There are several ways to measure college football strength of schedule, and one of the most common is the straightforward win/loss method, used on the NCAA’s official website.
As the name suggests, the win/loss method evaluates schedule difficulty strictly through wins and losses. When projecting future seasons—before any games are played—the metric relies entirely on each team’s opponents’ records from the previous year.
By this measure, North Carolina enters 2026 with the nation’s toughest schedule, while Buffalo draws the easiest. Indiana, the reigning national champion, checks in with the 11th‑toughest slate.
Conference‑wise, the Big Ten leads the field with four teams in the Top 10, followed by the Big 12 with three, the ACC with two, and the SEC with one. Top‑10 teams by conference include:
- Big Ten: Ohio State (2), Nebraska (4), Michigan (6), Northwestern (6)
- Big 12: Baylor (8), West Virginia (8), Arizona (10)
- ACC: North Carolina (1), Stanford (3)
- SEC: Mississippi State (5)
Below are the teams with the toughest schedules in each conference in 2026 using the win/loss method (overall rank in parentheses):
- ACC – North Carolina (1)
- American – Charlotte (20)
- Big 12 – Baylor (8)
- Big Ten – Ohio State (2)
- CUSA – Missouri State (54)
- Independent – Notre Dame (112)
- MAC – Bowling Green (60)
- MWC – Air Force (67)
- Pac-12 – Oregon State (21)
- SEC – Mississippi State (5)
- Sun Belt – Southern Miss (37)
Listed below are the complete strength of schedule rankings with win/loss record and winning percentage of each team’s 2026 opponents (includes all games played; numbers compiled by Phil Steele).
2026 College Football Strength of Schedule | Win/Loss Method
1. North Carolina: 103-55 (65.2%)
2. Ohio St: 102-56 (64.6%)
3. Stanford: 101-56 (64.3%)
4. Nebraska: 102-57 (64.2%)
5. Mississippi St: 100-57 (63.7%)
6. Michigan: 99-60 (62.3%)
6. Northwestern: 99-60 (62.3%)
8. Baylor: 95-59 (61.7%)
8. West Virginia: 95-59 (61.7%)
10. Arizona: 94-59 (61.4%)
11. Indiana: 94-61 (60.6%)
11. Kentucky: 94-61 (60.6%)
13. Arkansas: 92-61 (60.1%)
14. Texas: 94-63 (59.9%)
14. Duke: 94-63 (59.9%)
16. Syracuse: 92-62 (59.7%)
17. Cincinnati: 91-62 (59.5%)
18. Oklahoma: 92-63 (59.4%)
19. Purdue: 91-63 (59.1%)
20. Charlotte: 92-64 (59.0%)
21. Washington: 93-65 (58.9%)
21. Oregon St: 93-65 (58.9%)
23. Tennessee: 90-64 (58.4%)
23. Rice: 90-64 (58.4%)
25. USC: 91-66 (58.0%)
26. LSU: 90-66 (57.7%)
27. TCU: 87-64 (57.6%)
28. Michigan St: 88-65 (57.5%)
28. Florida: 88-65 (57.5%)
28. UTSA: 88-65 (57.5%)
31. Temple: 89-66 (57.4%)
31. Memphis: 89-66 (57.4%)
31. Louisville: 89-66 (57.4%)
34. Wake Forest: 90-67 (57.3%)
35. Missouri: 88-66 (57.1%)
36. Ole Miss: 87-66 (56.9%)
37. Southern Miss: 88-67 (56.8%)
38. Alabama: 86-66 (56.6%)
39. Boston College: 87-67 (56.5%)
40. Utah St: 88-68 (56.4%)
41. Florida St: 89-69 (56.3%)
42. Georgia: 87-68 (56.1%)
43. Boise St: 89-70 (56.0%)
44. Colorado: 85-67 (55.9%)
45. South Carolina: 86-68 (55.8%)
46. Vanderbilt: 87-69 (55.8%)
47. Colorado St: 86-69 (55.5%)
48. Florida Atlantic: 84-68 (55.3%)
49. Georgia Southern: 86-70 (55.1%)
50. Texas A&M: 84-70 (54.5%)
51. Virginia Tech: 85-71 (54.5%)
52. BYU: 81-68 (54.4%)
53. Arizona St: 82-69 (54.3%)
54. NC State: 83-70 (54.2%)
54. Georgia Tech: 83-70 (54.2%)
54. Missouri St: 83-70 (54.2%)
57. Delaware: 84-71 (54.2%)
58. Auburn: 85-72 (54.1%)
59. Kansas St: 82-70 (53.9%)
60. Bowling Green: 82-71 (53.6%)
60. Jacksonville St: 82-71 (53.6%)
62. South Alabama: 83-72 (53.5%)
63. Iowa: 81-71 (53.3%)
63. Army: 81-71 (53.3%)
63. Kent St: 81-71 (53.3%)
66. Central Michigan: 82-72 (53.2%)
67. Air Force: 80-71 (53.0%)
68. UCLA: 81-72 (52.9%)
68. UAB: 81-72 (52.9%)
70. Illinois: 81-73 (52.6%)
70. Nevada: 81-73 (52.6%)
72. North Texas: 82-74 (52.6%)
72. WKU: 82-74 (52.6%)
74. Oklahoma St: 79-72 (52.3%)
74. SMU: 79-72 (52.3%)
74. UNLV: 79-72 (52.3%)
74. Utah: 79-72 (52.3%)
74. USF: 79-72 (52.3%)
79. California: 80-73 (52.3%)
79. Troy: 80-73 (52.3%)
81. Sam Houston St: 81-74 (52.3%)
82. Kansas: 78-72 (52.0%)
83. Oregon: 80-74 (51.9%)
83. Texas St: 80-74 (51.9%)
85. Iowa St: 77-73 (51.3%)
86. Minnesota: 79-75 (51.3%)
86. Tulane: 79-75 (51.3%)
88. Arkansas St: 78-75 (51.0%)
88. Liberty: 78-75 (51.0%)
90. UCF: 76-74 (50.7%)
91. Washington St: 77-75 (50.7%)
91. Western Michigan: 77-75 (50.7%)
93. Georgia St: 78-76 (50.6%)
94. East Carolina: 77-76 (50.3%)
95. Northern Illinois: 78-77 (50.3%)
96. San Jose St: 82-81 (50.3%)
97. UTEP: 74-74 (50.0%)
97. Akron: 77-77 (50.0%)
97. New Mexico St: 76-76 (50.0%)
100. James Madison: 76-77 (49.7%)
101. Clemson: 76-78 (49.4%)
102. Ball St: 74-76 (49.3%)
103. Fresno St: 75-78 (49.0%)
104. Wyoming: 74-77 (49.0%)
105. San Diego St: 75-79 (48.7%)
106. Miami, Fl: 73-77 (48.7%)
106. New Mexico: 73-77 (48.7%)
106. Sacramento St: 73-77 (48.7%)
109. Rutgers: 74-79 (48.4%)
110. Penn St: 72-77 (48.3%)
110. Navy: 72-77 (48.3%)
112. Notre Dame: 73-80 (47.7%)
112. Old Dominion: 73-80 (47.7%)
114. Maryland: 72-79 (47.7%)
114. Miami, Oh: 72-79 (47.7%)
114. Appalachian St: 72-79 (47.7%)
114. Kennesaw St: 72-79 (47.7%)
118. Marshall: 72-80 (47.4%)
119. Massachusetts: 70-78 (47.3%)
120. Pittsburgh: 72-81 (47.1%)
120. Louisiana Tech: 72-81 (47.1%)
120. ULM: 72-81 (47.1%)
123. Ohio: 71-80 (47.0%)
124. Wisconsin: 69-79 (46.6%)
125. FIU: 70-81 (46.4%)
126. Hawaii: 69-80 (46.3%)
126. Toledo: 69-80 (46.3%)
128. Texas Tech: 69-82 (45.7%)
128. Virginia: 69-82 (45.7%)
130. Eastern Michigan: 68-81 (45.6%)
131. Coastal Carolina: 69-83 (45.4%)
132. Connecticut: 68-82 (45.3%)
133. Middle Tennessee: 66-85 (43.7%)
134. Houston: 65-84 (43.6%)
135. Tulsa: 66-86 (43.4%)
135. Louisiana: 66-86 (43.4%)
137. North Dakota St: 64-86 (42.7%)
138. Buffalo: 64-88 (42.1%)
this is THE most worthless means of determining strength of schedule. By this method it literally rates scheduling Kennesaw State (10-4) or Old Dominion (10-3) at home as a higher degree of difficulty than scheduling Michigan (9-4) or Alabama (11-4) on the road. It isn’t just a bad metric, it is an entirely worthless metric.
nobody is compelling you to give any credence to that table
I found it most interesting btw
As soon as I saw the headline for this post, I was going to comment, “Complaints about the methodology coming in 3, 2, 1 …”
This method is straight forward and easy to understand. Indeed, it is generally less accurate than more sophisticated (though almost always less transparent) methods. No one was claiming that this is the most accurate method.
it is a worthless methodology…the results have no meaningless.
That weak OOC scheduling must be the reason more SEC teams aren’t in the Top Ten. Mississippi State made it because they actually scheduled an OOC P4 road game! Shame on them!
Arkansas also is a SEC team this year that is leaving the south playing @ Utah. Oklahoma goes to Michigan. Kudos to them for leaving the south.
Home/road/neutral isn’t part of this calculation.
Sometimes, with games scheduled years in advance, you end up with an easier or tougher schedule than you thought you’d have when it was put together.
Who thought they’d have a difficult game when they put (or their conference assigned) Indiana? Teams can’t be blamed for scheduling easy if they put Florida or Florida State on their schedule 5-10 years ago.
I’m amused to see that by most measures, my alma mater had the toughest schedule in the country last year and has one of the easiest (by this metric) this year despite playing in the toughest conference and playing a neutral site game against Notre Dame OOC.
The problem with this method is it’s lazy. You take out games against the team in question, but not games between opponents. These games will always be one and one. This creates an artificial regression towards the mean. If this was uniform for all teams, it wouldn’t be so bad. The number would lack accuracy but would still produce a usable ranking. But it’s not uniform or anywhere near. The bias is against teams with strong schedules who have a lot of opponents who play each other.
Includes records of FCS teams and others from the previous season. In the meantime, many players from last year’s teams graduated and even more entered the transfer portal. Head coaches and assistants moved on. This is worthless.
Thanks for taking the time to a write a four-sentence comment on this worthless metric.