What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

AFC Wild Card (1 Viewer)

I know there have been previous posts on it, but anyone with knowledge of the possible scenarios, please post it to clear it up for fools like myself.

Like it says in the description feel free to post your predictions, right now its such a mess I have no idea, Im going to guess it will be Jacksonville.....I dont know who else.

 
I hope its not Jacksonville...they'll get blown out of a road playoff game.

I think DEN beats Cinci next week and locks up one of them. Would guess the Jets take care of business and get the other.

 
If the Jaguars lose one of their last two games, the Jets are in with two wins.

OR

If the winner of the Bengals/Broncos game loses in week 17, the Jets are in with two wins.

OR

If the Pats lose out and the Jets win out, the Jets win the AFCE.

 
I hope its not Jacksonville...they'll get blown out of a road playoff game.

I think DEN beats Cinci next week and locks up one of them. Would guess the Jets take care of business and get the other.
How can you jump to the conclusion that the Jags will get blown out? Granted, they have an abysmal road record and any playoff scenario would have them as underdogs. But all their road losses are by an average of under 8 PPG. Take away their home loss and it still stays under 9 PPG. :nerd:
 
Chase Stuart said:
If the Jaguars lose one of their last two games, the Jets are in with two wins.

OR

If the winner of the Bengals/Broncos game loses in week 17, the Jets are in with two wins.

OR

If the Pats lose out and the Jets win out, the Jets win the AFCE.
The mere hint of this prior to this season might have gotten you committed. Great job by the Jets this year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sorry for a slight hinack. but, rather than start a new thread, does anyone know what time the games are on wild card weekend?couldn't find it at nfl.com. thx.

 
There's only one team with an inside track at this point - the Broncos. They are 7-4 in the AFC. Its very likely you will see it come down to some tiebreakers among 9-7 clubs, and AFC record is the #2 tiebreaker. No-one else has 7 AFC wins. The Bengals are the only one with 6. Everyone else has 5 or less. Neither the Steelers, Titans, nor Chiefs can reach 7 AFC wins.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do any of these teams deserve to be in the playoffs? The only one i'm particularly routing for is Tennesse at this point, because at least theyre showing a pulse.

 
Jets win out and get one.

Denver wins out and gets the other.

Jacksonville loses this week to NE, which costs them the spot.

 
NY Jets will lose this week to Miami, but should beat Oakland week 17. 9-7

Cincinatti I think loses to Denver, but beats Pittsburgh, leaving them at 9-7.

Jacksonville should lose this week to NE, and win next week against KC. That will put them at 9-7.

I can see Buffalo beating Tennessee. Then they may have a cakewalk against Baltimore if BAL has already clinched. That will put them at 9-7.

Kansas City looks to be a real mess right now. But having Oakland on the schedule will allow them to finish 8-8.

Pittsburgh will lose to Baltimore and Cincinnati, finishing 7-9.

Tenessee loses to the Bills and New England, finishing 7-9.

Edit because I missed Denver, they'll beat Cinci, but San Fran is hot. 9-7

So that will leave Broncos, Jets, Bengals, Jacksonville, and the Bills all at 9-7 in Wild Card contention.

Too many tie breakers for me to figure out LOL

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do any of these teams deserve to be in the playoffs? The only one i'm particularly routing for is Tennesse at this point, because at least theyre showing a pulse.
Buffalo really deserves a shot, they've been a different team since the BYE.
 
NY Jets will lose this week to Miami, but should beat Oakland week 17. 9-7

Cincinatti I think loses to Denver, but beats Pittsburgh, leaving them at 9-7.

Jacksonville should lose this week to NE, and win next week against KC. That will put them at 9-7.

I can see Buffalo beating Tennessee. Then they may have a cakewalk against Baltimore if BAL has already clinched. That will put them at 9-7.

Kansas City looks to be a real mess right now. But having Oakland on the schedule will allow them to finish 8-8.

Pittsburgh will lose to Dallas and Cincinnati, finishing 7-9.

Tenessee loses to the Bills and New England, finishing 7-9.

Edit because I missed Denver, they'll beat Cinci, but San Fran is hot. 9-7

So that will leave Broncos, Jets, Bengals, Jacksonville, and the Bills all at 9-7 in Wild Card contention.

Too many tie breakers for me to figure out LOL
Thanks for tryingBut the STeelers dont play Dallas.

That will be a tough game to lose.

THey play Baltimore and Cinci.

 
Pittsburgh and Tennessee will both finish at LEAST 8-8. Both teams are better than their record indicates, and Tennessee is so hot right now that they will not lose both of those winnable games. Likewise, Pittsburgh's play has improved, and they play 2 hated divisional rivals...I doubt they'll lose both games.

 
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
NYjets lose to Fish
Exactly what I was thinking.
NY Jets will lose this week to Miami, but should beat Oakland week 17. 9-7
I'm really :shuked: at this.Joey Harrington has a 59.1 QB rating the last three weeks. He's averaging 5.4 Y/A over that stretch. He was 5/17 for 20 yards and 0 TDs and 2 INTs last week. Harrington has been absolutely awful for five years. And before you think Joey is "good" now, remember that he's got the same QB rating this season as he does for his career.

Sammy Morris is the Dolphins running back. I know he had a good game against the Pats, but this guy stinks.

The Jets have allowed 14 or fewer points in five of their last six games. I really don't see Miami scoring more than 14 in this one.

And the stadium will probably be about 40% Jets fans. The Jets have everything to play for, and have been playing very good football all year. The Jets are 5-1 against teams with losing records, and 5-2 on the road, having won three straight.

We all know that anything can happen, and I think this will be a close game. But I don't see what would favor me picking the Dolphins over the Jets. The Jets have been playing very well of late, and have been the better team all year. Miami has lost two of three.

And did I mention that Miami has Joey Harrington?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
NYjets lose to Fish
Exactly what I was thinking.
NY Jets will lose this week to Miami, but should beat Oakland week 17. 9-7
I'm really :shuked: at this.Joey Harrington has a 59.1 QB rating the last three weeks. He's averaging 5.4 Y/A over that stretch. He was 5/17 for 20 yards and 0 TDs and 2 INTs last week. Harrington has been absolutely awful for five years. And before you think Joey is "good" now, remember that he's got the same QB rating this season as he does for his career.

Sammy Morris is the Dolphins running back. I know he had a good game against the Pats, but this guy stinks.

The Jets have allowed 14 or fewer points in five of their last six games. I really don't see Miami scoring more than 14 in this one.

And the stadium will probably be about 40% Jets fans. The Jets have everything to play for, and have been playing very good football all year. The Jets are 5-1 against teams with losing records, and 5-2 on the road, having won three straight.

We all know that anything can happen, and I think this will be a close game. But I don't see what would favor me picking the Dolphins over the Jets. The Jets have been playing very well of late, and have been the better team all year. Miami has lost two of three.

And did I mention that Miami has Joey Harrington?
Miami also shut out NE two weeks ago. Would anyone have predicted that? I'm not saying... I'm just saying...Plus MIA will be pretty perturbed coming off a 21-0 loss to the Bills... and the last game between Jets and Miami was a very close 20-17.

 
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
NYjets lose to Fish
Exactly what I was thinking.
NY Jets will lose this week to Miami, but should beat Oakland week 17. 9-7
I'm really :shuked: at this.Joey Harrington has a 59.1 QB rating the last three weeks. He's averaging 5.4 Y/A over that stretch. He was 5/17 for 20 yards and 0 TDs and 2 INTs last week. Harrington has been absolutely awful for five years. And before you think Joey is "good" now, remember that he's got the same QB rating this season as he does for his career.

Sammy Morris is the Dolphins running back. I know he had a good game against the Pats, but this guy stinks.

The Jets have allowed 14 or fewer points in five of their last six games. I really don't see Miami scoring more than 14 in this one.

And the stadium will probably be about 40% Jets fans. The Jets have everything to play for, and have been playing very good football all year. The Jets are 5-1 against teams with losing records, and 5-2 on the road, having won three straight.

We all know that anything can happen, and I think this will be a close game. But I don't see what would favor me picking the Dolphins over the Jets. The Jets have been playing very well of late, and have been the better team all year. Miami has lost two of three.

And did I mention that Miami has Joey Harrington?
Miami also shut out NE two weeks ago. Would anyone have predicted that? I'm not saying... I'm just saying...Plus MIA will be pretty perturbed coming off a 21-0 loss to the Bills... and the last game between Jets and Miami was a very close 20-17.
Miami plays NE well in Miami, so it wasnt a shock that they beat them. Also the Jets have a better record vs. Miami than any other team in the division over the last 5 years. It will be close, but Id bet on the Jets
 
Do any of these teams deserve to be in the playoffs? The only one i'm particularly routing for is Tennesse at this point, because at least theyre showing a pulse.
Perhaps not, but you have to wonder if any team other than the Bears and maybe the Saints are deserving of playoff berths in the NFC.Denver has at least beat New England and Baltimore and almost beat Indy and SD. Their schedule has been abolutely brutal.They're also showing signs of life, as things seem to finally be slowing down for Cutler, and it's not at all out of the question to think they'll win their final two home games. I don't know if you watched Jay play on Sunday, but he looked extremely good. Yes, I know, Arizona, blah, blah, blah, but some of the throws he made were ridiculous. The first TD throw that he made to Javon Walker carried 65 yards in the air, he had been rolling to his left, had to turn his body, plant, throw and got nailed just after release. It hit Walker in stride in the endzone with two defenders converging on him. Honestly, probably the best throw I've ever seen a rookie make, and one of the better throws I've ever seen period. He also showed very good mobility, and save for the one INT (which very well could have been Marshall's fault), great decision making. I know this thread isn't about Cutler, but I think it's relevant in that he has a great chance to lead Denver to a Wild Card berth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thatguy said:
Their schedule has been abolutely brutal average.
The Rams, the Cardinals, the Raiders twice, the Browns -- that's five games against the bottom quarter of the league.The Chargers twice, Patriots, Colts, Ravens -- that's five games against the top quarter of the league.

Seattle, Kansas City twice and Pittsburgh -- that's four games against average teams. Kansas City is pretty average, Pittsburgh is above average and Seattle is below average.

I'm not seeing the brutal schedule here, by any means.

 
thatguy said:
Their schedule has been abolutely brutal average.
The Rams, the Cardinals, the Raiders twice, the Browns -- that's five games against the bottom quarter of the league.The Chargers twice, Patriots, Colts, Ravens -- that's five games against the top quarter of the league.

Seattle, Kansas City twice and Pittsburgh -- that's four games against average teams. Kansas City is pretty average, Pittsburgh is above average and Seattle is below average.

I'm not seeing the brutal schedule here, by any means.
Yeah, 5 games against what many consider the AFCs top 4 teams (including 2 against the NFL's best team) - that's a lot different than saying the "league's top quarter". It's pretty likely they're ALL better than the NFC's best team. Nothing brutal about that. :thumbup: 2 games against KC, another team that would probably be a lock for a playoff berth if it wasn't in the AFC West.

Pitt hasn't been very good, but they're .500.

Seattle is above .500.

You tell me what you consider brutal, Chase. Please. I'd love to hear it.

 
thatguy said:
Their schedule has been abolutely brutal average.
The Rams, the Cardinals, the Raiders twice, the Browns -- that's five games against the bottom quarter of the league.The Chargers twice, Patriots, Colts, Ravens -- that's five games against the top quarter of the league.

Seattle, Kansas City twice and Pittsburgh -- that's four games against average teams. Kansas City is pretty average, Pittsburgh is above average and Seattle is below average.

I'm not seeing the brutal schedule here, by any means.
Yeah, 5 games against what many consider the AFCs top 4 teams (including 2 against the NFL's best team) - that's a lot different than saying the "league's top quarter". It's pretty likely they're ALL better than the NFC's best team. Nothing brutal about that. :thumbup: 2 games against KC, another team that would probably be a lock for a playoff berth if it wasn't in the AFC West.

Pitt hasn't been very good, but they're .500.

Seattle is above .500.

You tell me what you consider brutal, Chase. Please. I'd love to hear it.
Tennessee had a brutal schedule. The Texans had a brutal schedule. So did the Colts and Jaguars. Cleveland and Buffalo also had very difficult schedules.Yes, Denver played against four of the best five or six teams in the league. But you're ignoring that they played the second worst team in the league two times, the third worst team, and two other pretty bad teams. That makes their schedule a whole lot more palatable. They also get to play the 'Niners.

Their schedule yields a .522 winning percentage. I don't know how anyone could call that "brutal".

 
thatguy said:
Their schedule has been abolutely brutal average.
The Rams, the Cardinals, the Raiders twice, the Browns -- that's five games against the bottom quarter of the league.The Chargers twice, Patriots, Colts, Ravens -- that's five games against the top quarter of the league.

Seattle, Kansas City twice and Pittsburgh -- that's four games against average teams. Kansas City is pretty average, Pittsburgh is above average and Seattle is below average.

I'm not seeing the brutal schedule here, by any means.
Yeah, 5 games against what many consider the AFCs top 4 teams (including 2 against the NFL's best team) - that's a lot different than saying the "league's top quarter". It's pretty likely they're ALL better than the NFC's best team. Nothing brutal about that. :D 2 games against KC, another team that would probably be a lock for a playoff berth if it wasn't in the AFC West.

Pitt hasn't been very good, but they're .500.

Seattle is above .500.

You tell me what you consider brutal, Chase. Please. I'd love to hear it.
Tennessee had a brutal schedule. The Texans had a brutal schedule. So did the Colts and Jaguars. Cleveland and Buffalo also had very difficult schedules.Yes, Denver played against four of the best five or six teams in the league. But you're ignoring that they played the second worst team in the league two times, the third worst team, and two other pretty bad teams. That makes their schedule a whole lot more palatable. They also get to play the 'Niners.

Their schedule yields a .522 winning percentage. I don't know how anyone could call that "brutal".
Why not just say the AFC South? Anyway, I took a look at those team's schedules, and they just don't seem much more difficult than Denver's. Can you tell me another team that played presumably the 4 best teams in football 5 times? Just because every game wasn't a decent opponent does not make their schedule easy, or even average. Oh well. I guess you and I have differing opinions of what constitutes a tough schedule. I suspect that if Denver had Houston's schedule or Jacksonville's schedule, they'd probably have a better record right now, but hey, what do I know. You're the expert.

 
switz said:
So that will leave Broncos, Jets, Bengals, Jacksonville, and the Bills all at 9-7 in Wild Card contention.Too many tie breakers for me to figure out LOL
Actually, it will be the Broncos and Bills in this scenario. BUF beats CIN on strength of schedule, and the NYJ if they lose to MIA. I'm a Bills fan, so I have seen the statisticians hard at work...
 
thatguy said:
Their schedule has been abolutely brutal average.
The Rams, the Cardinals, the Raiders twice, the Browns -- that's five games against the bottom quarter of the league.The Chargers twice, Patriots, Colts, Ravens -- that's five games against the top quarter of the league.

Seattle, Kansas City twice and Pittsburgh -- that's four games against average teams. Kansas City is pretty average, Pittsburgh is above average and Seattle is below average.

I'm not seeing the brutal schedule here, by any means.
Yeah, 5 games against what many consider the AFCs top 4 teams (including 2 against the NFL's best team) - that's a lot different than saying the "league's top quarter". It's pretty likely they're ALL better than the NFC's best team. Nothing brutal about that. :goodposting: 2 games against KC, another team that would probably be a lock for a playoff berth if it wasn't in the AFC West.

Pitt hasn't been very good, but they're .500.

Seattle is above .500.

You tell me what you consider brutal, Chase. Please. I'd love to hear it.
Tennessee had a brutal schedule. The Texans had a brutal schedule. So did the Colts and Jaguars. Cleveland and Buffalo also had very difficult schedules.Yes, Denver played against four of the best five or six teams in the league. But you're ignoring that they played the second worst team in the league two times, the third worst team, and two other pretty bad teams. That makes their schedule a whole lot more palatable. They also get to play the 'Niners.

Their schedule yields a .522 winning percentage. I don't know how anyone could call that "brutal".
Why not just say the AFC South? Anyway, I took a look at those team's schedules, and they just don't seem much more difficult than Denver's. Can you tell me another team that played presumably the 4 best teams in football 5 times? Just because every game wasn't a decent opponent does not make their schedule easy, or even average. Oh well. I guess you and I have differing opinions of what constitutes a tough schedule. I suspect that if Denver had Houston's schedule or Jacksonville's schedule, they'd probably have a better record right now, but hey, what do I know. You're the expert.
The Broncos have played lots of opponents on both sides of the spectrum. That's the main source of our disagreement. Consider this hypothetical:Team A plays the #1 team, #2, #3, #4, #5, and number 22-32 teams in the league. That team's average opponent would rank 19.5th.

Team B played the #9-#24 teams. That schedule would on average, have Team B facing the 16.5th best team.

In my opinion, Team B has the tougher schedule. You could say that Team A played the toughest five teams so their schedule has to be brutal, but I'd just have to disagree.

 
thatguy said:
Their schedule has been abolutely brutal average.
The Rams, the Cardinals, the Raiders twice, the Browns -- that's five games against the bottom quarter of the league.The Chargers twice, Patriots, Colts, Ravens -- that's five games against the top quarter of the league.

Seattle, Kansas City twice and Pittsburgh -- that's four games against average teams. Kansas City is pretty average, Pittsburgh is above average and Seattle is below average.

I'm not seeing the brutal schedule here, by any means.
Yeah, 5 games against what many consider the AFCs top 4 teams (including 2 against the NFL's best team) - that's a lot different than saying the "league's top quarter". It's pretty likely they're ALL better than the NFC's best team. Nothing brutal about that. :banned: 2 games against KC, another team that would probably be a lock for a playoff berth if it wasn't in the AFC West.

Pitt hasn't been very good, but they're .500.

Seattle is above .500.

You tell me what you consider brutal, Chase. Please. I'd love to hear it.
Tennessee had a brutal schedule. The Texans had a brutal schedule. So did the Colts and Jaguars. Cleveland and Buffalo also had very difficult schedules.Yes, Denver played against four of the best five or six teams in the league. But you're ignoring that they played the second worst team in the league two times, the third worst team, and two other pretty bad teams. That makes their schedule a whole lot more palatable. They also get to play the 'Niners.

Their schedule yields a .522 winning percentage. I don't know how anyone could call that "brutal".
Why not just say the AFC South? Anyway, I took a look at those team's schedules, and they just don't seem much more difficult than Denver's. Can you tell me another team that played presumably the 4 best teams in football 5 times? Just because every game wasn't a decent opponent does not make their schedule easy, or even average. Oh well. I guess you and I have differing opinions of what constitutes a tough schedule. I suspect that if Denver had Houston's schedule or Jacksonville's schedule, they'd probably have a better record right now, but hey, what do I know. You're the expert.
The Broncos have played lots of opponents on both sides of the spectrum. That's the main source of our disagreement. Consider this hypothetical:Team A plays the #1 team, #2, #3, #4, #5, and number 22-32 teams in the league. That team's average opponent would rank 19.5th.

Team B played the #9-#24 teams. That schedule would on average, have Team B facing the 16.5th best team.

In my opinion, Team B has the tougher schedule. You could say that Team A played the toughest five teams so their schedule has to be brutal, but I'd just have to disagree.
Yeah, I guess we can agree to disagree.However, I will say that the strength of the team in your hypothetical scenarios will go a long way in determining what record they end up with, and therefore, presumably, how difficult their schedule is.

Let's assume a perfect world where #1 always beats #2, #2 always beats #3, and so on.

If the team in your first scenario is ranked between #5 and #21, it would end up 11-5. So, this would be a great schedule for the twentieth ranked team to have, but not so great for the sixth ranked team. I think Denver is probably closer to sixth than twentieth, so I contend that their schedule was fairly tough.

If the team in your second scenario was ranked #8 or better, they would end up 16-0, despite being slightly worse than team #6 in the first scenario. If they were ranked twenty fifth, just slightly worse than #20 in the first scenario, they would end up 0-16. Since Denver is likely right around #10, this would be a far more palatable schedule for THEM.

Granted, it never works this perfect, but it really is all relative. You could argue that with the parity in the NFL these days, it's easier to play a handful of top 6 teams and a handful of bottom 6 teams and a nice mixture of the rest than to play a majority of teams from the middle of the pack. And you might be right. Still, I think that given the strength of Denver relative to its opponents this season, their schedule would classify as, at the very least, unlucky.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dunno guys. A lot of these clubs are 8-6 or 7-7 because they have been inconsistent. They look good one week, then they look terrible the next. That's different than their wins and losses as of late.

Broncos:

Week 9 @ Steelers - Blow out Pittsburgh 31-20.

Week 10 @ Raiders - struggle to win in come-from-behind fashion 17-13.

Week 11 vs Chargers - play a really good football team, play well, but just ocme up short 35-27.

Week 12 @ Chiefs - Play uninspired and lose by two scores.

Week 13 vs Seahawks - Play another good team, play well, but just come up short 23-20.

Week 14 @ Chargers - get crushed 48-20.

Week 15 @ Cardinals - crush Cardinals 37-20.

Up, down, up, down, up, down. Looking at that pattern, I wonder if the Broncos will get crushed by the Bengals this week , then blow out by the 49ers in the season finale, and then get routed in the first round. And yet so often I see fans latch onto one game and predict it is a turning point where the team will go off on a tear. The Jets rout the Packers 38-10. You start seeing Jets fans get excited. And then they lay an egg the very next week against the Bills and lose 31-13.

I've got know idea which teams will show up when it comes to the wild card races.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
thatguy said:
Their schedule has been abolutely brutal average.
The Rams, the Cardinals, the Raiders twice, the Browns -- that's five games against the bottom quarter of the league.The Chargers twice, Patriots, Colts, Ravens -- that's five games against the top quarter of the league.

Seattle, Kansas City twice and Pittsburgh -- that's four games against average teams. Kansas City is pretty average, Pittsburgh is above average and Seattle is below average.

I'm not seeing the brutal schedule here, by any means.
Yeah, 5 games against what many consider the AFCs top 4 teams (including 2 against the NFL's best team) - that's a lot different than saying the "league's top quarter". It's pretty likely they're ALL better than the NFC's best team. Nothing brutal about that. :mellow: 2 games against KC, another team that would probably be a lock for a playoff berth if it wasn't in the AFC West.

Pitt hasn't been very good, but they're .500.

Seattle is above .500.

You tell me what you consider brutal, Chase. Please. I'd love to hear it.
Tennessee had a brutal schedule. The Texans had a brutal schedule. So did the Colts and Jaguars. Cleveland and Buffalo also had very difficult schedules.Yes, Denver played against four of the best five or six teams in the league. But you're ignoring that they played the second worst team in the league two times, the third worst team, and two other pretty bad teams. That makes their schedule a whole lot more palatable. They also get to play the 'Niners.

Their schedule yields a .522 winning percentage. I don't know how anyone could call that "brutal".
Why not just say the AFC South? Anyway, I took a look at those team's schedules, and they just don't seem much more difficult than Denver's. Can you tell me another team that played presumably the 4 best teams in football 5 times? Just because every game wasn't a decent opponent does not make their schedule easy, or even average. Oh well. I guess you and I have differing opinions of what constitutes a tough schedule. I suspect that if Denver had Houston's schedule or Jacksonville's schedule, they'd probably have a better record right now, but hey, what do I know. You're the expert.
The Broncos have played lots of opponents on both sides of the spectrum. That's the main source of our disagreement. Consider this hypothetical:Team A plays the #1 team, #2, #3, #4, #5, and number 22-32 teams in the league. That team's average opponent would rank 19.5th.

Team B played the #9-#24 teams. That schedule would on average, have Team B facing the 16.5th best team.

In my opinion, Team B has the tougher schedule. You could say that Team A played the toughest five teams so their schedule has to be brutal, but I'd just have to disagree.
Yeah, I guess we can agree to disagree.However, I will say that the strength of the team in your hypothetical scenarios will go a long way in determining what record they end up with, and therefore, presumably, how difficult their schedule is.

Let's assume a perfect world where #1 always beats #2, #2 always beats #3, and so on.

If the team in your first scenario is ranked between #5 and #21, it would end up 11-5. So, this would be a great schedule for the twentieth ranked team to have, but not so great for the sixth ranked team. I think Denver is probably closer to sixth than twentieth, so I contend that their schedule was fairly tough.

If the team in your second scenario was ranked #8 or better, they would end up 16-0, despite being slightly worse than team #6 in the first scenario. If they were ranked twenty fifth, just slightly worse than #20 in the first scenario, they would end up 0-16. Since Denver is likely right around #10, this would be a far more palatable schedule for THEM.

Granted, it never works this perfect, but it really is all relative. You could argue that with the parity in the NFL these days, it's easier to play a handful of top 6 teams and a handful of bottom 6 teams and a nice mixture of the rest than to play a majority of teams from the middle of the pack. And you might be right. Still, I think that given the strength of Denver relative to its opponents this season, their schedule would classify as, at the very least, unlucky.
This got me on a bit of a tanget that would take awhile to explain, but let me just throw out the numbers now and explain later.21st ranked team playing the schedule of Team A above: 7.74 expected wins

21st ranked team playing the schedule of Team B above: 7.01 expected wins

6th ranked team playing the schedule of Team A above: 10.70 expected wins

6th ranked team playing the schedule of Team B above: 10.26 expected wins

Playing that middle stretch is going to be more difficult, whether you're a good team or a bad team.

 
Interesting. Well, I'd love to see how you got those numbers if you ever get the time.
Alright, here's the process I used. I can't say that it's 100% the right way to do it, but it's 100% the best way I can think of doing it.Step 1: Go to http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl06.htm. Here are Jeff Sagarin's ratings for each team. The last column, "Pure Points", pretty much is a description of how good the team has played this year, or it's true ability (as shown on the field; a team that suffered a lot of injuries might have a good true ability but would score poorly in this system if they had in fact played poorly).

Step 2: Get the pure points rating for all 32 teams, and sort from 1-32. Then find the best fit line (standard linear regression) for the data, because we want to smooth out the bumps. This will make the difference between team 1 and 2 equal to the difference between teams 4 and 5, and between teams 24 and 25. While this arguably is not a perfect reflection of the NFL, I did this for a couple of reasons:

1) In my Team A and Team B hypotheticals, I was treating them this way. So when I ranked each team's schedule, and say the team would face the 16.5th or 19.5th best team on average, that included the number 1 team being the same amount better than the number 2 team as the number 15 team vs. the number 16 team.

2) Practically, it doesn't matter, for this example. The only problem with a linear model would be at the top and bottom, but in this case the schedules stipulated have the team playing the top five teams and the bottom 11 teams. So even if we bumped up number 1 and bumped down number 2, you're still playing both so there would be no practical difference.

Step 3: Figure out the likelihood of Team X beating Team Y.

If you go here, you'll see a pretty neat formula for figuring out the chance of a team winning any game against any opponent:

Home team prob. of winning =~ 1 / (1 + e^(-.438 - .0826*diff))

If the home team is 7 points better than the road team, this model gives the home team a 73% chance of winning. If the home team is 7 points worse, this model gives the home team a 46% chance of winning.
Unfortunately, I only had the formula handy for the home team's chances of winning. So I ran through the schedules twice, one with each game being at home, and one with each game being on the road, and then averaged those numbers.Step 4: Insert the ratings from the linear model into the equation

All that stuff was pretty technical, but now we get the results: and it should jive with our intuition.

The model says that the 6th ranked team has a 49% chance of winning on the road against the 13th ranked team. The 6th ranked team has a 54% chance of winning at home against the 1st ranked team. The 6th ranked team has a 70% chance of beating the 21st ranked team in a neutral site (61% chance on the road, 79% at home).

Here is the full schedule for the 6th ranked team playing Team A's schedule:

OR = Opponent Rank

WinProb = Probability of winning

OR WinProb 1 43.0% 2 44.4% 3 45.8% 4 47.2% 5 48.6%22 71.1%23 72.3%24 73.4%25 74.5%26 75.6%27 76.6%28 77.6%29 78.6%30 79.5%31 80.5%32 81.3%#W 1070.1%And the 6th ranked team playing Team B's schedule:
Code:
OR	WinProb 9	 54.2%10	55.6%11	57.0%12	58.4%13	59.7%14	61.1%15	62.4%16	63.7%17	65.0%18	66.3%19	67.5%20	68.8%21	70.0%22	71.1%23	72.3%24	73.4%#W  1026.4%
Note that the 6th ranked team is given a 54% chance of beating the 9th ranked team, and a 46% chance of beating the 3rd ranked team. Those seem pretty realistic to me.Obviously the difference in expected wins is less than half a game here, so it's not incredibly significant in a practical sense. But it is significant to the extent that focusing on the number of difficult games a team faces is not a perfect indicator of its actual strength of schedule.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top