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.
Yeah, this. Fooled by randomness and small sample size.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Some team has to have the best record against top 25 opponents at home even if every team has the exact same HFA.
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
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.
Yeah, this. Fooled by randomness and small sample size.
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.
Huh?
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.
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.
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
I thought for sure we were gonna corn hole the Huskers back in 1997 at home. The better team won that day.
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.
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
I thought for sure we were gonna corn hole the Huskers back in 1997 at home. The better team won that day.
That is the example. First play up the gut for a big gain
Stanford is very tough to beat at home, boasting one of the best records in CFB in home games versus top 25 opponents* . Some of this is attributable to them having a consistently strong team but their HFA is even above average for good programs.
We also know no one actually comes to Stanford games. So how the fuck is this possible?
Well, here's my theory. Stanford is used to playing at home in front of a sparse crowd and a quiet one at that. The visiting teams are not used to this, especially not top 25 teams. They are used to playing road games in raucous environments in front of loud, drunken intense fans. Since they get none of that at Stanford, it throws the visitors off. It's an uncomfortable environment for good visiting teams because it doesn't feel like a big game.
For Stanford it feels like every other home game they have, except maybe a bit more energetic because the fans they do have are slightly more into it and there are slightly more of them.
So for Stanford it's comfortable and a bit exciting, for the visitors it's uncomfortable and feels very flat.
And Stanford takes care of business.
This is my theory, and why Pete needs to bring out a caged mime in practice during Tree week.
Thanks for reading.
*Citation needed* (fuck off, I read it in a tweet and can't find it now, just go with me.)
Would like to see the complete sample size of the top25 teams they’ve played at home....
The pac12 doesn’t have many ranked teams usually, so it’s plausible that 50% of the games in the sample are usc and Notre dame, two teams that are always ranked even when they suck (and who Stanford gets at home every other year). Usc and Stanford always play very early as well—while usc is highly ranked (before finishing 7-5). Wonder how the results would shift if you changed the sample group from top 25 AP ranking at time of game to end of season sagarin (or some other formulaic ranking) top 25.
The Tree has been good at home because of the 1)hulking o-lines, 2) great TE/ tall receivers, 3) good backs, 4) good QB play, 5) stout D, and 6) long tall grass.
Comments
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.
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
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 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/
LOL ive heard it all
The pac12 doesn’t have many ranked teams usually, so it’s plausible that 50% of the games in the sample are usc and Notre dame, two teams that are always ranked even when they suck (and who Stanford gets at home every other year). Usc and Stanford always play very early as well—while usc is highly ranked (before finishing 7-5). Wonder how the results would shift if you changed the sample group from top 25 AP ranking at time of game to end of season sagarin (or some other formulaic ranking) top 25.
This fat ugly retarded bitch is actually running for office?
This year they have #6 going for them...