2012 Strength of Schedule per ESPN

[servumtuum]

ESPN posted this list of estimated strength of schedules for the NFL's 2012 season based upon the combined records of each teams upcoming opponents for the 2011 season. The column "Games versus Quality Opponents" refers to games scheduled against teams that won at least 9 games last season.

Link to the post on ESPN's site: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/56896/2012-nfl-strength-of-schedule

 

[SkinsOrlando]

The pats got a whopping 4 games against quality opponents lol
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[tshile]

Well, that has to do with the division you're playing. There's only 2 games on your schedule that everyone else in your division isn't playing, and aren't automatic. So... i'd venture to say they're playing garbage divisions this year.

This 'strength of schedule' is bull**** anyways. 2-3 teams for each conference make the playoffs that didn't make it the year before. thats 4-6 teams out of a total of 12 for the whole league. part of the reason the NFL is so popular is because every year pretty much every team has a shot at doing something meaningful.

 

[Bulldog]

nobody in today's NFL is unbeatable. there aren't any more dynasty teams out there.

if RG III comes in here and adapts quickly to the NFL AND we get quality play out of Garcon and the other players we have added the Redskins can win any of these games.

We can lose any as well.

I don't expect to win both games against NY again. But I don't expect Philly to blow us out twice again either.

 

[Elephant]

there aren't any more dynasty teams out there.

Gotta disagree with you here BT. Between the Pats, the Giants and the Steelers that is 7 of the last 11 Super Bowl victories. The Pats are definitely a dynasty, the Steeler are not far behind. But I will concede that the Giants should probably not be considered a dynasty, you could probably put the Colts in there but they only won one SB even with that string of 12 win seasons.

It sounds a lot like the70's with the Steelers and the Cowboys, the 80's with the 49ers, Giants and the Skins or the 90's with Dallas, the 49ers and the Broncos.

 

[Nobody]

This is stupid the way they do it. basing it solely on the record of your opponents? They should factor in things like who those opponents beat and lost to, win and loss margin against good and bad teams, etc. In theory, a team could destroy 8 division winners, and lose by a point to a bunch of scrubs. That gives them an 8-8 record, and makes them a wash in your SOS.

Ranking strength of schedule this way is as weak as how they rank defense. On one factor that is completely meaningless.

I do find it strange that it seems like more often than not, New England is ranked at the bottom of the pack more often than not for SOS, and the Giants seemingly get screwed year after year.

I'm a math nerd, always have been. I'm gonna come up with a better formula for this that would be more accurate and run it by you guys with how it would rank everyone, and see what you all think. It will take a while, but I'm bored and like stupid things like this