The Big Ten announced the full 2024–2028 conference opponent lists on October 5, 2023. They said that they looked to "balance of historic competitiveness and recent competitive trends, including home/away balance of traditionally competitive schools" as one of three considerations, alongside travel and postseason access. In term of implementing this, teams were split into six groups of three, but they didn't identify which teams were in which tier.
Remember, when they made the schedule, Indiana was a historically poor team. Their first recent year of success was 2024.
So to look into this, I had Claude rank teams by the average of their F+ score in 2022 and 2023. Here’s what that looks like:
Team strength ratings (avg 2022–23 F+):
| Team | Rating | | Team | Rating |
| Michigan | 2.365 | | Iowa | 0.630 |
| Ohio State | 2.110 | | Minnesota | 0.570 |
| Oregon | 1.815 | | Illinois | 0.475 |
| Penn State | 1.740 | | Purdue | 0.035 |
| Washington | 1.315 | | Nebraska | -0.035 |
| USC | 0.980 | | Rutgers | -0.130 |
| Maryland | 0.855 | | Michigan State | -0.235 |
| UCLA | 0.775 | | Northwestern | -0.260 |
| Wisconsin | 0.665 | | Indiana | -0.410 |
What do these numbers mean? A zero is the average FBS team. A 1.0 means one standard deviation better than average. Michigan is a 2.3 and is one of the top teams in the country.
I’m not saying that the Big 10 used these numbers — I have no idea how they tiered teams — but this gives you a sense of who was good recently when they set the schedule.
Based on these ratings, here is the average strength of schedule for each team in 2024-2028 based on opponents strength in 2022-2023:
Average opponent strength each team faces, 2024–28 (higher = tougher):
| Team | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 5-yr avg | Year-to-year spread |
| Michigan State | .86 | .83 | .78 | .83 | 1.05 | .869 (toughest) | .28 |
| USC | .90 | .62 | .97 | .78 | .76 | .805 | .35 |
| Rutgers | .60 | 1.06 | .63 | .72 | 1.00 | .801 | .46 |
| Northwestern | .89 | .97 | .73 | .64 | .69 | .786 | .32 |
| Washington | .83 | 1.00 | .57 | .59 | .93 | .783 | .43 |
| Indiana | .77 | .75 | .77 | .71 | .82 | .766 | .11 |
| UCLA | .72 | .67 | .84 | .73 | .78 | .747 | .16 |
| Ohio State | .63 | .87 | .71 | .57 | .96 | .747 | .39 |
| Nebraska | .57 | .82 | .71 | .75 | .83 | .738 | .26 |
| Oregon | .93 | .57 | .83 | .80 | .55 | .736 | .38 |
| Wisconsin | .59 | 1.08 | .58 | .52 | .90 | .734 | .57 |
| Minnesota | .93 | .51 | .76 | .73 | .72 | .730 | .42 |
| Michigan | .71 | .60 | .76 | .75 | .60 | .686 | .16 |
| Penn State | .86 | .47 | .71 | .76 | .61 | .685 | .39 |
| Purdue | .65 | .78 | .74 | .79 | .38 | .666 | .41 |
| Iowa | .64 | .55 | .80 | .84 | .45 | .658 | .39 |
| Maryland | .52 | .53 | .74 | .74 | .68 | .642 | .22 |
| Illinois | .65 | .57 | .63 | .72 | .54 | .623 (easiest) | .18 |
Michigan State, USC, Rutgers, Northwestern, and Washington sit at the tough end across all 5 years; Illinois, Maryland, Iowa, and Purdue sit at the easy end across all 5 years.
But the size of that persistent gap (around 0.25) between those with easier and harder schedule is small. Why do I say that? Because it is small relative to the year to year differences a team faces. So I wouldn't worry that ex ante we had an unfair schedule draw.