The Lions project to play a below-average schedule. Or do they? Let’s look at the numbers in a slightly different way.
Typically with strength of schedule, everyone uses win-loss records from last year. The Ravens went 14-2, the Packers went 13-3 and so on. You plug those numbers into the 2020 schedule, add up the totals, and there’s your strength of schedule.
Using that system, Detroit’s 16 games are against teams that went 134-121-1 last year – a below-average schedule in difficulty.
But we all agree that teams change. Green Bay, for example, went 13-3 last year, but it doesn’t seem to be an unstoppable, top-level contender (are they even going to win the NFC North?). The Bucs, Browns and Bengals definitely will be a lot better.
So instead of using 2019 win totals, why not instead use the projected over-under win totals that are coming out of the casinos and on-line betting platforms. If we plug in those numbers, Detroit’s schedule changes dramatically. It moves to about 120-135-1 – making it the easiest schedule in the entire league.
Using this system, surprisingly, all three of the easiest schedules belong to teams that had below-average schedules when using actual 2019 numbers.
The complete numbers appear below. I’ve put in bold the four teams that were helped the most by using projected wins rather than 2019 data. The four teams hurt the most, I’ve got them tagged with black dots.
SOS, PROJECTED WINS (all games) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Team | W | L | T | Pct. | Actual |
Detroit | 120 | 135 | 1 | .471 | 134-121-1 |
Indianapolis | 121 | 135 | 0 | .473 | 128-127-1 |
Chicago | 122 | 134 | 0 | .477 | 129-125-2 |
Tennessee | 123 | 133 | 0 | .480 | 127-128-1 |
Green Bay | 124 | 132 | 0 | .484 | 128-126-2 |
Tampa Bay | 124 | 132 | 0 | .484 | 128-127-1 |
Minnesota | 124 | 131 | 1 | .486 | 131-123-2 |
Kansas City | 125 | 130 | 1 | .490 | 128-128-0 |
LA Chargers | 126 | 130 | 0 | .492 | 126-130-0 |
New Orleans | 126 | 130 | 0 | .492 | 125-130-1 |
Cleveland | 126 | 130 | 0 | .492 | 118-138-0 |
Dallas | 126 | 130 | 0 | .492 | 117-138-1 |
• Pittsburgh | 127 | 129 | 0 | .496 | 117-139-0 |
• Baltimore | 127 | 129 | 0 | .496 | 112-144-0 |
Arizona | 128 | 128 | 0 | .500 | 132-123-1 |
Jacksonville | 128 | 128 | 0 | .500 | 126-129-1 |
Seattle | 128 | 128 | 0 | .500 | 129-125-2 |
Miami | 129 | 127 | 0 | .504 | 135-120-1 |
Carolina | 129 | 126 | 1 | .506 | 127-127-2 |
San Francisco | 129 | 126 | 1 | .506 | 134-120-2 |
New England | 130 | 125 | 1 | .510 | 137-118-1 |
LA Rams | 130 | 125 | 1 | .510 | 131-123-2 |
Philadelphia | 130 | 125 | 1 | .510 | 124-131-1 |
Houston | 131 | 125 | 0 | .512 | 132-123-1 |
Cincinnati | 131 | 125 | 0 | .512 | 122-134-0 |
Atlanta | 131 | 124 | 1 | .514 | 134-121-1 |
Buffalo | 131 | 124 | 1 | .514 | 134-121-1 |
Las Vegas | 132 | 124 | 0 | .516 | 127-129-0 |
• Washington | 132 | 124 | 0 | .516 | 118-136-2 |
Denver | 132 | 123 | 1 | .518 | 131-125-0 |
• NY Giants | 133 | 122 | 1 | .521 | 123-132-1 |
NY Jets | 135 | 121 | 0 | .527 | 136-119-1 |
Many leagues don’t use Week 17. If we set those games aside, the numbers change slightly.
(On both of these tables, by the way, I have smoothed some of the numbers. With lots of half wins in those over-under totals, all of the teams finished with 6-14 tied games. I re-allocated into wins and losses, with no team finishing with more than one tie – I think they’re easier to look at that way.)
SOS, PROJECTED WINS (first 15 G) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Team | W | L | T | Pct. | Actual |
Detroit | 112 | 128 | 0 | .467 | 124-115-1 |
Chicago | 113 | 127 | 0 | .471 | 116-122-2 |
LA Chargers | 114 | 126 | 0 | .475 | 114-126-0 |
Tennessee | 115 | 124 | 1 | .481 | 117-122-1 |
Indianapolis | 116 | 123 | 1 | .485 | 122-117-1 |
Tampa Bay | 116 | 123 | 1 | .485 | 121-118-1 |
Green Bay | 117 | 123 | 0 | .488 | 120-118-2 |
Cleveland | 117 | 123 | 0 | .488 | 110-130-0 |
Seattle | 117 | 122 | 1 | .490 | 116-122-2 |
Minnesota | 118 | 122 | 0 | .492 | 128-111-1 |
Kansas City | 118 | 121 | 1 | .494 | 123-117-0 |
Pittsburgh | 118 | 121 | 1 | .494 | 111-129-0 |
Carolina | 119 | 121 | 0 | .496 | 114-124-2 |
• Cincinnati | 119 | 121 | 0 | .496 | 108-132-0 |
Jacksonville | 119 | 120 | 1 | .498 | 119-120-1 |
Arizona | 120 | 120 | 0 | .500 | 123-116-1 |
Dallas | 120 | 120 | 0 | .500 | 113-126-1 |
San Francisco | 120 | 120 | 0 | .500 | 123-115-2 |
Miami | 120 | 119 | 1 | .502 | 125-114-1 |
New Orleans | 121 | 118 | 1 | .506 | 120-119-1 |
• Baltimore | 121 | 118 | 1 | .506 | 110-130-0 |
Houston | 122 | 117 | 1 | .510 | 123-116-1 |
• Washington | 122 | 117 | 1 | .510 | 109-129-2 |
Atlanta | 123 | 117 | 0 | .513 | 127-112-1 |
LA Rams | 123 | 116 | 1 | .515 | 126-113-1 |
• NY Giants | 123 | 116 | 1 | .515 | 115-124-1 |
New England | 124 | 116 | 0 | .517 | 130-109-1 |
Las Vegas | 124 | 115 | 1 | .519 | 120-120-0 |
NY Jets | 125 | 115 | 0 | .521 | 124-115-1 |
Denver | 125 | 115 | 0 | .521 | 124-116-0 |
Buffalo | 125 | 114 | 1 | .523 | 129-110-1 |
Philadelphia | 126 | 114 | 0 | .525 | 121-118-1 |
For this project, I started with the initial win-loss totals. These are over-under numbers that were used in a FSGA betting league, but I tweaked them some to account for some teams simply being off a little bit (in my opinion), and also to get the overall total at 256-256.
OVER-UNDER WIN TOTALS | |||
---|---|---|---|
Team | W | L | T |
Kansas City | 12 | 4 | 0 |
Baltimore | 12 | 4 | 0 |
San Francisco | 10 | 5 | 1 |
New Orleans | 10 | 5 | 1 |
New England | 10 | 6 | 0 |
Dallas | 10 | 6 | 0 |
Seattle | 9 | 6 | 1 |
Pittsburgh | 9 | 7 | 0 |
Philadelphia | 9 | 6 | 1 |
Green Bay | 9 | 7 | 0 |
Tennessee | 8 | 7 | 1 |
Tampa Bay | 8 | 7 | 1 |
Minnesota | 8 | 7 | 1 |
LA Rams | 8 | 8 | 0 |
Indianapolis | 8 | 7 | 1 |
Cleveland | 8 | 7 | 1 |
Buffalo | 8 | 7 | 1 |
Las Vegas | 7 | 8 | 1 |
LA Chargers | 7 | 9 | 0 |
Houston | 7 | 8 | 1 |
Denver | 7 | 8 | 1 |
Chicago | 7 | 9 | 0 |
Atlanta | 7 | 8 | 1 |
Arizona | 7 | 9 | 0 |
NY Jets | 6 | 9 | 1 |
NY Giants | 6 | 10 | 0 |
Miami | 6 | 10 | 0 |
Detroit | 6 | 9 | 1 |
Cincinnati | 5 | 10 | 1 |
Washington | 4 | 11 | 1 |
Jacksonville | 4 | 11 | 1 |
Carolina | 4 | 11 | 1 |
—Ian Allan