It’s one of the most well-known statistics in college basketball: Strength of schedule. Sure, your team played 30+ games this year, but your record is lacks context without evaluating the level of competition it played.
RELATED: What having the hardest SoS means for your NCAA tournament hopes
It’s also one of the factors in March Madness selections.
So which teams have been consistently playing the toughest opponents each year? We looked at every DI team’s strength of schedule as of Selection Sunday for the past eight years and averaged their scores:
*Note: Strength of schedule rankings are based on official NCAA data
| Rank | Team | Conference | Average SoS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kansas | Big 12 | 8.5 |
| 2 | Duke | ACC | 8.7 |
| 3 | North Carolina | ACC | 9.7 |
| 4 | Florida | SEC | 15.8 |
| 5 | Baylor | Big 12 | 15.9 |
| 6 | Louisville | ACC | 18.6 |
| 7 | Kentucky | SEC | 23.4 |
| 8 | Villanova | Big East | 24.3 |
| 9 | Wisconsin | Big Ten | 24.5 |
| 10 | Michigan St. | Big Ten | 26.3 |
When it comes to constantly strong schedules, most of these names shouldn’t surprise you.
For starters, all of the top 10 come from a major conference. The ACC has a slim lead with three teams represented, while the Big 12, Big Ten and SEC have two each, and the Big East has just one. The Pac-12 is the only major conference not represented.
But a tough schedule is one thing. How you perform against it is another. And for the most part, these teams have lived up to the high level of competition.
In this time span, the 10 teams have gone 2594-881, for a win percentage of .746. There have only been two losing seasons among this group since 2010 — Villanova in 2012 and Florida in 2015.
The 10 teams have also earned 89 NCAA tournament bids since 2010. For context, that’s 13 percent of all available bids, taken by less than three percent of all available teams. That three percent has also earned a No. 1 seed 23 times in those 10 seasons, accounting for an impressive 57.5 percent of the available No. 1 seeds.
So how did that success translate to NCAA tournament play? Well, in this time frame, these 10 teams have played over NCAA tournament games, and have a win percentage of , which is slightly lower than their combined regular-season performance, but there's one key difference could skew these stats. Teams can only get one NCAA tournament loss per year.
| NCAAT wins | NCAAT losses | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duke | 26 | 8 | 76.5% |
| Kansas | 24 | 10 | 70.6% |
| UNC | 24 | 8 | 75.0% |
| Florida | 18 | 8 | 69.2% |
| Kentucky | 31 | 8 | 79.5% |
| Baylor | 11 | 7 | 61.1% |
| Michigan State | 21 | 10 | 67.7% |
| Louisville | 16 | 7 | 69.6% |
| Wisconsin | 18 | 9 | 66.7% |
| Villanova | 17 | 7 | 70.8% |
| TOTAL | 206 | 82 | 71.5% |
But there is still plenty of success among the group. Nine of the 10 have been to at least one Final Four in this time span (Baylor has not). Kentucky leads the way with four trips to the Final Four since 2010, while Michigan State has been to three and six of the top 10 (Duke, Kansas, Louisville, North Carolina, Villanova and Wisconsin) have been to two each. Louisville's participation in the 2013 NCAA Tournament was later vacated.
The top 10 also accounts for six of the last 10 national champions.
| YEAR | CHAMPION | RECORD | SoS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | Villanova | 36-4 | 12 |
| 2017 | North Carolina | 33-7 | 13 |
| 2016 | Villanova | 35-5 | 13 |
| 2015 | Duke | 35-4 | 13 |
| 2014 | Connecticut | 32-8 | 27 |
| 2013 | Louisville | 35-5 | 7 |
| 2012 | Kentucky | 38-2 | 28 |
| 2011 | Connecticut | 32-9 | 9 |
| 2010 | Duke | 35-5 | 11 |
So what can we take from this?
Teams that consistently play the toughest schedules are, more often than not, great choices to make runs in March. Strength of schedule is by no means an all-telling statistic, but facing tough teams year after year tends to be great practice for staying power come tournament time.
