Why are Raiders stand higher than Chiefs after week 1?

Question

Each have one win. According to tiebreaking procedures, it should be:

1. H2H record (not applicable)
2. Record within division (not applicable)
3. Record in common games (not applicable)
4. Record within conference (equal)
5. Strength of victory (not applicable, none of the opponents have a record yet)
6. Strength of schedule. They have mostly same schedule, except 2 games where Chiefs are playing AFC division champions and Raiders are playing the second place teams.

So according to rule 6, Kansas has a stronger schedule. Am I wrong?

Answer 1

You're misinterpreting "strength of schedule" - that refers to the combined record of every opponent the team has played in the current season; it's nothing to do with how those teams performed last season. Quoting from SB Nation:

Strength of victory is calculated by combining the winning percentages of every opponent a team has beaten. Strength of schedule is similar, but combines the winning percentage of every one of a team's regular season opponents, win or lose.

As both teams have won their only game, their strength of victory and strength of schedule are identical. However, the next tiebreaker is now

7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.

As the Chiefs beat the Patriots 42-27 they have a +15 ranking while the Raiders have a +10 ranking from beating the Titans 26-16, so I think the Chiefs should still be ranked higher than the Raiders. (Also, the Broncos should be ranked even lower, having won only 24-21).

I personally suspect the algorithms being used for generating the on-line standings just don't go that far down the tiebreaker procedures; I don't believe anything later than strength of victory has ever actually been needed.