When I look at NFL strength of schedule numbers that use last year’s wins and losses as their lone barometer, I have to laugh. A true strength of schedule (SOS) number will incorporate this year’s projections, not a look back at last year. Look for a blog entry from me on that subject next week.
But there is something to be gained from looking at last year’s SOS – the differential between last year’s schedule and this year’s. It’s a problematic exercise, however, because the numbers from the full season for last year do not accurately display the current form of the opposing team at the time the game was played. Here are some examples.
Teams that played the Tennessee Titans in the first five weeks of the season were playing the weakest team in the NFL. Tennessee started 0-5, losing those games by an average of 15 points per game. But if you played the Titans in December, you were facing a red hot juggernaut, as they reeled off six consecutive victories. Buffalo, too, was a team that played much better in December than September.
Ben Roethlisberger missed time due to his appendectomy. Matt Hasselbeck missed time due to injury as well.
The Eagles went 4-1 to open the season, then 1-5 in their next six games before closing out the season with five straight wins. Philly was a completely different team in November than they were behind Jeff Garcia in December.
The Giants were as good as anybody in the NFL through the first half of the season, then went 2-6 down the stretch. Big difference if you played the Giants early vs. playing them late.
It’s the same story with the Falcons, who started out the season looking like a juggernaut, 5-2 in their first seven games. Standard strength of schedule formulations show no difference if you faced Atlanta in September or in December, when they were in the midst of a 2-7 slide to end the season.
Obviously, there are numerous other examples. I’ve just cherry-picked a few for demonstration purposes. My TRUE strength of schedule indicator is far more accurate than anything I’ve seen elsewhere, giving us a good barometer to compare last year’s SOS with what teams are expected to face in 2007.
The numbers below are an average of the power ratings that I make and use each week for my NFL handicapping. However, due to the bizarre nature of Week 17, I excluded that week entirely, making it a 15 game average, not a 16 game average. Remember, the Lions beat the Cowboys Week 17, etc, as numerous teams were resting starters.
The Jets and the Bills played twelve common opponents last year, and two games against each other. In their two ‘other’ games, New York faced Cleveland and Oakland (Week 17; not counted in my averages). Buffalo’s two other games were San Diego and Baltimore (also Week 17, and not counted). Clearly, the Bills played ONE game that was tougher than what the Jets played. Their strength of schedule numbers for last year should be slightly tougher than the Jets.
But the reality was that the Bills played a bunch of teams when those teams were hot, while the Jets played many of those same teams when those teams were struggling. Hence the disparity between the two strength of schedules, despite having only ONE opponent that was different for the purposes of this study.
Teams are listed from the most difficult 2006 schedule (the Giants) to the weakest 2006 schedule (the Bears).
| Team |
weekly pr |
| Giants |
15.33 |
| Bengals |
15.26 |
| Bucs |
15.23 |
| Bills |
15.13 |
| Texans |
15.10 |
| Browns |
14.96 |
| Titans |
14.60 |
| Broncos |
14.56 |
| Dolphins |
14.56 |
| Raiders |
14.53 |
| Jaguars |
14.40 |
| Redskins |
14.40 |
| Steelers |
14.36 |
| Ravens |
14.13 |
| Chiefs |
14.06 |
| Falcons |
14.00 |
| 49ers |
13.96 |
| Patriots |
13.93 |
| Colts |
13.80 |
| Saints |
13.76 |
| Cowboys |
13.73 |
| Lions |
13.70 |
| Cardinals |
13.66 |
| Seahawks |
13.56 |
| Jets |
13.53 |
| Panthers |
13.50 |
| Rams |
13.40 |
| Eagles |
13.36 |
| Vikings |
13.33 |
| Packers |
13.23 |
| Chargers |
12.96 |
| Bears |
12.26 |
