Earlier in the week, I posted an article showing the expected win-loss totals for each team, using the current point spreads for each of the 272 regular-season games. That provides an indication of how the public believes teams will perform. It makes some sense, I think, to use those figures in evaluating strength of schedule.
Typically with strength of schedule, the wins and losses from last year are used. But those numbers aren’t necessarily accurate, with teams making substantial changes in the offseason. The Bucs, as an example, went 8-9 last year, but I think we can all agree they have no chance of sniffing an 8-9 record. According to the current lines and each game, the Bucs should finish (if the betting public knows anything) with something closer to a 6.4-10.6 record (which I think is still high).
So if we use the more accurate win-loss projections, we should get a better idea of which teams should be playing the hardest schedules. (To see the win-loss projections for each team using point spreads, see the previous article.)
According to these win-loss projections, four of the five easiest schedules should belong to teams in the South divisions, while seven of the eight hardest schedules should be played by teams in the AFC West and NFC East.
STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE (via point spreads) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Team | W | L | Pct |
New Orleans | 130.9 | 158.1 | .453 |
Atlanta | 131.1 | 157.9 | .454 |
Indianapolis | 138.2 | 150.8 | .478 |
Carolina | 138.4 | 150.6 | .479 |
Chicago | 139.2 | 149.8 | .482 |
Houston | 139.8 | 149.2 | .484 |
San Francisco | 140.0 | 149.0 | .484 |
Green Bay | 141.3 | 147.7 | .489 |
Jacksonville | 142.3 | 146.7 | .492 |
Seattle | 142.3 | 146.7 | .492 |
Tennessee | 142.4 | 146.6 | .493 |
Detroit | 143.3 | 145.7 | .496 |
Philadelphia | 143.5 | 145.5 | .496 |
Pittsburgh | 143.7 | 145.3 | .497 |
Tampa Bay | 143.8 | 145.2 | .498 |
Dallas | 145.1 | 143.9 | .502 |
LA Rams | 145.1 | 143.9 | .502 |
Cleveland | 145.5 | 143.5 | .504 |
Baltimore | 146.4 | 142.6 | .506 |
Cincinnati | 146.6 | 142.4 | .507 |
NY Giants | 146.8 | 142.2 | .508 |
Denver | 147.9 | 141.1 | .512 |
Arizona | 148.1 | 140.9 | .512 |
Washington | 148.1 | 140.9 | .512 |
Minnesota | 148.1 | 140.9 | .513 |
NY Jets | 149.2 | 139.8 | .516 |
Miami | 150.5 | 138.5 | .521 |
LA Chargers | 150.5 | 138.5 | .521 |
Kansas City | 150.6 | 138.4 | .521 |
Las Vegas | 150.9 | 138.1 | .522 |
Buffalo | 151.1 | 137.9 | .523 |
New England | 153.4 | 135.6 | .531 |
We can also compare this new strength of schedule data against what we saw previously (using the classical, “last year’s records” approach). The Eagles, Cowboys and Giants see the biggest positive swings (with their opponents seeming to be softened). Philadelphia originally projected to play the hardest schedule, with opponents going a combined 161-123-4 last year; using the newer method, it should instead play a middle-of-the-pack schedule, with its opponents finishing slightly under .500. (If you were scared away from Jalen Hurts because of scheduling, these numbers work against that theory.)
Teams with schedules that should get more difficult include the Browns and three teams from the AFC South. In the case of the Texans, they were originally chalked in at 124-162-2 (using last year’s records). Now they’re at about 140-149.
STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE point spreads vs. classical) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Team | W | L | Pct | Original | Diff |
Philadelphia | 143.5 | 145.5 | .496 | 161-123-4 | -.070 |
Dallas | 145.1 | 143.9 | .502 | 156-128-4 | -.047 |
NY Giants | 146.8 | 142.2 | .508 | 158-128-2 | -.044 |
LA Rams | 145.1 | 143.9 | .502 | 153-132-3 | -.034 |
Miami | 150.5 | 138.5 | .521 | 158-127-2 | -.033 |
San Francisco | 140.0 | 149.0 | .484 | 147-139-2 | -.030 |
NY Jets | 149.2 | 139.8 | .516 | 155-129-3 | -.029 |
Seattle | 142.3 | 146.7 | .492 | 148-138-2 | -.025 |
Washington | 148.1 | 140.9 | .512 | 153-133-2 | -.022 |
New England | 153.4 | 135.6 | .531 | 157-127-3 | -.022 |
Buffalo | 151.1 | 137.9 | .523 | 155-131-2 | -.019 |
Chicago | 139.2 | 149.8 | .482 | 144-144-1 | -.018 |
Arizona | 148.1 | 140.9 | .512 | 148-137-3 | -.007 |
Denver | 147.9 | 141.1 | .512 | 148-138-2 | -.006 |
Cincinnati | 146.6 | 142.4 | .507 | 146-140-2 | -.003 |
Detroit | 143.3 | 145.7 | .496 | 144-145-0 | -.002 |
Las Vegas | 150.9 | 138.1 | .522 | 150-136-2 | -.002 |
LA Chargers | 150.5 | 138.5 | .521 | 149-139-0 | .003 |
Tampa Bay | 143.8 | 145.2 | .498 | 140-146-2 | .008 |
Kansas City | 150.6 | 138.4 | .521 | 147-140-0 | .009 |
Green Bay | 141.3 | 147.7 | .489 | 138-150-1 | .010 |
Jacksonville | 142.3 | 146.7 | .492 | 136-147-4 | .011 |
Minnesota | 148.1 | 140.9 | .513 | 144-144-0 | .013 |
Carolina | 138.4 | 150.6 | .479 | 132-155-2 | .019 |
Baltimore | 146.4 | 142.6 | .506 | 138-147-2 | .022 |
New Orleans | 130.9 | 158.1 | .453 | 122-164-3 | .026 |
Pittsburgh | 143.7 | 145.3 | .497 | 134-151-2 | .027 |
Atlanta | 131.1 | 157.9 | .454 | 121-165-3 | .030 |
Indianapolis | 138.2 | 150.8 | .478 | 125-161-2 | .041 |
Tennessee | 142.4 | 146.6 | .493 | 128-156-4 | .041 |
Cleveland | 145.5 | 143.5 | .504 | 131-154-2 | .044 |
Houston | 139.8 | 149.2 | .484 | 124-162-2 | .050 |
—Ian Allan