I regularly post Strength of Schedule information on this page, pointing out which teams project to play the easiest and hardest schedules. Such postings often get a comment from a reader. Some feel such data is meaningless, while others seem to feel it’s a key component to a successful draft. So it’s appropriate, I think, to step in from time to time and attempt to answer that question.
When answering this kind of question, it’s best to look at a big set of data. That is, don’t look at just last year’s numbers. Findings become more relevant when you’re looking at more teams. The league went to 32 teams in 2002, so I will look at the numbers since that time. For each of those 13 seasons (416 overall) I have the expected scheduling numbers for each team – how it was EXPECTED to do – and I’ve got the numbers of how things actually turned out.
Sometimes I look at wins and losses on this kind of thing, but for today I’m going to look at points allowed. For each team, I’ve got the average number of points allowed by its 16 opponents. The more points allowed in games against other teams, the theory goes, the easier the schedule.
For starters, we can look at teams who entering seasons projected to play one of the four easiest schedules for that season. There are 52 of these teams – four for each of the 13 seasons.
With those numbers in front of me, I see that 10 of the 52 teams ended up in the reverse barometer class. That is, they were suppose to have easy schedules, but ended up having bottom-10 schedules (hard schedules). I’ve got those teams flagged with a black dot (•).
Just over half of the teams (28 of them), however, ended up having top-10 schedules. That is, they were supposed to have easy schedules, and they did. I’ve got those teams in bold. And the team remaining 14 teams (just over a quarter) had what I’ll call neutral schedules, ranking somewhere between 11th and 22nd. Not in the top 10, but not in the bottom 10 either. Those teams are in plain type.
| TEAMS WITH TOP 4 "EASY" SCHEDULES | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Teams were projected to play one of the 4 easiest schedules | |||
| How did it actually turn out? | |||
| Year | Team | Points | Actual rank |
| 2002 | Jacksonville (1) | 21.2 | • 24th |
| 2003 | Chicago (1) | 22.4 | 1st |
| 2004 | Tampa Bay (1) | 22.9 | 2nd |
| 2005 | Arizona (1) | 21.8 | 3rd |
| 2006 | Pittsburgh (1) | 18.9 | • 31st |
| 2007 | Carolina (1) | 21.8 | 15th |
| 2008 | San Francisco (1) | 23.6 | 4th |
| 2009 | Seattle (1) | 23.6 | 3rd |
| 2010 | Washington (1) | 22.8 | 10th |
| 2011 | Washington (1) | 22.9 | 12th |
| 2012 | Atlanta (1) | 24.4 | 1st |
| 2013 | Denver (1) | 23.2 | 16th |
| 2014 | Indianapolis (1) | 22.8 | 15th |
| 2002 | Pittsburgh (2) | 21.0 | • 27th |
| 2003 | Seattle (2) | 21.8 | 4th |
| 2004 | Denver (2) | 23.0 | 1st |
| 2005 | Philadelphia (2) | 20.8 | 15th |
| 2006 | Miami (2) | 20.0 | • 25th |
| 2007 | Tampa Bay (2) | 22.7 | 4th |
| 2008 | New England (2) | 23.0 | 9th |
| 2009 | San Francisco (2) | 19.3 | • 31st |
| 2010 | Dallas (2) | 22.4 | 13th |
| 2011 | Tennessee (2) | 22.1 | 18th |
| 2012 | New Orleans (2) | 22.1 | • 26th |
| 2013 | Dallas (2) | 24.9 | 7th |
| 2014 | Detroit (2) | 23.5 | 4th |
| 2002 | Cincinnati (3) | 21.0 | • 26th |
| 2003 | Oakland (3) | 21.6 | 9th |
| 2004 | Tennessee (3) | 22.0 | 13th |
| 2005 | St. Louis (3) | 21.8 | 2nd |
| 2006 | Arizona (3) | 21.8 | 3rd |
| 2007 | Atlanta (3) | 21.5 | 20th |
| 2008 | Buffalo (3) | 23.4 | 5th |
| 2009 | Arizona (3) | 20.3 | • 29th |
| 2010 | San Francisco (3) | 22.8 | 12th |
| 2011 | Miami (3) | 23.0 | 10th |
| 2012 | Tampa Bay (3) | 23.3 | 9th |
| 2013 | Kansas City (3) | 25.1 | 5th |
| 2014 | Miami (3) | 21.6 | • 29th |
| 2002 | Chicago (4) | 22.3 | 8th |
| 2003 | St. Louis (4) | 22.1 | 3rd |
| 2004 | Detroit (4) | 21.9 | 14th |
| 2005 | Seattle (4) | 22.5 | 1st |
| 2006 | Tennessee (4) | 19.7 | • 28th |
| 2007 | Arizona (4) | 22.4 | 5th |
| 2008 | Tampa Bay (4) | 23.9 | 1st |
| 2009 | Minnesota (4) | 23.4 | 5th |
| 2010 | Seattle (4) | 22.3 | 15th |
| 2011 | NY Jets (4) | 22.4 | 16th |
| 2012 | Carolina (4) | 23.0 | 12th |
| 2013 | San Diego (4) | 24.3 | 10th |
| 2014 | Houston (4) | 24.0 | 1st |
| AVG | (52 teams) | 22.3 | |
Now let’s flip it and look at the other end of the scale, looking at the teams that were suppose to have the hardest schedules. These are the four teams from each of those 13 seasons that were suppose to have the HARDEST schedules – 52 teams overall.
Of these 52 teams, only 9 ended up having top-10 schedules (easy schedules). That is, only 17 percent were able to turn the reverse barometer trick and flip from suppose to having a hard schedule and actually playing an easy schedule. Again the top-10 schedules are in bold.
In this 52-team group, 24 (almost half) ended up playing bottom-10 schedules. That is, they were supposed to play hard schedules, and that’s what they got. Hard schedules again come with the black dot.
The remaining 19 teams in this group, which is also a sizable chunk – about a third – ended up playing neutral, middle-of-the-pack schedules.
| TEAMS WITH BOTTOM 4 "DIFFICULT" SCHEDULES | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Teams were projected to play one of the 4 hardest schedules | |||
| How did it actually turn out? | |||
| Year | Team | Points | Actual Rank |
| 2002 | St. Louis (32) | 21.5 | 17th |
| 2003 | New Orleans (32) | 20.8 | 20th |
| 2004 | Cincinnati (32) | 19.3 | • 31st |
| 2005 | New Orleans (32) | 20.3 | • 23rd |
| 2006 | Detroit (32) | 20.5 | 19th |
| 2007 | Buffalo (32) | 22.1 | 9th |
| 2008 | Detroit (32) | 20.6 | • 26th |
| 2009 | Miami (32) | 22.3 | 17th |
| 2010 | Cincinnati (32) | 19.8 | • 32nd |
| 2011 | Detroit (32) | 23.1 | 9th |
| 2012 | Cincinnati (32) | 22.8 | 14th |
| 2013 | St. Louis (32) | 21.6 | • 29th |
| 2014 | Denver (32) | 20.9 | • 31st |
| 2002 | San Francisco (31) | 22.0 | 15th |
| 2003 | Washington (31) | 19.4 | • 30th |
| 2004 | Miami (31) | 20.4 | • 28th |
| 2005 | Kansas City (31) | 20.7 | 16th |
| 2006 | Tampa Bay (31) | 20.5 | 20th |
| 2007 | NY Jets (31) | 21.7 | 16th |
| 2008 | Cincinnati (31) | 19.2 | • 32nd |
| 2009 | NY Jets (31) | 21.4 | 22nd |
| 2010 | Cleveland (31) | 20.7 | • 28th |
| 2011 | Minnesota (31) | 23.7 | 4th |
| 2012 | Baltimore (31) | 22.2 | • 25th |
| 2013 | New Orleans (31) | 22.0 | • 28th |
| 2014 | Oakland (31) | 20.8 | • 32nd |
| 2002 | Seattle (30) | 22.1 | 12th |
| 2003 | Atlanta (30) | 20.2 | 22nd |
| 2004 | Pittsburgh (30) | 20.2 | • 30th |
| 2005 | NY Giants (30) | 21.2 | 6th |
| 2006 | Oakland (30) | 21.1 | 11th |
| 2007 | Miami (30) | 21.6 | 17th |
| 2008 | Indianapolis (30) | 21.3 | • 24th |
| 2009 | Denver (30) | 22.6 | 15th |
| 2010 | Miami (30) | 20.8 | • 27th |
| 2011 | Denver (30) | 23.4 | 7th |
| 2012 | Buffalo (30) | 22.3 | • 23rd |
| 2013 | Baltimore (30) | 24.5 | 9th |
| 2014 | St. Louis (30) | 21.8 | • 27th |
| 2002 | Kansas City (29) | 21.2 | • 23rd |
| 2003 | Carolina (29) | 21.7 | 5th |
| 2004 | Buffalo (29) | 20.4 | • 29th |
| 2005 | NY Jets (29) | 20.5 | 19th |
| 2006 | Baltimore (29) | 20.5 | 18th |
| 2007 | Pittsburgh (29) | 23.1 | 2nd |
| 2008 | Cleveland (29) | 19.3 | • 31st |
| 2009 | New England (29) | 20.4 | • 28th |
| 2010 | Pittsburgh (29) | 20.9 | • 24th |
| 2011 | Carolina (29) | 23.2 | 8th |
| 2012 | NY Giants (29) | 22.7 | 18th |
| 2013 | Indianapolis (29) | 22.8 | 20th |
| 2014 | Arizona (29) | 22.1 | • 25th |
| AVG | (52 teams) | 21.4 | |
Note that overall, the 52 teams that were suppose to play easy schedules ended up playing opponents that allowed 22.3 points per game in their games against other teams. That’s just short of 1 point more than the 52 teams that were suppose to play the hardest schedules, who finished at 21.4.
Those numbers are pretty firm, because they come from lots of data. There are 52 teams in each group, and for each one, the average comes from 16 teams playing in 240 other games. So it’s 12,480 easy-schedule opponents against 12,480 hard-schedule opponents.
There is a difference, it’s just not a big difference.
Entering a season, if you emphasize taking players from teams with easy schedules (top-4 schedules), you should come out about 1 point ahead of those who select only players from teams with bottom-4 schedules. But only a half point (per game) over teams built from average-schedule teams.
When drafting for strength of schedule, you’re never guaranteed a result. You can never enter a season knowing that a team will have an easy schedule, and that your team will benefit. But as you look at more teams and more years, it TENDS to play out that way.
Here are all 416 teams in the study, divided into 32 groups of 13 teams each. In this one, the teams that were supposed to have top-10 schedules are in bold. The teams that were supposed to have bottom-10 schedules come with the black dots. There is some separation, with more of the bolder teams appearing near the chart.
The “Difference” shows the average relative the overall scoring average of the 13 years. In a ballpark sense, it looks like if you try to latch onto an easy schedule, you can expect a payoff of about 2 percent. If you ignore schedule and select a bunch of guys on teams with hard schedules, it’s going to cost you about 2 percent in NFL points.
| BEST SCHEDULING POSITIONS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Expected | Points | Avg Rk | Diff |
| No. 4 | 22.6 | 9.2 | 103.6% |
| No. 9 | 22.5 | 10.6 | 103.2% |
| No. 6 | 22.5 | 11.2 | 103.0% |
| No. 1 | 22.5 | 10.5 | 102.9% |
| No. 3 | 22.2 | 13.2 | 101.8% |
| No. 7 | 22.2 | 14.3 | 101.7% |
| No. 21 | 22.1 | 13.6 | 101.4% |
| No. 5 | 22.1 | 14.1 | 101.2% |
| No. 13 | 22.1 | 13.8 | 101.2% |
| No. 2 | 22.1 | 14.2 | 101.0% |
| • No. 25 | 22.0 | 14.7 | 100.9% |
| No. 18 | 21.9 | 16.7 | 100.4% |
| No. 8 | 21.9 | 14.2 | 100.2% |
| No. 19 | 21.9 | 16.8 | 100.1% |
| No. 10 | 21.9 | 17.5 | 100.1% |
| • No. 28 | 21.8 | 16.8 | 99.8% |
| No. 16 | 21.8 | 16.5 | 99.8% |
| • No. 30 | 21.8 | 17.7 | 99.7% |
| No. 14 | 21.8 | 17.1 | 99.6% |
| • No. 26 | 21.7 | 18.5 | 99.5% |
| No. 11 | 21.7 | 18.2 | 99.4% |
| No. 20 | 21.6 | 18.6 | 99.0% |
| No. 17 | 21.6 | 18.5 | 99.0% |
| No. 15 | 21.6 | 17.8 | 99.0% |
| No. 12 | 21.6 | 18.2 | 98.9% |
| • No. 27 | 21.5 | 19.2 | 98.4% |
| No. 22 | 21.5 | 18.8 | 98.4% |
| • No. 29 | 21.4 | 19.2 | 98.2% |
| • No. 23 | 21.3 | 21.2 | 97.7% |
| • No. 32 | 21.2 | 21.3 | 97.1% |
| • No. 31 | 21.1 | 22.8 | 96.7% |
| • No. 24 | 21.1 | 22.9 | 96.7% |