Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Funny stuff but the raucousness of the crowd is a small part of home field advantage.
Travel effects on the body accompanied by poor sleep and general uncomfortabe environment are one aspect.
the other
Is refs.
They favor the home team likely due to the crowd but I'm not sure if the intensity of the crowd could increase this effect or not.
How would you know that raucousness is a small part of home field advantage? I’d guess that it’s a big factor.
DNC is saying that Stanford has a better HFA than other good teams. The reasons you give (travel, uncomfortable environment, refs) hold true for every team’s HFA and wouldn’t explain the Stanford anomaly.
Maybe grass? PAC-12 teams not used to grass playing surface and Stanford’s playing style less affected by slow grass.
Funny stuff but the raucousness of the crowd is a small part of home field advantage.
Travel effects on the body accompanied by poor sleep and general uncomfortabe environment are one aspect.
the other
Is refs.
They favor the home team likely due to the crowd but I'm not sure if the intensity of the crowd could increase this effect or not.
How would you know that raucousness is a small part of home field advantage? I’d guess that it’s a big factor.
DNC is saying that Stanford has a better HFA than other good teams. The reasons you give (travel, uncomfortable environment, refs) hold true for every team’s HFA and wouldn’t explain the Stanford anomaly.
Maybe grass? PAC-12 teams not used to grass playing surface and Stanford’s playing style less affected by slow grass.
My REAL guess is that Stanford doesn't actually have a better than average HFA and the reason they do statistically is just noise (statistical)/anomaly.
However, even having an average HFA goes against the conventional wisdom. Every time we play there someone inevitably says it shouldn't be difficult because their HFA is poor. And then we lose. Like most other top 25 teams do there.
The reality is crowd noise is a factor but probably an overrated one. The factors Fremont laid out are much bigger issues, and why an alleged "Neutral" game in Atlanta was anything butt, even if we could have had equal crowd support.
Funny stuff but the raucousness of the crowd is a small part of home field advantage.
Travel effects on the body accompanied by poor sleep and general uncomfortabe environment are one aspect.
the other
Is refs.
They favor the home team likely due to the crowd but I'm not sure if the intensity of the crowd could increase this effect or not.
How would you know that raucousness is a small part of home field advantage? I’d guess that it’s a big factor.
DNC is saying that Stanford has a better HFA than other good teams. The reasons you give (travel, uncomfortable environment, refs) hold true for every team’s HFA and wouldn’t explain the Stanford anomaly.
Maybe grass? PAC-12 teams not used to grass playing surface and Stanford’s playing style less affected by slow grass.
My REAL guess is that Stanford doesn't actually have a better than average HFA and the reason they do statistically is just noise (statistical)/anomaly.
However, even having an average HFA goes against the conventional wisdom. Every time we play there someone inevitably says it shouldn't be difficult because their HFA is poor. And then we lose. Like most other top 25 teams do there.
The reality is crowd noise is a factor but probably an overrated one. The factors Fremont laid out are much bigger issues, and why an alleged "Neutral" game in Atlanta was anything butt, even if we could have had equal crowd support.
Travel, rest, foreign environment...these are constants that go into every team’s HFA. Among variable factors, crowd noise/energy has to be considered a difference maker. What else is there? Playing surface, heat, altitude...?
Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Funny stuff but the raucousness of the crowd is a small part of home field advantage.
Travel effects on the body accompanied by poor sleep and general uncomfortabe environment are one aspect.
the other
Is refs.
They favor the home team likely due to the crowd but I'm not sure if the intensity of the crowd could increase this effect or not.
How would you know that raucousness is a small part of home field advantage? I’d guess that it’s a big factor.
DNC is saying that Stanford has a better HFA than other good teams. The reasons you give (travel, uncomfortable environment, refs) hold true for every team’s HFA and wouldn’t explain the Stanford anomaly.
Maybe grass? PAC-12 teams not used to grass playing surface and Stanford’s playing style less affected by slow grass.
My REAL guess is that Stanford doesn't actually have a better than average HFA and the reason they do statistically is just noise (statistical)/anomaly.
However, even having an average HFA goes against the conventional wisdom. Every time we play there someone inevitably says it shouldn't be difficult because their HFA is poor. And then we lose. Like most other top 25 teams do there.
The reality is crowd noise is a factor but probably an overrated one. The factors Fremont laid out are much bigger issues, and why an alleged "Neutral" game in Atlanta was anything butt, even if we could have had equal crowd support.
Travel, rest, foreign environment...these are constants that go into every team’s HFA. Among variable factors, crowd noise/energy has to be considered a difference maker. What else is there? Playing surface, heat, altitude...?
Right, and generally speaking HFA doesn't really vary that much from team to team, we just think it does because some teams are a lot better at home than others...but those teams tend to just be better teams in general. Miami didn't win 58 straight or whatever at home because Miami is a uniquely difficult place to play. They won 58 straight at home because Miami was a damn good football team and when you add HFA to that they were damn near impossible to beat.
Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Also the best part of the last game @ stanford was the band forming “USSR” and playing the Soviet anthem as a halftime Trump commentary on veterans day. Never seen a band get booed off of their home field but the california liberals were TUFF that day.
Comments
Travel effects on the body accompanied by poor sleep and general uncomfortabe environment are one aspect.
the other
Is refs.
They favor the home team likely due to the crowd but I'm not sure if the intensity of the crowd could increase this effect or not.
(butt still)
I will keep teaching young people about Communism.
I will keep telling them it is okay to be transgender.
There is nothing you can do about it.
Helps Trump IMO.
DNC is saying that Stanford has a better HFA than other good teams. The reasons you give (travel, uncomfortable environment, refs) hold true for every team’s HFA and wouldn’t explain the Stanford anomaly.
Maybe grass? PAC-12 teams not used to grass playing surface and Stanford’s playing style less affected by slow grass.
However, even having an average HFA goes against the conventional wisdom. Every time we play there someone inevitably says it shouldn't be difficult because their HFA is poor. And then we lose. Like most other top 25 teams do there.
The reality is crowd noise is a factor but probably an overrated one. The factors Fremont laid out are much bigger issues, and why an alleged "Neutral" game in Atlanta was anything butt, even if we could have had equal crowd support.