PDA

View Full Version : 2006 NFL SOS *Chiefs 7th Hardest*


AeroSquid
01-25-2006, 08:47 AM
http://www.theredzone.org/strength.asp

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/2505/sos068fu.jpg

Discuss

Hoover
01-25-2006, 08:50 AM
I think SOS is over rated

CosmicPal
01-25-2006, 08:51 AM
There's really nothing to discuss- we always get *****ed with the SOSing. It's BS to see the Colts have yet another year of opponents under .500 and the same goes for Jacksonville while the Chiefs are persistently getting *****ed year in and year out...

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 08:52 AM
Broncos schedule is even tougher. They have an easier SOS according to the formula because they're playing against the Chiefs 10-6 record, and you're playing against their 13-3.

Pats are sitting pretty this year. If we don't get a #1 or 2 seed, there's definitely nobody to blame except ourselves.

DaFace
01-25-2006, 08:52 AM
Is this accurate? How can we have a harder schedule than the Broncos? We are against the same teams except two, and the Donks should have the better teams for those two games. Am I missing something?

Wile_E_Coyote
01-25-2006, 08:53 AM
I kinda like the, "it's not who you play but when you play them." SOS can't predict injuries

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 08:53 AM
There's really nothing to discuss- we always get *****ed with the SOSing. It's BS to see the Colts have yet another year of opponents under .500 and the same goes for Jacksonville while the Chiefs are persistently getting *****ed year in and year out...


A big part of that is the strength of their division (pathetic AFC South) versus the strength of yours.

They have 4 gimme games versus the Titans and Texans.

DaFace
01-25-2006, 08:53 AM
Broncos schedule is even tougher. They have an easier SOS according to the formula because they're playing against the Chiefs 10-6 record, and you're playing against their 13-3.

Pats are sitting pretty this year. If we don't get a #1 or 2 seed, there's definitely nobody to blame except ourselves.

Guess that explains it. Thanks.

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 08:53 AM
Is this accurate? How can we have a harder schedule than the Broncos? We are against the same teams except two, and the Donks should have the better teams for those two games. Am I missing something?


You're correct, but they have 2 games against the 10-6 Chiefs, while you have 2 against the 13-3 Broncos...

Saulbadguy
01-25-2006, 08:54 AM
There's really nothing to discuss- we always get *****ed with the SOSing. It's BS to see the Colts have yet another year of opponents under .500 and the same goes for Jacksonville while the Chiefs are persistently getting *****ed year in and year out...
:rolleyes:

Noone is ****ing us. It's the way SOS works.

58-4ever
01-25-2006, 09:01 AM
People put way too much stock in strength of schedule. If you are good and get hot at the right time, you should beat anyone put in front of you. Look at what the Steelers have done. 1, 2, and 3 seeds all on the road. It's time to stop making excuses and winning some damn football games!

CosmicPal
01-25-2006, 09:03 AM
:rolleyes:

Noone is ****ing us. It's the way SOS works.

I understand it's because we are in the AFC West and the West is traditionally a very strong division, so therefore as long as our division remains highly competetive, our SOS will always be difficult, but Denver and San Diego are playing the same NFC division as we are- Denver went to the AFC championship game, therefore- their SOS should be more difficult than ours. We didn't make the playoffs, therefore we should be playing the non-playoff teams in the NFC division while Denver takes on that NFC division winner. So, why isn't Denver's schedule more difficult than ours?

cadmonkey
01-25-2006, 09:04 AM
SOS, is crap before the season starts. I mean look at how many teams that were supposed to be great this year and sucked balls or vise versa.

SOS is as useful as the BCS

58-4ever
01-25-2006, 09:04 AM
and this is only the real strength of schedule if each team ends with the exact same record as last year. So this is pretty much a pointless thread, just like strength of schedule is pointless.

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 09:08 AM
I understand it's because we are in the AFC West and the West is traditionally a very strong division, so therefore as long as our division remains highly competetive, our SOS will always be difficult, but Denver and San Diego are playing the same NFC division as we are- Denver went to the AFC championship game, therefore- their SOS should be more difficult than ours. We didn't make the playoffs, therefore we should be playing the non-playoff teams in the NFC division while Denver takes on that NFC division winner. So, why isn't Denver's schedule more difficult than ours?

There have been three posts on this already. Why don't you try reading the thread.

CosmicPal
01-25-2006, 09:09 AM
There have been three posts on this already. Why don't you try reading the thread.

Why don't you go ***** yourself. I was responding to Saul, not the thread.

Cochise
01-25-2006, 09:11 AM
:rolleyes:

Noone is ****ing us. It's the way SOS works.

No kidding... next people will wonder why Seattle is never amongst the top.

At this time last year a lot of people were probably worrying that the Eagles were on their schedule. Then they imploded. Comparing SOS from one year to the next is dumb.

FringeNC
01-25-2006, 09:11 AM
Our schedule isn't bad at all. Cinci and Jax are not nearly as good as their record. We get them at home, along with Seattle. Pittsburgh and Miami are the only difficult out of division away games.

Chris Meck
01-25-2006, 09:11 AM
yup.

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 09:13 AM
Why don't you go ***** yourself. I was responding to Saul, not the thread.


ROFL ROFL

siberian khatru
01-25-2006, 09:15 AM
You're correct, but they have 2 games against the 10-6 Chiefs, while you have 2 against the 13-3 Broncos...


That's exactly it. Remove the Chiefs from the Broncos' sked, and the Broncos from the Chiefs' sked, and each opponents' W-L record comes out to 122-118.

Saulbadguy
01-25-2006, 09:16 AM
I understand it's because we are in the AFC West and the West is traditionally a very strong division, so therefore as long as our division remains highly competetive, our SOS will always be difficult, but Denver and San Diego are playing the same NFC division as we are- Denver went to the AFC championship game, therefore- their SOS should be more difficult than ours. We didn't make the playoffs, therefore we should be playing the non-playoff teams in the NFC division while Denver takes on that NFC division winner. So, why isn't Denver's schedule more difficult than ours?
Simple math, my friend.

Are you considering filing a class action suit against the NFL because of our "tough" schedule?

Wile_E_Coyote
01-25-2006, 09:17 AM
but what was the SOS of the winning teams last year :) did they play creampuffs to get that record ROFL

CosmicPal
01-25-2006, 09:18 AM
Gawd, I'd be pissed if I was a Saints fan. "This is BS! First the hurricane, and then no actual home field advantage, and now we get the toughest SOS in '06. Gaaaaaaaaaaahhhh, I was just wanna hurt someone! Hey, which one of you MFer's took off with all of my Heinekens?"

CosmicPal
01-25-2006, 09:20 AM
Are you considering filing a class action suit against the NFL because of our "tough" schedule?

As a matter of fact I am, and I am planning on using your signature for the suit.

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 09:22 AM
That's exactly it. Remove the Chiefs from the Broncos' sked, and the Broncos from the Chiefs' sked, and each opponents' W-L record comes out to 122-118.


err...that's impossible. Broncos and Chiefs play the same opponents except the Broncos get the 1st place finishers in the two AFC divisions that you're not matched up against, and you guys get the 2nd place schedule in those same divisons. If you remove each other from your schedules, it's impossible that the W-L of the remaining teams is identical. Theirs must be at least a little harder.

CoMoChief
01-25-2006, 09:23 AM
We will always have a tougher schedule than most people, along with the rest of the AFCWest teams simply because of just that. The AFCWest is the toughest division in football, and has been for years. Even the worst team (OAK) is better than alot of teams in the AFC IMO. Oakland is not your typical shitty bottom division team. We beat the hell out of eachother every season.

siberian khatru
01-25-2006, 09:24 AM
err...that's impossible. Broncos and Chiefs play the same opponents except the Broncos get the 1st place finishers in the two AFC divisions that you're not matched up against, and you guys get the 2nd place schedule in those same divisons. If you remove each other from your schedules, it's impossible that the W-L of the remaining teams is identical. Theirs must be at least a little harder.

Do the math.

135-121 minus 13-3 Broncos = 122-118

132-124 minus the 10-6 Chiefs = 122-118

Cochise
01-25-2006, 09:25 AM
Simple math, my friend.

Are you considering filing a class action suit against the NFL because of our "tough" schedule?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

CosmicPal
01-25-2006, 09:25 AM
Do the math.

135-121 minus 13-3 Broncos = 122-118

132-124 minus the 10-6 Chiefs = 122-118

Man, that's heavy. I need to smoke a bowl now.

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 09:27 AM
Do the math.

135-121 minus 13-3 Broncos = 122-118

132-124 minus the 10-6 Chiefs = 122-118

Logic trumps math, and more importantly, incorrect math.

Broncos and Chiefs play twice, so it's 135-121 minus 26-6 Broncos and 132-124 minus the 20-12 Chiefs....

Cochise
01-25-2006, 09:33 AM
Man, that's heavy. I need to smoke a bowl now.

Do you have a cat? :p

KCTitus
01-25-2006, 09:36 AM
SOS, at this point, is irrelevant. SOS in week 1 is irrelevant. What matters is when you play your opponent and their injury situation.

siberian khatru
01-25-2006, 09:44 AM
Logic trumps math, and more importantly, incorrect math.

Broncos and Chiefs play twice, so it's 135-121 minus 26-6 Broncos and 132-124 minus the 20-12 Chiefs....

:doh!: :redface:

Obviously, I didn't realize they counted the division opponents' records twice.

By SOS, they mean the week-to-week schedule. I see it more as just the strength of the teams you play. We play 13 teams. I don't believe that's bad logic, or incorrect math, but it IS different than the standards set by the chart above, so TECHNICALLY I'm wrong. :p

el borracho
01-25-2006, 09:50 AM
There have been three posts on this already. Why don't you try reading the thread.
Why don't you just answer the question?

;)

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 09:53 AM
:doh!: :redface:

Obviously, I didn't realize they counted the division opponents' records twice.

By SOS, they mean the week-to-week schedule. I see it more as just the strength of the teams you play. We play 13 teams. I don't believe that's bad logic, or incorrect math, but it IS different than the standards set by the chart above, so TECHNICALLYI'm wrong. :p

Yes, I agree.


:D

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 09:54 AM
Why don't you just answer the question?

;)


Cuz I already had, twice, in this very thread, and I was feeling like being a jerk. :harumph:

siberian khatru
01-25-2006, 09:55 AM
Yes, I agree.


:D

nlm

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 10:00 AM
nlm



ROFL ROFL

Actually, if you think about it, it has to be the way they do it. If a really good or really bad team is on your schedule twice, you need to account for that team differently than one that is only on your schedule once.

cdcox
01-25-2006, 10:07 AM
:doh!: :redface:

Obviously, I didn't realize they counted the division opponents' records twice.

By SOS, they mean the week-to-week schedule. I see it more as just the strength of the teams you play. We play 13 teams. I don't believe that's bad logic, or incorrect math, but it IS different than the standards set by the chart above, so TECHNICALLY I'm wrong. :p

Taking your line of reasoning to its absurd conclusion:

Team A was 16-0 last season
Team B was 0-16 last season

Team C's schedule is 15 games against Team A and 1 game against team B.

Team D's schedule is 15 games against Team B and 1 game against team A.

You are arguing that the only difference in their strength of schedule is a technicality? :)

BTW, in case anyone was wondering, the Chiefs are Team C.

Inspector
01-25-2006, 10:15 AM
It's BS to see the Colts have yet another year of opponents under .500 while the Chiefs are persistently getting *****ed year in and year out...

The NFL wants the Colts to win the SB.

I heard about it on TV.

tiptap
01-25-2006, 10:22 AM
When you look at teams it is defense that has the biggest swings from year to year. So it is hard to say how tough teams will be next year. But I don't see a lot of difference between NE and Miami (sorry Ammorix) but there is a difference between Indiana and Jacksonville, especially for Denver.

So I'll wait to see the actual scheduling of the games to see if we are going to have trouble with the schedule. After that it will be injuries that influence performance.

siberian khatru
01-25-2006, 10:27 AM
Taking your line of reasoning to its absurd conclusion:

Team A was 16-0 last season
Team B was 0-16 last season

Team C's schedule is 15 games against Team A and 1 game against team B.

Team D's schedule is 15 games against Team B and 1 game against team A.

You are arguing that the only difference in their strength of schedule is a technicality? :)

BTW, in case anyone was wondering, the Chiefs are Team C.

Yeah, that's absurd. Let's take it further: The schedule is cancelled because a large meteorite slams into earth and ends life as we know it. :p

I like Amnorix's reasoning better. :)

nmt1
01-25-2006, 10:30 AM
I wonder how different our 2006 SOS will be at the end of next season as opposed to what it is now.

StcChief
01-25-2006, 11:35 AM
Teams change from year to year...

7 does seem high considering we are play NFCW.

phxchief
01-25-2006, 11:38 AM
Seattle getting another free ride to the playoffs. Pathetic.

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 11:49 AM
Seattle getting another free ride to the playoffs. Pathetic.

That's a simple function of being in the absolutely pathetic NFC West.

FringeNC
01-25-2006, 12:40 PM
Those strength of schedule numbers don't mean that much because they are unadjusted for previous year's strength of schedule. Instead of looking at record this year, it'd be better to look at the Sagarin ratings. Jax 12-4 record is a joke. It might even out, though. We play SD twice, and they are no 9-7 team.

Saulbadguy
01-25-2006, 01:19 PM
That's a simple function of being in the absolutely pathetic NFC West.
Exactly.

I hate it when people think there is some good old boy network in the NFL scheduling department ****ing the Chiefs, and giving breaks to other teams.

ClevelandChief
01-25-2006, 01:27 PM
There's really nothing to discuss- we always get *****ed with the SOSing. It's BS to see the Colts have yet another year of opponents under .500 and the same goes for Jacksonville while the Chiefs are persistently getting *****ed year in and year out...




Uh I'd personally rather have a hard schedule during the season...what good is it to go 13-3 against cream puff opponents only to finally face a good team in the playoffs and get knocked out your first game

Examples:
Bears
Bucs
Bengals
Colts

Only team with a cake schedule that did anything is the Hawks playing in the ultra weak NFC.

All of these teams had easy schedules, especially the Colts, none of them advanced in the playoffs.

As shown this postseason, regular season means absolutely nothing at all. The teams that earn their way in through tough games will be the ones that do anything, the others who tap dance their way in, get knocked out like Mike Tyson.

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 01:44 PM
Uh I'd personally rather have a hard schedule during the season...what good is it to go 13-3 against cream puff opponents only to finally face a good team in the playoffs and get knocked out your first game

Examples:
Bears
Bucs
Bengals
Colts

Only team with a cake schedule that did anything is the Hawks playing in the ultra weak NFC.

All of these teams had easy schedules, especially the Colts, none of them advanced in the playoffs.

As shown this postseason, regular season means absolutely nothing at all. The teams that earn their way in through tough games will be the ones that do anything, the others who tap dance their way in, get knocked out like Mike Tyson.


I agree with this.

Pats went 10-0 against teams with 10+ wins in 2003, then something like 7-1 in '04, and then took the title.

In the 80s, the best conference was the NFC, and those teams had the toughest roads to the Super Bowl, but once they got there, they ALWAYS won it. Same with the AFC lately.

Getting a cupcake schedule to make it to the playoffs is usually a recipe for a quick out.

Amnorix
01-25-2006, 01:45 PM
Exactly.

I hate it when people think there is some good old boy network in the NFL scheduling department ****ing the Chiefs, and giving breaks to other teams.


IMHO the NFL scheduling system is 100% fair, logical and balanced. Not every year for every team. That's impossible. But the CONCEPT of how it is organized, is perfect.

If you're in a tough division or conference, then that's rotten luck, but there's nothing the NFL can do about that. They can't reorganize the divisons every year....

milkman
01-25-2006, 01:51 PM
Those strength of schedule numbers don't mean that much because they are unadjusted for previous year's strength of schedule. Instead of looking at record this year, it'd be better to look at the Sagarin ratings. Jax 12-4 record is a joke. It might even out, though. We play SD twice, and they are no 9-7 team.

No, no, no no!
You obviously weren't paying any attention.

They are the best 9-7 team ever in the history of 9-7 teams!

Saulbadguy
01-25-2006, 01:53 PM
IMHO the NFL scheduling system is 100% fair, logical and balanced. Not every year for every team. That's impossible. But the CONCEPT of how it is organized, is perfect.

If you're in a tough division or conference, then that's rotten luck, but there's nothing the NFL can do about that. They can't reorganize the divisons every year....
They could do the right thing, and take away the Arizona Cardinals franchise and sell it to the highest bidder. That is about the only thing they could do.

ck_IN
01-25-2006, 02:09 PM
You all realize that at this point projecting a strength of schedule is laughable at best.

With the draft and two FA periods (I count the cap casualties as a second one) any of these teams could look entirely different by the time the season starts.

Count Zarth
01-25-2006, 02:27 PM
I wonder if we'll have 4 consecutive road games this year at some point?