I’m not a big fan of Strength of Schedule, but if we’re using it, it makes more sense to use projected wins and losses, rather than what teams did last year. And that being the case, there’s a couple of teams that are supposed to play difficult schedules who instead should be helped along by easier schedules.
The Browns and Vikings specifically. Using the generally accepted practices of plugging in wins and losses from the previous season, they’re supposed to play bottom-10 schedules (with Minnesota way down at 28th). But if we instead use the expected wins and losses for each teams, based on how people are currently wagering on teams, the Browns should play the league’s 2nd-easiest schedule, while the Vikings clock in at 8th.
The 49ers, using this adjusted system, come out with the easiest schedule of all. Using the last year’s win totals system, San Francisco ranked only 12th in strength of schedule.
The Texans were lining up for long season, and it looks like they’re also going to be hurt by scheduling. By the numbers, they’re supposed to have the league’s hardest schedule, with opponents in line to finish with a combined record of about 152-137.
| STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE (oddsmaker numbers) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team | Win | Loss | Pct | Previous | Rk |
| San Francisco | 136.1 | 152.9 | .471 | 132-138-2 | 12 |
| •Cleveland | 138.4 | 150.6 | .479 | 140-130-2 | 24 |
| Tampa Bay | 139.8 | 149.2 | .484 | 126-145-1 | 4 |
| Buffalo | 140.3 | 148.7 | .485 | 130-142-0 | 9 |
| Dallas | 140.5 | 148.5 | .486 | 122-148-2 | 2 |
| Denver | 140.8 | 148.2 | .487 | 127-143-2 | 5 |
| Philadelphia | 141.0 | 148.0 | .488 | 117-155-0 | 1 |
| •Minnesota | 141.1 | 147.9 | .488 | 144-127-1 | 28 |
| Jacksonville | 142.6 | 146.4 | .493 | 133-138-1 | 15 |
| Miami | 143.1 | 145.9 | .495 | 128-144-0 | 6 |
| Seattle | 143.3 | 145.7 | .496 | 139-133-0 | 21 |
| Indianapolis | 143.5 | 145.5 | .496 | 130-142-0 | 10 |
| Atlanta | 143.6 | 145.4 | .497 | 123-148-1 | 3 |
| Carolina | 144.0 | 145.0 | .498 | 128-143-1 | 7 |
| LA Chargers | 144.2 | 144.8 | .499 | 133-137-2 | 16 |
| NY Jets | 144.2 | 144.8 | .499 | 132-138-2 | 13 |
| Kansas City | 144.4 | 144.6 | .500 | 138-132-2 | 22 |
| NY Giants | 144.9 | 144.1 | .502 | 128-142-2 | 8 |
| Green Bay | 145.1 | 143.9 | .502 | 147-124-1 | 29 |
| New Orleans | 145.2 | 143.8 | .503 | 131-140-1 | 11 |
| Baltimore | 145.7 | 143.3 | .504 | 152-118-2 | 31 |
| Chicago | 145.7 | 143.3 | .504 | 149-122-1 | 30 |
| Tennessee | 146.2 | 142.8 | .506 | 138-134-0 | 19 |
| Arizona | 146.4 | 142.6 | .506 | 138-134-0 | 20 |
| LA Rams | 146.4 | 142.6 | .507 | 140-132-0 | 23 |
| New England | 146.8 | 142.2 | .508 | 133-139-0 | 14 |
| Detroit | 146.9 | 142.1 | .508 | 143-127-2 | 26 |
| Washington | 148.6 | 140.4 | .514 | 136-134-2 | 17 |
| Cincinnati | 149.7 | 139.3 | .518 | 144-128-0 | 27 |
| Pittsburgh | 151.4 | 137.6 | .524 | 155-115-2 | 32 |
| Las Vegas | 152.0 | 137.0 | .526 | 142-128-2 | 25 |
| Houston | 152.2 | 136.8 | .527 | 137-135-0 | 18 |
—Ian Allan