numbers would stay the same, while the Big Ten's would drop by two and the Big 12's would rise by two. In a 5+11 plan, the SEC would have had three qualifiers in 2021 and '22 but seven in '23 and six in '24. Without uniform scheduling, Big Ten officials are concerned that an open 5+11 plan would cause more schools to ease up on their nonconference slates rather than play other power-conference schools; one recently called it a 'race to the bottom.' With guaranteed spots, nonconference games would have little impact on CFP qualification. Without guaranteed spots, teams may protect their records and not risk playing high-level nonconference games. Lastly, without divisional play in a larger conference, Big Ten officials believe guaranteed slots provide more teams with a major goal, especially if the Big Ten (and possibly the SEC) added two play-in games to decide some of its spots in a 16-team CFP. Had that format taken place last year, Indiana would have played Iowa and Illinois would have played Ohio State in December with CFP berths at stake. 'I love that,' Illinois coach Bret Bielema told The Athletic this spring. 'It makes all the games meaningful.' Advertisement The Big Ten and SEC have control over the next CFP era, so it's up to them, with consultation from other conferences, to find the best path forward. But until the Big Ten's scheduling concerns are met, don't expect it to fold anytime soon on its desire for guaranteed CFP bids. (Photo of Ohio State's 2017 Big Ten title game win: Joe Robbins / Getty Images)
USA Today
2 days ago
- Sport
- USA Today
Ranking the 10 toughest Big Ten or SEC football schedules for the 2025 season
Ranking the 10 toughest Big Ten or SEC football schedules for the 2025 season Less than 12 weeks remain before the 2025 college football season kicks off. In what has become an annual tradition, this build-up period is being spent arguing which conference deserves the crown as the sport's best. Or, if the SEC is still No. 1, whether the Big Ten is now narrowing the gap. These discussions aren't only held between fans and analysts. Current Illinois and former Wisconsin head coach Bret Bielema even joined the mix, arguing that the last 2-3 years of NIL and the transfer portal balancing rosters have brought the Big Ten up to the SEC's top level. While there is no definitive answer to that argument, the Big Ten did dominate the 2024 college football postseason, including a national title and numerous head-to-head wins over SEC opponents. The SEC's common retort to that argument is an outline of its conference schedule for 2025, with 14 of its 16 member teams ranked within ESPN SP+'s top 50 entering the year. While that piece of evidence matters, it discounts what Big Ten programs, primarily Wisconsin, face in 2025. The Badgers not only have by far the toughest schedule in the Big Ten, but their schedule is tougher than nearly every SEC slate. As a reminder, we utilize Connelly's initial SP+ rankings to evaluate the difficulty of every schedule. Here is our methodology: The equation used to compare each slate is simple. First, we take each team's SP+ rating to find a numerical value for every game. The higher that number, the tougher the matchup. We then add every opponent's SP+ rating together to find a total opponent score. That large number is divided by the number 12 (total games) to find the average opponent score — a number that can then be compared to the SP+ leaderboard to find, on average, what a team will face each week. (Note: Home and away is not factored into the model. Also, Football Championship Subdivision opponents are not listed in SP+. Every FCS opponent was assessed a "minus-15' rating, akin to the No. 120 team in the Football Bowl Subdivision) For specifics, here is where Wisconsin's slate ranks among the top 10 Big Ten or SEC schedules for 2025, ranked from easiest to toughest. 10. Texas A&M Aggies Total Opponent Score: 106.9 Average Opponent Score: 8.90 (akin to the 33rd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 111.8 Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Auburn (11.8) Mississippi State (-1.4) Florida (17.3) Arkansas (7.0) LSU (22.1) Missouri (12.5) South Carolina (16.1) Texas (26.4) Nonconference Schedule: UTSA (0.0) Utah State (-14.8) Notre Dame (24.9) Samford (FCS -15) Get more (Texas A&M) news, analysis, and opinions on Aggies Wire 9. Arkansas Razorbacks Total Opponent Score: 109.1 Average Opponent Score: 9.09 (akin to the 33rd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 107 Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Tennessee (18.4) Texas A&M (17.2) Auburn (11.8) Mississippi State (-1.4) LSU (22.1) Texas (26.4) Missouri (12.5) Nonconference Schedule: Alabama A&M (FCS -15) Arkansas State (-9.9) Memphis (2.1) Notre Dame (24.9) 8. Alabama Crimson Tide Total Opponent Score: 110.8 Average Opponent Score: 9.23 (akin to the 33rd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 126 Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Georgia (26.9) Vanderbilt (1.7) Missouri (12.5) Tennessee (18.4) South Carolina (16.1) LSU (22.1) Oklahoma (16.5) Auburn (11.8) Nonconference Schedule: Florida State (7.2) LA-Monroe (-14.6) Wisconsin (7.2) Eastern Illinois (FCS -15) Get more (Alabama) news, analysis, and opinions on Roll Tide Wire Total Opponent Score: 114 Average Opponent Score: 9.50 (akin to the 33rd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 145.5 Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Tennessee (18.4) Texas A&M (17.2) Florida (17.3) Texas (26.4) Arkansas (7.0) Georgia (26.9) Missouri (12.5) Ole Miss (19.8) Nonconference Schedule: Southern Miss (-17.7) Arizona State (12.2) Alcorn State (FCS -15) Northern Illinois (-11) Total Opponent Score: 114.1 Average Opponent Score: 9.51 (akin to the 33rd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 123.5 Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Florida (17.3) Ole Miss (19.8) South Carolina (16.1) Vanderbilt (1.7) Texas A&M (17.2) Alabama (27.9) Arkansas (7.0) Oklahoma (16.5) Nonconference Schedule: Clemson (23.3) LA Tech (-11.9) Southeastern Louisiana (FCS -15) Western Kentucky (-5.8) Get more (LSU) news, analysis, and opinions on LSU Wire 5. Kentucky Wildcats Total Opponent Score: 119.9 Average Opponent Score: 9.99 (akin to the 32nd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 138.4 Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Ole Miss (19.8) South Carolina (16.1) Georgia (26.9) Texas (26.4) Tennessee (18.4) Auburn (11.8) Florida (17.3) Vanderbilt (1.7) Nonconference Schedule: Toledo (-1.4) Eastern Michigan (-14.2) Tennessee Tech (FCS -15) Louisville (12.1) Get more (Kentucky) news, analysis, and opinions on UK Wildcats Wire 4. Oklahoma Sooners Total Opponent Score: 120.2 Average Opponent Score: 10.01 (akin to the 32nd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 155 Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Auburn (11.8) Texas (26.4) South Carolina (16.1) Ole Miss (19.8) Tennessee (18.4) Alabama (27.9) Missouri (12.5) LSU (22.1) Nonconference Schedule: Illinois State (FCS -15) Michigan (21.5) Temple (-16.4) Kent State (-24.9) Get more (Oklahoma) news, analysis, and opinions on Sooners Wire 3. South Carolina Gamecocks Total Opponent Score: 127.7 Average Opponent Score: 10.64 (akin to the 32nd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 122.4 Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Vanderbilt (1.7) Missouri (12.5) Kentucky (4.7) LSU (22.1) Oklahoma (16.5) Alabama (27.9) Ole Miss (19.8) Texas A&M (17.2) Nonconference Schedule: Virginia Tech (4.3) SC State (FCS -15) Coastal Carolina (-7.3) Clemson (23.3) 2. Wisconsin Badgers Total Opponent Score: 130.2 Average Opponent Score: 10.85 (akin to the 32nd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 124.9 (first, the toughest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Maryland (-1.1) Michigan (21.5) Iowa (11.4) Ohio State (29.5) Oregon (24.7) Washington (6.4) Indiana (12.2) Illinois (14.3) Minnesota (6.0) Nonconference Schedule: Miami OH (-7.6) Middle Tennessee (FCS -15) Alabama (27.9) 1. Florida Total Opponent Score: 141.6 Average Opponent Score: 11.8 (akin to the 25th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 134.1 Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): LSU (22.1) Texas (26.4) Texas A&M (17.2) Mississippi State (-1.4) Georgia (26.9) Kentucky (4.7) Ole Miss (19.8) Tennessee (18.4) Nonconference Schedule: LIU (FCS -15) USF (-3.5) Miami (18.8) Florida State (7.2) Get more (Florida) news, analysis, and opinions on Gators Wire Contact/Follow @TheBadgersWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Wisconsin Badgers news, notes and opinion
USA Today
2 days ago
- Sport
- USA Today
Re-ranking all 18 Big Ten football 2025 conference schedules from hardest to easiest
Re-ranking all 18 Big Ten football 2025 conference schedules from hardest to easiest The 2025 college football season is inching closer, and as we cross the 100-day barrier until the season begins, you can feel anticipation start to build. Even in the ever-changing world of college football, where teams are changing conferences and players are jumping from team to team like never before, one constant will always remain: fans complaining that their team's path to the finish line is more difficult than anyone else's. A year ago, major questions faced the Oregon Ducks as they moved from the Pac-12 Conference to the Big Ten Conference. Would they be able to hold up against the elevated competition? Dan Lanning's team answered that right away, winning the Big Ten in their first season as conference members. With marquee conference wins over Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Washington, the Ducks left little doubt that they were the best regular-season team. But will they be able to prove the same in 2025? More than that, how conducive is their schedule to establishing such a thing? This is where the conversation about strength of schedule comes in. Who does Oregon play this year, and how tough will it be to get back to the conference title game? How does their path compare to other teams in the Big Ten, and what can this tell us about who might end up in Indianapolis at the start of December? Those are things best answered by our strength of schedule rankings. Prior to the spring football season, we went through this exercise, using a combination of ESPN's SP+ rankings and combined opponent score to place a numerical value on each team's slate of games. From there, we were able to see who had the toughest path forward. After spring ball, though, the SP+ numbers got an update from ESPN's Bill Connelly. Therefore, it is worth revisiting our SOS rankings to see how much things changed as well. Here is a reminder on how things work: The equation used to compare each slate is simple. First, we take each team's SP+ rating to find a numerical value for every game. The higher that number, the tougher the matchup. We then add every opponent's SP+ rating together to find a total opponent score. That large number is divided by the number 12 (total games) to find the average opponent score — a number that can then be compared to the SP+ leaderboard to find, on average, what a team will face each week. (Note: Home and away is not factored into the model. Also, Football Championship Subdivision opponents are not listed in SP+. Every FCS opponent was assessed a "minus-15' rating, akin to the No. 118 team in the Football Bowl Subdivision.) With that, here is an in-depth look at the Big Ten's strength of schedule ranking entering the 2025 season: Total Opponent Score: 41.6 Average Opponent Score: 3.46 (akin to the 47th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): USC (11.0) Purdue (-10.0) Ohio State (29.5) Washington (6.4) Rutgers (4.7) Maryland (-1.1) Wisconsin (7.2) Northwestern (-6.1) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 18 Conference games against Ohio State, USC, and Washington could be challenging, but outside of that, Illinois should be able to handle the rest of the slate with relative ease, especially in the non-conference. 17. Michigan Wolverines Total Opponent Score: 45.6 Average Opponent Score: 3.80 (akin to the 47th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Nebraska (8.9) Wisconsin (7.2) USC (11.0) Washington (6.4) Michigan State (-0.2) Purdue (-10.0) Northwestern (-6.1) Maryland (-1.1) Ohio State (29.5) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 17 Any year in the Big Ten when you can miss two of the three big dogs — Oregon, Ohio State, and Penn State — is favorable, and with Michigan only drawing the Buckeyes of that trio, it bodes well. If the QB situation is what it's cracked up to be under Bryce Underwood, the Wolverines could make some noise. That early-season game against Oklahoma should be interesting. Get more Michigan news, analysis and opinions on Wolverines Wire 16. USC Trojans Total Opponent Score: 67.4 Average Opponent Score: 5.61 (akin to the 40th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Purdue (-10.0) Michigan State (-0.2) Illinois (14.3) Michigan (21.5) Nebraska (8.9) Northwestern (-6.1) Iowa (11.4) Oregon (24.7) UCLA (2.9) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 10 A non-conference game against Notre Dame is always going to be tough, but USC does manage to skip both Ohio State and Penn State during the season. Games against Oregon, Michigan, and Illinois could prove challenging, but we will see if Lincoln Riley's revamped squad is up to the task. Get more USC news, analysis and opinions on Trojans Wire 15. Minnesota Golden Gophers Total Opponent Score: 70.2 Average Opponent Score: 5.85 (akin to the 40th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Rutgers (4.7) Ohio State (29.5) Purdue (-10.0) Nebraska (8.9) Iowa (11.4) Michigan State (-0.2) Oregon (24.7) Northwestern (-6.1) Wisconsin (7.2) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 12 I expect Minnesota to be an average-to-above-average team in the conference this year, so they should be able to deal with a lot of the teams on their schedule, outside of the like of Ohio Stae, Oregon, and maybe Nebraska. 14. Nebraska Cornhuskers Total Opponent Score: 73.1 Average Opponent Score: 6.09 (akin to the 40th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Michigan (21.5) Michigan State (-0.2) Maryland (-1.1) Minnesota (6.0) Northwestern (-6.1) USC (11.0) UCLA (2.9) Penn State (27.7) Iowa (11.4) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 13 Missing Ohio State and Oregon is great for Nebraska, but Penn State late in the year could be challenging, and an early game against Michigan could provide an early test for Dylan Raiola and his teammates. If the QB is everything he's cracked up to be, the Cornhuskers should be able to fare well with this slate of games, though. Get more Nebraska news, analysis and opinions on Cornhuskers Wire 13. Maryland Terrapins Total Opponent Score: 74.9 Average Opponent Score: 2.87 (akin to the 39th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Wisconsin (7.2) Washington (6.4) Nebraska (8.9) UCLA (2.9) Indiana (12.2) Rutgers (4.7) Illinois (11.3) Michigan (21.5) Michigan State (-0.2) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 15 Maryland draws a nice schedule, missing out on Oregon, Ohio State, and Penn State, with Michigan being the toughest game on the slate. Of course, the Terrapins also aren't one of the better teams in the conference, so it remains hard to forecast a successful season despite the relative ease of the schedule. Total Opponent Score: 76.9 Average Opponent Score: 6.40 (akin to the 39th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Illinois (14.3) Iowa (11.4) Oregon (24.7) Michigan State (-0.2) UCLA (2.9) Maryland (-1.1) Penn State (27.7) Wisconsin (7.2) Purdue (-10.0) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 16 Can Curt Cignetti bounce back from his College Football Playoff season in 2024? The non-conference slate is easy, but games against Oregon and Penn State will prove to be difficult, especially in Autzen Stadium. Outside of those two, though, I don't see many roadblocks. 11. Oregon Ducks Total Opponent Score: 80.5 Average Opponent Score: 6.70 (akin to the 38th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Northwestern (-6.1) Penn State (27.7) Indiana (12.2) Rutgers (4.7) Wisconsin (7.2) Iowa (11.4) Minnesota (6.0) USC (11.0) Washington (6.4) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 8 Oregon's non-conference schedule should be pretty straightforward, and missing the likes of Ohio State and Michigan helps in conference play. Still, games against Penn State and Washington on the road will be challenging, while Indiana and USC get the Ducks at Autzen. Get more Oregon news, analysis and opinions on Ducks Wire 10. Ohio State Buckeyes Total Opponent Score: 80.7 Average Opponent Score: 6.72 (akin to the 38th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Washington (6.4) Minnesota (6.0) Illinois (14.3) Wisconsin (7.2) Penn State (27.7) Purdue (-10.0) UCLA (2.9) Rutgers (4.7) Michigan (21.5) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 4 A season-opener against Texas is going to be thrilling to watch for Ohio State, but their conference slate is very manageable, with the biggest games coming against Illinois, Penn State, and Michigan at the end of the year. Get more Ohio State news, analysis and opinions on Buckeyes Wire 9. Penn State Nittany Lions Total Opponent Score: 88.0 Average Opponent Score: 7.33 (akin to the 35th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Oregon (24.7) UCLA (2.9) Northwestern (-6.1) Iowa (11.4) Ohio State (29.5) Indiana (12.2) Michigan State (-0.2) Nebraska (8.9) Rutgers (4.7) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 14 Games against Oregon, Ohio State, and Indiana could prove tough for Penn State, but outside of those three, there aren't many that give you pause, especially if James Franklin can get his veteran squad playing at a similar caliber as they did a year ago. Get more Penn State news, analysis and opinions on Nittany Lions Wire 8. UCLA Bruins Total Opponent Score: 88.3 Average Opponent Score: 7.35 (akin to the 36th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Northwestern (-6.1) Penn State (27.7) Michigan State (-0.2) Maryland (-1.1) Indiana (12.2) Nebraska (8.9) Ohio State (29.5) Washington (6.4) USC (11.0) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 5 An opening game against Utah is tough for UCLA, and they get some solid teams in conference play as well, with Penn State, Indiana, Ohio State, and USC all through the regular season. Get more UCLA news, analysis and opinions on UCLA Wire 7. Washington Huskies Total Opponent Score: 93.7 Average Opponent Score: 7.80 (akin to the 35th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Ohio State (29.5) Maryland (-1.1) Rutgers (4.7) Michigan (21.5) Illinois (14.3) Wisconsin (7.2) Purdue (-10.0) UCLA (2.9) Oregon (24.7) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 11 What version of Washington can we expect this year? A return to their normal form makes this a very manageable schedule, with tough games against Oregon and Ohio State. However, another year like 2024 and games against Washington State, Michigan, and Wisconsin qualify as tough as well. Get more (Washington) news, analysis and opinions on Huskies Wire 6. Purdue Boilermakers Total Opponent Score: 99.5 Average Opponent Score: 8.29 (akin to the 34th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): USC (11.0) Illinois (14.3) Minnesota (6.0) Northwestern (-6.1) Rutgers (4.7) Michigan (21.5) Ohio State (29.5) Washington (6.4) Indiana (12.2) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 2 The non-conference game against Notre Dame really makes this schedule tougher than it seems, as the conference slate isn't too brutal without Oregon or Penn State on the schedule. 5. Michigan State Spartans Total Opponent Score: 100.5 Average Opponent Score: 8.37 (akin to the 34th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): USC (11.0) Nebraska (8.9) UCLA (2.9) Indiana (12.2) Michigan (21.5) Minnesota (6.0) Penn State (27.7) Iowa (11.4) Maryland (-1.1) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 9 At this point in the list, we're getting to pretty tough schedules. The non-conference is easy here, but games against USC, Nebraska, Indiana, Michigan, Penn State, and Iowa all could be a challenge for the Spartans. Get more Michigan State news, analysis and opinions on Spartans Wire Total Opponent Score: 102.2 Average Opponent Score: 8.51 (akin to the 34th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Rutgers (4.7) Indiana (12.2) Wisconsin (7.2) Penn State (27.7) Minnesota (6.0) Oregon (24.7) USC (11.0) Michigan State (-0.2) Nebraska (8.9) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 6 A non-conference game against Iowa State won't be easy, and facing Indiana, Penn State, and Oregon in a five-game stretch could prove difficult for the Hawkeyes, followed by games against USC and Nebraska not long after. Get more Iowa news, analysis and opinions on Hawkeyes Wire Total Opponent Score: 107.0 Average Opponent Score: 8.91 (akin to the 34th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Oregon (24.7) UCLA (2.9) Penn State (27.7) Purdue (-10.0) Nebraska (8.9) USC (11.0) Michigan (21.5) Minnesota (6.0) Illinois (14.3) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 7 Facing Oregon and Penn State in a three-game stretch is not going to be easy, and games against Nebraska, USC, Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois will all be tough down the stretch for Northwestern. 2. Rutgers Scarlet Knights Total Opponent Score: 108.9 Average Opponent Score: 9.07 (akin to the 33rd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Iowa (11.4) Minnesota (6.0) Washington (6.4) Oregon (24.7) Purdue (-10.0) Illinois (14.3) Maryland (-1.1) Ohio State (29.5) Penn State (27.7) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 3 The deadly trio of Oregon, Ohio State, and Penn State on the schedule is going to be tough for any team to handle. Outside of those three, Rutgers has to deal with Iowa, Washington and Illinois, which doesn't set up for a great season. 1. Wisconsin Badgers Total Opponent Score: 124.9 Average Opponent Score: 10.4 (akin to the 32nd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Maryland (-1.1) Michigan (21.5) Iowa (11.4) Ohio State (29.5) Oregon (24.7) Washington (6.4) Indiana (12.2) Illinois (14.3) Minnesota (6.0) Previous SOS Ranking: No. 1 A non-conference game against Alabama is always going to be tough, with conference games against Oregon, Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Washington. Good luck, Luke Fickell. Get more Wisconsin news, analysis and opinions on Badgers Wire Contact/Follow @Ducks_Wire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Oregon Ducks news, notes, and opinions.
USA Today
24-05-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
Re-ranking all 16 Big 12 football 2025 schedules from easiest to toughest
Re-ranking all 16 Big 12 football 2025 schedules from easiest to toughest ESPN's Bill Connelly released his post-spring SP+ rankings on Thursday, checking off another offseason period, the end of spring practice, and the transfer cycle. The 2025 college football season will kick off in just over three months with a Week 0 Big 12 showdown between Iowa State and Kansas State in Dublin, Ireland. Colorado will open their campaign at home six days later against Georgia Tech. In February, we used Connelly's initial SP+ rankings to decipher the difficulty of every Big 12 team's schedule. Here is the method we used to determine each team's strength of schedule: Using the SP+ power rankings, each team is given a numerical value. The higher the number, the more challenging the matchup. We added every opponent's SP+ rating together to find a total opponent score. That number was divided by 12 (number of games) to find the average opponent score — a number that can then be compared to the SP+ leaderboard to see, on average, the caliber of opponent every team will face each week. (Note: Home and away are not factored into the model, so this exercise does not account for every variable. Also, Football Championship Subdivision opponents are not listed in Connelly's SP+. Every FCS opponent was assessed a "minus-15" rating, likening them to the 120th-ranked team in the Football Bowl Subdivision.) After every team's SP+ rating received an update following spring camp and the recent transfer portal window, here is an updated look at the Big 12's strength of schedule rankings for the 2025 season. 16. Texas Tech Red Raiders Total Opponent Score: 14.2 Average Opponent Score: 1.18 (akin to the 55th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 56.5 (Eighth-easiest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Utah (11.0) Houston (0.9) Kansas (3.0) Arizona State (12.2) Oklahoma State (0.9) Kansas State (15.6) BYU (11.5) UCF (0.4) West Virginia (1.0) Nonconference Schedule: Arkansas-Pine Bluff (FCS -15) Kent State (-24.9) Oregon State (-2.4) Total Opponent Score: 15 Average Opponent Score: 1.25 (akin to the 57th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 48.2 (the easiest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Colorado (2.6) Texas Tech (11.8) Oklahoma State (0.9) Arizona (0.7) Arizona State (12.2) West Virginia (1.0) UCF (0.4) TCU (11.1) Baylor (7.5) Nonconference Schedule: Stephen F. Austin (FCS -15) Rice (-15.8) Oregon State (-2.4) Total Opponent Score: 21.5 Average Opponent Score: 1.79 (akin to the 55th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 49.3 (Second-easiest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Colorado (2.6) West Virginia (1.0) Arizona (0.7) Utah (11.0) Iowa State (11.0) Texas Tech (11.8) TCU (11.1) Cincinnati (-0.3) UCF (0.4) Nonconference Schedule: Portland State (FCS -15) Stanford (-6.2) East Carolina (-6.6) 13. UCF Knights Total Opponent Score: 28.5 Average Opponent Score: 2.38 (akin to the 53rd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 51.9 (Fifth-easiest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Kansas State (15.6) Kansas (3.0) Cincinnati (-0.3) Baylor (7.5) West Virginia (1.0) Houston (0.9) Texas Tech (11.8) Oklahoma State (0.9) BYU (11.5) Nonconference Schedule: Jacksonville State (-10.4) North Carolina A&T (FCS -15) North Carolina (2.0) Total Opponent Score: 34 Average Opponent Score: 2.83 (akin to the 52nd-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 57.6 (Sixth-toughest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Baylor (7.5) TCU (11.1) Utah (11.0) Texas Tech (11.8) Houston (0.9) Iowa State (11.0) West Virginia (1.0) Colorado (2.6) Arizona (0.7) Nonconference Schedule: Northern Arizona (FCS -15) Mississippi State (-1.4) Texas State (-7.2) Total Opponent Score: 37.3 Average Opponent Score: 3.11 (akin to the 49th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 57.1 (Eighth-toughest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Kansas (3.0) Iowa State (11.0) UCF (0.4) Oklahoma State (0.9) Baylor (7.5) Utah (11.0) Arizona (0.7) BYU (11.5) TCU (11.1) Nonconference Schedule: Nebraska (8.9) Bowling Green (-13.7) Northwestern State (FCS -15) Total Opponent Score: 38.4 Average Opponent Score: 3.2 (akin to the 49th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 49.3 (Third-easiest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Iowa State (11.0) Oklahoma State (0.9) BYU (11.5) Houston (0.9) Colorado (2.6) Kansas (3.0) Cincinnati (-0.3) Baylor (7.5) Arizona State (12.2) Nonconference Schedule: Hawaii (-11.5) Weber State (FCS -15) Kansas State (15.6) 9. Utah Utes Total Opponent Score: 42 Average Opponent Score: 3.5 (akin to the 47th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 64.9 (Second-toughest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Texas Tech (11.8) West Virginia (1.0) Arizona State (12.2) BYU (11.5) Colorado (2.6) Cincinnati (-0.3) Baylor (7.5) Kansas State (15.6) Kansas (3.0) Nonconference Schedule: UCLA (2.9) Cal Poly (FCS -15) Wyoming (-10.8) Total Opponent Score: 43.4 Average Opponent Score: 3.61 (akin to the 47th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 52.1 (sixth-easiest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): West Virginia (1.0) Cincinnati (-0.3) UCF (0.4) Texas Tech (11.8) Kansas State (15.6) Oklahoma State (0.9) Arizona (0.7) Iowa State (11.0) Utah (11.0) Nonconference Schedule: Fresno State (-6.2) Wagner (FCS -15) Missouri (12.5) Total Opponent Score: 43.8 Average Opponent Score: 3.65 (akin to the 47th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 57.3 (Seventh-toughest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Kansas State (15.6) Arizona (0.7) Cincinnati (-0.3) Colorado (2.6) BYU (11.5) Arizona State (12.2) TCU (11.1) Kansas (3.0) Oklahoma State (0.9) Nonconference Schedule: South Dakota (FCS -15) Iowa (11.4) Arkansas State (-9.9) Total Opponent Score: 44.7 Average Opponent Score: 3.72 (akin to the 47th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 50.6 (Fourth-easiest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Baylor (7.5) Arizona (0.7) Houston (0.9) Cincinnati (-0.3) Texas Tech (11.8) Kansas (3.0) Kansas State (15.6) UCF (0.4) Iowa State (11.0) Nonconference Schedule: UT Martin (FCS -15) Oregon (24.7) Tulsa (-15.6) Total Opponent Score: 45.4 Average Opponent Score: 3.3 (akin to the 51st-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 60.3 (Fifth-toughest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Iowa State (11.0) UCF (0.4) Baylor (7.5) West Virginia (1.0) TCU (11.1) Kansas (3.0) Texas Tech (11.8) Oklahoma State (0.9) Utah (11.0) Colorado (2.6) Nonconference Schedule: North Dakota (FCS -15) Army (-0.6) Arizona (0.7) Total Opponent Score: 48.5 Average Opponent Score: 4.04 (akin to the 47th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 64.5 (Third-toughest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Kansas (3.0) Utah (11.0) BYU (11.5) UCF (0.4) TCU (11.1) Houston (0.9) Colorado (2.6) Arizona State (12.2) Texas Tech (11.8) Nonconference Schedule: Robert Morris (FCS -15) Ohio (-4.4) Pittsburgh (3.4) Total Opponent Score: 55.9 Average Opponent Score: 4.65 (akin to the 46th-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 75 (First -- the toughest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Houston (0.9) BYU (11.5) TCU (11.1) Iowa State (11.0) Utah (11.0) Arizona (0.7) West Virginia (1.0) Arizona State (12.2) Kansas State (15.6) Nonconference Schedule: Georgia Tech (4.7) Delaware (FCS -13) Wyoming (-10.8) 2. TCU Horned Frogs Total Opponent Score: 62.1 Average Opponent Score: 5.17 (akin to the 41st-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 62 (Fourth-toughest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Arizona State (12.2) Colorado (2.6) Kansas State (15.6) Baylor (7.5) West Virginia (1.0) Iowa State (11.0) BYU (11.5) Houston (0.9) Cincinnati (-0.3) Nonconference Schedule: North Carolina (2.0) Abilene Christian (FCS -15) SMU (13.1) 1. Baylor Bears Total Opponent Score: 62.4 Average Opponent Score: 5.2 (akin to the 41st-best team in the country) Conference Schedule Score: 52.5 (Seventh-easiest conference schedule) Conference Schedule (with SP+ rating): Arizona State (12.2) Oklahoma State (0.9) Kansas State (15.6) TCU (11.1) Cincinnati (-0.3) UCF (0.4) Utah (11.0) Arizona (0.7) Houston (0.9) Nonconference Schedule: Auburn (11.8) SMU (13.1) Samford (FCS -15) Follow Charlie Strella on X, Threads, and Instagram. Contact/Follow us @BuffaloesWire on X (formerly Twitter), and like our page on Facebook for ongoing coverage of Colorado news, notes and opinions.
Chicago Tribune
21-05-2025
- Sport
- Chicago Tribune
In picking Ball State, West Aurora's Mason Atkins weighs QB position and transfer portal. ‘Takes out recruiting.'
West Aurora quarterback Mason Atkins figured the time was right, along with the school and especially its coaching staff, so he made the call. Nearing the end of his junior year, Atkins announced May 9 he was committing to a scholarship offer he had received in mid-March from Ball State, a Mid-American Conference program. 'Definitely at that position, I had to make a decision soon with these offers going away, with other quarterbacks committing and with the offers that I had,' Atkins said. He held about a dozen offers from Football Bowl Subdivision or Football Championship Subdivision programs. But Atkins also felt the impact that the transfer portal has had on recruiting, particularly for incoming freshmen. 'A lot of coaches are just going to the portal straightaway, getting an older guy to come in instead of getting a high school guy,' Atkins said. 'It takes out recruiting for me. It's weird. It sucks for me now, but then when you're in college, it could be great for you depending on how it all plays out. 'It's a whole different world and a little weird. I'm just focused on having a good senior season, having a good college career and seeing where it takes me.' Toledo, Eastern Michigan, Cornell, North Dakota and Central Arkansas were among his offers, but this winter, Atkins said he really connected with the new staff at Ball State headed by coach Mike Uremovich, a Providence graduate, and offensive coordinator Craig Harmon. Both worked together when Uremovich, whose last stop was Butler, was head coach at St. Francis in Joliet. Harmon and Uremovich have worked together at both Northern Illinois and Temple. 'I really loved coach Harmon and coach U, and the relationship I built with those guys is really great,' Atkins said. 'They called me a ton. Coach Harmon came out to a baseball game and I've thrown in front of him multiple times. 'I think it really just came down to that connection I built with the coaching staff.' According to West Aurora coach Nate Eimer, Atkins is the first West Aurora quarterback to receive a Division I scholarship since 1983 graduate Jim Bennett went to Illinois. Will Tammaru, a 2020 grad, also played for Dayton, a nonscholarship FCS program. Eimer can find the recruiting process frustrating. 'I really exhaust it and make sure Mason has all the information he needs,' Eimer said. 'It's crazy to me how many program now will literally tell you, 'We're just not taking a (2026 at QB).' 'You talk about the FBS, there are 134 programs and FCS has 129. I looked it up, and there are 16,000 schools that play high school football in this country.' Eimer is stunned that top programs are turning away from high school prospects like Atkins, who started most of West Aurora's games as a sophomore and all of them last season, leading the Blackhawks (10-1) to the second round of the Class 8A playoffs. Last fall, the 6-foot-3, 205-pound Atkins completed 72% (123 of 172) of his passes for 1,667 yards and 32 touchdowns with no interceptions. He ran for 214 yards and seven TDs to earn the Upstate Eight West's offensive player of the year. He also was academic all-state with a 4.7 GPA. National talent scout Tom Lemming calls Atkins 'one of the better quarterback prospects in the Midwest.' In baseball, Atkins plays center field and is hitting .406 for West Aurora (25-4). Both sports have kept Atkins busy, dotted with numerous throwing sessions in the Blackhawks' fieldhouse and at several camps, the latest coming May 1 at a college football evaluation day staged by coaches Sean Drendel (Naperville North) and Ryan Crissey (Glenbard South). 'It's the best thing for high school athletes for recruiting that I've been a part of,' Eimer said. 'Our guys were in front of 50-plus coaches. All my kids were able to interact with coaches and it's free.'
