http://www.wsj.com/articles/who-has-coll...1441405838

I think our home-field advantage is actually a "road-team disadvantage," (which effectively translates to home-field advantage) -- i.e., when road teams come in and see all the empty seats, they experience a bit of a letdown. Our guys, on the other hand, are used to it and aren't affected.

Fear the bleachers!

I think after Saturday, Wagner would argue that our "home field advantage" has more to do with heat & humidity.

(09-09-2015 11:41 AM)Owl-88 Wrote:  Fear the bleachers!

I figured it was the tarp(s).

I think it has more to do with losing on the road, especially to big name programs. As I understand it, this is really a measure of how much better you do at home, which also implies, how much worse you do on the road.

(09-09-2015 12:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think it has more to do with losing on the road, especially to big name programs. As I understand it, this is really a measure of how much better you do at home, which also implies, how much worse you do on the road.

This (although the metric is adjusted for level of competition).

(09-09-2015 12:05 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 12:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think it has more to do with losing on the road, especially to big name programs. As I understand it, this is really a measure of how much better you do at home, which also implies, how much worse you do on the road.

This (although the metric is adjusted for level of competition).

It sounds like that's what they're trying to say...

Prediction Machine Wrote:The best teams should be closer to the bottom of the rankings than the top because they should dominate more consistently and not be subject to the large swings in performance from home to away like what is seen in other teams.

And this is interesting analysis...

Quote:While traditionally elite FBS teams should not fare well in this exercise, the same can be said about teams that are traditionally really bad.

Where home field means most is with the next tier of teams - mostly BCS conference teams that can usually compete for conference titles, but do not have the depth to be consistent College Football Playoff contenders. That's when the value of home field matters most; when the talent is strong but not elite and players are more susceptible to the impact of crowd noise, tradition and atmosphere.

I guess Rice would fall into this grouping. But I wonder how much we have to factor that these results are based largely on point spreads. Spreads aren't necessarily based on informed analysis of teams' expected performance - they're a function of expected and actual betting behavior.

(09-09-2015 12:52 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 12:05 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 12:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think it has more to do with losing on the road, especially to big name programs. As I understand it, this is really a measure of how much better you do at home, which also implies, how much worse you do on the road.

This (although the metric is adjusted for level of competition).

It sounds like that's what they're trying to say...

Prediction Machine Wrote:The best teams should be closer to the bottom of the rankings than the top because they should dominate more consistently and not be subject to the large swings in performance from home to away like what is seen in other teams.

Then the article and thread should be entitled "Who has College Football’s Biggest Away-Field Disadvantage?".

edit: Or, "Bottom 10 contrived sports metrics of the year"

(09-09-2015 11:58 AM)talon owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 11:41 AM)Owl-88 Wrote:  Fear the bleachers!

I figured it was the tarp(s).

Many of those who read the WSJ have plenty of reason to have feared the TARP.

(09-09-2015 09:25 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 11:58 AM)talon owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 11:41 AM)Owl-88 Wrote:  Fear the bleachers!

I figured it was the tarp(s).

Many of those who read the WSJ have plenty of reason to have feared the TARP.