Hence why I don't agree with the concept.. if you are going to use records as a point of debate.. then why reduce the data in that case?

I buy more into team matchup's than I do into a generic strength of schedule debate anyway.. case by case.

---

Taking out the Pack's games against their opponents removes the variable of whether or not the difference between the records is because GB was better last year than this. It looks solely at the opponents records against everyone else last year and this year.

In this case, it shows that GB's opponents did not have a significantly different record in the league last year vs this year, when GB's record isn't factored in.

What it doesn't take into account is strength of schedule of our opponents, who might have played nothing but playoff teams this year and last year nothing but Detroits.

So, it's a better comparison removing the GB record, but you still can't make a true comparison.

EDIT:
Looking solely at Win-Loss records also does not take into account how the opponents performed in those games. Last year, did the opponents get clobbered in their losses and barely squeak out wins, and this year dominate in their wins and barely lose when they lost?

Also, for each game where one team that the Packers face plays another team that the Packers also face generates 1 win and 1 loss. AT LEAST 50% of our opponents games result in those 50-50 win-loss results, no matter how strong the teams are.

So comparing W-L records by themselves won't tell you a whole lot.


**************
The AFC & NFC division we face play everyone else in their division twice (6 games). So 6 games for each of those 8 teams (48 total) result in both a win and a loss for Packer opponents.

Each of the other teams in our division also play the AFC & NFC division opponents (8 games for each of the other 3 teams in our division) and they face each other twice (4 games, once we remove the Packers results).

Well i perfer this topic then talking about why we lost last year lol :whipitgood:

---