Every year, pro football fans are inundated with discussion regarding the team that has the toughest schedule or the easiest schedule or any of various points in between. Usually, it’s a creature of the media. But now the league – and at least one team – is pushing the concept as well.
On Friday afternoon, the Ravens issued a release passing along a “Strength of Schedule” analysis prepared by the league. The chart, which we’ll try to post separately, is based on last year’s results. It shows the total won-loss record in 2007 of each team’s 2008 opponents, the number of 2008 opponents who finished 2007 at or above .500, and the number of opponents in 2008 who made the playoffs in 2007.
The Ravens presumably opted to publicize the chart because they have the fourth most difficult schedule in the league. In the AFC North, however, they’re not alone. The Steelers have the most difficult schedule, the Bengals are No. 6, and the Browns are No. 7.
The reason? Under the NFL’s scheduling formula, the teams of the AFC North play in 2008 the four teams of the AFC South and the four teams of the NFC East in 2008. Since both of those divisions generated three playoff teams each in 2007, the numbers are skewed heavily against the teams of the AFC North.
Sure, the ”Strength of Schedule” thing is something to talk about. But does it really matter? In this age of free agency and parity and annual roster upheavals, last year has nothing to do with this year. Some good teams get bad. Some bad teams improve. On average, six of the twelve playoff teams from the prior season won’t make it back to the postseason in the next year.
So, please. Stop it. It’s ridiculous. To prove it, we’ll make a chart of our own after the 2008 regular season, and we’re convinced it will look much different than the preseason version.
Unless the chart after the season looks too much like the preseason chart. If that happens, we’ll just never mention any of this again.
_2.gif)






April 18th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
The whole”strength of schedule ” thing needs to be dismissed. MLB actually has it right. You play your division, you play a rotating division, and you play at-large games. It is way too easy for a team to reload over the course of an off-season to realistically consider how strong a team may or may not be when making the schedule.
Just play the damn games.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Instead of waiting for an entire season to play out, why don’t you just make two charts based on the 2007 season (one with opponents records from ‘06 and one with opponents records from ‘07) and see how they campare?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
A comparison from 2007 would work just as well, unless it doesn’t match your opinion.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
You should do an analysis of last year’s beginning of the year SOS vs. who happened to actually have the hardest SOS.
Of course, this is easy to say because it wouldn’t involve me doing it.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I agree, and I’ve always thought that s.o.s. was given too much valence. Injuries, surprise teams, Chad Johnson situations, etc. can completely change the way an entire season plays out.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
It’s not as much of WHO you play as it is WHEN you play them. Injuries, rookie development, momentum, and weather all have far greater impact on a game than what the teams did last year.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Plan and simple, teams want to release the stength of schedule for various reasons:
-Create an excuse for this season’s disappointment prior to pre-season play
-Create interest in the team if they do rip of some wins, against such a “tough” schedule
-Create interest in ticket sales saying “Hey, we are playing the best teams in the NFL, come and see us (get spanked)”
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
The only argument I believe any team can have related to strength of schedule would be in relation to how the games are scheduled. Back-to-back cross country trips or teams expected to be strong back-to-back instead of spacing them out. Still, the schedule is what it is and any team that complains about the hand they are dealt are just looking to build in a fall back excuse in the event they do not have a good season. Don’t blame us it was the schedule.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Several points here:
1. Strength-of-schedule calculations matter *much* more for Wild Card slots, since your competition includes teams from other divisions, who may face inferior/superior interconference opponents.
2. Within a given division, the teams will only differ in 3 games, their place-matched intraconference games with teams from the other divisions. (e.g. the Packers play the first place teams from the other NFC divisions) It would fascinating to compare the W/L records of teams in the same conference against these non-common opponents…It would give you some idea of whether or not the NFL’s effort to give better teams harder schedules is working.
3. Despite #2 above, a bad team like the Dolphins will often face a “harder” schedule than the first-place team (like the Patriots), because the Dolphins’ schedule is “distorted” by 2 games with the 16-0 Patriots, and the Patriots’ schedule is likewise distorted by 2 games with the 1-15 Dolphins.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Well, it matters to the Phins for reasons not mentioned in the article:
Only one early game in the Miami heat, an early bye week and a long run of consecutive road games including one outside the U.S. for a second consecutive season.
JMHO but I think Mike needs to take these in to account too when looking at the “Strength of Schedule” argument.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
wait, your team isn’t trembling in fear of going up against the BUCS?!?! And the roided crying CHARGERS?!?! And the Favre-less PACKERS?!?! Would we even be surprised if the GIANTS go 8-8? And who wants to play the SEAHAWKS or TITANS?!?! Oh, put your hands down hippy.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Why wait until after the 2008 season? Do the analysis for last season. All of the data is available.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I don’t think da Chicago Bears’ schedule this year is that bad, though there are some definite tough games. Like the opening one :(. I disagree slightly with Mike Florio in somewhat dismissing the strength of the schedules. They do make a difference. And even if a team has a haaaaaard schedule but does very well, who’s to say that the team couldn’t have done even better? But, obviously, the schedule is what it is. There obviously will not be a scenario where all 32 teams play each other once. Also, it doesn’t matter too much if a schedule is easy if … the teams sucks (like the Bears last year). We had an easy ish schedule but finished 7-9. You do have to feel a little bit for the AFC North, though. I can see a playoff-deserving team getting ousted and having an inferior team takes its place in the playoffs. We shall see.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Take a look at the Patsies 2008 schedule.
Then take a look at the Stillers 2008 schedule.
Then please delete this article.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
then ask the pats if they wanna switch scheds with the steelers…..they would never do it.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I’m sure Florio posted this because he’s a five-star Patriots ballwasher who doesn’t want people complaining about the Patriots having the easiest 2008-09 sked in the league.
I think most people understand injuries and roster changes make schedule strength percentages fairly irrelevant by the time the season starts.
So maybe this story was just written less as an information piece, and more as the response of a hair-trigger, self-defense mechanism.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I guess the word “fallacy” should be replaced with “phallacy” on how teams are crying what they’ve got from the League. Shut up and play the game. They sound like Soccer players trying to get that red card on a fake flop.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Werd.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Definitely agree about taking into consideration off-season upheavals in rosters AND coaching staff. Even as a Pats fan, I have to say that 16-0 (versus, say, 13-3 perhaps) was due in part to coaching changes among the supposedly toughest teams they faced.
Another thing to consider is how a team compiled its previous season’s W-L record. What were the final W-L records of their opponents? Did they pick up any cheap wins due to an injury to a key player, like the QB, of an opponent’s team? The same case could be made about stats like rushing yardage.
A team making claims about how “tough” it’s current schedule is that is based simply on their opponents’ W-L records from the previous season alone is serving thin broth.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Well, I can understand how the whole division could have a tough schedule, but I cannot understand how the team that finished last in the division could have a harder schedule than two teams (Browns and Bengals) who finished higher in the standings within the division. Can you please shed some light on this? Or is it totally wrong?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Nevermind, I figured it out. The Browns and Bengals have the luxury of playing the Ravens twice, thereby lowering their strength of schedule, whereas the Ravns have to play the Browns and Bengals, two teams with better records, twice.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Umm…doesn’t the “strength of schedule” of THIS year affect the final records of the teams AFTER the season is finished? So…a team with a strong schedule could be expected to lose more often than it did the prior year with a “weaker” schedule…and, vice versa…wouldn’t a team who finished poorly LAST year, but had a “weak” schedule THIS year increase its win-loss percentage?
If, as Florio suggests, the W-L records AFTER the season do not reflect the strength-of-schedule factor PRIOR to the season, then we would be doing little more than giving credibility to the NFL’s purpose behind it’s scheduling philosophy…which is to give the weaker teams a weaker schedule.
So, of course, the end-of-season records will belie the pre-season “strength of schedule”…it’s SUPPOSED to…playoff teams get stronger opponents and take dings to their records…weaker teams get weaker opponents and puff up their records.
I’m not agreeing that this is a great way to do it…just commenting on the god-like (yes, I just called Florio a god) prediction of the owner of this website. So, sue me.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
It would take A LOT of work to figure out (sorry Florio), but I would love to know if there are ANY trends regarding SOS and Super Bowl winners. My initial guess would be that it’s meaningless as to who ends up the champ.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 18th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
If I were eating a bowl of cereal, I would have accidentally spilled it on my Toshiba Laptop, as a PFT fan (Valkannon) called Mike Florio a god. What is this world coming to?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 18th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
While I agree with Florio, is there any way in HELL that the Ravens should have a harder schedule than the Browns, who finished with a better record and thus should be playing two games against lesser opponents? Would it be fair if the Raiders played a harder schedule than the Chargers? Well yes but that is because I hate the Raiders. Would it be fair if the Patriots played a softer schedule than the Dolphins? Actually they do. They play two games against the DOlphins. I guess I just solved the riddle.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)