JEM News
Home Field....Advantage?
There is nothing quite like an
autumn Saturday. The leaves are falling, the air is fresh and from big cities to
small towns across America the sound of drums from university marching bands can
be heard. From Doak S. Campbell Stadium in Tallahassee to the Coliseum in Los
Angeles, from Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge to Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor,
millions of rabid football fans are doing there best to cheer, scream, shout and
yes will there team to victory. Visiting teams must feel like they're being fed to the
lions. Audibles at the line can't be heard, the student sections are pounding
their feet doing the "Tomahawk", the "Gator Chomp", or singing "Rocky Top" for
what seems like an eternity. Every mistake and negative play is shown over and
over on the jumbotron. So we ask, how much of an impact does home field
advantage have not only on the outcome of the game but, more
importantly for a handicapper, on the point spread.
We decided to break down our data in the table
below by conference with each conference's overall home winning percentage
and overall home ATS winning percentage. All records
are from the 2000 through 2007. A team must have played at least 5 seasons of IA
ball to be counted. As you would expect most of your "power" conferences
dominate the home winning percentage category. Now take a look at the home ATS
winning percentages. Are you surprised to see the Big East (1), WAC (2) and MAC
(T4) all ranked in the top 5? What if we told you, excluding the three
Independent teams, that the ACC (10) and the SEC (11) round out the bottom of
the list! Scratching your head yet?
| Conference |
Home Win % |
Rank |
Conference |
Home ATS % |
Rank |
| BIG 12 |
70 |
1 |
Big East |
57.6 |
1 |
| BIG 10 |
67.7 |
2 |
WAC |
56.2 |
2 |
| SEC |
67.6 |
3 |
BIG 12 |
53.7 |
3 |
| Big East |
67.5 |
4 |
MAC |
52.3 |
T4 |
| ACC |
66 |
5 |
BIG 10 |
52.3 |
T4 |
| WAC |
65.2 |
6 |
Sun Belt |
51.6 |
6 |
| PAC 10 |
63.2 |
7 |
Mountain West |
50.9 |
7 |
| Mountain West |
60.8 |
8 |
PAC 10 |
50.8 |
8 |
| CUSA |
57.4 |
9 |
CUSA |
49.8 |
9 |
| Sun Belt |
56.8 |
10 |
ACC |
47.9 |
10 |
| MAC |
55.2 |
11 |
SEC |
46.9 |
11 |
| Independent |
46.3 |
12 |
Independent |
39.5 |
12 |
Let's start our analysis with what
many consider the best in college football, the SEC. These fans are hard core.
Stadium capacities average over 83,000 and are almost always sold out. The noise
levels are deafening and the environments are hostile. The home teams in this
conference must dominate! Well, yes and no. The only teams that had a won / loss
record below .500 were Mississippi St, Vanderbilt and Kentucky, no surprise
there. But how about the fact there were only 4 teams in this conference with a
winning ATS record at home over that span and two of them were Mississippi (+1)
and Kentucky (+3).You would think if your team was going into places like
Tuscaloosa AL, Knoxville TN, and Athens GA, it would be prudent to keep your
money in your wallet and your wallet in your pocket. In reality, if you look at
the ATS home record for those teams the odds would be in
your favor! This pattern follows many of the high profile programs in the
country. We list each table below according to their overall home ATS winning %.
| BIG EAST |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Connecticut |
24 - 13 |
64.9 |
30 - 19 |
61.2 |
| South Florida |
20 - 11 |
64.5 |
39 - 9 |
81.3 |
| Syracuse |
30 - 17 |
63.8 |
27 - 22 |
55.1 |
| Cincinnati |
26 - 17 |
60.5 |
33 - 14 |
70 |
| Louisville |
27 - 18 |
60 |
41 - 7 |
85.4 |
| Rutgers |
24 - 20 |
54.5 |
25 - 26 |
49 |
| Pittsburgh |
23 - 23 |
50 |
34 - 17 |
66.7 |
| West Virginia |
22 - 25 |
46.8 |
37 - 14 |
72.5 |
| Overall |
196 - 144 |
57.6 |
266 - 128 |
67.5 |
| WAC |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Boise St |
30 - 13 |
69.8 |
48 - 1 |
98 |
| San Jose St |
22 - 11 |
66.7 |
24 - 16 |
60 |
| Nevada |
28 - 15 |
65.1 |
29 - 17 |
63 |
| Hawaii |
32- 22 |
59.3 |
46 - 15 |
75.4 |
| Louisiana Tech |
19 - 15 |
55.9 |
24 - 14 |
63.2 |
| New Mexico St |
20 - 18 |
52.6 |
22 - 22 |
50 |
| Fresno St |
18 - 22 |
45 |
37 - 9 |
80 |
| Utah St |
15 - 19 |
44.1 |
17 - 22 |
43.6 |
| Idaho |
12 - 18 |
40 |
13 - 23 |
36.1 |
| Overall |
196 - 153 |
56.2 |
260 - 139 |
65.2 |
| BIG XII |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Texas Tech |
26 - 17 |
60.5 |
40 - 10 |
80 |
| Oklahoma St |
25 - 17 |
59.5 |
31 - 19 |
62 |
| Kansas St |
29 - 20 |
59.2 |
41 - 15 |
73.2 |
| Texas |
27 - 19 |
58.7 |
43 - 4 |
91.5 |
| Missouri |
25 - 19 |
56.8 |
33 - 17 |
66 |
| Texas A&M |
26 - 20 |
56.5 |
35 - 17 |
67.3 |
| Oklahoma |
26 - 24 |
52 |
49 - 2 |
96.1 |
| Nebraska |
27 - 25 |
51.9 |
45 - 11 |
80.4 |
| Iowa St |
23 - 22 |
51.1 |
32 - 20 |
61.5 |
| Kansas |
23 - 22 |
51.1 |
32 - 20 |
61.5 |
| Colorado |
22 - 24 |
47.8 |
28 - 19 |
59.6 |
| Baylor |
16 - 25 |
39 |
20 - 30 |
40 |
| Overall |
295 - 254 |
53.7 |
429 - 184 |
70 |
| MAC |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Toledo |
28 - 12 |
70 |
42 - 6 |
87.5 |
| Ball St |
20 - 14 |
58.8 |
19 - 22 |
46.3 |
| Central Michigan |
20 - 15 |
57.1 |
22 - 20 |
52.4 |
| Ohio |
20 - 16 |
55.6 |
22 - 20 |
52.4 |
| Miami OH |
21 - 17 |
55.3 |
26 - 13 |
66.7 |
| Buffalo |
21 - 18 |
53.8 |
11 - 31 |
26.2 |
| Bowling Green |
18 - 16 |
52.9 |
30 - 11 |
73.2 |
| Northern Illinois |
20 - 18 |
52.6 |
33 - 12 |
73.3 |
| Temple |
22 - 20 |
52.4 |
13 - 32 |
28.9 |
| Eastern Michigan |
15 - 17 |
46.9 |
17 - 24 |
41.5 |
| Akron |
17 - 20 |
45.9 |
26 - 14 |
65 |
| Western Michigan |
14 - 21 |
40 |
26 - 17 |
60.5 |
| Kent St |
12 - 22 |
35.3 |
17 - 25 |
40.5 |
| Overall |
248 - 226 |
52.3 |
304 - 247 |
55.2 |
| SUN BELT |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Arkansas St |
20 - 15 |
57.1 |
26 - 17 |
60.5 |
| North Texas |
21 - 16 |
56.8 |
22 - 18 |
55 |
| Troy |
12 - 10 |
54.5 |
32 - 6 |
84.2 |
| Mid Tenn St |
17 - 17 |
50 |
25 - 15 |
62.5 |
| LA Monroe |
13 - 15 |
46.4 |
15 - 24 |
38.5 |
| LA Lafayette |
13 - 17 |
43.3 |
18 - 25 |
41.9 |
| Overall |
96 - 90 |
51.6 |
138 - 105 |
56.8 |
| MOUNTAIN WEST |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| TCU |
27 - 16 |
62.8 |
39 - 6 |
86.7 |
| New Mexico |
23 - 19 |
54.8 |
30 - 18 |
62.5 |
| Utah |
24 - 20 |
54.5 |
33 - 13 |
71.7 |
| BYU |
24 - 22 |
52.2 |
33 - 15 |
68.8 |
| Wyoming |
20 - 19 |
51.3 |
22 - 23 |
48.9 |
| Air Force |
21 - 23 |
47.7 |
31 - 18 |
63.3 |
| San Diego St |
18 - 21 |
46.2 |
19 - 26 |
42.2 |
| UNLV |
19 - 23 |
45 |
17 - 27 |
38.6 |
| Colorado St |
16 - 22 |
42 |
27 - 16 |
62.8 |
| Overall |
192 - 185 |
50.9 |
251 - 162 |
60.8 |
| PAC TEN |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Oregon St |
26 - 15 |
63.4 |
38 - 11 |
77.6 |
| Arizona St |
30 - 19 |
61.2 |
37 - 16 |
69.8 |
| UCLA |
27 - 18 |
60 |
35 - 14 |
71.4 |
| Oregon |
26 - 22 |
54.2 |
39 - 12 |
76.5 |
| Stanford |
24 - 23 |
51.1 |
19 - 29 |
39.6 |
| USC |
25 - 24 |
51 |
41 - 8 |
83.7 |
| California |
21 - 25 |
45.7 |
30 - 18 |
62.5 |
| Washington St |
19 - 23 |
45.2 |
25 - 20 |
55.6 |
| Washington |
20 - 30 |
40 |
29 - 22 |
56.9 |
| Arizona |
17 - 29 |
37 |
20 - 32 |
38.5 |
| Overall |
235 - 228 |
50.8 |
313 - 182 |
63.2 |
| CUSA |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Rice |
24 - 14 |
63.2 |
20 - 20 |
50 |
| Marshall |
20 - 16 |
55.6 |
36 - 10 |
78.3 |
| UCF |
19 - 18 |
51.4 |
27 - 17 |
61.4 |
| Tulsa |
21 - 21 |
50 |
27 - 20 |
57.4 |
| UAB |
19 - 19 |
50 |
25 - 18 |
58.1 |
| Tulane |
18 - 18 |
50 |
23 - 17 |
57.5 |
| Memphis |
21 - 22 |
48.8 |
27 - 23 |
54 |
| East Carolina |
21 - 22 |
48.8 |
22 - 22 |
50 |
| UTEP |
19 - 20 |
48.7 |
26 - 20 |
56.5 |
| SMU |
21 - 25 |
45.7 |
19 - 28 |
40.4 |
| So. Mississippi |
17 - 21 |
44.8 |
30 - 13 |
69.8 |
| Houston |
19 - 25 |
43.2 |
26 - 21 |
55.3 |
| Overall |
239 - 241 |
49.8 |
308 - 229 |
57.4 |
| ACC |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Virginia |
31 - 17 |
64.6 |
38 - 12 |
76 |
| Boston College |
28 - 16 |
63.6 |
40 - 10 |
80 |
| Virginia Tech |
29 - 22 |
56.9 |
46 - 9 |
83.6 |
| Maryland |
24 - 21 |
53.3 |
37 - 13 |
74 |
| Clemson |
23 - 25 |
47.9 |
39 - 14 |
73.6 |
| Georgia Tech |
21 - 25 |
45.7 |
33 - 17 |
66 |
| Wake Forest |
19 - 23 |
45.2 |
25 - 24 |
51 |
| Florida St |
21 - 26 |
44.7 |
38 - 11 |
77.6 |
| North Carolina |
20 - 26 |
43.5 |
23 - 26 |
46.9 |
| Miami Fla |
20 - 29 |
40.8 |
42 - 9 |
82.4 |
| NC State |
16 - 30 |
34.8 |
32 - 21 |
60.4 |
| Duke |
14 - 29 |
32.6 |
7 - 40 |
14.9 |
| Overall |
266 - 289 |
47.9 |
400 - 206 |
66 |
| SEC |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Florida |
26 - 22 |
54.2 |
43 - 8 |
84.3 |
| Auburn |
28 - 24 |
53.8 |
47 - 10 |
82.5 |
| Kentucky |
25 - 22 |
53.2 |
25 - 28 |
47.2 |
| Mississippi |
24 - 23 |
51.1 |
31 - 22 |
58.5 |
| LSU |
26 - 26 |
50 |
49 - 7 |
87.5 |
| Arkansas |
26 - 27 |
49.1 |
41 - 17 |
70.7 |
| Georgia |
21 - 24 |
46.7 |
43 - 8 |
84.3 |
| South Carolina |
23 - 27 |
46 |
34 - 20 |
63 |
| Tennessee |
23 - 31 |
42.6 |
41 - 13 |
75.9 |
| Vanderbilt |
17 - 24 |
41.5 |
16 - 35 |
31.4 |
| Mississippi St |
17 - 28 |
37.8 |
21 - 29 |
42 |
| Alabama |
19 - 33 |
36.5 |
36 - 21 |
63.2 |
| Overall |
275 - 311 |
46.9 |
427 - 205 |
67.6 |
| BIG TEN |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Iowa |
32 - 16 |
66.7 |
39 - 12 |
76.5 |
| Ohio St |
31 - 22 |
58.5 |
48 - 7 |
87.3 |
| Penn St |
30 - 22 |
57.7 |
39 - 15 |
72.2 |
| Purdue |
26 - 21 |
55.3 |
37 - 15 |
71.2 |
| Minnesota |
25 - 21 |
54.3 |
32 - 19 |
62.7 |
| Michigan |
27 - 25 |
51.9 |
46 - 8 |
85.2 |
| Wisconsin |
25 - 26 |
49 |
41 - 14 |
74.5 |
| Northwestern |
22 - 24 |
47.8 |
26 - 22 |
54.2 |
| Illinois |
22 - 24 |
47.8 |
25 - 25 |
50 |
| Indiana |
21 - 23 |
47.7 |
24 - 25 |
49 |
| Michigan St |
19 - 31 |
38 |
30 - 23 |
56.6 |
| Overall |
275 - 311 |
46.9 |
427 - 205 |
67.6 |
| iNDEPENDENTS |
HOME ATS |
% |
HOME WIN / LOSS |
% |
| Notre Dame |
22 - 28 |
44 |
31 - 19 |
62 |
| Navy |
14 - 22 |
38.9 |
21 - 22 |
48.8 |
| Army |
13 - 25 |
34.2 |
11 - 32 |
25.6 |
| Overall |
49 - 75 |
39.5 |
63 - 73 |
46.3 |
It seems most teams do win more often than
not at home and some teams win just about every time. But when it comes to the
point spread, which in a way measures how well a team is expected to perform,
the answer to our "home field advantage" question becomes less clear. What can
be some of the reasons for this? Today it's common to hear coaches say they
prefer to take their team on the road. Certainly there are less distractions
away from home. The team stays together at a hotel and the pregame routine can
be more easily controlled and regimented. Many coaches will cultivate the "us
vs. the world" mentality and if a team is going into places like Tennessee ,
Miami or Clemson as a heavy dog it's easy to feel "disrespected". All of this
can bring a team closer, make them more focused and ultimately more dangerous.
Teams like Toledo, TCU, Rice and San Jose St don't exactly roll off the lips
when your talking about teams that are some of the best in the country covering
at home. If you look at the tables above, it does seem that the oddsmakers tend
to undervalue them on their own turf.
The discussion over home field advantage will continue from the
"sports experts" on TV and radio to the water cooler at work. The intent of this
article was not to provide a definitive answer. Instead, we wanted to point out
that if you do believe in home field advantage maybe it doesn't exist for the
teams you thought. If you don't believe in it, maybe it does exist for the teams you
would least expect!
|
