Chart of the day

For some reason, I find this intriguing.

No reason is given for the decline, so we’re left to speculate.  I assume factors like the increase in neutral site games, as well as cupcake games, contributes.  Is it possible this is an indication of a widening gap in quality between the top teams and the rest?  What do y’all think?



Filed under College Football, Stats Geek!

23 responses to “Chart of the day

  1. Coaching. The team is more able to deal with playing in a noisy stadium due to specific preparation for it.


    • 92 grad

      My first thought as well. CFB is light years more sophisticated now that it was pre-2000. Coaching, talent level, and complete program administration has systematically eliminated any variables possible. There is still a home field factor, its just closer to razor thin than it used to be.

      Liked by 1 person

    • 3rdandGrantham

      Yep, agreed. Occasionally I’ll go back and watch segments of games from the 80’s/90’s, and I’m amazed how much simpler the game was back then. From huddles before every play, WR’s lining up and putting their hands on the ground before every snap, very little motion or formation changes pre-snap, and everything else in between…indeed the game has gotten far more complicated overall. Oh, and faster to boot, hence the crowd doesn’t get a chance to really get into it when the visiting team is running a HUNH compared to huddling every time.

      Seriously, if you took an average to pretty good coach today and put them in a time machine back to the, say, early 90’s, he would have a field day applying what he knows now to what was known back then.


      • JCDawg83

        That is precisely why Spurrier had the success he had initially. He brought a game to the SEC no one else had seen or thought of. The idea of getting coverage mismatches with linebackers and safeties forced to cover wide receivers or running backs out of the backfield was unheard of in 1990. Once the conference and the nation caught onto and up with his style of offense he became a good but not incredible coach. His record in the NFL and at SCu showed that his innovation ability was used up and he was a good play caller but he wasn’t putting anything on the field no one had seen before.


  2. mp

    I wonder if better travel logistics might play a part – more charters and shorter flights. I also agree with one of the responses to the tweet that replay should have helped to mitigate the natural home field bias that refs have.


  3. I think the HUNH spread offense can negate a home field crowd.


  4. hodgie

    if there’s an increase in cupcake games, how does that equate to negating home field advantage? the cupcake is always getting eaten on the road.


  5. JCDawg83

    I’d say parity in talent has something to do with it. Outside of about 10 of the top programs, the other 120 or so college teams now have fairly equal talent. Playing at home may be worth a point or two now if both teams are of equal talent.


    • BMan1

      This. The old days of Bear Bryant have 200 players so no one else would have any are gone. Outside of a handful of elite programs, good players get spread around to more teams. This may be why the UCFs and Boise States of the world exist these days


      • Will Adams

        How would having good players being spread around to more teams allow non elite programs, like UCF and Boise State, to become what they are today? Are you saying a lot of the good players that previously would’ve been part of the 200 man roster at Bama, are now going to UCF or Boise State? That would make sense.

        I originally read your comment as saying that the good players are being spread out all over the country, while the elite players are going to a handful of elite programs. So a program like UCF would get it’s fair share of good players but not enough to make them into the program they are today.

        I think you’re right about good players being more spread out to the good but not great programs. I read an article on The Athletic the other day about UCF and it’s recruiting philosophy. Specifically on how they were able to recruit the right players that took them from going winless to undefeated in less than 2 years. They obviously had to take some risks in developmental players because they weren’t even getting a shot at the good players outside of one or two every few years. And they knew that there were going to be quite a few misses in those “risky” (not as developed) prospects. But they decided that if they were going to miss, then they would miss fast. Putting speed and general athletic ability over the technique, position skill level, production, experience, competition, football IQ, and all the other stuff scouts look for, built them a team of really good athletes with elite speed. Then they coached the players up. So they were taking the really unpolished 2 star with top end speed rather than the 3 star who was a better football player right now but didn’t have as much room to grow.

        There’s a few things you can’t coach and speed is one of them. UCF taking that recruiting philosophy along with good coaching is the main reason they’ve had so much success lately.

        I don’t understand why the lower level SEC football teams like Kentucky or Ole Miss keep beating their heads against the wall by trying to beat UGA, Bama, and the other SEC blue bloods at their own game. If UCF can turn their program into the powerhouse of their conference in 2 years then UK/Miss should be able to build a team that has at least a puncher’s chance in all of their games. That sort of team would win more then they would lose in conference, year in and year out. And ever so often, they’d be in the race for a division/conference title. But no, they’d rather pretend to be Bama or UGA and get their shit kicked in 9 out of 10 years. That shit is just dumb.


  6. more spinners

    Just a reminder and a reflection.
    Play calling of home team?


  7. Biggus Rickus

    I can’t come up with anything that makes much sense. Sophistication, logistics and parity all apply to the NFL, and it still remains at about a 3-point advantage for the home team there. The HUNH is an interesting idea. I also don’t know how this number is being arrived at. I assume it’s based on a predicted outcome compared to the actual result on the field. In which case, it could indicate a flaw in the prediction model as easily as a real trend in college football.


  8. Tony Barnfart

    home teams themselves moving a few miles out of town to a hotel ?


  9. Scott Strickland

    I read an article a few years ago about the visiting teams locker rooms condition that included pink walls, small size, faulty HVAC and plumbing, etc. Now teams seem to travel with sideline amenities that would help make up for such inadequacies. Maybe that plays a minor role.


    • JCDawg83

      Those things still exist. I know a couple years ago a Georgia player laughed about the visitors locker room in Columbia. He said no one took a shower there after the game because there were no showers and there was only one working toilet.


  10. Uglydawg

    Consider what happened in the UGA at ND game. Without replay, we probably lose.


  11. Macallanlover

    See no way to objectively quantify this data. Actual winning margin is not due to the the game’s location, too many other factors to attribute that soley to home field’s impact. Assigning the result of performance versus the projected spread to home field alone is also very subjective, as those betting lines are set by humans then adjusted by other (lesser qualified humans) who place bets of varying amounts. I am sure there is something being measured that I am unaware of but I just don’t know anything that would not be subjective. Anyone have any answers? Looks like SWAG material to me.