[ColoradoTree]

We've touched on some of this in other threads, but I figured I'd put the Pac-12 non-conference schedules in one place so we can evaluate them, considering how Washington's soft schedule threatened to keep them out of the playoff last year.  With all the caveats of "scheduling is hard, because good programs can end up worse than when you scheduled them, and you may have scheduled a bad team that ended up being good when you ultimately played them," here are the slates:

Arizona: vs. Northern Arizona (FCS); vs. Houston; @ UTEP.  They get credit for playing Houston, as good of a Group of 5 team as there's been in recent years, but the other two games?  The lack of a Power 5 team is unacceptable. 

Arizona State: vs. New Mexico State; vs. San Diego State; @ Texas Tech.  This is decent: a lower-level Group of 5 team, a good Group of 5 team, and a middling Power 5 team. 

Cal: @ UNC; vs. Weber State (FCS); vs. Ole Miss.  Look, if you have to schedule a FCS opponent, at least play two Power 5 teams.  I can't be too mad at Cal for having Weber State on the schedule for that reason.

Colorado: vs. Colorado State; vs. Texas State; vs. Northern Colorado (FCS).  CSU is a good, traditional rivalry game, but Texas State might be the worst team in FBS.  And rounding it out with a FCS team?  For shame, Buffs.  For shame. 

Oregon: vs. Southern Utah (FCS); vs. Nebraska; @ Wyoming.  Oregon should never play a FCS team, but Nebraska and Wyoming are legit.  I could absolutely see Oregon going into Laramie and losing to Josh Allen and the Cowboys.  (If you don't know his name yet, you will soon.)

Oregon State: @ Colorado State; vs. Portland State (FCS); vs. Minnesota.  I mean, this is like the bare minimum--a middling Power 5 team, a decent Group of 5 team, and a FCS team.  Now, Oregon State, if you feel like the bare minimum is enough, then okay.  But some people choose to schedule harder, and we encourage that, okay? 

Stanford: vs. Rice; @ San Diego State; vs. Our Lady. A bad Group of 5 team, a pretty darn good Group of 5 team, and one of college football's most storied programs, even if they had a hiccup last year.  It's not bad, but it should generally be better (and it will usually be better, with the exception of next year, when UC Davis replaces Rice in the lineup, and I will be forced to cede the high ground on scheduling FCS opponents for a year).

UCLA:  vs. Texas A&M; vs. Hawaii; @ Memphis.  A legit Power 5 program, a Group of 5 team that should go bowling, and one that vacillates between lesser bowls and being terrible.  Not bad, really.

SC:  vs. Western Michigan; vs. Texas; @ Our Lady.  Western Michigan went undefeated in the regular season last year.  Yeah, P.J. Fleck is off to Minnesota, but there is talent and an attitude there.  Texas is supposed to be much better.  You figure N.D. will be better, too.  This is about as solid as it gets, perception-wise.  We'll see how good those teams end up being, but this will boost SC's resume in the committee's eyes.

Utah:  vs. North Dakota (FCS); @ BYU; vs. San Jose State.  Come on, Utah.  You're better than this.  As I wrote in a different thread, North Dakota isn't even the best FCS team from North Dakota! 

Washington: @ Rutgers; vs. Montana (FCS); vs. Fresno State.  Rutgers might be the worst Power 5 team in the country, Fresno State went 1-11 last year, and they play a middling FCS team.  I mean, holy crap, guys.  Oregon State scheduled a tougher non-conference slate than you did.  You're supposed to be national players!  This is embarrassing, and it means UW will likely have to go undefeated to make the playoffs.  (It will get better, though. They play Auburn next year, and they'll play Michigan and Ohio State in the future.) 

Washington State: vs. Montana State (FCS); vs. Boise State; vs. Nevada.  This isn't great, but Boise State is still good, and Nevada might get bowl-eligible.  Still better than UW's dumpster fire of a schedule. 

To wrap up, I think SC's non-conference slate is the most impressive, while the reigning North and South champs have the least impressive schedules. 

[ColoradoTree]

We've touched on some of this in other threads, but I figured I'd put the Pac-12 non-conference schedules in one place so we can evaluate them, considering how Washington's soft schedule threatened to keep them out of the playoff last year.  With all the caveats of "scheduling is hard, because good programs can end up worse than when you scheduled them, and you may have scheduled a bad team that ended up being good when you ultimately played them," here are the slates:

Arizona: vs. Northern Arizona (FCS); vs. Houston; @ UTEP.  They get credit for playing Houston, as good of a Group of 5 team as there's been in recent years, but the other two games?  The lack of a Power 5 team is unacceptable. 

Arizona State: vs. New Mexico State; vs. San Diego State; @ Texas Tech.  This is decent: a lower-level Group of 5 team, a good Group of 5 team, and a middling Power 5 team. 

Cal: @ UNC; vs. Weber State (FCS); vs. Ole Miss.  Look, if you have to schedule a FCS opponent, at least play two Power 5 teams.  I can't be too mad at Cal for having Weber State on the schedule for that reason.

Colorado: vs. Colorado State; vs. Texas State; vs. Northern Colorado (FCS).  CSU is a good, traditional rivalry game, but Texas State might be the worst team in FBS.  And rounding it out with a FCS team?  For shame, Buffs.  For shame. 

Oregon: vs. Southern Utah (FCS); vs. Nebraska; @ Wyoming.  Oregon should never play a FCS team, but Nebraska and Wyoming are legit.  I could absolutely see Oregon going into Laramie and losing to Josh Allen and the Cowboys.  (If you don't know his name yet, you will soon.)

Oregon State: @ Colorado State; vs. Portland State (FCS); vs. Minnesota.  I mean, this is like the bare minimum--a middling Power 5 team, a decent Group of 5 team, and a FCS team.  Now, Oregon State, if you feel like the bare minimum is enough, then okay.  But some people choose to schedule harder, and we encourage that, okay? 

Stanford: vs. Rice; @ San Diego State; vs. Our Lady. A bad Group of 5 team, a pretty darn good Group of 5 team, and one of college football's most storied programs, even if they had a hiccup last year.  It's not bad, but it should generally be better (and it will usually be better, with the exception of next year, when UC Davis replaces Rice in the lineup, and I will be forced to cede the high ground on scheduling FCS opponents for a year).

UCLA:  vs. Texas A&M; vs. Hawaii; @ Memphis.  A legit Power 5 program, a Group of 5 team that should go bowling, and one that vacillates between lesser bowls and being terrible.  Not bad, really.

SC:  vs. Western Michigan; vs. Texas; @ Our Lady.  Western Michigan went undefeated in the regular season last year.  Yeah, P.J. Fleck is off to Minnesota, but there is talent and an attitude there.  Texas is supposed to be much better.  You figure N.D. will be better, too.  This is about as solid as it gets, perception-wise.  We'll see how good those teams end up being, but this will boost SC's resume in the committee's eyes.

Utah:  vs. North Dakota (FCS); @ BYU; vs. San Jose State.  Come on, Utah.  You're better than this.  As I wrote in a different thread, North Dakota isn't even the best FCS team from North Dakota! 

Washington: @ Rutgers; vs. Montana (FCS); vs. Fresno State.  Rutgers might be the worst Power 5 team in the country, Fresno State went 1-11 last year, and they play a middling FCS team.  I mean, holy crap, guys.  Oregon State scheduled a tougher non-conference slate than you did.  You're supposed to be national players!  This is embarrassing, and it means UW will likely have to go undefeated to make the playoffs.  (It will get better, though. They play Auburn next year, and they'll play Michigan and Ohio State in the future.) 

Washington State: vs. Montana State (FCS); vs. Boise State; vs. Nevada.  This isn't great, but Boise State is still good, and Nevada might get bowl-eligible.  Still better than UW's dumpster fire of a schedule. 

To wrap up, I think SC's non-conference slate is the most impressive, while the reigning North and South champs have the least impressive schedules. 

[OutsiderFan]

Washington's schedule is a total joke.  Not a single legit OOC opponent and doesn't play USC.

Oh how I wish the selection committee would throw UW out of playoff contention due to its joke of a schedule.

Cal, Stanford, UCLA, and USC are always going to play the toughest schedules because they all play each other.  The fact UW doesn't play a challenging OOC team two years in a row really bothers me, especially in a year they miss USC also.

[OutsiderFan]

Washington's schedule is a total joke.  Not a single legit OOC opponent and doesn't play USC.

Oh how I wish the selection committee would throw UW out of playoff contention due to its joke of a schedule.

Cal, Stanford, UCLA, and USC are always going to play the toughest schedules because they all play each other.  The fact UW doesn't play a challenging OOC team two years in a row really bothers me, especially in a year they miss USC also.

[Mick]

Strength of Schedule ratings are as follows, per [b]Athlon (did the Top 25):[/b]

13. C.al
20. Stanford
21. Oregon

No other Pac-12 teams in Athlon's Top 25.

CBS Sports Strength of Schedule ratings (they only do within conference)

RANK TEAM OPPONENTS
1 USC Texas, Western Michigan, AT Notre Dame
2 Stanford Notre Dame, VS Rice, AT San Diego State
3 Oregon Southern Utah, Nebraska, AT Wyoming
4 UCLA Texas A&M, Hawaii, AT Memphis
5 Oregon State Minnesota, Portland State, AT Colorado State
6 Arizona State New Mexico State, San Diego State, AT Texas Tech
7 Washington State Montana State, Boise State, Nevada
8 California Weber State, Ole Miss, AT North Carolina
9 Utah North Dakota, San Jose State, AT BYU
10 Arizona Houston, Northern Arizona, AT UTEP
11 Colorado vs Colorado State, Northern Colorado, Texas State
12 Washington AT Rutgers, Montana, Fresno State

Here is ESPN's Strength of Schedule ratings:

1. California
6. USC
7. Stanford
8. UCLA
9. Arizona State
12. Utah
18. Oregon State
22. Notre Dame
39. Washington State
43. Washington
46. Oregon
48. Arizona
50. Colorado
91. Rice
94. San Diego State

[Mick]

Strength of Schedule ratings are as follows, per [b]Athlon (did the Top 25):[/b]

13. C.al
20. Stanford
21. Oregon

No other Pac-12 teams in Athlon's Top 25.

CBS Sports Strength of Schedule ratings (they only do within conference)

RANK TEAM OPPONENTS
1 USC Texas, Western Michigan, AT Notre Dame
2 Stanford Notre Dame, VS Rice, AT San Diego State
3 Oregon Southern Utah, Nebraska, AT Wyoming
4 UCLA Texas A&M, Hawaii, AT Memphis
5 Oregon State Minnesota, Portland State, AT Colorado State
6 Arizona State New Mexico State, San Diego State, AT Texas Tech
7 Washington State Montana State, Boise State, Nevada
8 California Weber State, Ole Miss, AT North Carolina
9 Utah North Dakota, San Jose State, AT BYU
10 Arizona Houston, Northern Arizona, AT UTEP
11 Colorado vs Colorado State, Northern Colorado, Texas State
12 Washington AT Rutgers, Montana, Fresno State

Here is ESPN's Strength of Schedule ratings:

1. California
6. USC
7. Stanford
8. UCLA
9. Arizona State
12. Utah
18. Oregon State
22. Notre Dame
39. Washington State
43. Washington
46. Oregon
48. Arizona
50. Colorado
91. Rice
94. San Diego State

[BostonCard]

Athlon seems like an outlier with USC left out.  CBS has Cal as the 8th toughest schedule, but the other two have it as the toughest.  ESPN has Oregon near the bottom of the Pac; Athlon and CBS have it in the top third.  The only consensus seems to be that Stanford has a top-3 schedule, and that Washington, Arizona and COlorado didn't schedule worth crap.

BC

[BostonCard]

Athlon seems like an outlier with USC left out.  CBS has Cal as the 8th toughest schedule, but the other two have it as the toughest.  ESPN has Oregon near the bottom of the Pac; Athlon and CBS have it in the top third.  The only consensus seems to be that Stanford has a top-3 schedule, and that Washington, Arizona and COlorado didn't schedule worth crap.

BC

[ColoradoTree]

I wonder if the Athlon ranking was considering conference schedules as well.  In that case, since SC doesn't play Washington or Oregon in the regular season, it would make sense to see their ranking drop. 

[ColoradoTree]

I wonder if the Athlon ranking was considering conference schedules as well.  In that case, since SC doesn't play Washington or Oregon in the regular season, it would make sense to see their ranking drop.