Bold opening: The gap between college football’s toughest schedules and everyone else is widening—and it’s changing how we judge the game. But here’s where it gets controversial: that gap isn’t just about who you play, it’s about how the system rewards or punishes you for those choices.
Lincoln Riley, USC’s head coach, argues that two conferences have clearly pulled away from the rest—the SEC and the Big Ten—and that this separation is evident in the schedules teams face. In a recent talk with On3’s JD Pickell, Riley asserted that the Big Ten and SEC have established themselves as superior in both quality and rigor of competition. “I think it’s pretty clear that the Big Ten and the SEC have separated themselves,” he said. “That’s the reality of where the situation is, in terms of the schedules. Both conferences are fantastic. You play elite-level teams very, very often.”
Riley adds that the current scheduling landscape has never shown a larger discrepancy. He argues this disparity complicates rankings and playoff selections, since human voters (and algorithms) must compare teams across uneven schedules. He notes that if a player comes to USC and competes in the Big Ten, they’ll face one of the nation’s toughest slates—road games against marquee programs and high-profile home showdowns at the Coliseum—making strength of schedule less questionable.
The claim isn’t lightly made. Certainly, other leagues like the ACC and Big 12 house quality squads, and there are near-misses and surprises (for example, Miami’s near-upset of Indiana) that challenge the narrative of a two-conference monopoly. Yet the overall depth and consistency of the SEC and Big Ten seem to stand above the rest at present, a reality that could impact playoff chances as losses accumulate.
Riley also points to the 2025 schedule dynamics. He suggests that even if USC wasn’t playoff-caliber last year, a lighter league could have kept them in the conversation by avoiding a third loss. He notes this season’s brutal lineup: Oregon and Washington visiting Los Angeles in back-to-back weeks, a road trip to Penn State, road tests at Wisconsin and Ohio State (with more high-stakes games looming), and a lineup that ESPN’s SP+ projects as featuring teams that finished 2025 ranked #1, #2, #4, #13, and #15. By that measure, three losses would likely derail playoff hopes.
Meanwhile, other programs—like Texas Tech—face a notably different schedule mix, including multiple non-power conference opponents alongside traditional rivals. The contrast underscores Riley’s point: the scheduling discrepancy between conferences is real and consequential, shaping outcomes, perceptions, and the path to the postseason.
For readers and fans, this discussion invites a bigger question: should playoff committees weigh strength of schedule more aggressively when conferences diverge so sharply, or should we recalibrate the system to reward teams that maximize performance within varied schedules? Do you think the Big Ten and SEC’s dominance in scheduling is good for the sport, or does it undermine broader parity? Share your take in the comments.
