As a complement to the recent team-by-team schedule analysis published by the Outsider's Guide, we are providing a numerical strength of schedule analysis, as well. This will employ win-loss records from the 2001 NLL season as the sole method of evaluating level of opposition.

The existence of four expansion teams complicates the analysis. There is no perfect way to evaluate them, because of the difficulty in projecting their strength without any of them having played a single game. Because of that, we are offering three different approaches for consideration -- totally eliminating the expansion teams, assigning the new teams a standard record, and assigning them individual win-loss records.

Note that for this analysis, Calgary, Columbus, New Jersey and Vancouver are the expansion teams; Montreal, inheriting most of the original Landsharks' roster, will also inherit Columbus' 3-11 record in this article. All other teams are assigned their 2001 record, from Toronto's 11-3 to Ottawa's 1-13.

Expansion elimination

The first of these methods is the simplest -- assigning the four expansion teams a 0-0 record. As a result, some teams' aggregate records include more games than others'. The number of games runs from Ottawa's 126 (reflecting seven games against expansion teams) up to Rochester's 182 (three "0-0" games).

Without expansion teams depressing the percentages, as we'll see later, the teams that play a lot of games against playoff qualifiers rank high on the list -- in fact, three of the top four come from the Eastern Division, where the Wings and Power must face each other, as well as the Rock, Knighthawks, and Bandits. Buffalo, loaded with games against teams with winning records a year ago, also scores highly.

Despite its divisional assignment, New Jersey rates as having an easy schedule under this method. Of course, not having the Rock, Bandits and Knighthawks on the schedule helps. The Rock comes close to .500 under this format, because there is an unmatched balance between games against top-notch teams and secnd-division clubs.

0-0 STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE
                 Gms    W    L    Pct.
Washington       154   86   68    .558
New York         140   78   62    .557
Buffalo          168   91   77    .542
Philadelphia     168   91   77    .542
Ottawa           126   68   58    .540
Montreal         140   70   70    .500
Rochester        182   90   92    .495
Albany           154   74   80    .481
Toronto          168   80   88    .476
Columbus         168   78   90    .464
Vancouver        154   69   85    .448
New Jersey       140   62   78    .443
Calgary          154   68   86    .442

Standardized expansion team records

In the second method of analysis, the four expansion teams are assigned matching records. This assumes that they teams will play identically in 2001-2002, likely a poor approximation. Based on past expansion teams' performances in their debut seasons, the new clubs can expect either feast or famine -- two of the four new teams of the NLL era (Ontario, now Toronto; and Albany) reached .500, while the other two (Syracuse, now Ottawa; and the original Columbus) landed at or near the bottom of the standings. With the scattering of success and the most recent expansion team's record in mind, an average win-loss of 3-11 has been assigned to each of the four new teams.

Because this does not account for how the existing teams' records would have changed, the combined records are depressed significantly (with each team counting at 3-11, this is not surprising). At each extreme, the overall winning percentage decreases by about one hundred points. However, the order of teams in the rankings suffers little change from earlier. Buffalo, Philadelphia, and Washington remain in the top four, while Vancouver, Calgary, and New Jersey comprise the bottom of the standings. Columbus and Toronto rose the most in the standings, as compared to earlier, because of the relatively few games each plays against expansion teams.

STANDARDIZED EXPANSION STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE
                 Gms    W    L    Pct.
Buffalo          224  103  121    .460
Philadelphia     224  103  121    .460
Washington       224  101  123    .451
Rochester        224   99  125    .442
New York         224   95  129    .424
Toronto          224   92  132    .411
Columbus         224   90  134    .402
Albany           224   89  135    .397
Ottawa           224   89  135    .397
Montreal         224   88  136    .393
Vancouver        224   84  140    .375
Calgary          224   83  141    .371
New Jersey       224   80  144    .357

Individualized expansion team records

Recognizing that the four expansion teams will not be equally weak in the 2001-2002 season, we introduce projected records for Calgary, Columbus, New Jersey and Vancouver. These values were decided by considering the current roster and coaching staff and determining approximately how many wins each team would have had, assuming it played the 2001 season.

For the Roughnecks and Ravens, solid rosters and strong management yielded projected records of 5-9 and 6-8, respectively. Vancouver received the nod over Calgary on the basis of its built-for-the-present roster. The Storm and Landsharks drew 2-14 marks for their relative lack of experienced players.

The inherent flaw in projecting win-loss records is that none of these teams has set its roster or even proven that its major players will play well together. Any of them could perform better than a 6-8 team or worse than a 2-12 team. However, it is the consensus opinion of NLL fans that Calgary and Vancouver stand to be far superior to their expansion brethren. Since mild changes to the projected records can not drastically affect the total standings, the results demonstrate the empirical effects of playing stronger expansion teams more than weaker ones (or vice versa) regardless of how they are weighted in comarison to each other.

The biggest jumps from previous results come from Montreal, New Jersey, Ottawa, and Toronto -- each of whom plays Roughnecks and Ravens twice but minimizes games against the Landsharks and Storm. No team sees its strength of schedule dramatically reduced, partially because the positive effects from the stronger teams outweighs the negative effects from the weaker ones.

INDIVIDUALIZED EXPANSION STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE
                 Gms    W    L    Pct.
Buffalo          224  106  118    .473
Philadelphia     224  103  121    .460
Washington       224  103  121    .460
Toronto          224  102  122    .455
New York         224  101  123    .451
Rochester        224   99  125    .442
Ottawa           224   96  128    .429
Montreal         224   96  128    .429
Columbus         224   93  131    .415
New Jersey       224   88  136    .393
Albany           224   87  137    .388
Calgary          224   86  138    .384
Vancouver        224   85  139    .379

General comments

Regardless of the method used to account for the expansion teams, the stronger clubs tend to be found at the top of the standings and the weaker clubs are nearer to the bottom. The only exception is Toronto's low ranking in the "0-0 method," but that is negated as the stronger expansion teams are counted as tougher-than-average-expansion competition.

The effect of this season's schedule, unbalanced towards accommodating the member teams rather than each team's level of play (many teams requested specific opponents at home, to continue or create a rivalry, thus destroying much hope of a formulaic schedule), nevertheless manages to assign more difficult schedules to the league's better teams -- exactly as everyone wanted.