The Toughest Places To Play Out West

I think it also depends upon where you are seated in any particular stadium, significantly so in the coliseum. In 2004, I was ~25 rows up from field directly behind the goalpost at the closed end side of the stadium. At the end of the game, during the last drive that ended poorly, the team was driving into that endzone, and I’ll tell you, it was really, really loud. So loud that I kinda laughed to myself and contemplated how freaking hard it would be to perform under those conditions. Perhaps on the other side of the stadium it was not so loud, but down low on that end it was a joke.

Honestly, the only time I’ve ever heard crowd noise louder was during the 2006 Oregon game (first time in gold jerseys – holla!). I sit in QQ, low 20’s, and when OU was knocking on the door in the 1st quarter (got to the 4 or 5 yard line, but we held them to a field goal) it literally became deafening. I mean . . . my ears were ringing for over a day. I suspect the dude behind me was yelling directly into my ears, because all I was able to hear was a drone of muted sounds, and my own voice yelling became muffled like I was under water.

I guess my point is, the closer to the field, generally the louder it gets. I know I’ve sat with friends in QQ up in the 50’s, and it’s practically a wake up there unless something really big happens – and even then its a roar but not really loud. Down low you are hearing all the people behind you make noise so it really adds up. And since the east half of the stadium makes almost all the noise, It really seems like we could be doing A LOT better in the noise department. IMO that’s why Oregon is so damn loud: practically all their fans actually yell – all the time when they are on defense – as opposed to in most stadiums its like 30-40% unless its a 4th down and the game is on the line. Even then the old blues on the alumni side still may not do more than just idly clap.

Usually their crowd is pretty laid back, but the Trojans are always up by 40 at halftime. They have only a handful of close games at the Coliseum.

The wave equation
Main article: Wave equation
The wave equation is a differential equation that describes the evolution of a harmonic wave over time. The equation has slightly different forms depending on how the wave is transmitted, and the medium it is traveling through. Considering a one-dimensional wave that is traveling down a rope along the x-axis with velocity v and amplitude u (which generally depends on both x and t), the wave equation is

 
In three dimensions, this becomes

 
The velocity v will depend on both the type of wave and the medium through which it is being transmitted.

A general solution for the wave equation in one dimension was given by d’Alembert. It is

 
This can be viewed as two pulses traveling down the rope in opposite directions; F in the +x direction, and G in the −x direction. If we substitute for x above, replacing it with directions x, y, z, we then can describe a wave propagating in three dimensions.

The Schrödinger equation describes the wave-like behavior of particles in quantum mechanics. Solutions of this equation are wave functions which can be used to describe the probability density of a particle. Quantum mechanics also describes particle properties that other waves, such as light and sound, have on the atomic scale and below.

Looking back on it, I’m not sure what game hooked me on Cal football. Baylor, Big Game 2002, USC 2003, come combination of them all. My fandom increased exponentially during the 2004 season.

there are actually rumors?

good point

oh…I missed my ©

oops

Plenty of bars within walking distance. No need to drive.

for players that goes unnoticed by fans

Humidity :[

Not all games are created equal though. Arizona State stacks their home games with some gimmes (they’ve played some pretty garbage teams at home), while Oregon has played some pretty tough OOC opponents (Oklahoma, Boise, Fresno). I think they draw Purdue this year?

I dunno. I feel there’s a reason we never won there for, what, 20 years before 2007?

One thing that I should point out is that as much as my data is intended to reflect home field advantage, it could very well be representative of how good a team plays on the road.

This is a very, very good point, and one that I’m not sure quite how to resolve (for most teams, bowl performance is so sporadic and full of outlier conditions that I hate to use it as any sort of ‘control’ group).

With how wavelengths are, it’s easier to get loud with less in a smaller venue, but in a larger one, you need a lot of people all yelling, though the result of that can achieve a higher level of volume.

That’s why Autzen is louder than the Big House. More screaming per capita.

I think it’s only common sense that there isn’t any attribute to noise that makes one team better, or the other team worse. But it’s also ignorance (Or stubbornness) to not put some value that noise can have on the visiting team. For reasons I already listed.

The # of turnovers or whatever is inconsequential if you lose. The "loudness" of a stadium is irrelevant if your team loses. As I have posed elsewhere, how loud was the Oregon crowd two years ago after Cal beat them?

Agreed, but the “loudness” of the stadium IS a contributing factor. Maybe not much, but it is a factor. To think otherwise is incredibly shortsighted.

What I sought to do was find out how much better a given team performs (wins or loses) at home based on the actual outcome— I refer to this as "home field advantage."

Do you care what type of defense Cal runs? Its irrelevant if they lose.
Do you care that Florida and Oklahoma both led the nation in turnover ratio? Oklahoma lost the MNC game, so is that irrelevant? Is it somehow MORE relevant to Florida?

What you’re talking about is hardly related to the original post. The fact is that noise can be a contributing factor (I already gave two examples, I can undoubtedly find more). At least Wikipedia agrees with my definition of “Home Field Advantage”.

What I sought to do was find out how much better a given team performs (wins or loses) at home based on the actual outcome— I refer to this as "home field advantage."

I find this to be fairly arbitrary. I see no “advantage” in this study. It’s correlations of teams and their performance. Teams aren’t better solely because they happen to play in a stadium. There are several other circumstances, primarily, the quality of the teams playing.

In the late 90s – 2001, Oregon had one of the longest home winning streak. Now maybe Oregon hasn’t sported a team as good as their 2001 team (Which I don’t agree with), but as a program, they’re much better today. It also was the 2001 team that saw the streak break – and it wasn’t the 2001 team that started the streak.

Miami has the most impressive home streak in NCAA football. That ended in the mid 90s. They continued to be a strong power through the early part of the century. But, teams didn’t hate going to Dolphin Stadium because it was Dolphin Stadium. They just hated playing Miami. But the Swamp – that was a destination every team dread to make. Their record isn’t nearly as impressive though.

How about the perspective from a player?

“It was like some sort of crazy torture in the movies,”

Players enjoy playing in hostile places. “Us Vs. Them”. It can create a new focus for some of them, but as a team, they’re still going to have problems. They enjoy it, because it’s an 56,000+ people they have to overcome. The only thing they enjoy more than playing in a hostile stadium, is shutting them up.

I’m not afraid to see my team take the field in Husky stadium. I would be singing a different tune if they had a team like they did in 2000. It’s the same field, same stadium, same location – nearly every variable is the same except for 1. The quality of the teams, and 2. The attendance.

I’m waaay beyond my bed time, so I hope you can make sense out of it all.

It’s not so much an Autzen thing as it is a “I think it’s a bad metric” thing. Just because it’s a new and well written perspective on something, doesn’t make it right.

First, this has absolutely nothing to do with Oregon vs. any other schools. I just think that this is an incredibly poor way to measure home and road performance.

Next, you say that all the factors in the game go into winning and losing. They is very true. But then you try to equate a fairly meaningless factor in the grand scheme of things, such as home field advantage, and equate that directly to winning and losing, or point differential. This just doesn’t work, statistically or logically.

Take for example, OSU. It is simply laughable to think that OSU is 17 points different on the road and at home. While home field advantage is important, it isn’t even close to that important. Someone much smarter (and with more time) than any of us attempted to do a statistical analysis of this by taking into account strength of schedule, (which Avanish talked about above), and noting the fact that most patsie games are played at home, came up with the number of 3.3 points, right around where Vegas puts it. This sounds incredibly realistic to me. The whole article is worth a read.

But really, without any factor for strength of schedule and other vitally important variables, these numbers are essentially meaningless. They do not provide a good basis to make a conclusion. There is nothing in the data that makes it sound to compare the home/road records of one team to another. You need to adjust the data so that it is comparable from one team to the next, just like you have the OPS+ and ERA+ in baseball to compare between ballparks. Now, I sure as hell am not gonna do that research, because I don’t want to use that time. But if your data is to be taken seriously, this needs to be addressed. But just because I don’t have an answer to this question, doesn’t mean my questioning of your methodology is unfounded.

In my mind, home field advantage is almost entirely intangible. It’s also mostly psychological. I think that noise and fan excitement are the two most important factors, because they can energize a home team, and can hamper the other team. But that said, good teams can use that as motivation of fighting against the world. It’s fun to think that we as fans make a difference, but it’s really not that big a difference.

Rather than languish on my failures, I would suggest Duck fans to come up recommendations on how to find a better methodology and, here’s the key, actually simulate the data and post your findings. Actions speak louder than words.

I’ve already described a better methodology, and you immediately dismissed it because it was to centric on noise. To simulate the data would simply be too time consuming, and would require too much time, as it relates to information that is not statistically tracked, and one would have to watch every game, and track the data independently.

Advantage implies something one team has over the other. Sightlines aren’t applicable. Weather conditions aren’t applicable. So many factors aren’t applicable because both teams share the same field, and swap. Oregon @ Cal last year, the field conditions were awful, both played one of their worst games of the year. So what is it about a place that gives the team the advantage? I’m willing to be told what these variables are.

Cal went 7-0 at home last year. Now they have home field advantage? Why? What is it about 7-0 that gives them a home field advantage? From your methodology, the reason why they have a home field advantage is because they went 7-0 at home. What is the advantage? HOW is 7-0 an advantage?

The impact noise has in game is relatively small, but it can create situations can that make it difficult for the other team. Advantage? Home team. However, these situations are nothing a team cannot overcome. It’s nothing any team shouldn’t be able to over come. But if I can cause a false start, or make the QB burn a time out midway in the 3rd quarter – I’m game.

However, rhetoric like calling my view "ignorant," "stubborn," "incredibly shortsighted" and now "naive" is not effective strategy to either advance criticism or encourage healthy debate.

From my perspective, it is intentionally no slight to you. You’ve described some things very clearly, and are well written. Your view/opinion/methodology is where the problem lies, and how you have handled the discussion. You’ve refused to refute points with some sort of basis, that’s stubbornness. To refuse the impact noise has in a game when examples have been given that it DOES have an impact, is shortsightedness. I mean no offense, but from my perspective, you’re sticking your fingers in your ear and going “la la la la la” when it comes to addressing our points.