debunking the Strength of Schedule debate

In college football, there seems to be three main criterion for rankings: 40% record, 20% game performance (style points), 40% strength of schedule. Obviously, to be considered for the national championship you have to have very few (if any) losses, you have to look good in your games (especially against the bad teams), and you better play some tough opponents.

In the NFL there are just two factors: wins in the regular season, and wins in the playoffs.

But in our time of 24/7 sports TV and radio and internet access, there is a lot of debate about rankings and strength of schedule and who “earned” their playoff berth versus who “walked into it” in the NFL. What’s better, a 13-3 team who played a cupcake schedule, or a 9-7 team that scraped and clawed their way into the playoffs? (Ironically, 2011 Patriots and Giants?)

The conclusion of the season provides an opportune time to undertake solving this NFL “strength of schedule” issue once and for all--albeit in retrospect, but also looking ahead to the postseason.

The one formula that people seem to lean on most (because it's the easiest to find) to determine strength of schedule (hereafter SOS) is the record of a team’s opponents from the previous year. Here is a link that displays that information.

For the whole league, Giants and Broncos had the hardest schedule, Patriots and Packers had the easiest. It is no wonder that the Patriots and Packers were the overwhelming preseason picks for this year’s Super Bowl. That is a useful reference in July and August, but is rather out of date at this point.

Here are the points that I analyzed:

- Team’s opponent’s record at the time of each game (Gameday). (In Week 3 the Redskins played the 1-1 Bengals and Week 10 played the 3-6 Eagles.) This roughly shows how well a teams’ opponents were playing at the time of the matchup.

- Final composite record of all scheduled opponents (Final record). (In Week 3 the Redskins played the 10-6 Bengals and Week 10 played the 4-12 Eagles.)

- Final composite record of all scheduled opponents in other games (Other games). (Redskins played the 10-6 Bengals, minus the game against the Redskins = 9-6; and the 4-12 Eagles, minus the games against the Redskins = 4-10.) This may be the best overall indicator.

- Number of games against opponents that won six or fewer games (Easy games). (Most teams played about five.) Is there a big difference between playing the Bills and the Jaguars? The composite record/”SOS” difference is huge (4 games), but in reality, it’s basically an equally easy matchup. Sure, no NFL coach will admit that any game is “easy”, but a team with a high number of games against bad teams had a cushy schedule.

- Number of games against opponents that finished above .500 (.500+). These are the real meaningful games. I also included record in those games, which is an indication of performance more than just SOS, but it is interesting.

- I also include projected SOS based on opponents’ 2011 record (Last SOS) for a reference, not included in the overall analysis.

I analyzed the 14 teams that finished with a winning record (9-7 or better): the twelve playoff teams plus Giants and Bears. I then ranked the 14 teams based on their SOS. I also included a random team, the Lions, just for fun.

(click on this picture or open in a new tab/window to see it full size)

Notes/Observations

- Due to the 49ers/Rams tie, as well as bye weeks happening at different times, the numbers aren’t equal across the board. It’s okay.

- The Vikings’ turnaround into a playoff team and Adrian Peterson’s breakout are even more remarkable when you consider that this 3-13 team a year ago drove the toughest road throughout the season of any team to get in, including 9 games against great teams. They played their opponents at their strongest times, a combined 71-46 (nobody they played had more than 6 losses on that day).

- Falcons won the #1 seed in the NFC thanks to the league’s easiest schedule. They only played three teams that finished with a winning record. However, they won all three of those games (Broncos, Redskins, and Giants). So maybe they did earn it after all…

- This really shows how dominant the Seahawks were against the league’s elite. They went 5-1 against their best opponents, and that one loss was avenged against the 49ers on Sunday Night in Week 16.

- Texans played an SEC-style schedule, full of either very strong opponents or very weak ones.

- Andrew Luck and the Colts took advantage of a league-most 9 easy games against the Jaguars, Titans, Jets, Bills, Browns, Lions and Chiefs. They also had an early bye week and the numbers say they tended to play their opponents’ before their byes (showed by the high 124 games opponents had played previous to their meeting; most teams had about 119). It shouldn’t be hard to believe that they made the playoffs.

- Coming into the season the Packers were supposed to have one of the easiest paths but they ended up with one of the toughest. They can thank the Vikings, Colts and Seahawks for that.

- Patriots schedule ended up a lot tougher than people can them credit for. They had a high number of easy games but their opponents lost 12 games fewer than last year.

- On the flip side, Peyton Manning and the Broncos benefited from a schedule much easier than projected. Their opponents won an astonishing 22 fewer games than in 2011. Denver also met them at their weakest time, when they had a combined 38% winning percentage.

- Those poor Giants and Redskins only had three easy games, and two of those were against the Eagles. However, the rest of New York’s schedule was much tougher than Washington’s.

- Jim Schwartz and the Lions had an uphill battle all season with easily the toughest schedule, including 11 of their 16 games against strong opponents. They only won one of those, and Schwartz made lots of bad coaching decisions, but I suppose their tough schedule is an excuse for the poor performance this season and why he hasn’t been fired.