What you've just posted is classic "guy that doesn't understand statistics, but read an article written by another guy that doesn't understand statistics but gave it a shot anyway, and is now trying to pass that off as gospel"...

Like it's genuinely embarrassing... I'll tackle your 2nd one first since that's actually the most relevant, and will use it to deconstruct why the 1st one is completely pointless... The methodology for the guy's article is complete horse ****... And I mean, legit, straight up, genuine, absolute horse ****...

He assigned random values to specific games... Why is a Superbowl victory worth 15 points and a Conference Championship only worth 10??? Why aren't Superbowl wins worth 4 and Conference Championships worth 3??? Is a Superbowl win 50% harder than a Conference Championship win??? Not typically... I believe historically the conference games have been closer than the Superbowls... But there's no reason given there as to why these games were given these linear weight values.... This also incredibly skews the rankings to TOP HEAVY divisions, like shockingly, the AFC East, where the Patriots play for trophies EVERY YEAR... Shocker that the AFC East is ranked as the toughest division in football on that list... Which it is absolutely, quantifiably, CERTAINLY not... It's not even ****ing close...

To properly break down which division is the toughest in football over the past, you could only look at 10 games per season... Those are the 10 games a division plays OUTSIDE of their own division... Because what they do in the division is not a factor at all... Once you broke down wins and losses, you would need to break down point differentials... Point differentials matter... A LOT... If one division wins 50 games and loses 50 games, but has a +1000 point differential, there's a good chance they're a metric **** ton better than a division that wins 75 games and loses 25 games but has a point differential of +250...

You see, the 2nd division wins more games, but isn't as dominant as the 1st division which loses more, but has WAY more dominant teams... So then you start refining the data... You say, okay, there are 4 teams in every division, we'll take a 10 year total records for instance, then remove the team with the lowest combined record in every division... Okay, now you're left with the 3 best teams in every division, and you've trimmed out the most likely culprit that is skewing point differentials... Do you see how you do real research here and real analytics???

Factoring playoff wins into division toughness is literally taking home the gold medal in the Special Olympics of sports writing... Many teams paths to the Superbowl are drastically easier than others because of the ease they have traversing their division through the regular season... Other teams have a much harder time just getting to the playoffs because their division is so difficult... This is stupid on a ground breaking level...

Which brings us to total wins being ranked... The Steelers beating up on the Browns and Bengals every year is not the same as the Eagles having to play the Cowboys or Giants every year... They're just not the same... This is most exemplified in college football where an undefeated SEC schedule means you are a **** ton better than a school with an undefeated MAC schedule... Everyone knows this... EVERYONE... There are systems in the NFL to try and offer competitive balance such as the worst teams draft first, you play the teams that finish the same place as you in your division, but there are always mouth breathers that run NFL teams the same way there are mouth breathers that run corporations...

Please educate yourself even slightly before responding again... Because this was a nuclear roast of you, and on this Thanksgiving, I'm most grateful for the fact I am legitimately smarter than you...