SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisMore SRS trivia: toughest and easiest schedules
More observations from the simple rating system: the easiest and hardest schedules since the merger.
But before I do that, I need to clarify one thing about the simple rating system: it's not my system. I didn't invent it. In fact, it's one of those systems that has been around for so long that no one in particular is credited with having developed it (as far as I know anyway). People were almost certainly using it before I was born. I like the system and use it a lot because it's fairly easy to interpret and understand, and because the math behind it is nifty. But I just realized that I had never been clear enough about the fact that it's not my system. I just use it.
With that out of the way, here is a look at the easiest and the hardest schedules since 1970 according to the SRS. As you'll see from the list, it's pretty clear that a good way to have an easy schedule is to be a good team in an otherwise poor division/conference. Conversely, the hardest schedules are generally faced by bad teams in otherwise very strong divisions/conferences. Next time I'll take a look at the toughest and easiest divisions since the merger.
The units for the numbers in the avSOS column are points. E.g. an avSOS of -6.3 for the 1970 Dolphins means that the average team on Miami's schedule that year was 6.3 points worse than a league average team. The string of numbers after avSOS indicates (among other things) that the best team the Dolphins played was the 11th best team in the league and that they played six games against the four worst teams in the league.
Tm Yr avSOS SRS ranks of teams beaten / lost to / tied ====================================================================== mia 1970 -6.3 11 14 18 21 21 23 24 25 25 26 / 12 14 20 26 / stl 1999 -5.9 19 21 21 22 24 26 26 28 28 29 30 30 31 / 15 18 25 / bal 1970 -5.8 8 15 16 17 20 21 21 24 25 26 26 / 10 16 / 25 buf 1991 -5.2 11 15 19 19 20 21 21 22 25 26 27 28 28 / 5 14 26 / min 1975 -5.2 6 13 15 16 16 20 22 23 24 25 25 26 / 12 13 / tam 1979 -5.1 13 14 16 22 23 25 25 27 28 28 / 14 17 23 24 26 27 / jax 1999 -4.8 9 11 19 19 21 23 23 26 28 29 29 30 31 31 / 18 18 / mia 1972 -4.3 8 9 12 13 13 19 19 20 21 22 22 24 26 26 / / ari 1998 -4.1 14 17 20 21 27 27 28 30 30 / 10 10 12 18 19 19 25 / nyj 1991 -3.8 16 18 21 21 22 26 27 28 / 4 8 8 12 14 15 26 28 / mia 1991 -3.7 15 22 25 26 26 27 28 28 / 4 5 8 8 14 18 19 19 / chi 1977 -3.7 3 17 21 23 24 24 26 26 28 / 6 13 16 17 27 / chi 1979 -3.6 15 16 19 20 21 25 25 26 27 28 / 3 5 8 20 27 28 / phi 2000 -3.6 8 17 18 25 25 26 28 29 30 31 31 / 2 12 13 13 17 / car 1999 -3.6 17 25 26 28 28 29 30 31 / 1 1 5 12 15 23 26 30 / cin 1970 -3.5 11 12 15 22 23 24 25 26 / 2 7 10 12 22 24 / ram 1975 -3.5 1 5 13 15 15 16 19 20 24 25 26 26 / 10 20 / pit 1983 -3.3 9 11 17 18 20 25 26 27 28 28 / 7 11 14 20 21 22 / nyg 1985 -3.3 10 14 20 22 22 23 24 26 28 28 / 12 12 13 15 17 20 / dal 1971 -3.3 4 7 19 19 20 20 22 23 25 25 26 / 7 15 16 / ten 1999 -3.2 1 4 5 5 19 23 23 26 29 29 30 31 31 / 16 19 28 / sea 2006 -3.2 14 17 22 22 25 28 29 30 32 / 2 4 15 24 29 31 31 / car 2005 -3.2 13 16 17 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 31 / 12 14 15 16 31 / sea 1982 -3.2 8 24 27 27 / 7 9 18 22 28 / dal 1998 -3.1 12 16 19 19 26 26 27 27 30 30 / 1 5 14 18 21 25 / den 1998 -3.1 9 10 11 12 12 18 18 25 25 27 28 28 29 30 / 6 19 / nwe 1973 -3.1 19 22 24 25 26 / 2 2 12 13 13 17 17 18 22 / stl 2006 -3.1 14 23 24 25 28 29 31 32 / 2 4 15 19 21 21 29 31 / cle 1983 -3.1 7 11 13 14 17 25 26 27 28 / 9 11 13 18 21 22 28 / atl 1977 -3.1 3 18 19 23 24 27 28 / 3 9 14 17 19 25 27 / pit 1970 -3.0 12 13 21 24 25 / 10 11 12 13 17 18 19 20 24 / mia 1984 -2.9 6 7 10 12 16 16 18 22 22 26 26 27 28 28 / 5 15 / chi 2006 -2.9 12 13 17 21 22 24 24 25 28 28 29 30 31 / 1 16 25 / dal 1976 -2.8 4 9 12 14 19 19 22 23 23 24 27 / 12 14 25 / nwe 1991 -2.8 4 8 17 19 28 28 / 8 10 10 16 19 20 21 21 23 25 / buf 1970 -2.8 21 21 26 / 3 8 9 13 14 16 16 19 22 26 / 14 sdg 1992 -2.8 13 15 15 19 20 23 24 26 26 27 27 / 6 9 10 10 20 / sea 2004 -2.8 15 16 17 18 19 26 28 32 32 / 1 5 6 26 29 29 30 / sfo 1984 -2.8 6 11 11 13 17 18 19 19 20 21 23 24 24 25 27 / 10 / chi 1986 -2.7 4 9 10 12 17 18 20 22 23 23 26 26 28 28 / 4 11 / ram 1977 -2.7 2 11 13 15 17 19 19 26 27 28 / 13 14 18 27 / nyg 2000 -2.7 8 11 11 16 17 25 25 26 28 30 31 31 / 2 10 15 17 / cin 1982 -2.7 7 15 22 23 26 28 28 / 6 8 / ... cin 2004 +2.5 7 8 9 18 21 22 23 30 / 1 4 4 5 6 7 22 25 / min 1972 +2.6 4 10 10 15 16 17 23 / 1 2 4 5 6 16 21 / chi 1970 +2.6 9 17 18 20 23 25 / 1 1 2 2 6 14 15 17 / kan 1999 +2.6 4 8 9 9 14 15 19 20 23 / 4 6 7 7 13 20 22 / phi 2005 +2.6 3 7 20 22 25 32 / 2 4 6 6 8 8 12 12 17 24 / cle 1979 +2.6 4 5 8 10 13 18 19 21 22 / 1 1 4 7 11 12 18 / sdg 2000 +2.6 19 / 1 1 3 6 7 7 8 10 18 19 20 21 23 23 24 / sea 1989 +2.6 3 9 13 13 16 16 24 / 2 2 4 5 8 11 12 12 25 / bal 1978 +2.6 4 5 12 14 22 / 1 2 3 3 5 9 10 10 19 23 23 / mia 2004 +2.7 1 22 29 32 / 1 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 11 20 25 26 / ram 1971 +2.8 6 6 9 11 14 15 16 17 / 1 2 3 7 15 / 11 nwe 1975 +2.9 5 20 24 / 2 2 5 6 6 7 9 10 11 23 23 / buf 2006 +2.9 5 13 16 16 24 25 26 / 1 1 2 3 4 6 13 18 28 / nyg 1983 +2.9 10 18 23 / 1 1 3 3 5 6 7 8 9 16 23 25 / 16 sdg 1972 +2.9 12 17 19 24 / 1 2 3 5 7 10 12 14 17 / 3 kan 1979 +2.9 7 7 11 11 18 22 22 / 1 2 2 4 6 6 9 20 23 / oak 1999 +2.9 2 3 7 8 11 13 20 22 / 3 7 9 9 16 17 18 20 / buf 1977 +3.0 9 13 22 / 1 2 5 5 8 8 9 11 14 20 22 / oak 2005 +3.0 8 12 26 29 / 2 2 3 3 6 7 7 13 15 19 23 27 / ind 1998 +3.0 2 28 29 / 2 3 4 6 6 7 7 9 9 12 14 16 24 / nor 1971 +3.0 2 4 6 14 / 4 5 6 7 11 11 12 16 / 10 24 bal 2004 +3.1 4 5 6 11 18 21 22 23 30 / 1 2 4 9 10 11 22 / nyj 1999 +3.1 2 7 9 10 14 16 16 27 / 2 4 5 6 6 12 14 24 / chi 1971 +3.1 2 5 7 9 15 17 / 3 4 5 6 9 14 14 21 / tam 1982 +3.3 3 10 11 20 24 / 1 2 4 12 / sdg 2005 +3.3 1 6 7 8 13 20 20 26 27 / 2 2 5 7 12 15 19 / oak 2004 +3.4 5 8 15 19 25 / 2 3 3 4 8 10 10 12 14 17 28 / pit 1977 +3.4 4 6 10 11 11 12 19 20 22 / 1 2 6 8 12 / nwe 1998 +3.4 3 6 7 14 15 18 22 23 23 / 2 2 4 5 6 7 17 / ten 2006 +3.5 5 6 11 12 17 23 26 26 / 1 2 3 5 6 9 13 16 / nor 1998 +3.5 10 13 16 17 17 23 / 1 3 3 4 4 6 7 9 16 26 / car 1998 +3.5 14 17 17 23 / 2 3 3 4 4 6 7 8 10 13 14 27 / stl 1998 +3.5 2 7 9 21 / 1 3 3 4 4 6 14 14 16 16 26 30 / nyj 2000 +3.5 4 5 6 6 12 20 22 22 26 / 1 3 4 7 8 15 20 / den 1999 +3.6 4 4 7 15 17 20 / 3 3 5 7 8 11 13 14 16 20 / det 1970 +3.7 3 4 6 8 8 11 12 13 17 17 / 1 1 7 23 / ram 1991 +3.7 13 18 22 / 1 2 2 3 3 5 9 9 11 12 14 17 23 / cle 2004 +3.7 7 11 14 21 / 1 3 4 4 5 6 7 9 11 18 23 30 / pho 1991 +3.8 6 9 24 26 / 1 1 2 3 6 7 7 10 13 13 17 17 / kan 1977 +3.9 10 26 / 1 1 2 2 6 8 9 10 11 12 18 20 / sfo 1973 +3.9 8 10 18 19 23 / 1 1 2 4 5 6 8 11 23 / cin 1979 +3.9 1 9 10 19 / 1 2 3 4 4 6 8 9 12 13 15 22 / was 1970 +4.2 2 4 13 19 20 20 / 1 4 5 5 6 9 9 11 / cle 1975 +4.2 7 17 26 / 1 1 4 5 7 8 9 9 12 13 14 / nyj 1975 +4.2 17 18 18 / 1 2 2 4 5 5 6 6 10 11 24 / bal 1982 +4.6 / 1 3 3 6 9 11 12 18 / 5 nor 1970 +4.6 2 9 / 1 3 3 4 6 8 13 16 18 18 19 / 6 gnb 1970 +5.1 1 8 15 18 20 22 / 1 2 2 3 5 6 8 14 /
This entry was posted on Monday, June 25th, 2007 at 10:14 am and is filed under General, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
The SRS confirms what we knew -- the '99 Rams and '72 Dolphins faced incredibly easy schedules. The '99 Rams defeated a bad Titans team in the SB (I'm guessing they were the 15th best team in the league that year, based on St. Louis losing in the regular season to the 15th, 18th and 25th best teams), and I'm not sure the Vikings or Bucs were all that good, either. All things considered, the '99 Rams might have had the easiest regular season schedule of any SB champ and the easiest post-season schedule of any SB Champ.
Actually, that brings up a good question -- which SB champs had the hardest post-season schedules? For my money, it's the '04 Patriots. Obviously some SB Champs played three teams and some played four, but that's not a big impediment.
Interesting to see the 2006 teams on there. I agree wholeheartedly with the '06 Seahawks -- they faced an absolute joke schedule.
Have you posted the 2006 SRS rankings? I'm guessing the Jets ranked as the top team the Bears defeated last year. Chicago had to play the AFC East which was tough, but the whole NFC was really weak last year.
On the flip side, I agree that Tennessee and Buffalo faced really difficult schedules. This matches up pretty closely with Sagarin's work.
This work is faulty. We all know the 1980s 49ers were only good because they beat up on the Rams, Saints and Falcons twice each every year. Your conclusion does not match my preconceived thoughts, therefore, your conclusion must be wrong.
Vince, the other problem with your preconceived thoughts is that the Rams were good for most of the 1980's, with 6 seasons of 10 or more wins during that decade. And one of their worst seasons was 1982 when they went 2-7, but the 49ers were only 3-6 that same year.
One wonders why the '99 Rams, '91 Bills, '99 jags and '70 Colts don;t get any flak about their easy schedules while the '72 Fins will be villified for theirs until the end of time. Ah well.
I also now know why the '77 Bears are the worst 10-win team ever and the '98 Cards are considered possibly the worst playoff team ever though.
It's pretty sad that the '77 Falcons had one of the easiest schedules along with a D that allowed 9 points a game and STILL couldn't finish above .500.
I wonder why there aren't more NFC teams from 2004 on the easy schedule list seeing as that conference that year was the weakest I've ever seen?
Very interesting. How about championship teams with the easiest and hardests paths to through the Super Bowl? I.e. easiest/hardest playoff schedules?
I was an 11 year old kid in Baltimore with my own season tickets in winless '82 (my dad worked stats at the game). It was a brutal and depressing season for a lot of reasons. I wonder if they hadn't had such a tough schedule if things would have turned out different--no team in Indy, no Ravens.
I was never sold on the Rams.
Speaking to Vince's point, which I'm guessing was a bit tongue in cheek.... I think a lot of "ratings systems" in sports are judged by how closely they buttress the standings and/or pre-conceived notions. If a potential BCS computer system didn't give close to "correct" results (i.e., if one of the "lesser" teams ranked up in the mix), that system would probably be pigeonholed. If ratings systems are thought to suck if they don't parrot the standings, what is the point of ratings systems. It's kinda like judging unique alphabetizing orders by how close they are to the regular alphabet.
Dolfan, I think the 1999 Rams have received criticism for an easy schedule, but the 1972 Dolphins are the only undefeated team, so pointing out the easy schedule is the only thing that can be done to detract from their performance. There's no point in making fun of the 1999 Jaguars for an easy schedule, when they blew the AFC Championship game at home.
I can make fun of them for losing three times to one team after beating all the other apparent pansies they faced, so THERE!
Plus as a Dolfan, I have a special place of hate in my heart for that team and think the Titans loss was karmic justice for running up the score a bit against You Know Who the week before.
Actually, even I don't think it's really fair to criticize the '99 Rams for their easy schedule when before that season they'd stunk the entire decade. Who knew they'd make the playoffs that summer, let alone win the whole thing, even if they DID have it easy?
In the '72 Fins' defense, the Vikes somehow had their only non-playoff season from 1969-78 and I get the impression that nobody knew the Chiefs were about to embark on a 15-year non-playoff drought.
I'll defend the 1999 Rams. It's not who you play. It's how you play against who you play. (Which is my big problem with the BCS computer rankings, but I'll try not to get started) They dominated every team they beat in the regular season, with the closest winning margin being 13 (at Carolina). They were 0-3 in close games in the regular season, including a meaningless week 17 loss at Philadelphia. It's not like they wouldn't have won the AFC West or East that year, because they would have, they just wouldn't have won as many games by 30.
Another thing people don't realize about the '99 Rams is that they scored a very high number of return TDs that year (11). Super Bowl hero Mike Jones had 3 scores during the regular season just by himself. It wasn't all their offense. And since they showed every single Rams game on TV where I lived I got to see all these return TDs firsthand.
Everyone is talking about the '99 Rams . . . what about the '05 Seahawks (because, as we all know, they really WERE Super Bowl champs!) Finishing seven games above the second place team in their division, going 2-2 against playoff teams (their victories were against Jay Feeley's three missed field goals and a Manning-less Colts team playing for nothing), going against two six seeds and a five seed in the playoffs.
Why couldn't have the Colts and Bears squared off in Super Bowl XL?