Strength of schedule

To me there is no such thing as strengh of schedule as teams change to much in one season. So are the cards going back to the bowl against the steelers again Are we going to have the exact same playoff teams as last yer. Will detriot have another winless season. No TO effect in Buffalo and Dallas. No change for the Titans and Redskins...I guess there will be no impact players comming out of the draft this year oh and all the new coaches won't matter........ this is one of the most useless things in football

Strength of schedule is such a joke. Just look at the Pats last season. Everyone was saying they had the easiest schedule but then Miami does a 180 and improves by 10 wins. That had to have some affect. As it was noted, changes happen year to year with injures along with free agency and the draft. It would be interesting to see who had the toughest (and easiest) schedule based on where teams actaully finished last year. And where the Pats fell overall.

The Jets were 9-7 last year but they have just gotten rid of their head coach and their quarterback. Right now they're looking at either Kellen Clemens or a draftee as their QB. They need to install a new playbook, and the new coach needs "his" players.

We already know that Buffalo will start against the Patriots with Marshawn Lynch suspended for that game.

Miami is in part 11-5 because of their weak strength of schedule last year.

Strength of schedule is of limited value. I am stuck in Steelers country because of work and last year everyone here was bemoaning the tough schedule and giving me grief because the Pats had it so easy in 2009. When the season actually rolled around, we all learned that supposedly tough Steelers opponents like Cleveland, Cincy and Jax were not the monsters everyone thought last spring (remember Jax beat Pgh at home in the wild card round that January) and the Jets and Dolphins were dramatically improved. Pats probably still had an easier schedule than the Steelers (NFC West helps), but the difference really wasn't that great.

I agree with Reiss and the above. None of the teams from 2008 are playing this year. All of those teams have gotten older, changed personnel, and exposed their schemes to a season's worth of tape. In the next 5 months they will all experience injuries, undergo changes in locker room chemistry and ask new players to contribute. And frankly, the 2 or 3 teams that everyone picks to go from worst to first will not deliver while some team that everyone writes off as a laughing stock will surely play in the post-season.

the only constant is change.

I think SOS has some bearing. Obviously, if you've got math to back it up...you can't just discount that. It sounded like he had some statistical analysis indicating that teams that go from "worst to first" tend to go back again. The NFC South is as good as any division to look at, especially considering they've had several teams do that recently.

Now do I think that Miami's fall (yes, I'm saying it will happen) is going to be because of strength of schedule? No. Clayton wrote that teams that go worst to first tend to have a 3 game slide in the next season. Well, considering a first place schedule only affects two games, obviously the schedule itself isn't the only cause. Miami will be bad becuase they aren't a great team. They really overperformed and Pennington was healthy for a whole season for, what, the 2nd time in his career? Miami will be back in the basement, finishing last in the division once again (or maybe the Jets....no QB = few wins), but either way, the AFC East won't be the "powerhouse" it was last year with, of course, one exception.

Coaching changes @ Indy,Bucs,,Rams,Jets,Denver,Browns,KC,Seattle,and Lions. Both SFand Oakland will have coaches that were not full year last year.. Coorinator changes @ Patriots,Titians,Ravens,Cards,Giants,Indy,Denver,and Packers. Not to mention some teams are changing defensive schemes from 4-3 to 3-4.

Strength of schedule is skewed because it does not translate into wins and losses by the team being measured.

The Lions went 0-16 last year. If your (good) team plays against them once, it makes your overall SOS look weak compared to another similar (good) team that plays, for example, the Raiders at 4-12 last year. Both teams are likely to beat their opponents (Lions,Raiders) and add 1 win to their victory total.

The same is true for teams that had the 16-0 Patriots on their 2008 schedule. If you only play the Pats once, you can only lose to them once, as opposed to losing one game to the Colts or the Giants. a loss is a loss.

anon, that's a really good point.

Maybe a better option would be to look at SOS in terms of "# of winning teams versus # of losing teams" or "Playoff teams vs winning teams vs losing teams" or some other combination of categories.

I agree that we need some better measure of the schedule strength.

The "# of games against playoff teams" or "# of games against winning teams" would be a better indicator. It also matters whether or not you are playing a game at home as opposed to a road game. The folks with their money on the line (Vegas) certainly take this into account.

For example, the Patriots will probably be underdogs against the Colts and Titans on the road but would be favored if the games were in Foxboro. Certainly this is a harder task than another team who gets the Colts and Titans at home, but according to the SOS ratings, both schedules are equally hard.