Bold claim: the college football schedule landscape is lopsided, and that imbalance is reshaping the sport as we know it. Now, here’s the fuller story about why Lincoln Riley says two conferences stand apart—and why that matters to fans, players, and rankings alike.
In a recent talk with On3’s JD Pickell, USC head coach Lincoln Riley argued that the Big Ten and the SEC have clearly separated themselves from the rest of college football in both quality and scheduling. He didn’t mince words: “I think it’s pretty clear that the Big Ten and the SEC have separated themselves. I think everybody in college football understands that.” He emphasized that the reality of schedules supports this view, noting that these two leagues routinely lock in elite-level opponents and travel to hostile venues, including marquee road games and high-profile showdowns at home in places like Los Angeles’ The Coliseum.
Riley went further, describing a growing gap in strength of schedule between conferences as a key barrier to clear and fair rankings. He claimed that the discrepancy has “never been higher” and that this makes the job of ranking teams—and deciding Playoff spots—much harder for evaluators who are asked to compare teams with very different levels of competition week to week.
From his perspective, playing in the Big Ten or the SEC signals a tougher, more consistent slate. He asserted that a player who joins USC and faces Big Ten competition is guaranteed a schedule filled with top-tier programs, on the road and at home, with the overall strength of schedule likely never being questioned. That’s a strong take, especially given the broader debate about conference quality and the role of strength of schedule in rankings.
Critics will point out that other conferences—like the ACC and the Big 12—also feature strong teams and big games. Indeed, Miami and Indiana have shown they can push powerhouses. Still, Riley’s argument hinges on the depth and consistency of the two leaders, which, he implies, currently outpace the rest. He suggests this trend may squeeze out playoff opportunities for teams from other conferences if losses accumulate, a situation amplified by the SEC’s move to a nine-game conference schedule that could invite more losses for non-elite non-conference opponents.
To illustrate the upcoming season’s real-world impact, Riley highlighted USC’s brutal early slate: Oregon and Washington games in Los Angeles, a road trip to Penn State in week six, a sequence that includes Wisconsin and Ohio State at varying points, and a schedule that features defending champion Indiana on the road. According to ESPN’s SP+ projections, that lineup includes teams ranked #1, #2, #4, #13, and #15 from the previous year—an undeniably challenging stretch. In short, a few bad losses could derail even a high-caliber squad’s playoff hopes.
Meanwhile, the contrast with other programs’ schedules is stark. Texas Tech, for example, faces a slate that includes Abilene Christian, Oregon State, Houston, Sam Houston, Colorado, Arizona State, Cincinnati, Arizona, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and TCU—an itinerary that underscores the broader disparity in scheduling across conferences.
This is a topic bound to spark debate: does a tougher schedule in one conference inherently justify a higher ranking, or should playoff selection rely more on win quality and margin of victory rather than the pedigree of opponents? Do you think Riley’s assessment accurately captures the current state of college football, or do you see counterarguments about the role of strength of schedule in shaping outcomes? Share your thoughts in the comments.
