02-24-2025, 03:07 PM
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.
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.