Ian Allan

Michael Long raised an interesting question on Friday. He wondered if teams that are suppose to play easy schedules actually play easy schedules.

That is, the Bears this year are supposed to play the easiest schedule in the league. What are the chances that they’ll actually wind up playing the league’s easiest schedule?

I looked into this extensively for the magazine last year, looking at the schedules of all teams since 1993 – both their expected strength of schedule, and how things turned out.

Without trotting out all of the numbers, my conclusion was that strength of schedule tends to hold. When a team is projected to play the easiest schedule, very rarely will it actually wind up playing the easiest schedule, but it’s far more likely to play one of the easiest schedules. And it’s rare that you’ll see a team projected to play an easy schedule then wind up playing a hard schedule.

A simplified version of the study appears below. It shows all 96 teams from the 2006-2008 seasons – in order, based on the combined winning percentage of their opponents (based on how things actually turned out). In bold are teams that projected to play hard schedules. There are 16 teams that are bold. Prior to the season, their opponents had a combined win-loss record of at least 138-118-0.In italics are teams that projected to play really easy schedules. There are 14 of these teams. In this case, these opponents had a win-loss record prior to the season of 118-138 or worse – so again hitting that 20-game mark.

The table below shows how the schedules turned out. The teams are ranked 1 thru 96 based on how the schedules played out – easiest one first, and hardest one last. If every team played exactly as it should have, the first 14 teams would all be in italics, and the bottom 16 teams would all be in bold.Obviously, the deal didn’t turn out perfectly, showing that strength of schedule information isn’t 100 percent reliable. That’s understandable – teams change. Note, however, that there are far more teams in italics near the top of the chart (where they’re supposed to be). And the vast majority of the bold teams tend to be near the bottom – again, where they’re suppose to be.

My conclusion, therefore, is that strength of schedule tends to be reliable. If you pick a team with a projected easy schedule, you can be pretty confident that team isn’t going to be held back by having to play a hard schedule. And teams with projected hard schedules almost never play easy schedules.

TEAM STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE, 2006-2008
Ordered from easiest to hardest. Records are combined win-loss records of opponents in other games. For this chart, teams’ own games are eliminated to avoid polluting the results (which is different than how the league presents the information). The Patriots, for example, played teams with a combined record of 120-136 in 2007 – seemingly an easy schedule. But the Patriots went 16-0 that year. Set aside those 16 games and those opponents went a more respectabe 120-120.

    W    L    T  Pct.  Year
    98  142  0  .408  2007  Seattle
  101  139  0  .421  2007  Arizona  (easy)
  103  137  0  .429  2007  Cleveland
  105  134  1  .440  2008  San Francisco
  106  134  0  .442  2007  San Francisco
  107  133  0  .446  2008  Buffalo  (easy)
  107  133  0  .446  2006  Chicago  (easy)
  108  132  0  .450  2007  Cincinnati
  108  132  0  .450  2006  Atlanta
  109  131  0  .454  2006  Seattle  (easy)
  109  131  0  .454  2008  Denver  (easy)
  109  131  0  .454  2007  Pittsburgh
  110  130  0  .458  2006  Dallas
  111  129  0  .463  2006  St. Louis
  112  128  0  .467  2006  New Orleans  (hard)
  112  128  0  .467  2007  Tampa Bay
  112  127  1  .469  2008  Atlanta  (easy)
  113  127  0  .471  2006  Carolina
  113  127  0  .471  2007  New Orleans
  113  127  0  .471  2008  Miami
  113  126  1  .473  2008  NY Jets  (easy)
  114  126  0  .475  2006  NY Jets
  114  125  1  .477  2008  Tennessee  (hard)
  114  125  1  .477  2008  Chicago
  113  124  3  .477  2008  Washington
  115  125  0  .479  2006  Minnesota  (easy)
  115  125  0  .479  2006  Baltimore
  115  125  0  .479  2006  San Diego
  115  124  1  .481  2008  Seattle
  116  124  0  .483  2006  Philadelphia
  116  124  0  .483  2007  Green Bay
  116  124  0  .483  2008  Tampa Bay
  117  123  0  .488  2006  Arizona
  117  123  0  .488  2007  St. Louis
  117  122  1  .490  2008  Arizona
  118  122  0  .492  2008  New England  (easy)
  119  121  0  .496  2008  New Orleans  (easy)
  119  121  0  .496  2006  Pittsburgh
  119  121  0  .496  2008  Green Bay
  119  121  0  .496  2006  Kansas City
  119  121  0  .496  2006  Houston
  119  121  0  .496  2006  San Francisco
  119  121  0  .496  2007  Atlanta
  120  120  0  .500  2006  Green Bay  (easy)
  120  120  0  .500  2007  Oakland  (hard)
  120  120  0  .500  2007  New England
  120  120  0  .500  2006  Washington
  120  120  0  .500  2007  Kansas City
  120  120  0  .500  2007  Baltimore
  119  118  3  .502  2008  Dallas
  121  119  0  .504  2007  Minnesota
  121  119  0  .504  2006  Detroit
  121  119  0  .504  2008  Carolina
  122  118  0  .508  2008  Oakland  (easy)
  122  118  0  .508  2007  Tennessee
  122  118  0  .508  2007  NY Jets
  122  117  1  .510  2008  St. Louis
  123  117  0  .513  2008  Minnesota  (hard)
  123  117  0  .513  2007  Buffalo  (hard)
  123  117  0  .513  2007  Miami
  123  117  0  .513  2007  Denver
  123  117  0  .513  2007  San Diego
  123  117  0  .513  2007  Dallas
  123  117  0  .513  2006  New England
  123  116  1  .515  2008  Kansas City  (easy)
  123  116  1  .515  2008  Indianapolis  (hard)
  124  116  0  .517  2008  San Diego  (easy)
  124  116  0  .517  2007  Houston
  124  116  0  .517  2006  Indianapolis
  124  116  0  .517  2007  Carolina
  124  115  1  .519  2008  Houston  (hard)
  123  114  3  .519  2008  NY Giants
  125  115  0  .521  2006  NY Giants  (hard)
  125  115  0  .521  2006  Tampa Bay  (hard)
  125  115  0  .521  2008  Philadelphia
  125  115  0  .521  2006  Cleveland
  126  114  0  .525  2007  NY Giants
  126  113  1  .527  2008  Jacksonville  (hard)
  127  113  0  .529  2008  Detroit  (hard)
  127  113  0  .529  2007  Jacksonville
  128  112  0  .533  2006  Oakland
  128  112  0  .533  2006  Jacksonville
  127  110  3  .535  2008  Baltimore  (hard)
  129  111  0  .538  2006  Cincinnati  (hard)
  129  111  0  .538  2006  Denver
  129  111  0  .538  2007  Indianapolis
  129  111  0  .538  2006  Miami
  130  110  0  .542  2008  Cincinnati  (hard)
  130  110  0  .542  2007  Detroit
  130  110  0  .542  2007  Chicago
  129  108  3  .544  2008  Pittsburgh  (hard)
  133  104  3  .560  2008  Cleveland  (hard)
  135  105  0  .563  2007  Washington
  136  104  0  .567  2007  Philadelphia
  138  102  0  .575  2006  Tennessee
  138  102  0  .575  2006  Buffalo

—Ian Allan

• Comments [2]

Readers' Comments

Add a Comment

Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.

To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.