What would happen if you took your teams win loss record, added in your opponent's win loss record, and opponent's opponent's win loss record? Or some combination of these records? Who would be the best team in the NFL based on "Strength of Schedule?" Who has beaten more quality opponents?
I found this posted on a message board on the internet. I am not sure who originally came up with this chart and formula. But I believe it is used in college basketball (RPI). Interesting read:
Okay, maybe that doesn't look so simple. Let's break it down just a little. "WP" is winning percentage, "OWP" is Opponent's Winning Percentage, and "OOWP" is Opponent's Opponent's Winning Percentage. Gee, thanks for clearing that all up, Jeff. No problem.....
Let's put it this way - RPI is one part how good the team's record is, two parts how good the teams they play are, and one part how good the schedule of the teams they played. Yes, it takes some doing to figure all of that out, but the basic premise is pretty simple. If you have a good record, that counts for something - or 25% of your RPI. Now you look at your schedule, which accounts for 50%. The final 25% is the toughest thing to affect you, which is how solid the record of your opponent's really is, which is judged by who they played.
Now, I like the concept here, but I have some issues with it. First, I don't understand how you can give the same weight to your direct record (WP) and something that a team has zero control over (OOWP). How is that fair? If Team A beats Team B, how is it fair to consider Team B's schedule as worth the same amount as your team's record? I don't.
There are "tweaks" out there that adjust the RPI math some, and I liked some of what they did - doing things such as subtracting a team's record from their opponent's record. This is considered a "modified" record, and has associated a "Modified OWP" (MOWP) and "Modified OOWP" (MOOWP). That makes sense to me - if Denver is 6-0 and their opponents are 16-18, that's not as accurate as taking away those six wins by Denver. If it wasn't for the Broncos, the opponents would actually be 16-12, a winning record and quite a bit different than 16-18. Another tweak is to remove the extra weight to the Opponent's Win Percentage (making WP, OWP and OOWP all equal). I can see this as good or bad, so color me indifferent on that one.
This is already far too complicated, so I decided to hedge my bets and look at all four answers for team rankings, sort them by the average and let the chart speak to me, so here it is:
|
Power Rank
|
Team
|
Wins
|
Losses
|
WIN %
|
Rk1
|
Rk2
|
Rk3
|
Rk4
|
AvgRk
|
|
1
|
Denver
|
6
|
0
|
1.000
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
2.00
|
|
2
|
Minnesota
|
6
|
0
|
1.000
|
1
|
1
|
16
|
2
|
5.00
|
|
3
|
Cincinnati
|
4
|
2
|
0.667
|
8
|
9
|
1
|
3
|
5.25
|
|
4
|
Atlanta
|
4
|
1
|
0.800
|
5
|
6
|
5
|
7
|
5.75
|
|
5
|
New Orleans
|
5
|
0
|
1.000
|
4
|
4
|
8
|
13
|
7.25
|
|
6
|
New England
|
4
|
2
|
0.667
|
9
|
8
|
11
|
8
|
9.00
|
|
7
|
Pittsburgh
|
4
|
2
|
0.667
|
7
|
5
|
22
|
4
|
9.50
|
|
8
|
Chicago
|
3
|
2
|
0.600
|
10
|
11
|
13
|
10
|
11.00
|
|
9
|
Green Bay
|
3
|
2
|
0.600
|
11
|
10
|
15
|
9
|
11.25
|
|
10
|
Baltimore
|
3
|
3
|
0.500
|
16
|
14
|
10
|
6
|
11.50
|
|
11
|
Seattle
|
2
|
4
|
0.333
|
12
|
13
|
12
|
11
|
12.00
|
|
12
|
San Diego
|
2
|
3
|
0.400
|
20
|
20
|
4
|
5
|
12.25
|
|
13
|
Indianapolis
|
5
|
0
|
1.000
|
3
|
3
|
28
|
19
|
13.25
|
|
15
|
NY Giants
|
5
|
1
|
0.833
|
6
|
7
|
26
|
23
|
15.50
|
|
15
|
Arizona
|
3
|
2
|
0.600
|
15
|
18
|
9
|
20
|
15.50
|
|
16
|
Miami
|
2
|
3
|
0.400
|
21
|
22
|
7
|
14
|
16.00
|
|
18
|
Cleveland
|
1
|
5
|
0.167
|
27
|
27
|
2
|
12
|
17.00
|
|
18
|
NY Jets
|
3
|
3
|
0.500
|
18
|
17
|
17
|
16
|
17.00
|
|
19
|
Houston
|
3
|
3
|
0.500
|
17
|
15
|
21
|
17
|
17.50
|
|
20
|
Dallas
|
3
|
2
|
0.600
|
14
|
16
|
20
|
21
|
17.75
|
|
22
|
Buffalo
|
2
|
4
|
0.333
|
22
|
21
|
23
|
15
|
20.25
|
|
22
|
Philadelphia
|
3
|
2
|
0.600
|
13
|
12
|
31
|
25
|
20.25
|
|
23
|
Oakland
|
2
|
4
|
0.333
|
24
|
26
|
14
|
18
|
20.50
|
|
24
|
Detroit
|
1
|
5
|
0.167
|
28
|
29
|
6
|
24
|
21.75
|
|
25
|
San Francisco
|
3
|
2
|
0.600
|
26
|
24
|
19
|
22
|
22.75
|
|
26
|
Jacksonville
|
3
|
3
|
0.500
|
19
|
19
|
29
|
26
|
23.25
|
|
27
|
Tennessee
|
0
|
6
|
0.000
|
31
|
31
|
18
|
27
|
26.75
|
|
28
|
Carolina
|
2
|
3
|
0.400
|
23
|
25
|
30
|
30
|
27.00
|
|
29
|
Washington
|
2
|
4
|
0.333
|
25
|
23
|
32
|
31
|
27.75
|
|
30
|
Kansas City
|
1
|
5
|
0.167
|
29
|
28
|
27
|
28
|
28.00
|
|
31
|
St. Louis
|
0
|
6
|
0.000
|
30
|
30
|
25
|
29
|
28.50
|
|
32
|
Tampa Bay
|
0
|
6
|
0.000
|
32
|
32
|
24
|
32
|
30.00
|
Here are the definitions of how I calculated the four rankings:
- Rk 1 = (1/3) WP + (1/3) OWP + (1/3) OOWP
- Rk 2 = (1/4) WP + (1/3) OWP + (1/4) OOWP
- Rk 3 = (1/3) WP + (1/3) MOWP + (1/3) MOOWP
- Rk 4 = (1/4) WP + (1/2) MOWP + (1/4) MOOWP
With
- (WP) = Winning Percentage
- (OWP) = Opponent's Winning Percentage
- (OOWP) = Opponent's Opponent's Winning Percentage
- (MOWP) = Modified Opponent's Winning Percentage
- (OOWP) = Modified Opponent's Opponent's Winning Percentage
So what do I see from the chart? There are some interesting things to take note:
- According to this, the Super Bowl should be Denver and Minnesota. Of course, they don't play the Super Bowl on Halloween, but the Denver throwbacks are pretty scary. Either way, I'd rather see some other teams in the mix here.
- Cincinnati isn't so bad after all. They actually benefit from the Denver loss as they are Top 10 across the board and also above some teams with zero or one losses.
- The six AFC playoff teams should be Denver, Cincinnati, New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and San Diego. Not a bad list, but the Colts should be there - and are just off this list at #13. That's due to Tennessee's terrible record. Look for Indy to push San Diego off this list.
- The six NFC playoff teams should be Minnesota, Atlanta, New Orleans, Chicago, Green Bay - and Seattle?
- The NFC East is getting no respect, but after that 0-3 weekend in Week 6 and Dallas going nowhere fast, they deserve that amount of disrespect. Philadelphia needs to regroup fast and the New York Giants need to beat someone that's good.
- The bottom feeders make sense. The worst six teams on the list should all be winless if it wasn't for five games between them, which gave Washington and Carolina two charity wins each and Kansas City their only victory.
- Seattle (2-4) and Cleveland (1-5) appear to not be as bad as their records indicate, but I've seen the Browns and I respectfully disagree. I initially thought that the Seahawks were a different team with Matt Hasselbeck, but even that didn't work last week. I'm not buying either team on these middle rankings.
- San Francisco is doing fine in the NFC West, but their 3-0 record in the division is topped by losses to Minnesota and Atlanta. Not looking so good for the NFC West winner this season, as they're a likely bet for a one-and-done in the postseason.
So there you have it - my first cut at an NFL BCS/RPI Power Ranking. Feel free to share your thoughts, but I thought that you might be interested in something a little more than a "From the Gut Top 32" ranking.
If I knew the original source of this I would credit the writer. Very interesting indeed!
Subscribe