New User? Sign Up / Forgot Your Password?
All Live
    All Live Projections

    College Homefield (6/25/12)

    By Paul Bessire

    Monday, June 25 at 11:45 PM ET

    Today's blog will revisit college football homefield advantages.

    College Football Homefield  Advantage:
    In February, we unveiled the results of our research into college basketball homecourt (a lot of this article will read like that article) advantages. Part of the reason that we started digging into those numbers to the degree that we did stemmed from observations that we had seen with betting patterns and performance in both college basketball and college football. Naturally, as we have worked diligently on analyzing and improving the college football engine, one of the first places that we started was with unique homefield advantages. While we will outline all of the modifications that we have put in place for the college football season at a date closer to the launch of our college football preview, which will come out on August 13 (you can see some early observations on likely national champions and dark horse teams in the recent Handicapper's Hot Seat on the must-visit site, we can disclose the rankings of our homefield findings on all 120 teams that played FBS last season (four teams - Texas State, UT-San Antonio, South Alabama and UMass - will make FBS debuts this season). (Note: The NFL Preview will launch on July 30.)

    Homefield advantage in college football is typically presumed to mean "about three points" (the average right now is actually closer to 3.8) difference in the final score. This means that if two teams are identical, neither team should be favored on a neutral field, while the home team would be favored by about three if they played at one of the team's stadium. This can lead to essentially a six point swing from one venue to the next. The truth is that some stadiums could actually mean up to nine points, while some do not help much at all. This research has been directly applied to the college football engine for the upcoming season.

    The chart below ranks every FBS college football team in order of the strength of its homefield (as ranked by expected points homefield adds based on data). Fans, particularly of SEC and other elite teams will inevitably be disappointed at their apparent lack of impact (most will likely jump to the chart, react and never read this part). However, it's not necessarily a good thing to top this list. In fact, the best teams should be closer to the bottom than the top because they should be more consistent, dominate regularly and not be subject to the large swings in performance that is seen in other teams (making them more like professional teams - Alabama is 106th). While traditionally elite FBS teams should not fare well in this exercise, the same can be said (and noted in the chart) about teams that are traditionally really bad. Where homefield means most is with the next tier of teams behind the absolute elite - mostly BCS conference teams that can usually compete for conference titles, but who do not have four star recruits filling the two-deep and are not always legitimate BCS Championship contenders. That's when the raw value of homefield matters most; when the talent is strong but not elite and players are more susceptible to the impact of crowd noise, tradition and atmosphere. 

    Personally, as someone who grew up with season tickets to Camp Randall in Madison, Wisconsin, I'm proud of number two - yet I also understand that Wisconsin is not an elite team with an elite recruiting class every season and a team likely to contend for a national championship. Given my explanation, I wonder if Oklahoma fans would feel the same way. 

    I focused on players in the general explanation of the homefield advantage results, but, one of the main reasons that homefield advantage exists to some degree in every sport that we project relates to an inherent bias by officials to support the home team (fair or not - I would say not, yet it appears to be human nature). Reviewing these rankings and considering that conference games are officiated by conference-affiliated crews, a reasonable argument could be made that officiating in some conferences (like the SEC and MAC) has been more neutral than others (like the Big Ten and Big 12). 

    Another obvious element behind this is that teams from conferences lower on this list score fewer points than most at the top of this list. We have always believed in viewing homefield advantage as a modifier to per-play statistics and not a flat value so this is good to see and will continue to be incorporated.

    One major factor that dominated the college basketball chart - elevation - is not as prevalent in these numbers. While football (22 players rotating on field, pausing between plays, etc.) is a different game than basketball (10 players on a court playing offense and defense, continuous play), the main reason that I think elevation looks like more of an obvious advantage in basketball than football (in addition to the other theories above), is that conferences are more regionally constructed in football than in basketball, thus minimizing the opportunities for a high elevation team to host low elevation teams. Does that mean that the advantage should be greater than we have calculated for Wyoming if FAU, which plays in the same conference as "mile-high" Denver in basketball, has to travel to Laramie for a football game? I'm not sure yet (fortunately, that exact situation does not happen until 2014... FYI, I totally made up that example before I realized they are actually playing in Wyoming soon), but that will be another situation to monitor closely.

    Whatever the reasons behind the numbers, we have more accurate data on the true homefield advantages for each team. Remember that homefield advantage compares performance against expected scores at home AND on the road to quantify the value of playing at home. The advantage a team gains at home (relative to opponent) is applied in the opposite direction on the road (data independence is treated similarly for inputs).

    All data goes back to 2000. For teams that have new stadiums, seasons in new stadiums are given stronger consideration.

    College Football Homefield Advantage by Team:

    Rank Team
    1 Oklahoma
    2 Wisconsin
    3 UCLA
    4 Missouri
    5 Nevada
    6 Arkansas State
    7 Houston
    8 Hawaii
    9 California
    10 Troy
    11 Clemson
    12 Michigan State
    13 Texas A&M
    14 Kansas
    15 Arizona State
    16 Marshall
    17 Oklahoma State
    18 Cincinnati
    19 Colorado
    20 UTEP
    21 Toledo
    22 Michigan
    23 Oregon
    24 Texas Tech
    25 Iowa State
    26 UNLV
    27 Kansas State
    28 Georgia Tech
    29 UNC
    30 Rice
    31 South Carolina
    32 Arkansas
    33 Iowa
    34 UConn
    35 UCF
    36 Utah State
    37 Indiana
    38 Colorado State
    39 Wyoming
    40 Western Michigan
    41 Arizona
    42 Baylor
    43 San Jose State
    44 Washington
    45 Northern Illinois
    46 ECU
    47 Boise State
    48 Ohio
    49 NC State
    50 Minnesota
    51 Air Force
    52 San Diego State
    53 Penn State
    54 New Mexico
    55 TCU
    56 Purdue
    57 Maryland
    58 Rutgers
    59 Temple
    60 Tulsa
    61 Illinois
    62 Louisville
    63 Ohio State
    64 Virginia
    65 Northwestern
    66 Tennessee
    67 New Mexico State
    68 Southern Mississippi
    69 Mississippi State
    70 BYU
    71 USC
    72 North Texas
    73 Central Michigan
    74 Louisiana Tech
    75 Middle Tennessee
    76 Auburn
    77 SMU
    78 Akron
    79 Idaho
    80 Miami (OH)
    81 Syracuse
    82 Oregon State
    83 Miami (FL)
    84 Kentucky
    85 Pittsburgh
    86 Mississippi
    87 Ball State
    88 FIU
    89 Fresno State
    90 Army
    91 Wake Forest
    92 UAB
    93 USF
    94 Boston College
    95 Kent State
    96 Florida
    97 Stanford
    98 Buffalo
    99 Eastern Michigan
    100 Texas
    101 Georgia
    102 Nebraska
    103 Florida Atlantic
    104 Tulane
    105 Notre Dame
    106 Alabama
    107 Virginia Tech
    108 LSU
    109 Memphis
    110 Washington State
    111 West Virginia
    112 Utah
    113 Western Kentucky
    114 Louisiana
    115 Vanderbilt
    116 Duke
    117 Louisiana Monroe
    118 Bowling Green
    119 Florida State
    120 Navy

    As usual, if you have any of your own comments about this article or suggestions about how to improve the site, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time. We respond to every support contact as quickly as we can (usually within a few hours) and are very amenable to suggestions. I firmly believe that open communication with our customers and user feedback is the best way for us to grow and provide the types of products that will maximize the experience for all. Thank you in advance for your suggestions, comments and questions.

    Print This Article
    Week 2 Football Recap (9/17/12)
    Weekend Football Review (12/13/11)
    Want More Tips and Information? Click To Register!





    The Predictalator

    08/09/2017 Highlight: In college football, "normal" or better totals are 58% all-time and have been profitable in five of the previous seven years. Meanwhile, our strongest ATS pick each week in college football is 69-40 (63% ATS) all-time. With college football season win totals being posted this week, we can also note that last season, playable win total picks in went 28-19 (60% O/U) to turn a profit of $899 for a normal $50 player using our play value recommendations.

    Check out the Shop now to learn more.

    Recommended Features



    Fantasy Sports Partnership
    Prediction Machine has partnered up with Fantasy Guru Elite. Read the blog from our Business Manager, Rob Pizzola, to learn more.

    NFL Preview - In-Depth Analysis
    In the most likely Super Bowl, the New England Patriots defeat the Seattle Seahawks. Check out in-depth analysis for every team in the league.



    All registered accounts are subject to our General Terms Of Service. Content is intended for informational purposes only. This is not a gambling website.

    FSTA Member 2015
    Home | The Predictalator | Blog | Privacy |  Media Contact |  B2B Solutions |  Sitemap |  Customer Support | 
    © 2010-2015, LLC. All rights reserved. | Site Designed by