Stanford has one of the best Home field advantages ... how is this?
Comments
-
Yeah, this. Fooled by randomness and small sample size.dnc said:
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.HonestDon said:
How would you know that raucousness is a small part of home field advantage? I’d guess that it’s a big factor.FremontTroll said: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.
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.
Scorecasting (kind of an old book now) had some interesting statistics on HFA across different sports. Their conclusion was that it was ENTIRELY due to referees.
I don't buy that entirely just based on my own life experience traveling to away games- your legs just don't feel as fresh after sitting in a car or plane for hours.
Also there are plenty of studies showing that we don't sleep well the first night in an unusual environment.
Maybe professional support staff can mitigate those factors but I wouldn't discount them entirely.
Crowd noise however I think is quite overrated just because it is the most obviously visible component of HFA and because we like to feel important as fans. Causing false starts is meaningful but beyond that I don't know. There very well may be a psychological component to defending one's turf but I don't know how to quantify that. -
Some teams perform better at home than what an expected value would predict. I don’t know if Miami is one of those teams. Evidently Stanford is. Your original question is interesting. Why Stanford?dnc said:
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.HonestDon said:
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...?dnc said:
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.HonestDon said:
How would you know that raucousness is a small part of home field advantage? I’d guess that it’s a big factor.FremontTroll said: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.
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. -
Some team has to have the best record against top 25 opponents at home even if every team has the exact same HFA.HonestDon said:
Some teams perform better at home than what an expected value would predict. I don’t know if Miami is one of those teams. Evidently Stanford is. Your original question is interesting. Why Stanford?dnc said:
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.HonestDon said:
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...?dnc said:
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.HonestDon said:
How would you know that raucousness is a small part of home field advantage? I’d guess that it’s a big factor.FremontTroll said: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.
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. -
I went to the loss @ Furd in 2017. I went to the loss @ Cal in 2018. I'm going to the loss @ Furd in 2019. I enjoy pain.WilburHooksHands said:The last game @stanford broke my husband. He vowed:
1. Never to attend anything at Stanford ever again
2. Never to watch UW again if Browning was at QB
-
I agree with Fremont. Even when Husky Stadium was the loudest in the land and the 12s didn't exist and we owned Auburn and Kent (Hi Harv) a team could come in and make a few first downs and everyone settles down and gets quiet. If the visitor was better they usually won no matter how geeked up it was and that place could get geeked up even before the second deck.
I've seen great Husky teams go on the road and relish shutting the fans up. I've seen more mentally weak teams that were better go in and wake up a quiet crowd into a lather when they realize the home sqwad could win
Great players seem to make a difference more than noise -
Huh?FremontTroll said:
Yeah, this. Fooled by randomness and small sample size.dnc said:
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.HonestDon said:
How would you know that raucousness is a small part of home field advantage? I’d guess that it’s a big factor.FremontTroll said: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.
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.
Scorecasting (kind of an old book now) had some interesting statistics on HFA across different sports. Their conclusion was that it was ENTIRELY due to referees.
I don't buy that entirely just based on my own life experience traveling to away games- your legs just don't feel as fresh after sitting in a car or plane for hours.
Also there are plenty of studies showing that we don't sleep well the first night in an unusual environment.
Maybe professional support staff can mitigate those factors but I wouldn't discount them entirely.
Crowd noise however I think is quite overrated just because it is the most obviously visible component of HFA and because we like to feel important as fans. Causing false starts is meaningful but beyond that I don't know. There very well may be a psychological component to defending one's turf but I don't know how to quantify that.
Are you an 18-22 year old finely tuned athlete? No. So of course you can't cope with a car/plane ride.
Do the teams show up the day before the game? No.
I'll believe the study (Refs) before your anecdotal evidence.
Good day sir. -
Moskowitz and Wertheim found that home teams essentially get slightly preferential treatment from the officials, whether it’s a called third strike in baseball or, in soccer, a foul that results in a penalty kick. [...]
Moskowitz and Wertheim also make clear, however, an important nuance: official bias is quite likely involuntary.
What does this mean? It means that officials don’t consciously decide to give the home team an advantage — but rather, being social creatures (and human beings) like the rest of us, they assimilate the emotion of the home crowd and, once in a while, make a call that makes a whole lot of close-by, noisy people very happy.
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/ -
I thought for sure we were gonna corn hole the Huskers back in 1997 at home. The better team won that day.RaceBannon said:I agree with Fremont. Even when Husky Stadium was the loudest in the land and the 12s didn't exist and we owned Auburn and Kent (Hi Harv) a team could come in and make a few first downs and everyone settles down and gets quiet. If the visitor was better they usually won no matter how geeked up it was and that place could get geeked up even before the second deck.
I've seen great Husky teams go on the road and relish shutting the fans up. I've seen more mentally weak teams that were better go in and wake up a quiet crowd into a lather when they realize the home sqwad could win
Great players seem to make a difference more than noise -
CallMeBigErn said:
I went to the loss @ Furd in 2017. I went to the loss @ Cal in 2018. I'm going to the loss @ Furd in 2019. I enjoy pain.WilburHooksHands said:The last game @stanford broke my husband. He vowed:
1. Never to attend anything at Stanford ever again
2. Never to watch UW again if Browning was at QB
You should try anal.CallMeBigErn said:
I went to the loss @ Furd in 2017. I went to the loss @ Cal in 2018. I'm going to the loss @ Furd in 2019. I enjoy pain.WilburHooksHands said:The last game @stanford broke my husband. He vowed:
1. Never to attend anything at Stanford ever again
2. Never to watch UW again if Browning was at QB -
Emoterman said:
Moskowitz and Wertheim found that home teams essentially get slightly preferential treatment from the officials, whether it’s a called third strike in baseball or, in soccer, a foul that results in a penalty kick. [...]
Moskowitz and Wertheim also make clear, however, an important nuance: official bias is quite likely involuntary.
What does this mean? It means that officials don’t consciously decide to give the home team an advantage — but rather, being social creatures (and human beings) like the rest of us, they assimilate the emotion of the home crowd and, once in a while, make a call that makes a whole lot of close-by, noisy people very happy.
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/
