WBB: Stanford 69 Virginia 89 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 69 Virginia 89 (/thread-25481.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 69 Virginia 89 (/thread-25481.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - needle - 02-23-2025
(02-23-2025, 07:08 PM)M T Wrote: In ACC conference WBB games involving a team that was 2 or 3 time zones away from home
West Coast games, Home team 9-3
Central & Eastern time zone games, Home team 11-5
for a combined, 20-8 winning record for the home team.
For the conference as a whole, the Home team record is 77-67.
Removing the 2+ time zone games, the Home record is 57-59.
Unless the schedules were rather stacked against both Stanford and Cal (sending the weak teams west, while the strong teams minimized any trips west), the discrepancy in the benefit of playing near home versus playing far from home seems pretty strong. 57-59 or 20-8
(I am NOT saying it is the time zone difference that matters, but that may be part of it. I personally think it is travel issues (time plus physical and mental aspects).)
I would love to see the numbers for other sports, MBB, WVB, etc, across all teams in the ACC conference that had to travel 2+ time zones.
FWIW, below is a link showing Stanford men's hoops against the spread. This season, Stanford has covered about half the time at home but much less often on the road (only once in away games not against Kal). The Stanford men this season have also never covered in a loss, whatever that means.
I don't see this as definitive proof that travel harms performance, but it isn't looking good.
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/team/stanford-cardinal/ats-results
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - Nobadeer - 02-23-2025
LSJU's defense wasn't scintillating but they ran into UVa's best shooting game all season. UVa is a ~ 30% shooting team on threes. Today it was almost 50%. That was worth about 15 "extra" points over the season average.
Johnson and Lattimore both equaled their career bests with made threes. In the same game. Lottery ticket.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - BillBradley - 02-23-2025
The best way to watch these games is to skip to the end and look up the box score. For me, it's just not enjoyable to watch the lack of competitveness. Agree with petersalas and others who have pointed out the poor effort. I've commented on it before. The girls just don't get after it consistently. They have it in them, because we've seen it. But for some reason they are a team that, depending on the game, decides they just don't feel like playing that day. Today was a brobdingnagian game for them, but "nah, don't feel like competing today." Sorry, it's just not OK. It's not the travel, it's not the lack of talent. Our team didn't even want to be there today.
Going into the game, the sportsbooks had us as 4 point favorites. Massey had us winning by 8. At one point, we were down by 30. That's not just an off night...
(02-23-2025, 07:42 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: LSJU's defense wasn't scintillating but they ran into UVa's best shooting game all season. UVa is a ~ 30% shooting team on threes. Today it was almost 50%. That was worth about 15 "extra" points over the season average.Funny how shooting percentages go way up when players are wide open!
Johnson and Lattimore both equaled their career bests with made threes. In the same game. Lottery ticket.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - TonyLima - 02-23-2025
(02-23-2025, 07:30 PM)needle Wrote:(02-23-2025, 07:08 PM)M T Wrote: In ACC conference WBB games involving a team that was 2 or 3 time zones away from home
West Coast games, Home team 9-3
Central & Eastern time zone games, Home team 11-5
for a combined, 20-8 winning record for the home team.
For the conference as a whole, the Home team record is 77-67.
Removing the 2+ time zone games, the Home record is 57-59.
Unless the schedules were rather stacked against both Stanford and Cal (sending the weak teams west, while the strong teams minimized any trips west), the discrepancy in the benefit of playing near home versus playing far from home seems pretty strong. 57-59 or 20-8
(I am NOT saying it is the time zone difference that matters, but that may be part of it. I personally think it is travel issues (time plus physical and mental aspects).)
I would love to see the numbers for other sports, MBB, WVB, etc, across all teams in the ACC conference that had to travel 2+ time zones.
FWIW, below is a link showing Stanford men's hoops against the spread. This season, Stanford has covered about half the time at home but much less often on the road (only once in away games not against Kal). The Stanford men this season have also never covered in a loss, whatever that means.
I don't see this as definitive proof that travel harms performance, but it isn't looking good.
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/team/stanford-cardinal/ats-results
Those of us who have actually travelled frequently already know the answer. In fact, we’ve posted here several times.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - MV72018 - 02-23-2025
(02-23-2025, 06:40 PM)81alum Wrote:(02-23-2025, 06:01 PM)petersalas Wrote: the biggest thing and reason for all these losses is the lack of energy to start games. Especially on the defensive end. This team plays no defense.. or they play some defense sporadically.There is truth in your observation, in my opinion. Today, however, I think the problem was more coaching than lack of effort by the team. I am beginning to think that Kate Paye "overcoaches" some. She has always been our best scout and in the past was the assistant coach who came up with the most amazing ways to take away the opponent's best player.
Perhaps she is relying too much on the scout, now. "Too clever by half." For example, today the strategy was to control Virginia's very best player, Kymora Johnson. Johnson is a speedy little guard who normally is barely adequate from three point range but makes most of her points on drives. So we clogged the paint to cut down on those drives and force her to the outside. Where she promptly hit six treys. Paying too much to her tendencies simply made her a much better player from the outside.
The second major threat was the hired gun Latisha Lattimore. Lattimore was 20/64 from three point range, so pushing her outside made sense. But she made 3/4 from outside. In a sense, our strategy succeeded--we got her to take shots that we thought were not in her wheelhouse. But she made them.
At a recent chalk talk I thought that Heather Oesterle said something revealing. "We need to get more athletic" she said about recruiting. In other words, the Pac 12 was filled with "skill players" who could shoot the ball accurately, who were very coachable, who knew their assignments and played a team sport very well. But the ACC is filled with "athletes" who are on average quicker, faster, and more agile than the Pac 12 was. This requires a different style of team than the Pac 12 needed. What I fear is that it requires a style of team that is much more difficult for Stanford to recruit than in the past.
I think we got our first taste of this before the league change, when a bunch of gifted athletes at Mississippi State who had hardly played together for a year beat us unexpectedly in the 2nd round of the NCAAs. Now it seems like every week is another Mississippi State.
1. I find the Osterle point about "skill players," "athletes," and Stanford recruiting very interesting. My impression is that historically we've been a highly skilled but relatively slow team, with occasional exceptions, like Wiggins. Heather may be right. My impression also is that the current team is quite slow and non-athletic, Ijiwoye being a notable exception. Offensive players get by our defenders relatively easily and there's no protector there to cover for them.
2. The only reason I disagreed with your point about the next two games at home is that you expected a couple of "great games" at Maples. We might win them, but I'd be surprised if the team played a "great game" in either contest even if we win both.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - Nobadeer - 02-24-2025
I hope the team is back in the Bay Area by now. The cross country flight west against the jet stream head winds in the winter feels like it takes forever. I've had some less than perfect business trips to the East Coast and the flights back afterwards are not a favorite. Imagine being a college/pro athlete and adding to the mental disappointment, the physical exhaustion (at whatever level of effort/hustle you were able to exert).
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - BillBradley - 02-24-2025
The extra travel didn't seem to bother the Oregon football team. Doesn't seem like it's bothering the USC or UCLA womens basketball teams. Do the effects of extra travel only seem to impact lesser talented teams? :>
Here's a question...let's say our current Stanford team played the exact same ACC teams we've lost to on the road (Duke, Notre Dame, Louisville, SMU, Clemson, Virginia) but instead their home cities were Phoenix, Tucson, Eugene, Corvalis, Seattle, and Pullman (so basically those same teams with the old Pac-12 travel schedule). Anyone think the outcomes would be much different?
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - M T - 02-24-2025
(02-24-2025, 12:46 AM)BillBradley Wrote: The extra travel didn't seem to bother the Oregon football team. Doesn't seem like it's bothering the USC or UCLA womens basketball teams. Do the effects of extra travel only seem to impact lesser talented teams? :>
Here's a question...let's say our current Stanford team played the exact same ACC teams we've lost to on the road (Duke, Notre Dame, Louisville, SMU, Clemson, Virginia) but instead their home cities were Phoenix, Tucson, Eugene, Corvalis, Seattle, and Pullman (so basically those same teams with the old Pac-12 travel schedule). Anyone think the outcomes would be much different?
What do you mean it hasn't hurt USC WBB? Their only loss in conference was to Iowa was unexpected, and on the road (USC was 19-1; Iowa was 14-7).
in conference WBB games involving USC, where the visiting team is 2 or 3 time zones away from home, the home team is 8-5. For the same games for UCLA, the home team is 7-5. UW: 6-7. Ore: 10-4. So, combined that is 31-21 (59.6%). (And remember, they play (up to) 3 teams in conference from their time zone so they typically would have fewer games far-away that Stanford & Cal, which play 1 team in conference from their time zone. The 31-21 home advantage did not include games against the teams in the Pacific time zone.)
The BigTen WBB are a combined 81-64 at home. Take away the games above and the home teams are 50-43 (53.8%).
Using this initial, almost complete season for such travel, for the BigTen WBB the measured home advantage increases from 54% to 60% when the opponent travels 2 or 3 time zones. For the ACC, the measured home advantage increases from 49% to 71% when the opponent travels 2 or 3 time zones. YMMV.
For hypotheticals, everyone will have their own take. But, yes, I do think Stanford would have had a good chance to win at least 2 of their away games at neutral sites, and a better chance if SMU and Virginia were the teams that travelled before the games.
As for the "don't get after it consistently" comment by a different poster, what we're discussing is why that consistency has been lacking on the far-away games relative to the home games. Same players, different results.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - 81alum - 02-24-2025
(02-24-2025, 12:46 AM)BillBradley Wrote: The extra travel didn't seem to bother the Oregon football team. Doesn't seem like it's bothering the USC or UCLA womens basketball teams. Do the effects of extra travel only seem to impact lesser talented teams? :>I think the season-defining trip, in so many ways, were the losses to SMU and Clemson. Those two games were very close, including one overtime, and it is easy to imagine different outcomes. The team was healthy, its confidence must have been good after the close game at LSU, and SMU and Clemson were among the weakest teams on the travel schedule.
Here's a question...let's say our current Stanford team played the exact same ACC teams we've lost to on the road (Duke, Notre Dame, Louisville, SMU, Clemson, Virginia) but instead their home cities were Phoenix, Tucson, Eugene, Corvalis, Seattle, and Pullman (so basically those same teams with the old Pac-12 travel schedule). Anyone think the outcomes would be much different?
Losing those two put us on a bad trajectory. And it was the very first cross country road trip. Would we have won if they were in Arizona or Washington? Very possibly. The other games? Nope.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - petersalas - 02-24-2025
It’s hard to say or predict all the what ifs. This season hasn’t been an easy one and that’s something everyone can agree with. Now here’s hoping the transfer portal opens and closes without losing anyone. Brighter days are ahead!!
(02-24-2025, 05:43 AM)81alum Wrote:(02-24-2025, 12:46 AM)BillBradley Wrote: The extra travel didn't seem to bother the Oregon football team. Doesn't seem like it's bothering the USC or UCLA womens basketball teams. Do the effects of extra travel only seem to impact lesser talented teams? :>I think the season-defining trip, in so many ways, were the losses to SMU and Clemson. Those two games were very close, including one overtime, and it is easy to imagine different outcomes. The team was healthy, its confidence must have been good after the close game at LSU, and SMU and Clemson were among the weakest teams on the travel schedule.
Here's a question...let's say our current Stanford team played the exact same ACC teams we've lost to on the road (Duke, Notre Dame, Louisville, SMU, Clemson, Virginia) but instead their home cities were Phoenix, Tucson, Eugene, Corvalis, Seattle, and Pullman (so basically those same teams with the old Pac-12 travel schedule). Anyone think the outcomes would be much different?
Losing those two put us on a bad trajectory. And it was the very first cross country road trip. Would we have won if they were in Arizona or Washington? Very possibly. The other games? Nope.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Virginia 89 - BobK - 02-24-2025
Sorry but Stanford has 14 now loses 2 Srs
That’s 12 bringing in 5 so yes we will lose 2. The question is who?
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Virginia 89 - petersalas - 02-24-2025
I thought Lauren Green wasn’t coming back.. and I assumed Jzanya Harriel might graduate although she’s technically a redshirt Jr. I don’t want to see any key players go, but as you pointed out, we can’t bring everyone back.
(02-24-2025, 08:54 AM)BobK Wrote: Sorry but Stanford has 14 now loses 2 Srs
That’s 12 bringing in 5 so yes we will lose 2. The question is who?
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Virginia 89 - BobK - 02-24-2025
We will learn something Sunday. SR day
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Virginia 89 - Nobadeer - 02-24-2025
Interesting data MT.
I think every ACC road trip is 3 time zones. Most Big10 road trips are only 2 time zones, except for Penn St, Rutgers and Maryland?
So USC, Ucla and Oregon and UW have ~1/3 to 1/2 less travel time and mileage. LSJU and Cal are probably the two P4 schools with the heaviest travel burden resulting from conference realignment.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - BillBradley - 02-24-2025
(02-24-2025, 04:48 AM)M T Wrote:Couple comments/questions(02-24-2025, 12:46 AM)BillBradley Wrote: The extra travel didn't seem to bother the Oregon football team. Doesn't seem like it's bothering the USC or UCLA womens basketball teams. Do the effects of extra travel only seem to impact lesser talented teams? :>
Here's a question...let's say our current Stanford team played the exact same ACC teams we've lost to on the road (Duke, Notre Dame, Louisville, SMU, Clemson, Virginia) but instead their home cities were Phoenix, Tucson, Eugene, Corvalis, Seattle, and Pullman (so basically those same teams with the old Pac-12 travel schedule). Anyone think the outcomes would be much different?
What do you mean it hasn't hurt USC WBB? Their only loss in conference was to Iowa was unexpected, and on the road (USC was 19-1; Iowa was 14-7).
in conference WBB games involving USC, where the visiting team is 2 or 3 time zones away from home, the home team is 8-5. For the same games for UCLA, the home team is 7-5. UW: 6-7. Ore: 10-4. So, combined that is 31-21 (59.6%). (And remember, they play (up to) 3 teams in conference from their time zone so they typically would have fewer games far-away that Stanford & Cal, which play 1 team in conference from their time zone. The 31-21 home advantage did not include games against the teams in the Pacific time zone.)
The BigTen WBB are a combined 81-64 at home. Take away the games above and the home teams are 50-43 (53.8%).
Using this initial, almost complete season for such travel, for the BigTen WBB the measured home advantage increases from 54% to 60% when the opponent travels 2 or 3 time zones. For the ACC, the measured home advantage increases from 49% to 71% when the opponent travels 2 or 3 time zones. YMMV.
For hypotheticals, everyone will have their own take. But, yes, I do think Stanford would have had a good chance to win at least 2 of their away games at neutral sites, and a better chance if SMU and Virginia were the teams that travelled before the games.
As for the "don't get after it consistently" comment by a different poster, what we're discussing is why that consistency has been lacking on the far-away games relative to the home games. Same players, different results.
- When you say "the only loss in conference was unexpected and on the road"...the other side of that argument is "they've only lost one road game". Not sure how a single data point (especially in a sold out game against Massey's #21 team in the country) means much, underdog or not.
- When you say "For the ACC, the measured home advantage increases from 49% to 71% when the opponent travels 2 or 3 time zones." What data are you using to conclude that? I'm assuming that's just Stanford/Cal data?
- As a side note, I believe the measurement we're after isn't an absolute. It's relative to "normal P12 travel". Travel has always been hard for teams. We should try to figure out the impact of traveling to the east compared to the impact of traveling to other P12 team sites. Not sure that's even possible, but that would be the most valuable comparison.
- When you say "what we're discussing is why that consistency has been lacking on the far-away games relative to the home games." Agree 100%, but just to be clear...the points I've been making aren't about "consistent levels of play". It's about "consistent levels of effort". I'm not entirely sure this is what people think, and I don't want to put words in others' mouths, but if there's a sentiment building around "well, give them a break. they can't be expected to play hard all the time with all this extra travel", then I object 100%. I respect others opinion, that's just mine.
-FWIW, they played really hard at Va Tech, a very long road trip, and it was a great win. So I don't let them off the hook in other road games. The level of effort against Pitt was abysmal, and that gmae was at home. I just think in the grand scheme of things, there are major factors at play with this team that are causing the level of effort to be so inconsistent (I've called out the lack of leadership as the biggest), and extra travel isn't one of them IMO.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Virginia 3pm Sunday; preview and game thread - 2006alum - 02-24-2025
(02-24-2025, 12:53 PM)BillBradley Wrote:(02-24-2025, 04:48 AM)M T Wrote:Couple comments/questions(02-24-2025, 12:46 AM)BillBradley Wrote: The extra travel didn't seem to bother the Oregon football team. Doesn't seem like it's bothering the USC or UCLA womens basketball teams. Do the effects of extra travel only seem to impact lesser talented teams? :>
Here's a question...let's say our current Stanford team played the exact same ACC teams we've lost to on the road (Duke, Notre Dame, Louisville, SMU, Clemson, Virginia) but instead their home cities were Phoenix, Tucson, Eugene, Corvalis, Seattle, and Pullman (so basically those same teams with the old Pac-12 travel schedule). Anyone think the outcomes would be much different?
What do you mean it hasn't hurt USC WBB? Their only loss in conference was to Iowa was unexpected, and on the road (USC was 19-1; Iowa was 14-7).
in conference WBB games involving USC, where the visiting team is 2 or 3 time zones away from home, the home team is 8-5. For the same games for UCLA, the home team is 7-5. UW: 6-7. Ore: 10-4. So, combined that is 31-21 (59.6%). (And remember, they play (up to) 3 teams in conference from their time zone so they typically would have fewer games far-away that Stanford & Cal, which play 1 team in conference from their time zone. The 31-21 home advantage did not include games against the teams in the Pacific time zone.)
The BigTen WBB are a combined 81-64 at home. Take away the games above and the home teams are 50-43 (53.8%).
Using this initial, almost complete season for such travel, for the BigTen WBB the measured home advantage increases from 54% to 60% when the opponent travels 2 or 3 time zones. For the ACC, the measured home advantage increases from 49% to 71% when the opponent travels 2 or 3 time zones. YMMV.
For hypotheticals, everyone will have their own take. But, yes, I do think Stanford would have had a good chance to win at least 2 of their away games at neutral sites, and a better chance if SMU and Virginia were the teams that travelled before the games.
As for the "don't get after it consistently" comment by a different poster, what we're discussing is why that consistency has been lacking on the far-away games relative to the home games. Same players, different results.
- When you say "the only loss in conference was unexpected and on the road"...the other side of that argument is "they've only lost one road game". Not sure how a single data point (especially in a sold out game against Massey's #21 team in the country) means much, underdog or not.
- When you say "For the ACC, the measured home advantage increases from 49% to 71% when the opponent travels 2 or 3 time zones." What data are you using to conclude that? I'm assuming that's just Stanford/Cal data?
- As a side note, I believe the measurement we're after isn't an absolute. It's relative to "normal P12 travel". Travel has always been hard for teams. We should try to figure out the impact of traveling to the east compared to the impact of traveling to other P12 team sites. Not sure that's even possible, but that would be the most valuable comparison.
- When you say "what we're discussing is why that consistency has been lacking on the far-away games relative to the home games." Agree 100%, but just to be clear...the points I've been making aren't about "consistent levels of play". It's about "consistent levels of effort". I'm not entirely sure this is what people think, and I don't want to put words in others' mouths, but if there's a sentiment building around "well, give them a break. they can't be expected to play hard all the time with all this extra travel", then I object 100%. I respect others opinion, that's just mine.
-FWIW, they played really hard at Va Tech, a very long road trip, and it was a great win. So I don't let them off the hook in other road games. The level of effort against Pitt was abysmal, and that gmae was at home. I just think in the grand scheme of things, there are major factors at play with this team that are causing the level of effort to be so inconsistent (I've called out the lack of leadership as the biggest), and extra travel isn't one of them IMO.
I would add a major qualifier to U$C's loss at Iowa: they were retiring Caitlin Clark's jersey, she was there, and it was a brobdingnagian event. You better believe the Iowa kids came out super motivated to get the win with so many eyes on them, and I would bet money they spent that entire week's practices prepping for that game. That's a trap game whether it's in Corvallis, Pullman, or Iowa City.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Virginia 89 - paloalto - 02-24-2025
I feel bad for Virginia Tech. They must now realize they let a critical game slip away from them against a team that might not be all that good.
FWIW back in the days of Plummer/Hentz it seemed the WVB team almost always played better in front of a large, loud crowd. Didn't matter whether the crowd was hostile or friendly. I never noticed anything anecdotally that indicated the team played worse across multiple time zones or on extended non-conference road trips.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Virginia 89 - M T - 02-24-2025
I wouldn't have felt bad for Mulkey & LSU if Stanford had scored one more FT in regulation.
Regarding the 2016-2019 WVB Stanford teams & matches involving a far-away visitor, it is harder to pick a fair field. Counting WBB conference wins means a somewhat equal playing field. In 2018 WVB, would you count the opening matches in DC against American and Howard? Hard to figure out what to count. But, taking just 2018, counting the matches at a team's home where the visitor travelled 2 or 3 time zones, and ignoring those two opening matches, the home team had a 3-1 advantage (or 5-1 if you want to include the NCAA tourney, but that's not reasonable because it was selected for the weaker team to be traveling). 2019 is a harder year to count. One could argue that the home team had a 1-3 disadvantage (Stanford was dominant and only one team came to visit from 2-3 time zones aways). Would one count the Pitt loss at home but not the Stanford loss the next day to Minnesota?
People here seem to look only at away losses, not home wins. They seem to forget that a USC or UCLA or Stanford or Cal win at home against a team that travelled two/three time zones also counts as an indication of the travel-disadvantage of a visiting team.
Why does the far-away game disadvantage matter since teams play roughly the same number of conference games at home vs far-away opponents as the games where they are the far-away visitor? If the home advantage over far-away team were 100%, then every team would be at 50% wins in that set. Stanford & Cal have a higher percentage of their games where one team travels 2-3 time zones than do USC/UCLA, and a lot bigger chunk than the other ACC teams. If these far-away games have a bigger disadvantage for the visiting team than near-away games, then Stanford & Cal's records are pushed more toward 50% wins and losses than the other ACC teams. (And, yes, that means if a team would win 30% of its games if they were played on a neutral court, they would be pushed toward 50% as well.) The closer a team is pushed to 50%, the less likely the team will make the NCAA tournament.
One season and a few teams don't make for good stats. There are too many variables (players get injured for part of the season, vagaries of strong/weak teams coming to visit, etc). When I wrote about the difference going from 49% to 71%, those numbers were more precise than I believe the stats support. Each could be higher or lower. But I think it shows there is a difference, and more of a difference the farther a team travels.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Virginia 89 - paloalto - 02-24-2025
(02-24-2025, 03:07 PM)M T Wrote: I wouldn't have felt bad for Mulkey & LSU if Stanford had scored one more FT in regulation.
Regarding the 2016-2019 WVB Stanford teams & matches involving a far-away visitor, it is harder to pick a fair field. Counting WBB conference wins means a somewhat equal playing field. In 2018 WVB, would you count the opening matches in DC against American and Howard? Hard to figure out what to count. But, taking just 2018, counting the matches at a team's home where the visitor travelled 2 or 3 time zones, and ignoring those two opening matches, the home team had a 3-1 advantage (or 5-1 if you want to include the NCAA tourney, but that's not reasonable because it was selected for the weaker team to be traveling). 2019 is a harder year to count. One could argue that the home team had a 1-3 disadvantage (Stanford was dominant and only one team came to visit from 2-3 time zones aways). Would one count the Pitt loss at home but not the Stanford loss the next day to Minnesota?
People here seem to look only at away losses, not home wins. They seem to forget that a USC or UCLA or Stanford or Cal win at home against a team that travelled two/three time zones also counts as an indication of the travel-disadvantage of a visiting team.
Why does the far-away game disadvantage matter since teams play roughly the same number of conference games at home vs far-away opponents as the games where they are the far-away visitor? If the home advantage over far-away team were 100%, then every team would be at 50% wins in that set. Stanford & Cal have a higher percentage of their games where one team travels 2-3 time zones than do USC/UCLA, and a lot bigger chunk than the other ACC teams. If these far-away games have a bigger disadvantage for the visiting team than near-away games, then Stanford & Cal's records are pushed more toward 50% wins and losses than the other ACC teams. (And, yes, that means if a team would win 30% of its games if they were played on a neutral court, they would be pushed toward 50% as well.) The closer a team is pushed to 50%, the less likely the team will make the NCAA tournament.
One season and a few teams don't make for good stats. There are too many variables (players get injured for part of the season, vagaries of strong/weak teams coming to visit, etc). When I wrote about the difference going from 49% to 71%, those numbers were more precise than I believe the stats support. Each could be higher or lower. But I think it shows there is a difference, and more of a difference the farther a team travels.
You make my point in a long winded way. You can't precisely determine the impact of time zones because there are too many other variables. If you could isolate time zone travel from all other variables something statistically of value could be stated.
76lsjumb - 76lsjumb - 02-24-2025
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out the most obvious and fair example of the impact of travel on the WBB team, since it involves the fewest variables. When we had to travel east to play Kal, they crushed us. On the other hand, when we were able to stay home to play them, the score was very close.
Obviously, it must have been the effect of travel… :-)