Using District One's "Schedule Points" totals from its published power ratings, I tried to determine the schedule strength (opponents' winning pct.) for each team.
To do this, I reversed the district's formula for calculating schedule points. I took "Schedule Points" and divided by the number of games played and divided that total by five.
I didn't even look at the individual schedules. I went straight from the district's "Schedule Points" totals. If I am wrong, please let me know where the mistakes are. I probably made at least a few errors.
| TEAM | OPP WIN PCT |
| 1. Penn Wood | 0.594 |
| 2. Cheltenham | 0.573 |
| 3. Down. West | 0.562 |
| 4. Down. East | 0.556 |
| 4. North Penn | 0.556 |
| 6. CB East | 0.550 |
| 7. Pennridge | 0.538 |
| 8. Upper Dublin | 0.537 |
| 8. CR-North | 0.537 |
| 10. Conestoga | 0.531 |
| 11. Neshaminy | 0.527 |
| 12. CB South | 0.524 |
| 13. Souderton | 0.521 |
| 14. Unionville | 0.520 |
| 15. Lower Merion | 0.518 |
| 16. Chichester | 0.516 |
| 17. Boyertown | 0.515 |
| 18. Bensalem | 0.514 |
| 18. Perkiomen Valley | 0.514 |
| 20. Spring-Ford | 0.512 |
| 20. Chester | 0.512 |
| 22. Norristown | 0.509 |
| 23. Upper Darby | 0.506 |
| 24. Henderson | 0.505 |
| 25. Kennett | 0.495 |
| 26. Garnet Valley | 0.490 |
| 27. Methacton | 0.476 |
| 28. Abington | 0.475 |
| 29. William Tennent | 0.471 |
| 30. Wissahickon | 0.471 |
| 31. Sun Valley | 0.460 |
| 32. Great Valley | 0.459 |
Schedule strength does not seem to mean a whole lot in the final power rankings. Cheltenham's No. 2 schedule, for instance, earned it only 13.67 more total "Schedule Points" (68.75) than Great Valley's No. 32 schedule (55.08 "Schedule Points"). That's less than the points earned with three victories (against any opponent).
Teams are much better off beating weaker teams than taking a chance of losing to stronger teams.
Most coaches want to play better teams to make their own players better. But coaches who do so in this system seem to put their teams at a disadvantage in the district tournament.
