Everyone is thirsting for WHEN teams are playing, with everyone looking to see how often their team gets prime-time games and if they are on special dates (i.e. Thanksgiving or Christmas).
However, the one thing that annoys me to no end is when people will complain about one team's schedule being easier than others, despite the fact that 14 of the 16 games are already pre-determined (the normal 6 division games + playing one set division in each conference - 4 games each). The reason teams who have great records (i.e. Packers and Patriots) end up having the "easiest" schedule is because they don't have to face themselves, yet their divisional opponents have their 15-1/13-3 records counted against their own schedules twice.
This is one of but many things that people need to be educated on when it comes to this. An analysis of strength of schedule (no particular order):
- For the most part, Strength of Schedule is combination of luck and strength of division. Why does New England have one of the easiest schedules next year? Check their division--no one finished better than 8-8. Also, check the divisions that they were already pre-assigned to: NFC West (aside from San Fran, same situation--no one better than 8-8) and the AFC South (weighed down by crappy Jaguars and Colts). Remember - 14 of EVERY TEAM'S 16 game schedule is already decided based on division and a rotating division in each conference. The only two games that are decided based on previous year's record - you play the equivalent place teams of the two divisions within your conference that you do not play already. Many times, the record of those teams isn't enough to offset the bad teams already on your schedule.
- Having an "easy" schedule does not equate to success. This should go without saying, but some people need to be reminded that the NFL changes greatly from year to year, with many teams making strong pushes and sharp declines out of nowhere. For example, any team who had the Colts on their schedule last year looked to be facing a 10-6 team from 2010, only to have Peyton Manning out for a year en route to a 2-14 season. Similarly, the 49ers went from 6-10 to 13-3 -- with many other examples in between on both extremes that show that looking at last year's record to see how tough this year's schedule will be is like using a compass to gauge the temperature.
Some examples of teams with tough schedules entering 2011 who did well: Detroit (tied for 3rd hardest schedule entering 2011 with six other teams at 133-123) went from 6-10 to 10-6 and their first playoff berth in ages. Houston (opponents 132-124 in 2010) did the same and won their first division title in franchise history.
The teams with the hardest schedules (Carolina at 142-114 and Buffalo at 137-119) didn't make the playoffs (both finished with 6 wins), but both teams finished with more wins than the year before (Carolina tripled their win total while Buffalo went from 4 to 6).
The teams with the easiest schedules entering the year (Arizona, Baltimore, San Francisco & Washington in Top 4) had mixed results, showing no particular pattern between how a team will do based on their opponent's record from last year. - Obviously, the point of the season that you play an opponent is important...but you can't tell me that a team has an easy schedule solely based on when you play a team. A guy I follow on Twitter made the argument that the Jets' schedule is killer out of the gate while the Patriots' toughest games are at home against the Niners and Texans. As I've stated before (and can't state enough) that 87.5% of your games are already pre-determined, so to figure out a way to make it so that the "good" teams you play throughout the season are spread out (so you're not stacking the deck against a team as this one Twitter follow of mine suggested w/ the Jets) is idiotic at best.
If your "easy" games out of the gate get you to a 2 or 3-0 record, does that improve your chances of making the playoffs? Sure, but if you're a true playoff team, you're going to find a way to beat the good/great teams (no matter where they come up on the schedule) on occasion while dominating the crap teams (let's say 65-70% - just to pull a number out of my ass). Let's say that you start a season with 4 teams who made the playoffs last year (2 at home, 2 on the road) - a 2-2 start isn't a bad first quarter of the year, 1-3/0-4, and it probably means you're not a good team to begin with. You can't use schedule as an excuse.
I do admit that timing of certain games will help a team win or lose a game or two that would have otherwise resulted in the opposite outcome - due to injuries, player development, weather, etc. But to say that the Patriots have a cakewalk of a schedule (compared to the Jets, who only have two different opponents) is really just saying that the Patriots are better than them and the difference between the different teams they face isn't much. - Strength of schedule entering a year is not what it will be when the year is done. Using the 2010 records of opponents and how their opponents actually fared can look like mirror images when the year is over.
Take a look at the chart below. A total of 10 teams saw their opponent's record change by more than 7 total wins, meaning that their average opponent increased or decreased their win total by 0.5 wins or more. There are plenty of reasons for a team's projected strength of schedule changes from preseason to actual season, many of them having to do with the improvement/decline of their own team and the improvement/decline of their opponents. When it comes to the decline of an opponent, a team obviously cannot control that - just take advantage of it.
Out of these 10 teams, six of them resulted in easier schedules (with the Patriots, Saints, Texans and Packers making it to the playoffs) - some may blame their weakened divisions for that, others may say the divisions became weaker BECAUSE of these teams. The four teams who had their schedule toughened by 10+ games from 2010 to 2011 (Cleveland, St. Louis, Tampa Bay & Minnesota) were among the league's worst teams in the league, so they may have contributed to their own tough schedule due to their suckiness. - If we use 2011 final Strength of Schedule and compare it to the 2012 version entering the year...here are some teams that could be looking at drastic changes in wins/losses:
Buffalo Bills go from a 133-123 schedule to a 121-135 schedule. If it plays out as such, I could see them getting up to 8 wins.
Baltimore goes from 122-134 to 134-122. Could mean a two-game decrease in wins if it plays out that way (10-6 record in 2012).
Indy goes from 138-118 to 128-128. Much of this is a product of going from playing first-place AFC teams in every division to last-place. A marginal improvement to 4-5 wins could be in order.
Dallas actually had one of the easiest schedules last year (119-137) and failed to take advantage of it, so their opponents which sport 129-127 in 2012 could actually make for a dip in wins for America's team.
Aside from Green Bay, everyone else in the NFC North (even Detroit) looks to make improvements if the 2012 schedule strength means anything. By no means are the Packers a lock to repeat as NFC North champions.
San Fran (13-3) and Arizona (8-8) will play tougher schedules, while the Rams, who had by far the most difficult schedule in 2011 (151-105 is 8 games harder than any other team in the league), should improve by at least a couple games.
Obviously, all of the above scenarios do not take health or other things into account. A team losing its starting QB (like Packers or Patriots) would throw everything completely off the rails. - You're probably wondering...how can Brian dismiss the strength of schedule, yet use an example above to see what teams could improve or decline next year? I don't think strength of schedule is a completely useless tool - it gives you an idea of how tough of opponents that you will have if the team plays similarly to the year before, which is often not the case. I do think some teams are consistent enough (consistently good and bad) from year to year, where looking at their record could prove to be useful in projecting expectations. But those teams that fluctuate 4+ wins year in/year out don't really help the SOS model all that much when predicting how your team will do next year.
Table of Strength of Schedule from end of 2010 for the 2011 season, how it changed as 2011 played out, and how much team improved/declined in win total. Strength of schedule for 2012 gathered from http://www.nflschedulesupersite.com/2012-nfl-strength-of-schedule/
| 2010 Win/Loss | 2011 Win/Loss | Difference | Net Team Wins | Playoffs? | 2012 Schedule | |
| AFC East | ||||||
| New England | 129-127 | 115-141 | -14 | -1 | yes | 116-140 |
| NY Jets | 133-123 | 128-128 | -5 | -3 | no | 126-130 |
| Miami | 130-126 | 129-127 | -1 | -1 | no | 127-129 |
| Buffalo | 137-119 (2) | 133-123 | -4 | 2 | no | 121-135 |
| AFC North | ||||||
| Balt | 117-139 | 122-134 | 5 | 0 | yes | 134-122 |
| Cincy | 121-135 | 126-130 | 5 | 5 | yes | 128-128 |
| Cleveland | 126-130 | 136-120 | 10 | -1 | no | 135-121 |
| Pitt | 121-135 | 126-130 | 5 | 0 | yes | 128-128 |
| AFC South | ||||||
| Tennessee | 125-131 | 121-135 | -4 | -3 | no | 123-133 |
| Indy | 133-123 | 138-118 | 5 | -8 | no | 128-128 |
| Jax | 132-124 | 128-128 | -4 | 3 | no | 128-128 |
| Houston | 132-124 | 116-140 | -16 | 4 | yes | 121-135 |
| AFC West | ||||||
| Denver | 133-123 | 133-123 | 0 | 4 | yes | 139-117 |
| San Diego | 133-123 | 132-124 | -1 | -1 | no | 133-123 |
| KC | 133-123 | 131-125 | -2 | -2 | no | 126-130 |
| Oakland | 126-130 | 129-127 | 3 | -1 | no | 127-129 |
| NFC East | ||||||
| Dallas | 129-127 | 119-137 | -10 | 2 | no | 129-127 |
| Washington | 121-135 | 122-134 | 1 | -1 | no | 125-131 |
| NY Giants | 126-130 | 133-123 | 7 | -1 | yes | 140-116 |
| Philly | 129-127 | 125-131 | -4 | -2 | no | 132-124 |
| NFC North | ||||||
| Green Bay | 130-126 | 116-140 | -14 | 5 | yes | 120-136 |
| Minnesota | 132-124 | 143-113 | 11 | -3 | no | 131-125 |
| Chicago | 128-128 | 135-121 | 7 | -3 | no | 126-130 |
| Detroit | 133-123 | 137-119 | 4 | 4 | yes | 126-130 |
| NFC West | ||||||
| San Fran | 119-137 | 114-142 | -5 | 7 | yes | 125-131 |
| Seattle | 125-131 | 131-125 | 6 | 0 | no | 129-127 |
| Arizona | 113-143 | 120-136 | 7 | 3 | no | 131-125 |
| St Louis | 122-134 | 151-105 | 29 | -5 | no | 134-122 |
| NFC South | ||||||
| New Orleans | 130-126 | 113-143 | -17 | 2 | yes | 129-127 |
| Atlanta | 126-130 | 123-133 | -3 | -3 | yes | 125-131 |
| Tampa Bay | 127-129 | 141-117 | 14 | -6 | no | 124-132 |
| Carolina | 142-114 (1) | 129-127 | -13 | 4 | no | 130-126 |
No comments:
Post a Comment