Who had the hardest NFL schedule?

I am trying to find who had the hardest schedule in football. All I can find are links to the predictions based on the 2013 schedule. I figured now that the regular season is over, we would be able to tell who actually had the hardest schedule and how different is the list from the predictions based on the 2013 schedule.

Does anyone know a link that could help me figure this out?

Here’s the requested link.

It looks like Oakland had by far the toughest schedule in the NFL, with Dallas having the easiest.

Here’s a simple chart that shows pre-season projections compared to final rankings:


Thank you both, very much :smiley:

Can’t wait for someone to use the Raiders’ “last-place schedule” as a further condemnation of their record/play

Actually, I don’t think anyone’s talking about the Raiders at all these days.

I live 15 miles from Oakland so it’s technically possible.

Mike Shanahan is!

Mike Shanahan back with the Raiders, huh?

I suppose he’ll hire Marcus Allen as offensive coordinator, too.

Why would it be condemnation? They had the toughest schedule, not the easiest.

Does the “tough schedule” metric include games played against the Raiders themselves? The combined record of their opponents includes 13 wins, and 3 losses, by virtue of playing the Raiders. Seems if you really want to know the strength of their opponents you should factor that out.

I read it was San Francisco

There is no such thing as a last place schedule and there hasn’t been in many years.

I checked the ESPN numbers, and no, it’s just SOS, not adjusted to remove the team’s own game outcomes.

I ran the Raiders and Broncos, for example, and the adjusted strength of schedule for the Raiders was 128-126 (.547) and 129-104-1 for the Broncos (.553). (The non-adjusted, for example, was .570 for the Raiders and .521 for the Broncos). Adjusting the SOS removes 22 games out of 256, about 8.5%, so there while there won’t be huge swings, there can be an effect. Still, I’d wager the Raiders are still pretty close to the top even with adjusted SOS.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the charts but isn’t it the opposite? The Raiders had the toughest schedule in the league.

Those numbers don’t seem to add up, each team plays 16 games a year, so the unadjusted schedule will tally the sixteen games of the sixteen teams, so 256 games.

Adjusted should tally 15 of the games for each of the 13 non-conference opponents and 14 of the games for 3 conference opponents, so should be out of a total of 237 games.

The Raiders’ opponents had 146 wins in 256 games, for an average of .570. However, non-conference opponents were given 8 wins against the Raiders, and conference opponents 5 wins (which were each counted twice as they play those teams twice.) Adjusted, the Raiders’ opponents had 128 wins against non-Raiders opponents in 237 games, for a aSoS of .540.

The Broncos’ opponents had 133.5 wins in 256 games, but only 4 of those were against the Broncos (no losses in conference.) Their opponents won 129.5/237 non-Broncos games, for an aSoS of .546.

The Seahawks’ opponents had 134.5 wins in 256 games, but they lost once within in their conference…which ends up counting twice in the formula, as they played that team twice. So their opponents also won 129.5/237 non-Seahawks games for an aSoS of .546.

I’m pretty sure no other team would be at or above that, so I think the answer to the OP is a tie between the Broncos and the Seahawks by this measure.

Postscript: I think I’m underweighting conference games, the above basically weights them as 14/15 the weight of a non-conference game…

You may be confusing divison and conference - Denver lost to New England and Cincinnati this past season, both in the AFC.