- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 16,409
- Reaction score
- 27,594
Up 4 and driving again, halfway through the 3rd just about.Geez - I didn't even think that the Bengals could possibly win this game...
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.Up 4 and driving again, halfway through the 3rd just about.Geez - I didn't even think that the Bengals could possibly win this game...
I thought we would benefit more if Seattle won.So if the Steelers and Bengals both win (both currently leading), it's 139-131 a piece, right?
I thought the same.I thought we would benefit more if Seattle won.
No?
I thought we would benefit more if Seattle won.
No?
correct, for SOS root for Sea, Den, Cinn...KC will screw usI thought we would benefit more if Seattle won.
No?
It would, then Washington would be 139-131, and the Patriots would be 138-132.I thought we would benefit more if Seattle won.
No?
And Cinci is about to lose so we went 0-2. Killer.This just updated again at the completion of the Seattle, Pittsburgh game. Patriots still sit at #3
I'm fairly sure I've posted that here somewhere. (Divisional opponents count twice, period.)No, @venecol , @Ross12 and @ctpatsfan77 are right - I had to extend the decimal places, which is the current factor. What throws things off is that division opponents are projected and counted twice until the second meetings are played, which @Ross12 and I figured out previously based on how Tankathon tracks it.
And the league lists the conference records as a tie-breaker, but it is based on their own conferences, etc. So in the case, it would then come down to head-to-head, common opponents, etc.
I think you did, and Ross and I figured out the math on the Divisional opponents total, which was interesting. Funny that for 20-years, I never really delved too deep into this, so it's been sort of interesting to try and piece it all together.I'm fairly sure I've posted that here somewhere. (Divisional opponents count twice, period.)
Those are already counted in the Tankathon numbers, sorry.If division counts twice, then Washington is adding 5 extra wins to their schedule compared to us with the difference in Jets and Dallas.
That's quite a bit to make up in one day.
Lose and were pick 2.
They actually aren’t.Those are already counted in the Tankathon numbers, sorry.
I don't believe that's how it works. All of WA's opponents wins & losses (x2 for division opponents) are totaled to give a SoS percentage such as .515. So if they lose to Dallas, who they played twice, their opponents win total increases by 2 and the percentage recalculated accordingly. If we also lose to the Jets, our opponents win total also increases by 2. So nothing would change in terms of SoS percentage due to those games, but our other opponents and their other opponents are also playing so those games also affect the calculation.But...
Washington & NE are tied at 4-12 with a .515 strength of schedule.
Washington plays Dallas.
NE plays Jets.
If both lose, Washington lost to a 12-win team and NE lost to a 7-win team.
Would that tweak the strength of schedule slightly in NE's favor?
If so, a loss to the Jets could reinstall NE at #2.
correct. Say all your 14 opponents each end up with a record of 9-8, then there would be 17 occurrences of 9-8 in the calculation (division opponents counted twice apiece).They actually aren’t.
I did the math on this. While tankathon SAYS they pre-count all future opponents, they actually don’t. They’re only counting games played so far. You can run the numbers yourself. The percentage tweet they posted earlier about NE vs WSH SOS matched exactly the figure that you would come up with if you excluded all unplayed games from your calculations.
Edit: Actually, I dug deeper into this and it looks like they do project games for division opponents as a double-count, so I am partially offbase here.
| 736 | 30K |
| 41 | 4K |
From our archive - this week all-time:
April 2 - April 17 (Through 26yrs)











