ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
While I do think the Patriots are a better team in 2007 and still might have a problem winning as many games as in 2006, in part because of the strength of schedule, seeing these stats suggests to me that the talking heads make a much bigger deal about this than need be when they say things like "the Patriots have the 3rd toughest schedule".
I'm not a statistician but it looks to me like the median strength of schedule is .504
The Patriots strength of schedule is .535 - so what is that, like one more winning team on the schedule compared to the schedule of a team at .504?
That's not a huge deal is it? Obviously there are some quirks in the scheduling where the worst team like the Radiers have one of the toughest schedules, but that's in part to the inter-conference game schedule I'd guess, as the rest of the schedule pits them against the bottom dwellers of the other divisions, as well as requires them to play most games within the division.
So this talk that the Patriots have a "tough" schedule to me is nonsense - we were 1 minute from the SB - we should have a tougher schedule than most other teams - but in the end it looks like maybe we have one, at most two tougher opponents.
And of course, there's no telling how the season is going to shake out, or how strong each team really will be come the season.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by JoeSixPat; 03-10-2007 at 02:24 PM..
While I do think the Patriots are a better team in 2007 and still might have a problem winning as many games as in 2006, in part because of the strength of schedule, seeing these stats suggests to me that the talking heads make a much bigger deal about this than need be when they say things like "the Patriots have the 3rd toughest schedule".
I'm not a statistician but it looks to me like the median strength of schedule is .504
The Patriots strength of schedule is .535 - so what is that, like one more winning team on the schedule compared to the schedule of a team at .504?
That's not a huge deal is it? Obviously there are some quirks in the scheduling where the worst team like the Radiers have one of the toughest schedules, but that's in part to the inter-conference game schedule I'd guess, as the rest of the schedule pits them against the bottom dwellers of the other divisions, as well as requires them to play most games within the division.
So this talk that the Patriots have a "tough" schedule to me is nonsense - we were 1 minute from the SB - we should have a tougher schedule than most other teams - but in the end it looks like maybe we have one, at most two tougher opponents.
And of course, there's no telling how the season is going to shake out, or how strong each team really will be come the season.
I don't worry too much about the schedule. Looking ahead to our opponents, only Indy and San Diego can call themselves real powers. The other playoff caliber teams we face, Philly, Dallas, Cincy, Baltimore, are clearly step below us.
No matter how tough (or soft) the schedule turns out to be, the Pats have to get the regular season wins against quality AFC opponents outside the division. This has been our downfall in playoff positioning....the Pats are 1-6 against winning AFC teams outside the division the last 2 regular seasons. ONE and SIX.
The only win was at Pittsburgh in Week 3 of '05. After that, there were whippings at the hands of SD and KC, along with 4 combined losses to our playoff executioners, Denver and Indy.
The Pats squads of '03-'04 took care of business in the regular season (5-1 in such games), and if they look to get back to the Super Bowl, they need to win them again.
IMO these games will give us a good idea where the Pats are heading in '07:
at Indy
vs SD
at Baltimore
at Cincinnati
vs Pittsburgh
After the last couple of playoff meltdowns, I'm not OK with losing in the regular season and having to go on the road to beat these teams. The Pats are great but they need advantages too.
2. Strength of schedule is a fraction of 16^2 = 256. Each .04 is one win last season for all the opponents combined. .35 is 9 wins last season for all opponents combined. E.g.,it's the equivalent of replacing two 9-7 teams with a 13-3 team and a 14-2 team.
3. Against repeat opponents, such as your division-mates, your record last season affects strength of schedule this season. E.g., one reason the Raiders have high strength of schedule is that the AFC West beat up on them last year. The Pats actually were close to .500 against this year's repeat opponents -- 4-2 in the division plus 0-1 against Indy, unless I'm forgetting somebody.
4. On the other hand, your placement in your division last year affects the strength of schedule in your two variable games this year. E.g., replace San Diego and Indy (our two "rewards" for winning the AFC East) with 9-7 teams, and our strength of schedule is .500
5. None of this matters much, as past performance is only a weak indicator of future results. The actual strengths of those schedules will turn out to vary a lot from the numbers given above.
Have you noticed the disparity between the conferences? The top half are almost all AFC teams, while the bottom half contains almost all NFC. To me, this means the ones with the toughest and weakest schedules are playing more games within their own conferences, and until the NFC gets more parity, the strong (Raiders and a couple of other teams excepted) will continue to feast on the weak in inter-conference games. You know things are unbalanced when the Super Bowl runner-ups, the Bears, are rewarded with the second-easiest strength-of schedule. Imagaine where the Pats would be if they played in the NFC Central!
2007 strength of schedule
Linear Mode
