WEAK SCHEDULE THEORY

[Ring 6]

I don't want to battle you over it, but it is not true and not really defendable. It is a fact, that a better TEAM can lose to a lessor team. And that can happen in the Super Bowl or even the playoffs. I understand feeling that the championship is everything, but it does not, in fact, determine the BEST team, necessarily. It often will be the case that the best team becomes the champion, but it is not necessary for the best team to become the champion. I'm sorry, but those are the facts of the case.

EDIT:And noone is entitled to their own facts.

Of course it does. It is the reason you play. If you play to win a championship and you don't you are not best at the goal everyone is playing for. You may be best at something else, you may have been best for many days but in the end you weren't the best because the best is defined by the league rules.

And your opinion of who is better than who is certainly not a fact.

 

[mosslost]

Of course it does. It is the reason you play. If you play to win a championship and you don't you are not best at the goal everyone is playing for. You may be best at something else, you may have been best for many days but in the end you weren't the best because the best is defined by the league rules.

And your opinion of who is better than who is certainly not a fact.

Not my opinion. I am just giving you obvious, observable, information.

 

[Ring 6]

Sure, but I'm not sold that the correlation is causation here. The only analysis I've conducted showed that the 2010 Patriots had a very tough schedule and they demolished some of the best teams in the league on the way to 14-2. They didn't seem like they were out of gas like the 2007 team.



I would have to take your word for it. I've never seen any facts or study to back it up or refute it. All I know is that the one time I looked at it, the correlation didn't hold up.

So I did a little digging and looked at strength of schedule. I don't like this as much as my 2010 analysis where I assessed the record of the team at the time the Pats faced them because it's important to factor that in as well, since teams become better or worse as the season progresses. Anyway, this will do for a quick look. I put the rank out of 32 is in parentheses.

*Note: This is based on the strength of schedule as it comes out the next season; for example the 2015 numbers reflect the 2016 "strength of schedule" where they use the final record of the 2015 season.

2015 - Denver (14), Carolina (12)
2014 - New England (22), Seattle (4)
2013 - Seattle (6), Denver (2)
2012 - Baltimore (5), San Francisco (9)
2011 - NY Giants (1), New England (32)
2010 - Green Bay (13), Pittsburgh (27)
2009 - New Orleans (27), Indianapolis (11)
2008 - Pittsburgh Steelers (29), Arizona (27)
2007 - NY Giants (15), New England (32)
2006 - Indianapolis (5), Chicago (31)
2005 - Pittsburgh (7), Seattle (29)

So we see a few things here.

Average SB winners strength of schedule: 13th in the league
Average SB losers strength of schedule: 20th in the league

Some takeaways:

- Five times the team with the weaker schedule beat the team with the stronger schedule, but interestingly, that's happened in each of the last three Super Bowls.

- New England managed to reach the Super Bowl twice despite having the easiest schedule, though they lost both times.

- New England (2014) is one of only three Champions since 2005 to have a strength of schedule in the lower third of the league.

Overall, I see a correlation between teams with stronger schedules beating teams with weaker schedules in the big game, but when we factor in just getting to the Super Bowl, the average strength of schedule is 16th in the league; rather pedestrian.

I realize that it's only a SOS comparison and it only goes back to 2005, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper. I just wanted to see what the numbers say.

Getting to the SB and losing after playing a weak schedule would be an argument that favors battle testing being important.
Look I haven't and won't analyze it. I said from the start it's my impression and it makes sense to me not that I have a theorem to prove it.

 

[Ring 6]

Not my opinion. I am just giving you obvious, observable, information.

Who is better among 2 teams is 100% opinion unless you base it in a head to head result.
yiu can't even agree on what best means.

 

[Ring 6]

There's a difference between being the best and being the greatest. Champions are the greatest. But teams who lose are still worthy of being remembered and appreciated.

Truthfully, I wish they kept up the 16-0 banner.

There is a system in place to determine the best. The league does not recognize the team that lost but you think was better.
Teams do not play to be able to argue they were better they play to win by the rules which means winning the championship.

 

[RobertWeathers]

That banner definitely should have stayed up. (Since they put it up in the first place) It can be debated whether you should have put it up in the first place. But it is definitely stupid that they took it down.

Also, back to this whole "greatest" team thing.. The 16-0, has been done once. teams as rediculous as Tampa Bay can win a super bowl once in a while, and somebody wins it every year. 16-0 regular season happened once, and 18-1 has happened I think three times. (85 Bears, 07 Pats, and maybe one of the 49er teams) there might be one or two others I'm not sure

EDIT: 18 and 1 has happened three times.. 84 49ers, 85 Bears, 07 Pats

People have said the 16-0 banner is a participation trophy and I think that is ********. While they didn't win the SB, they accomplished plenty. While 2nd place is not as good as 1st place, if you do your best and accomplish the unthinkable, while it doesn't entitle you to anything, I think that deserves acknowledgement. Its a judgement call and a fine line but thats how I feel about it.

Yea not to get historical but even if the 07 Pats won and became immortalized, I'm not sure I would have put them ahead of the 04 Pats on the GoAT list as the 04 team was more well-rounded. Hell I don't even have the 72 Fins in the top 5. ****head Shula is on record as saying the 73 team was a more talented, better team.

 

[fnordcircle]

2016 Regular Season Participant

 

[deroc5050]

Truly one of the worst losses of the Belichick/Brady era.

That 2010 team seemed Super-Bowl bound. I don't know what happened.

'

Brady threw a bad pick.. because I think Welker was benched on the first drive for making feet jokes.

 

[fnordcircle]

2010 used to bum me out but then I realized that that is the highlight of the entire Jets' fandom since SBIII.

Which just makes me laugh now cause man....that sucks for them to have a single playoff win be all they have to cling to.

 

[deroc5050]

07 was the best team 04 second best

04 because of the air and ground attack and a dominant defense. They were the most balanced team. I thought 03's defense was amazing. 07 was right up their but they were slowed down on offense as the season went on.

04#1
07#2
03#3
14#4

01 was the best though, it was fun watching that team. I never thought they were going to win.

 

[deroc5050]

The NFL is like 5 mini seasons, Every 4 games during the regular season is a snap shot of a team. Over 4 games a team in the NFL can change dramatically, whether they get key players back or they just start gelling and start executing better. Or more commonly losing key players. The playoffs is the fifth season.

If you take into account the whole season like the 07 Patriots they were the best team in the NFL with a 16-0 record. But they fell short to a lowly 9-7 team that got lucky and made some incredible plays. I can't say the 9-7 Giants were better than the 16-0 Patriots in 07 and remember the Patriots had a pretty tough schedule in 07.. they weren't beating up on the sisters of the poor.

 

[pazrul72]

I think 03 was the best team. But I define team by winning not stats. The 03 team would have beaten the 04 team mostly due to the secondary

I am seriously surprised you think that. 04 had clock killin Dillion in his prime 1600+ yards that year missing a game due to injury. 03 had....I think the corpse of Antwain Smith? Yeah the defense might have been a little better in 03 but 04 had the better all around balance. The offense could run it down your throat or air it out to givens and branch. The d was nasty against the run and the pass. The 03 team offense was not nearly as good (branch maturing and no Dillion.) so I believe in a scrimmage between the 2 they would not have the ball long enough to put up enough points 04 wins 24-16 IMO

 

[Ring 6]

I am seriously surprised you think that. 04 had clock killin Dillion in his prime 1600+ yards that year missing a game due to injury. 03 had....I think the corpse of Antwain Smith? Yeah the defense might have been a little better in 03 but 04 had the better all around balance. The offense could run it down your throat or air it out to givens and branch. The d was nasty against the run and the pass. The 03 team offense was not nearly as good (branch maturing and no Dillion.) so I believe in a scrimmage between the 2 they would not have the ball long enough to put up enough points 04 wins 24-16 IMO

Look at the secondary the 03 and 04 teams put on the field in the playoffs.

 

[pazrul72]

Look at the secondary the 03 and 04 teams put on the field in the playoffs.

Yeah...the same 04 secondary that **** down pay me a ton during the best season of his career? I don't count 2013 cuz that had a ton more to do with D Thomas etc taking 5 yard slants 80 yards to the house then great QB play. Point being yeah the 03 defense was better overall but the 04 offense was SO much better that the 04 team would IMO beat the 03 team by a TD. Basically the 04 team would get the ball with 6 mins left and just run out the clock. They did it game after game with 9 men in the box. CKD was the greatest closer I have ever seen that year.

 

[Pats1989]

I went through this analysis in 2010 when the Pats were steamrolling everyone. At some point late in the season, the numbers added up that it was the toughest schedule the Pats had faced in the TFB/BB era. They went 14-2. We know what happened next...

So I don't buy the weak/strong schedule crap. The games are played on the field.

Ironically l wonder if smoking the Jets 45-3 on MNF was a death kill in disguise. That amped them up for the rematch. They played the game of their lives. Wanted revenge. Than adding on Welkers comments etc. If we had lost or won a close one, are the Jets as amped up? Conversely, it seemed like beating the Pats was their SB. They came out very flat vs Steelers and could never catch up...

 

[1960Pats]

Sure, but I'm not sold that the correlation is causation here. The only analysis I've conducted showed that the 2010 Patriots had a very tough schedule and they demolished some of the best teams in the league on the way to 14-2. They didn't seem like they were out of gas like the 2007 team.

I would have to take your word for it. I've never seen any facts or study to back it up or refute it. All I know is that the one time I looked at it, the correlation didn't hold up.

So I did a little digging and looked at strength of schedule. I don't like this as much as my 2010 analysis where I assessed the record of the team at the time the Pats faced them because it's important to factor that in as well, since teams become better or worse as the season progresses. Anyway, this will do for a quick look. I put the rank out of 32 is in parentheses.

*Note: This is based on the strength of schedule as it comes out the next season; for example the 2015 numbers reflect the 2016 "strength of schedule" where they use the final record of the 2015 season.

2015 - Denver (14), Carolina (12)
2014 - New England (22), Seattle (4)
2013 - Seattle (6), Denver (2)
2012 - Baltimore (5), San Francisco (9)
2011 - NY Giants (1), New England (32)
2010 - Green Bay (13), Pittsburgh (27)
2009 - New Orleans (27), Indianapolis (11)
2008 - Pittsburgh Steelers (29), Arizona (27)
2007 - NY Giants (15), New England (32)
2006 - Indianapolis (5), Chicago (31)
2005 - Pittsburgh (7), Seattle (29)

So we see a few things here.

Average SB winners strength of schedule: 13th in the league
Average SB losers strength of schedule: 20th in the league

Some takeaways:

- Five times the team with the weaker schedule beat the team with the stronger schedule, but interestingly, that's happened in each of the last three Super Bowls.

- New England managed to reach the Super Bowl twice despite having the easiest schedule, though they lost both times.

- New England (2014) is one of only three Champions since 2005 to have a strength of schedule in the lower third of the league.

Overall, I see a correlation between teams with stronger schedules beating teams with weaker schedules in the big game, but when we factor in just getting to the Super Bowl, the average strength of schedule is 16th in the league; rather pedestrian.

I realize that it's only a SOS comparison and it only goes back to 2005, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper. I just wanted to see what the numbers say.

I enjoy seeing these kind of posts. I'm kind of in the same place.

I've been going back and forth on how to get an accurate SOS, using the records or rating at the time they play or by adjusting the teams entire season as teams change. My thinking on adjusting the entire season is that in the long run it could be closer to all teams' true strength if I use the latest rankings for all weeks.

In the end I decided to do it both ways to see how much of a difference it makes. For the rankings I decided to use multiple power rankings each week, throw out the high and the low and then number each team 1-32.

I've also kept track both ways on the record of teams vs those same power rankings.
Using the rankings at the time the game was played, the record of the lower ranked teams is right now 113-77-2.
Using the latest rankings and inserting those in for the season, the record for those teams jumps to 137-53-2.

The SOS that I came up with based off those rankings has the Pats at 29 or 31, depending on which method was used.

SOS using rankings at the time;
1 Cincinnati
T2 Atlanta
T2 Minnesota
T4 Philadelphia
T4 Tampa Bay
6 Carolina
7 San Diego
8 Buffalo
T9 Jacksonville
T9 Pittsburgh
11 Denver
12 NY Jets
T13 Houston
T13 Seattle
T13 Washington
16 San Francisco
17 Dallas
18 Green Bay
19 New Orleans
20 Kansas City
T21 Cleveland
T21 Miami
23 Detroit
24 Arizona
25 NY Giants
26 Los Angeles
27 Oakland
28 Indianapolis
29 New England
30 Chicago
31 Baltimore
32 Tennessee

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

Some of the differences are large. Using one method the Browns are tied for 21st and the other they're tied for 1st.
Minny goes from 2nd to 10th.

One problem that comes with doing this is that when teams are playing such different schedules it's more difficult to rank the teams based on records, and it becomes a little more difficult when teams play in the SB. Those two teams have played far different schedules.

 

[LuRkeR1978]

The 01 team was a lot better than you think.

Yup. They beat Cinci in the opener, and Brady doesn't throw 4 ints in the 4th qtr @Denver...01 Pats would 13-3 same record as the Steelers that year. Although the Steelers get #1 seed due to the weak 6 team AFC central.

 

[deroc5050]

I enjoy seeing these kind of posts. I'm kind of in the same place.

I've been going back and forth on how to get an accurate SOS, using the records or rating at the time they play or by adjusting the teams entire season as teams change. My thinking on adjusting the entire season is that in the long run it could be closer to all teams' true strength if I use the latest rankings for all weeks.

In the end I decided to do it both ways to see how much of a difference it makes. For the rankings I decided to use multiple power rankings each week, throw out the high and the low and then number each team 1-32.

I've also kept track both ways on the record of teams vs those same power rankings.
Using the rankings at the time the game was played, the record of the lower ranked teams is right now 113-77-2.
Using the latest rankings and inserting those in for the season, the record for those teams jumps to 137-53-2.

The SOS that I came up with based off those rankings has the Pats at 29 or 31, depending on which method was used.

SOS using rankings at the time;
1 Cincinnati
T2 Atlanta
T2 Minnesota
T4 Philadelphia
T4 Tampa Bay
6 Carolina
7 San Diego
8 Buffalo
T9 Jacksonville
T9 Pittsburgh
11 Denver
12 NY Jets
T13 Houston
T13 Seattle
T13 Washington
16 San Francisco
17 Dallas
18 Green Bay
19 New Orleans
20 Kansas City
T21 Cleveland
T21 Miami
23 Detroit
24 Arizona
25 NY Giants
26 Los Angeles
27 Oakland
28 Indianapolis
29 New England
30 Chicago
31 Baltimore
32 Tennessee

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

Some of the differences are large. Using one method the Browns are tied for 21st and the other they're tied for 1st.
Minny goes from 2nd to 10th.

One problem that comes with doing this is that when teams are playing such different schedules it's more difficult to rank the teams based on records, and it becomes a little more difficult when teams play in the SB. Those two teams have played far different schedules.

That's why these next 2 weeks are so important. Playoff like games. I have a bad feeling about the Baltimore game more so than the Denver game. Even though I think Denver's defense matches up with our offense better than Baltimore. Baltimore really needs to win or they are in serious trouble because they end the season @Pitt and @Cinci and Cincy always plays Baltimore tough.

Baltimore can't run the ball so they are going to be testing our secondary all day long with a vertical passing attack.

 

[1960Pats]

That's why these next 2 weeks are so important. Playoff like games. I have a bad feeling about the Baltimore game more so than the Denver game. Even though I think Denver's defense matches up with our offense better than Baltimore. Baltimore really needs to win or they are in serious trouble because they end the season @Pitt and @Cinci and Cincy always plays Baltimore tough.

Baltimore can't run the ball so they are going to be testing our secondary all day long with a vertical passing attack.

I'm almost always uneasy. I wasn't feeling too bad about the Rams game though. They might be worse than the Jets. Oh, wait, I guess not.

Oakland isn't in a cakewalk either with their remaining games, at KC, SD and Den and home for Indy.

 

[mosslost]

Who is better among 2 teams is 100% opinion unless you base it in a head to head result.
yiu can't even agree on what best means.

false actually