OWH: Home Field Advantage Disappearing from CFB

Mavric

Mavric

Yoda
Staff member
Across the five major conferences, from 1996 through 2013, home teams won 56.5 percent of league games. There were a few ups and downs, but the rate was pretty steady.

Now look at 2014 and 2015, the two most balanced seasons in the 20-year span. Power Five home teams won just 50.8 percent. Their total record: 267-259.

"Wow," said Phil Steele, the college football author who makes a living studying numbers like these. "You would think it would be a bigger factor. I'm surprised."

"Really?" said Nebraska offensive coordinator Danny Langsdorf, when told the numbers. "That shocks me actually."

Nowhere have things shifted more than the Big Ten.

Home teams dominated conference play from 1996-2011, winning 57.9 percent of games. The past four years, Big Ten home teams are 102-105 — 49.3 percent. It's a stunning departure from tradition.
Click to expand...
OWH

 
Maybe it was pointed out better and I missed it, but isn't this obvious since the bottom feeders of each conference usually lose their home games? Underdogs at home had a terrible record as shown which brings down the percentages. » 2012-15: 15 percent (11-60)

I would like to only see teams who were both ranked or finished with winning records and then see if Home field played a factor.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BIG ERN said:
Maybe it was pointed out better and I missed it, but isn't this obvious since the bottom feeders of each conference usually lose their home games? Underdogs at home had a terrible record as shown which brings down the percentages. » 2012-15: 15 percent (11-60)

I would like to only see teams who were both ranked or finished with winning records and then see if Home field played a factor.
Click to expand...
I don't know if he looked a that specifically but he did touch on that subject - or at least a similar one:

Who's losing more often at home? According to research, it's primarily the bad teams. Who's winning more road games? The top tier, but especially elite teams like Alabama, Ohio State and Oklahoma.

Is it possible the gap between great programs and bad programs is growing?

To get closer to the target, we need to look at close games. Games decided by eight points or less. Maybe we can learn something.

The percentage of one-possession games hasn't changed much from a decade ago. Home teams are still winning a similar percentage outside the eight-point frame.

Here's what did change: From 2004 through 2011, home teams won 52 percent of close games (367-339). About what you'd expect, right?

Contrast that to 2012 through 2015, when home teams' win percentage in close games dropped to 41.6 percent (162-227).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah that number doesn't really say much to me. 75-80% of CFB teams don't have an intimidating home field advantage.

What's the home winning % of teams with 70,000+ stadium capacity? teams in the top 25 of all time wins? those would be more interesting.

 
2015: 52.3% (137-125)2014: 49.2% (130-134)
2013: 55.5% (142-114)
2012: 53.2% (132-116)
2011: 58.4% (139-99)
2010: 53.1% (120-106)
2009: 57.0% (130-98)
2008: 57.0% (131-99)
2007: 58.7% (135-95)
2006: 55.0% (127-104)
2005: 56.2% (127-99)
2004: 57.7% (128-94)
2003: 64.0% (137-77)
2002: 54.7% (117-97)
2001: 52.8% (113-101)
2000: 57.0% (122-92)
1999: 56.3% (120-93)
1998: 59.7% (126-85)
Click to expand...
This was also in the article. While I think you can support the conclusion he comes to, I think he disregards the 2003 peak a little too easily while being too accepting of the 2014 dip.

I think he has a point, however. The win total hasn't eclipsed 57 percent since 2009, and going back to '98 there's only a two year time span where that failed to occur.

 
The only way we could possibly make our stadium more intimidating is by moving the student section to the east 50yd line. That and more night games against higher profile teams than...Rutgers.

 
1995 Redux said:
The only way we could possibly make our stadium more intimidating is by moving the student section to the east 50yd line. That and more night games against higher profile teams than...Rutgers.
Click to expand...
The biggest factor is team success, IMO. Nebraska was an intimidating place to play mainly because of how dominant the team was in conjunction with the energy provided by the crowd. While I think the two work hand in hand, I think the majority of the pressure is on the team to help create the atmosphere. That's not to say the crowd can't do the same at times, of course.

 
Enhance89 said:
1995 Redux said:
The only way we could possibly make our stadium more intimidating is by moving the student section to the east 50yd line. That and more night games against higher profile teams than...Rutgers.
Click to expand...
The biggest factor is team success, IMO. Nebraska was an intimidating place to play mainly because of how dominant the team was in conjunction with the energy provided by the crowd. While I think the two work hand in hand, I think the majority of the pressure is on the team to help create the atmosphere. That's not to say the crowd can't do the same at times, of course.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The team was almost mythical in reputation, so the seed of jitters was already planted in the other team. The crowd played less of a part unless the opponent put 100% into their efforts.

I look at like Utah and really like how they have their student section as an intimidating factor.

 
2 of the last 5 years have been 55% and 58% for wins. Of the prior 13 years 3 were below 55% and only 2 above 58% - Don't really see much here.

 
When it comes to data, you have to be consistent. 18 years of data versus 2 doesn't scream accuracy. Either you can claim their is more equality in CFB than ever, or less home underdogs are beating their leagues best teams.

 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I heard Dan Hoppen say this on 1620 with Sharp and Benning, HUDL is known to have some wicked good stats. Have they looked into this "phenomenon" or is Dirk stretching for something like many writers do when trying to prove a point they already lean towards believing in?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top