Is there any correlation between strength of schedule and playoff success?

[Soul_Survivor88]

This subject is the latest round of nitpicking and questioning that's being addressed by the Boston media.

Just the other day, Felger was suggesting that strength of schedule plays a key role in guessing who will survive the playoffs and prevail in the Super Bowl.

In the past 16 Super Bowls since 2000, the team with the tougher regular-season schedule won 14-2. In fact, in order to find a Super Bowl winner, with a schedule ranked as easy as ours, you'd have to go back to the 2009 Saints. The 2009 Saints feasted on the league’s easiest schedule, facing competition that managed only a .426 winning percentage and scoring a strength of victory of .418.

You can also look back on the last 10 years and compare how well teams fared in the postseason, specifically teams with 10+ regular season wins, whose record was helped by easier schedules.

2014 - The Cowboys went 12-4 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round, 26-21 to the Packers. The Ravens went 10-6 on the 30th-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the Patriots, 35-31. The Steelers went 11-5 on the 29th-ranked schedule and lost to Baltimore in the wild card.

2013 - The Broncos went 13-3 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost 43-8 in the Super Bowl to the Seahawks, I think.

2012 - The Broncos went 13-3 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round 38-35 in 2OT to the Ravens. The Falcons went 13-3 on the 27th-ranked schedule and lost in the NFC Championship to the 49ers.

2011 - The Packers went 15-1 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the Giants, 37-20. The Saints went 13-3 on the 30th-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the 49ers. The Patriots went 13-3 on the 23rd-ranked schedule and lost in the Super Bowl to the Giants. Funny enough, New York had the fourth-hardest schedule and nearly every other playoff team that year had an easy schedule.

2010 - The Falcons went 13-3 on the 22nd-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round 48-21 to the Packers.

2009 - The Vikings went 12-4 on the 30th-ranked schedule and lost in the NFC Championship to the Saints. The Packers went 11-5 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the wild card to the Cardinals.

2008 - The Titans had the best record at 13-3, and their schedule was ranked 23rd; they lost to the Ravens in the divisional round.

2007 - The Packers went 13-3 on the 29th-ranked schedule and lost in the NFC Championship to the Giants.

2006 - The Chargers went 14-2 on the 29th-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the Patriots. The Bears went 13-3 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the Super Bowl to the Colts.

2005 - The Panthers had the 31st-ranked schedule and went 11-5, losing to Seattle in the NFC title game. The Colts were 14-2 and had the 27th-ranked schedule, losing to the Steelers in the divisional round

So, what are we to make of all this? Any thoughts?

 

[Satchboogie3]

Correlation doesn't imply causation. What it means is that teams with a weak schedule have an easier path to the playoffs, or said differently, a weak schedule may allow week teams in the playoffs.

You play who is on your schedule. The Patriots are really good team peaking at the right time. People put too much stock in team records. There have been plenty of weak 13-14 win teams as there have been really good 10-6 teams.

The way odds work, these things happen. It's like the "no MVP has won a SB in so many years". There's a lot of random chance.

 

[Ring 6]

Correlation doesn't imply causation. What it means is that teams with a weak schedule have an easier path to the playoffs, or said differently, a weak schedule may allow week teams in the playoffs.

You play who is on your schedule. The Patriots are really good team peaking at the right time. People put too much stock in team records. There have been plenty of weak 13-14 win teams as there have been really good 10-6 teams.

The way odds work, these things happen. It's like the "no MVP has won a SB in so many years". There's a lot of random chance.

Correct. That approach would be to say the patriots are their schedule and the schedule determines their fate whether they were the 2003 team talent else or the 1991 team.

 

[sb1]

And yet

2007- people look at the Pats 16-0 season but what's even more impressive about that is the schedule was absolutely brutal. They went 7-0 against playoff teams and...well we know how that season turned out.

2010- Pats had a tough schedule that year too and yet went 6-1 against teams that made the playoffs... and then went one and done and looked pretty terrible doing it

2011- Pats beat a total of zero winning teams in the regular season - and made the SB and almost won it.

I also believe the 1999 Rams only winning team they beat all year was in the Super Bowl game.

Sure the Pats beat up on some bad teams but they also won 3 of 4 games against teams that made the playoffs this year. That shouldn't really be discounted. We will see what happens.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

maybe should edit title to "SB" instead of playoff..

 

[The Brandon Five]

And yet

2007- people look at the Pats 16-0 season but what's even more impressive about that is the schedule was absolutely brutal. They went 7-0 against playoff teams and...well we know how that season turned out.

2010- Pats had a tough schedule that year too and yet went 6-1 against teams that made the playoffs... and then went one and done and looked pretty terrible doing it

2011- Pats beat a total of zero winning teams in the regular season - and made the SB and almost won it.

I also believe the 1999 Rams only winning team they beat all year was in the Super Bowl game.

Sure the Pats beat up on some bad teams but they also won 3 of 4 games against teams that made the playoffs this year. That shouldn't really be discounted. We will see what happens.

And the one loss came down to dumb coaching (not something you would normally associate with the Pats).

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Too holidayed out to analyze all those data points (maybe tomorrow, but thanks for providing), but 14--2 in favor of the SB finalist with the tougher schedule can't be dismissed out of hand.

Anecdotally, I think it comes down to teams that are peaking in December and into January and some measure of injuries to key players, but I don't have the data to support that hunch.

 

[Ring 6]

Too holidayed out to analyze all those data points (maybe tomorrow, but thanks for providing), but 14--2 in favor of the SB finalist with the tougher schedule can't be dismissed out of hand.

Anecdotally, I think it comes down to teams that are peaking in December and into January and some measure of injuries to key players, but I don't have the data to support that hunch.

Strength of opponent doesn't really have anything to do with peaking or injuries.
The idea that being challenged makes a team better prepared for big games is interesting but the difference would have to be huge and strength of schedule differences among winning teams usually aren't plus getting to the SB pretty much addresses the battle testing issue.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

The problem with strength of schedule is it always makes it look like winning teams have weak schedules and losing ones strong schedules. When the Patriots hand out 6 losses to thier division thier SOS goes down as the opponents records get worse. Those other teams SOS goes up because they play a team with a lot of wins (Patriots).

I don't think there's many golden knowledge nuggets to dig out of that.

 

[borg]

We're doomed I tell ya.....dooooooooooooooomed

 

[kbitboc]

I'm curious, what was the Pats schedule rank in 2008?

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Everyone's always looking for a way to predict the future. How about CHF's stats on who wins super bowls, wasn't it pass rating differential and the Pats scored high on that one?

 

[Mogamedogz]

Absolutely no correlation imo. Good teams are good teams. They play whoever is on the schedule and if they are better, they'll win (in most cases).

This is one of those things that I categorize as overanalyzing.

 

[1960Pats]

I Think SOS is definitely a factor in determining the actual strength of a team and it's the reason that the 4 division setup is a failure. They should all play as close to the same schedule as possible and the best teams should be in the playoffs.

I also don't think there's a correlation between this playoff and anything that has happened in the past.

Here's the most accurate SOS that I can come up with. The playoff teams with the toughest schedule have been Pitt, KC, Oak, GB and Houston;

1 Tampa Bay
2 San Diego
3 Denver
4 Cincinnati
5 Philadelphia
6 Jacksonville
7 NY Jets
T8 Indianapolis
T8 Pittsburgh
10 Kansas City
11 Chicago
12 Oakland
13 Cleveland
T14 Carolina
T14 Green Bay
16 San Francisco
17 Washington
18 Houston
19 New Orleans
20 Arizona
21 Los Angeles
22 Dallas
22 NY Giants
24 Tennessee
25 Baltimore
26 Buffalo
27 Minnesota
28 New England
29 Atlanta
30 Seattle
31 Detroit
32 Miami

Now look at Seattle. They're definitely a top team, but they played 11 of their 16 games against teams ranked 18(2), 30 (2), 31 (2), 16, 19, 20, 25 and 29. I still wouldn't count them out though.

The same is true of the Pats with their SOS of 28. They got some help from the weaker NFCW just like Seattle, but who's going to bet against them?

Atlanta had the benefit of playing against the NFCW and the rest of the NFCS.

It's just good to be one of the teams that has a chance again.

 

[turkeyneck]

The problem with strength of schedule is it always makes it look like winning teams have weak schedules and losing ones strong schedules. When the Patriots hand out 6 losses to thier division thier SOS goes down as the opponents records get worse. Those other teams SOS goes up because they play a team with a lot of wins (Patriots).

I don't think there's many golden knowledge nuggets to dig out of that.

Exactly. Strength of schedule doesn't make the team; the team makes the strength of schedule.

 

[venecol]

This subject is the latest round of nitpicking and questioning that's being addressed by the Boston media.

Just the other day, Felger was suggesting that strength of schedule plays a key role in guessing who will survive the playoffs and prevail in the Super Bowl.

In the past 16 Super Bowls since 2000, the team with the tougher regular-season schedule won 14-2. In fact, in order to find a Super Bowl winner, with a schedule ranked as easy as ours, you'd have to go back to the 2009 Saints. The 2009 Saints feasted on the league’s easiest schedule, facing competition that managed only a .426 winning percentage and scoring a strength of victory of .418.

You can also look back on the last 10 years and compare how well teams fared in the postseason, specifically teams with 10+ regular season wins, whose record was helped by easier schedules.

2014 - The Cowboys went 12-4 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round, 26-21 to the Packers. The Ravens went 10-6 on the 30th-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the Patriots, 35-31. The Steelers went 11-5 on the 29th-ranked schedule and lost to Baltimore in the wild card.

2013 - The Broncos went 13-3 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost 43-8 in the Super Bowl to the Seahawks, I think.

2012 - The Broncos went 13-3 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round 38-35 in 2OT to the Ravens. The Falcons went 13-3 on the 27th-ranked schedule and lost in the NFC Championship to the 49ers.

2011 - The Packers went 15-1 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the Giants, 37-20. The Saints went 13-3 on the 30th-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the 49ers. The Patriots went 13-3 on the 23rd-ranked schedule and lost in the Super Bowl to the Giants. Funny enough, New York had the fourth-hardest schedule and nearly every other playoff team that year had an easy schedule.

2010 - The Falcons went 13-3 on the 22nd-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round 48-21 to the Packers.

2009 - The Vikings went 12-4 on the 30th-ranked schedule and lost in the NFC Championship to the Saints. The Packers went 11-5 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the wild card to the Cardinals.

2008 - The Titans had the best record at 13-3, and their schedule was ranked 23rd; they lost to the Ravens in the divisional round.

2007 - The Packers went 13-3 on the 29th-ranked schedule and lost in the NFC Championship to the Giants.

2006 - The Chargers went 14-2 on the 29th-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the Patriots. The Bears went 13-3 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the Super Bowl to the Colts.

2005 - The Panthers had the 31st-ranked schedule and went 11-5, losing to Seattle in the NFC title game. The Colts were 14-2 and had the 27th-ranked schedule, losing to the Steelers in the divisional round

So, what are we to make of all this? Any thoughts?

What is the Pats 2016 strength of schedule rank?

 

[BobDigital]

Depends on the team. Some teams SoS might hurt them. However that is only true for particularly young and untested teams.

Dallas might be such a team. They feasted on a weak SoS but they don't have the experience at key spots that know what playing a top team in a key game feels like.

That may hurt them. Maybe. The Pats though are fine. They have a bunch of experience and have been in tough games in the past against really tough team.

 

[mosslost]

This subject is the latest round of nitpicking and questioning that's being addressed by the Boston media.

Just the other day, Felger was suggesting that strength of schedule plays a key role in guessing who will survive the playoffs and prevail in the Super Bowl.

In the past 16 Super Bowls since 2000, the team with the tougher regular-season schedule won 14-2. In fact, in order to find a Super Bowl winner, with a schedule ranked as easy as ours, you'd have to go back to the 2009 Saints. The 2009 Saints feasted on the league’s easiest schedule, facing competition that managed only a .426 winning percentage and scoring a strength of victory of .418.

You can also look back on the last 10 years and compare how well teams fared in the postseason, specifically teams with 10+ regular season wins, whose record was helped by easier schedules.

2014 - The Cowboys went 12-4 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round, 26-21 to the Packers. The Ravens went 10-6 on the 30th-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the Patriots, 35-31. The Steelers went 11-5 on the 29th-ranked schedule and lost to Baltimore in the wild card.

2013 - The Broncos went 13-3 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost 43-8 in the Super Bowl to the Seahawks, I think.

2012 - The Broncos went 13-3 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round 38-35 in 2OT to the Ravens. The Falcons went 13-3 on the 27th-ranked schedule and lost in the NFC Championship to the 49ers.

2011 - The Packers went 15-1 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the Giants, 37-20. The Saints went 13-3 on the 30th-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the 49ers. The Patriots went 13-3 on the 23rd-ranked schedule and lost in the Super Bowl to the Giants. Funny enough, New York had the fourth-hardest schedule and nearly every other playoff team that year had an easy schedule.

2010 - The Falcons went 13-3 on the 22nd-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round 48-21 to the Packers.

2009 - The Vikings went 12-4 on the 30th-ranked schedule and lost in the NFC Championship to the Saints. The Packers went 11-5 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the wild card to the Cardinals.

2008 - The Titans had the best record at 13-3, and their schedule was ranked 23rd; they lost to the Ravens in the divisional round.

2007 - The Packers went 13-3 on the 29th-ranked schedule and lost in the NFC Championship to the Giants.

2006 - The Chargers went 14-2 on the 29th-ranked schedule and lost in the divisional round to the Patriots. The Bears went 13-3 on the 31st-ranked schedule and lost in the Super Bowl to the Colts.

2005 - The Panthers had the 31st-ranked schedule and went 11-5, losing to Seattle in the NFC title game. The Colts were 14-2 and had the 27th-ranked schedule, losing to the Steelers in the divisional round

So, what are we to make of all this? Any thoughts?

I have no good reason other than a hunch but I just don't think this is really a thing that matters. 14-2...... probably tons of other factors though. It is a strong correlation yes, but I just feel like it really is not a determining data point. (like you could probably come up with a lot of other random stats that go that way too.. SOS has always struck me as strange and random.. Like if you beat the Carr-less Raiders right now your record for SOS goes up, but they are not as good as their record anymore)

 

[jimnance]

OP- MAJOR flaw in your post.

The only accurate way to assess Pat's sos is to SUBTRACT all the Patriots games from each opponent.

Because the Pats are one of the best teams in the NFL, their sos is automatically going to be weakened by the simple fact that THEY BEAT ALMOST EVERYONE THEY PLAY. That's true not just for the Pats , but ALL the good teams.

Just look at the OP's list: compare teams 1-10'schedule to the bottom ten- 22-32; 1-10 is almost all crappy teams with losing records; 22-32 is almost entirely playoff teams including the 2 best , Pats and Cowboys and I don't think there's a single team 22-32 with a losing record.

OP- you need to subtract each teams games from ALL their opponents- I guarantee that makes Pats and every winning teams sos improve. Otherwise its all pointless b.s.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

What is the Pats 2016 strength of schedule rank?

The Patriots have played the easiest schedule in the league this year based on average opponent DVOA.