Idiot opposing fans complaining about our strength of schedule next year

[neuronet]

@neuronet I enjoy these sorts of math/logic puzzles too (and have actually had this conversation in this forum before so I am going to borrow from my own posts). Here is why it has to be the way it is:

We know 6 games are against the division and 4 against the NFC, so let's throw those out. We also rotate through the other 3 AFC divisions every 3 years. For example, in 2017 we play the AFCW (home against KC and SD, on the road against Oak and Den). We will play the AFCW again in 2020, reversing the home team of 2017 (so in 2020 we are home against Oak and Dev, on the road against KC and SD).

So the trick is how do you schedule the 2 "positional" games every year? (By "positional game" I mean the game where the Patriots play 1 team from another AFC division who finished in the same position the previous year).

Here are the position games for the AFC East for 6 years. The challenge is to construct them in such a way that you do not have 2 consecutive home or 2 consecutive away games with one division.

2014: North, South
2015: North, West
2016: South, West
2017: North, South
2018: North, West
2019: South, West

So let's say we set it like this:

2014: North Home, South Away
2015: West Home, North Away
2016: South Home, West Away
2017: North Home, South Away
2018: West Home, North Away
2019: South Home, West Away

Here are the positional games for the AFC North:

2014: East, West
2015: East, South
2016: West, South
2017: East, West
2018: East, South
2019: West, South

Here's the impossible part: Construct those in such a way so that you do not have 2 consecutive home or 2 consecutive away games against one division AND it stays compatible with the schedule we already set up for the AFC East AND (needless to say) you have maintain the integrity of every team have 8 home games and 8 road games.

Thanks a lot. Literally the first post at patsfans I needed to print out and study and diagram to understand.

 

[Koma]

SOS is rubbish. What relevance does the season prior have to the upcoming season?

I agree, but this topic always comes up in the offseason, so it's useful for discussion fodder. The problem is that some people (not in this thread, but in the FB comments reference by OP) don't realize teams would need to repeat their 2016 records for the projected 2017 SOS talk to have any real meaning. If there was a way to guarantee that the Patriots will win 14 games, Denver 9, Green Bay 10, Dallas 13 and so on, then it would have some merit. Every year, though, some teams improve and some teams regress, so these calculations in February don't have much meaning.

 

[1960Pats]

I like Strength of victory. Means a lot more than Strength of Schedule to me. It's the record of teams that you beat.
As I said above the Pats were #1 and Falcons were #2 in 2016 in SoV. And the Super Bowl went exactly to chalk. Go figure.

Are there results from other seasons? I've never used strength of victory.

 

[ausbacker]

I agree, but this topic always comes up in the offseason, so it's useful for discussion fodder. The problem is that some people (not in this thread, but in the FB comments reference by OP) don't realize teams would need to repeat their 2016 records for the projected 2017 SOS talk to have any real meaning. If there was a way to guarantee that the Patriots will win 14 games, Denver 9, Green Bay 10, Dallas 13 and so on, then it would have some merit. Every year, though, some teams improve and some teams regress, so these calculations in February don't have much meaning.

If you're going to discuss strength of schedule, it's more appropriate for the actual season, each team's record at the time of playing and each team's record at the end of the regular season. What happened in the season prior is of no relevance.

 

[neuronet]

I agree, but this topic always comes up in the offseason, so it's useful for discussion fodder. The problem is that some people (not in this thread, but in the FB comments reference by OP) don't realize teams would need to repeat their 2016 records for the projected 2017 SOS talk to have any real meaning. If there was a way to guarantee that the Patriots will win 14 games, Denver 9, Green Bay 10, Dallas 13 and so on, then it would have some merit. Every year, though, some teams improve and some teams regress, so these calculations in February don't have much meaning.

It's not like it is uninformative. I bet if you posted win percentage in season N on the x-axis versus win percentage in season N+1 on the y-axis from the last 20 years for all teams, you would end up with a highly significant positive correlation. So it isn't as if we have some random, uninformative relationship. Yes, there would be a lot of noise and variation, but it's a pretty good predictor.

Let people have their offseason fun...

 

[cupofjoe1962]

Wait until they see our 2018 schedule.
I know a lot can change in 2 years, but I like out chances with this schedule.

Home
--------
Jets
Dolphins
Bills
Texans
Colts
Packers
Vikings
AFC West*

Away
-------
Jets
Dolphins
Bills
Jaguars
Titans
Bears
Lions
AFC North*

* Teams from that division that finishes in that spot in the 2017 Standings

The only possible tough game based on today's rosters is the Packers, & we get them at home.

Many predict the Titans on the rise, but who knows...

 

[1960Pats]

As to the ridiculous notion that the reason for the Pats success has anything to do with playing a weaker schedule, I would answer those brain dead buffoons with a few facts;
- Tom Brady has led the Pats to a .735 playoff winning %, which is better than all but two QB's regular season winning %, Otto Graham (.814) and Roger Staubach (.746), both of whom played for about half as long as Brady.
- Tom Brady also has a better playoff record than all but three QB's, Terry Bradshaw (by just .002%) Otto Graham and Bart Starr, but all of them also played many less games.
- Tom Brady is the reason for the Pats' success.

 

[KamikazeKnight]

Clearly a statistical flaw. 2 of the AFCE teams are in the top 10 and the Pats are playing pretty much the same schedule except for 2 games. And in those 2 game, by vertue of winning the division, they will play to TOP team of the other division.

So clearly not being able to play their 14-2 selves creates the statisical error.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, the entire AFC East (except New England) is in the list of hardest schedules.

Really makes you think.