The New England Patriots, winners of three of the last five Super Bowls, have been awarded for their success with the easiest NFL 2008 schedule amongst all 32 teams. Their opponents combined for a 2007 winning percentage of .387, by far the lowest opponents' winning rate in the league (San Diego gets opponents that amassed a .422 winning percentage in 2007).
Strangely, with all of the talk about how weak the NFC West is and has beeen, the AFC East and AFC West teams' combined strength of schedule are both .439, by far the easiest in the NFL (notables in parentheses).
AFC East: 450-574, .439 (New England - .387)
AFC West: 450-574, .439 (San Diego - .422)
AFC North: 574-449, .561 (Pittsburgh - .598)
AFC South: 576-448, .563 (Indianapolis - .594)
NFC East: 534-490, .521 (Dallas - .523)
NFC West: 490-534, .479 (Seattle - .479)
NFC North: 552-472, .539 (Minnesota - .551)
NFC South: 474-550, .463 (New Orleans - .449)
If NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is going for parity, then he has a very long journey ahead of him in regards to the schedule.
New England only plays four division winners from 2007 - Seattle, Pittsburgh, San Diego and Indianapolis. No NFC East or NFC North teams. Only the Colts and the Steelers play in regularly-acknowledged tough divisions; San Diego gets the benefit of the weakest overall NFL division; Seattle plays in the NFC West, the 2nd weakest division in the NFC.
Talk about having an easy schedule.
Conversely, Pittsburgh - who won the AFC North in 2007 with a 10-6 mark - has a S.O.S. of .598, the biggest opponents' winning percentage in the NFL. Indianapolis has the 2nd-toughest with a .594 opponents' 2007 mark to overcome. Jacksonville and Minnesota, two teams expected to challenge for their division titles in 2008, have .559 and .551 opponents' marks, respectively. Those four teams have the toughest S.O.S. to overcome, and New England and San Diego have the two easiest to march through.
The NFC West, however, has a combined S.O.S. mark of .479, the 5th-ranked divisional S.O.S. in the NFL - the AFC East, AFC West and NFC East all have lower S.O.S. ratings.
The Seattle Seahawks schedule includes the New York Giants, Dallas Cowboys, Green Bay Packers, Washington Redskins, New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, all NFL division winners from 2007 that combined for an 83-29 record in 2007 for a winning percentage of .741 - and the NFC West is weak? If so, then why the difficult schedule? Why is Seattle playing six of seven division winners if the NFC West is so weak? Will national sports writers and so-called "NFL experts" relax on the weakness of the NFC West if Seattle survives their schedule to post a 10-6 or 11-5 mark in 2008? No, Seattle doesn't have a particularly difficult schedule (.477 S.O.S.), but they do play some very good teams this season.
How do the Saint Louis Rams, 3-13 in 2007, get a tougher schedule (.488 S.O.S.) than division winners New England (.387), San Diego (.422), Seattle (.477) and Tampa Bay (.469)? Why is Baltimore, 5-11 in 2007, saddled with the 4th-toughest NFL schedule in 2008 (.551 S.O.S.)? The NFL has no parity, and the S.O.S. ratings prove that point beyond any shadow of any doubt.
NOTE: The Seattle Seahawks and Chicago Bears game Saturday night ended 29-26, Seattle winning in OT on Brandon Coutu's field goal. In national press, Chicago was credited for scoring so many points against the Seahawks, who gave up the 3rd fewest total points (291) in the NFC last season. But, let's take a closer look at the Bears' scoring, shall we?
The Bears' defense scored a safety (2 points), and interception returned for a touchdown (6 points) and a punt returned for a touchdown (6 points) - of the Bears' 26 points, 14 came from the defense, along with two extra points from the defensive TD's. Seattle's defense allowed a total of 10 points and 205 total yards. The Seahawks won - nay, dominated - the time of possession 39:31 to 23:57, almost a 2-to-1 margin. Seattle allowed just 51 yards rushing on 20 carries for a 2.6 average for the Bears. By contrast, Seattle outgained the Bears on the ground by 190 yards (241 total rushing yards) for a 5.4 yard average on 45 rushing attempts.
Anyone who watched the game saw a defensive struggle for 2-1/2 quarters - the score was 9-5 at halftime in favor of the Seahawks, fer crissakes. And, anyone watching saw Rex Grossman fleeing for his life against a strong 4-man and 5-man pass rush for Seattle.
I give the Bears' backups and defense credit for making a good game out of what was an absolute snooze-fest for the first 38 minutes of regulation. Beyond that, however, the Bears got outplayed, out maneuvered, out coached, and out classed by a superior Seahawks squad.
Yup, I saw the Bears getting their #### kicked all game. Would have ended 26-12 if not for a bad decision on the part of a QB who will be a backup for the rest of his careeer and an unpracticed, uncoordinated kick coverage squad.
The schedule, with the exception of the teams that finished in your conference's other divisions in the same position as you (e.g. Seahawks were first in NFC West so they play the first place teams from the NFC East, North and South the next year (2 games considering the following)) plays a rotating schedule... Each division plays a division from the other conference on a rotating basis from year to year (4 games) as well as one division in their own conference (4 games), again on a rotating basis from year to year. These games plus the home and away games within their division (6 games) equates to a 16 game schedule with the better teams playing head to head and the poorer teams playing head to head within each conference.
Check out the blog and let me know what you think...
I've seen a bunch of people bark about the schedule, especially this year BUT...
It's a formula designed to have every team play every other team at least once per 4 years.
They never formally came out and said it, but Elway played Marino I believe once despite playing lengthy careers in the AFC during the same era.
Personally I don't think it matters that much. The cream usually rises to the top although it sucks when you lose out on a wild card to a team with a light schedule. This has mattered more in recent seasons with the Steelers/Giants winning the SB out of the WC spot because for years and years no WC winners (Raiders only other?) won.
The point wasn't to complain about S.O.S. - it's an issue that needs reworking by the NFL, no question. Rather, it's about parity.
3/4 of the teams in the NFL reside east of the Mississippi River. It's been a while since a west coast team has won a Super Bowl (the Broncos were the last, and they're in DENVER, fer crissakes),
The "east coast bias" is more about team homes, broadcasting, time zones and a dozen other things than S.O.S.
I'm just tired of people saying the NFC West is the weakest division in the NFL when, clearly, it is not. Not even close.
New England basically got a "bye" season with the S.O.S. ahead of them - let's give them a red carpet to the Super Bowl and see if anyone can stand up and punch them in the mouth.
Well, the Giants did it last year - who's it gonna be in 2008?
Arent the schedules decided by a round robin type of system?? One year you play this division, then next year you play that division, etc.... Im not a Pats fan but they werent "rewarded" it was just the luck of the draw.
I agree the schedule aren't fair, but I don't know how you propose to fix that problem unless you want to go to a 31 game schedule so that everyone plays each other one time.
The good thing about the NFL is that they rotate the divisions so that it is a formula. You can't accuse Godell of having a conspiracy to get the Patriots and Chargers in the playoffs. That forumla was in place long before he took over.
As for your Hawks & Bears comment, I couldn't agree more. Some people just look at the scoreboard and research nothing about the game.
iT SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE IS ON THE COLTS OR THE PATS BANDWAGONS GIVING EASY SCHEDULES ALWAYS GETTING PICKED FOR THE SUPER BOWL. LISTEN WHEN THE STEELERS STOMP THROUGH THIS QUOTE UNQUOTE TOUGH SCHEDULE CAN WE THEN GET SOME RESPECT. I MEAN COME ON GUYS WE BEEN A VERY SUCCESSFUL TEAM AND GET NO LOVE
Thank god the steelers have you warr, otherwise they might never get their "LOVE". I MEAN COME ON warr, your post has nothing to do with the idea that's being discussed in this article, yet you still managed to post something stupid. typical unemployed loser from steel town
You do realize your entire 'schedule' argument is completely flawed, right?
NE has the easiest schedule this year? Yeah, it's called a rotation. NE had arguably the hardest schedule last season when looking back on it now, and they went undefeated in the regular season? Not sure where you were going with that, but anyone who actually knows about the NFL is going to laugh; I suggest editing the 'S.O.S.' part of your post.
You realize that the main reason the Patriots have the lowest S.O.S. (based on last year's record, which means little for this year) is mainly at fault to having to play the 1-15 Dolphins twice. That 2-30 is a deep hole to get back to .500 from.
this blog is bunch of nonsense in my opinion. this east coast bias fantasy is just that. when i was a kid everybody's vision in the east was how great the west was. anyways this strength of schedule argument is silly because is it not on yearly rotation. plus i think the AFC east will start slow but be competitive as the season wears on.
Also i think if we spent less time looking up sports statistics and analysis (unless you actually are a sports reporter) and more time with work and other more important things in life, this country wouldn't find itself in the s-hole it is in
rmac - Duly noted, but just because the West has been in a drought the past 10 years you can't discount the 49ers/Raiders winning 8 Super Bowls from 1976-1995. There just aren't enough teams in the West by location which is the biggest issue.
Denver? How about Kansas City (more East than Hou/Dal) or St. Louis? Truly West teams represent in my eyes 6/32 with the Cali teams plus AZ/SEA/DEN (barely). That's 18.75% of the league.
By comparison you've got just in the Northeast NE, BUF, NYJ, NYG, WAS, PHI, BAL and let's add PIT for 25% of the league! For such a small geographic area that's huge. They get the media coverage, hype etc because basically that's where everything is centered. ESPN has their heads up the butt of all of those teams because they're in their backyard (CT).
I'm just your average sports nut, I suppose. Of course I'm a bit of a homer - the Mariners, Seahawks, and Huskies are my teams - but I stick with my boys down the stretch, through thick and thin.
What can the Mariners do to rebound from their worst season in twent years? Will Erik Bedard recover in time for the 2009 season? Ryan Rowland-Smith and Brandon Morrow look to make the transition from the bullpen to the starting rotation, so can they combine with Felix to create a young and effective 1-2-3 tandem? How will the M's new front office guru fare - will Chuckie and Howie be able to stay "hands off" long enough for the new VP/GM to accomplish anything positive? Can the Seahawks recover from their early-season woes and rebound for a fifth straight NFC West title? How will the team handle the transition from Mike Holmgren's regime to the ways of Jim Mora Jr? Can the Hawks' defense stop anyone? Can the offense put up more than 200 yards?
Any of you folks out there interested in healthy and creative debate about anything, feel free to speak up!
