[M T]

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.

[M T]

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.