2007 strength of schedule

[danny88]

Raiders .539
Bills .539
Patriots .535
Jaguars .527
Titans .520
Colts .516
Chiefs .516
Jets .516
Dolphins .512
Steelers .512
Bengals .512
Ravens .508
Browns .508
Broncos .504
Lions .504
Texans .504
Chargers .504
Redskins .500
Vikings .500
Eagles .500
Cowboys .496
Giants .496
Packers .492
Seahawks .488
Saints .484
Panthers .477
Buccaneers .473
Rams .473
Falcons .473
49ers .469
Bears .465
Cardinals .461

 

[JoeSixPat]

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.

 

[danny88]

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.

How much difference is between a .535 and a .516?

 

[stinkypete]

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.

 

[richpats]

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.

 

[Fencer]

1. The mean strength of schedule is .500

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.

 

[tedylb]

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!

 

[ChoWZa]

I want the pats to play every team that made the playoffs last year. I want this superbowl to be undeniable.

Theres no excuse to lose any games on our schedule.

 

[BTTA]

Just one more reason why it really sucks to be a Raider and Raider fan.

 

[signbabybrady]

All the better for when we rip right thru it. Pats win four and on the way they beat the toughest schedule in the league.

 

[Scott37]

1. The mean strength of schedule is .500

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.

In real life you're Michael Holley, aren't you?!?

 

[jczxohn1]

Our biggest challenges this year may well be from within our own division, Miami and the Jets.

 

[dhamz]

These stats are really meaningless in the modern day NFL. Teams change so much year to year that last year's standings no longer forecast how tough the schedule will be.

Of the 12 playoff teams in 2006, only 5 had been playoff teams the year before. If you looked at the schedules at this time last year, Pittsburgh would have been a tough game and New Orleans a cakewalk.

 

[BionicPatriot]

Like the above guy said, this is irrelevant. How many times do we sit there and listen to how brutal a teams schedule would be, then the teams end up becoming powder puffs? Altho it's not Patriot related, when Parcells took over the Cowboys everyone said they had no chance to get to the playoffs regardless how they improved cuz their schedule was just to darn tough. The result? They got in because of their schedule! Point is people, half these teams could end up sucking for all we know.

I look at it like this. The day we Patriot fans look at the schedule and say " oh ****, how do we beat those guys?" Is the day we lost our confidence. Don't expect 16-0, but go into every game thinking you'll win.

 

[patpatriot]

1. The mean strength of schedule is .500

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.

Man I *hate* math geeks! They make my head *hurt*!