Va_Pats_Fan
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,438
- Reaction score
- 352
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Wait we beat the #1 seeded team, 14-2 Chargers and you can even consider it easy. Classic Patriot hater.The Patriots won't have as easy a ride to the AFC title game as they did in 2006. They won 12 games last season, thanks in part to having a 127-129 schedule.
These are the most misleading, most often misquoted stats ever.
First of all, to borrow a phrase from the securities industry, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." Why don't they ever look at strength of schedule retrospectively, instead of projecting LAST year's results into the future?
Then there is the disturbing fact that we all tend to place huge significance on minor statistical variations. For example, the difference between our strength of schedule, .535, vs. the Colts, .516, is less than 2%. If we played the SAME schedule except for the game against each other, their schedule would be easier because we won 2 fewer games than them last year (12 vs. 14). If a given team's 15 opponents each play 16 games then each win or loss represents 1/(16*15) = .4% of the given team's strength of schedule, so the fact that Indy had two more wins than us explains nearly half of the two team's strength of schedule difference.
Etc.
The only good thing I have to say about this subject is that it keeps us talking about football during a long, long offseason!
at least easier than Colts. Theirs look the toughest.
These are the most misleading, most often misquoted stats ever.
First of all, to borrow a phrase from the securities industry, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." Why don't they ever look at strength of schedule retrospectively, instead of projecting LAST year's results into the future?
Then there is the disturbing fact that we all tend to place huge significance on minor statistical variations. For example, the difference between our strength of schedule, .535, vs. the Colts, .516, is less than 2%. If we played the SAME schedule except for the game against each other, their schedule would be easier because we won 2 fewer games than them last year (12 vs. 14). If a given team's 15 opponents each play 16 games then each win or loss represents 1/(16*15) = .4% of the given team's strength of schedule, so the fact that Indy had two more wins than us explains nearly half of the two team's strength of schedule difference.
It pays to be in the NFC North: One year after having the NFL's easiest schedule, the Bears check in with the second-easiest schedule (.465) this season. Chicago's three divisional foes were a combined 17-31 (.354) in 2006.
It'll build character!
Hey the idiot Clayton is at it again.
Wait we beat the #1 seeded team, 14-2 Chargers and you can even consider it easy. Classic Patriot hater.
from the same article....
let me quote this line specifically....."Chicago's three divisional foes were a combined 17-31 (.354) in 2006."
so that has alot to do with the easy schedule because they play in a cake division. but it seems like all the bears had to do was show up last year.
Similarly .... how do the raiders get the hardest schedule this year...they could barely even snap the ball last year let alone win some games.
On a final note...Poor Bills
The Raiders have the toughest schedule because it includes 6 division games against teams who went a combined 12-0 (2-0 x 3 that they play twice each) against them.
The toughest schedule thing is usually driven by your division. If you are awful and in a good division, you get atough schedule next time around.
There are only 2 games on every teams schedule that have anything to do with where they finished last year.
I just don't like the Pats playing on Sunday or Monday nights, they seem to not play well at night or on Monday's and if anything that might have an effect on our record. If we lose any other games besides the ones mentioned they will be games we play late in the evening.