Ian Allan
I'm working on a strength-of-schedule article for the magazine, trying to gauge just how big of a factor it is. How much does an easy (or hard) schedule really benefit a player? And how likely is it that a team that is projected to play an easy schedule actually winds up playing an easy schedule? How many of those teams, ultimately, wind up playing schedules that are actually among the league's hardest?
The 1999 Philadelphia Eagles come to mind. They were projected to play one of the league's easiest schedule that year, but they actually wound up playing one of the hardest schedules.
Anyway, I'm working on it. I've combined strength-of-schedule information for the last 15 seasons into one file, and I've got both sets of numbers -- the projected strength-of-schedule information that was compiled prior to the season, and the actual results of how the schedule turned out.
I'm just getting started on it, but I will pass along that the schedules for 2008 truly are some of the most skewed ever. The Patriots project to play the easiest schedule in the last 15 years, and the Chargers and Raiders also show up in the top 15. The Steelers, Colts and Jaguars, meanwhile, project to play schedules ranking in the top 10.
I think this will make an interesting feature for the 2008 magazine. I may have trouble keeping all of my findings on three pages.
Easiest Projected Schedules, 1993-2008:
. W - L - T . Pct.
99 157 0 .387 2008 New England
101 155 0 .395 1999 Cleveland
104 152 0 .406 1999 Cincinnati **
108 148 0 .422 2008 San Diego
109 147 0 .426 2000 Philadelphia
110 146 0 .430 1993 Detroit
110 146 0 .430 2000 St. Louis
111 145 0 .434 1995 Chicago **
111 145 0 .434 1995 Cleveland **
111 145 0 .434 1995 NY Jets **
111 145 0 .434 1999 St. Louis *
112 144 0 .438 2008 Oakland
112 144 0 .438 1999 Baltimore **
112 144 0 .438 1999 Tennessee **
112 144 0 .438 2002 Cleveland *
* -- schedule includes game against expansion team (projected to finish 3-13).
** -- schedule includes two games against expansion teams (6-26 for the two games).
Hardest Projected Schedules, 1993-2008:
. W - L - T . Pct.
153 103 0 .598 2008 Pittsburgh
152 104 0 .594 2008 Indianapolis
150 106 0 .586 2000 Buffalo
147 109 0 .574 2001 Minnesota
146 110 0 .570 1996 Green Bay
146 110 0 .570 1999 Oakland
146 110 0 .570 2000 Miami
144 112 0 .563 1996 San Diego
144 112 0 .563 2000 Indianapolis
143 113 0 .559 2008 Jacksonville
143 113 0 .559 1996 Detroit
143 113 0 .559 1997 Dallas
143 113 0 .559 2000 NY Jets
—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.

Posted by greg ott | Apr. 18 at 07:35 PM
I would love to see an in-depth and statistically heavy analysis of strength of schedule along the lines of what is proposed above. If I were in control, I wouldn't ask Mr. Allen to limit himself to 3 pages. I'd be more than happy to read 10 to 15 and if valuable content gets cut from the index, I hope it will be available on the website to subscribers or the general public.
Posted by IAN ALLAN | Apr. 18 at 08:48 PM
It's definitely something that's going to be part of the 2008 magazine. I'm working on it now. I plan to explore all the angles and probabilities. After you read this article, I imagine, you'll have more confidence about how you should adjust your draft board when a team has a top-5 or bottom-5 schedule. Is it significant? Or is just an overblown stat that should be ignored? We'll soon find out.