You are saying that Vegas oddsmakers are stupid? Ok, right. Have you been to Vegas? Seems the oddsmakers are doing ok. So you know, favorites don't always win.

"You keep referring to lame debate tactics. Sounds like the cry of someone losing an argument."

Only to the person using the lame debate tactics.

"The fact you are doubling back makes me think you realize how poor your argument is."

I respond to what you post. My position has not changed.

"I didn't say OU had a minuscule competitive advantage in OKC, you did. I say it is a clear advantage."

You also raised the entire OKC topic to begin with.

"You don't even commit to whether you even believe in a home field advantage? Do you?"

Sure I do. Teams playing on their home field have a clear advantage. Game results reflect it. There are many differences between near-home games and actual home games, even if it's LSU playing in NO. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

"You base your masterful conclusion on the basis of 6 games you chose. I didn't limit it to NCGS, you did."

That's false. Our debate arose out of a discussion regarding why the SEC has won 6 consecutive NCGs. The scope was established before we began, and not by me.

"If you look at a true population of games between evenly matched teams, with one team close to home and enjoying a decided crowd advantage, it will win most of the time if all other variables are constant (for example, star QB gets hurt)."

First off, for "all other variables" to be constant is not even possible, not practically or technically. What you are basically saying here is that if you set everything else aside and the only thing left is crowd disparity, then crowd disparity matters. That's more of an argument that near-home field IS a miniscule advantage than an argument that it's not.

"Yes, it is similar to a home field advantage, if you believe in that stuff. It's more about the emotion and energy of crowd than the building. That's why guys like Matt Hayes write about it. But you know better. Alabama won, therefore there is no such thing as home field advantage."

Alabama actually lost when they were playing at home. Nobody was playing at home when they had their rematch. Again, we're not talking home fields, we're talking near-home fields. Guys like Matt Hayes write about it because they need to fill space and its easy to write about conventional wisdom and conjecture than to be analytical and dig beneath the surface.

"You clearly do not understand odds which is why this is such a futile argument."

I understand odds just fine, you just chose a bad source to rely on.

I can't help but notice how you let slide any reference to your claims that LSU fell behind quick and that LSU v. ND was a matchup of even teams. Still stand by those claims or no?

The focus on NCGs at least allows for some kind of credible argument that the teams are at least somewhat evenly matched. If you want to expand and discuss all BCS games that is no longer true. Each game would need to be looked at to see if the teams were in any way evenly matched.

It would also help if you were to show some consistency in what constitutes evenly matched teams after you asserted that LSU and ND were evenly matched in their SB game.

On a related note, since Texass and Bama were no longer evenly matched after McCoy got hurt, does that mean that Bama was not an even team with LSU after Marquis Maze got hurt? He was a star return man and key receiver instead of a QB, so does that make a difference? Is it only when a QB gets hurt that teams cease being equal? Where do you draw the line. Also, LSU had the better record going in, played a tougher schedule, and won in Tuscaloosa in November. Add that to Maze's injury and does that all mean that the teams were not equal? If so, then that would mean LSU was the superior team AND had your near-home advantage and STILL failed to cross midfield until the 4th quarter.

You have yet to show a situation where a neutral site game near one team's home area had its outcome affected by crowd disparity. If it's a "big advantage" there should be actual evidence of its effects on the outcome of a game. You've shown none. I've shown you a whole set of games where crowd disparity had no effect on the outcome.

As a final note, be careful about expanding the scope to all BCS games after the way WVU whipped UGA in Atlanta and Utah smashed Bama in Atlanta in recent years.

I hate to put my two cents into what has been a private arguement but I think you're wrong Matteon. You cannot tell me that if there was a 70,000 seat stadium in OKC & we got to play a bowl game there that OU would not have an advantage. There is a reason people talk about home field advantage. Playing in New Orleans was an advantage for the tigers just like us having to play the gators in South Florida was an advantage for them. I remember Dr. Tom Osborne saying after nebraska lost to fsu that it sure would be nice to play them up north in January some time in a bowl game.

OUManiac

"lame misdirection". In other words, you can't dispute it. Ok though. You now commit to the fact you do believe in home field advantage and OU in Norman would be a "clear" advantage. And we know if OU plays in OKC, you say their advantage would be "minuscule". Those are your words, not mine. Is that a lame debate tactic to use your own words against you? So where does OU lose the advantage? Do they still have it if the game is played in Moore? What you fail to realize, is that the advantage is all about the crowd. Why do you think they add equal number if seats to both sides of the Cotton Bowl when they expand? It is to not give one side any advantage. Even a few seats matter. So when LSU plays close to home and the crowd is 80-20 or 75-25, it is an advantage. Vegas knows this and adjusts point spreads. You make a deal of LSU only being favored by 1. If you knew odds at all, that means Vegas likes Alabama on a truly neutral field by a couple points.

Well, you'd have to go find someone who actually said that to be sure. What I said was that they're usually wrong about what the outcome will be. That doesn't mean by any stretch that they don't know what they're doing. Clearly they do not need to be accurate to make their money. That's just more reason why your reliance on them is a poor choice of sources.

That's simply false. There's a lot more to playing in your own stadium than the crowd that makes it an advantage, and you lose all those things if the game is moved, even if its moved just 45 miles.

as far as the seats go, symmetry is simply cheaper.

Ok, let's break that down.

First, if Vegas liked Bama on a neutral field by a couple of points, they were still way off.

Second, you said earlier in this thread that actual home field advantage gets 3-5 points in the spread when it's factored in. So, are you asserting that a near-home field situation like LSU in the SB would also get 3 points adjusted in the spread? By simple math, if LSU opened favored by 1, and that means on a truly neutral field Bama would have been favored cy "a couple points" (I take that to mean 2 points), that'd be a 3 point swing based on your comments. So, based on the plain language of your posts in this thread, if the game was in Death Valley it'd be a 3-5 point adjustment in the spread, and it'd be a 3 point adjustment if it was played in the Superdome? Is that what you're actually saying?

The advantage would be miniscule and would not affect the outcome of the game. Playing in OKC is simply not the same as playing on Owen Field.

Get a Room.

Maybe a Boxing Ring.

I think you have set a record for extended argument on a single thread.

You are right. It is time for closing arguments. So, your Honor (and by Honor I mean all members of OUI not named Matteon) I present my closing facts in the debate of whether LSU and Florida benefitted by playing close to home in games with OU and significant crowd advantages.

I presented a number of facts over the last few days. I have expert testimony from a respected college football writer (Matt Hayes) who details LSU's advantage in the Super Dome, I have LSU players who discuss the advantage, I was aided by a witness who provided commentary from a HOF coach who expressed a desire about wanting to be the team with the advantage of playing closer to home, I have Vegas oddsmakers who adjust point spreads according to where game is played, and I have another OUI witness who says of course it matters. The other side would have you believe playing in front of a home type crowd near campus is only minuscule advantage. Although he used to believe this to be the case, he became "better informed" on the basis is 6 games he points to where the record is 3-3. Well your Honor, anyone with 3 hours of Statistics would tell you a sample size of 6 is too small to be a valid predictor of anything. Imagine predicting who will win the next presidential election by asking 6 people. But he clings to these 6 games, yet wants to ignore the record of LSU in BCS bowl games played in New Orleans. For the record, they are 4-1. The other side has stated they believe home field is "clear" advantage but if a team plays away from home, no matter what the crowd advantage or proximity to campus, any advantage is "minuscule". Thus OU would have no measurable advantage playing in OKC even though crowd would be overwhelmingly in their favor. So one can deduct by this reasoning that he does not attribute home field advantage to the crowd advantage, otherwise OU would clearly be advantaged in OKC or LSU in New Orleans. He has also ruled out the playing surface, and the inexperience of players on the road at or near end of season. So what in his mind constitutes this "clear" home field advantage? It can only be one thing.......magic locker rooms. Your honor, you cannot let this magic locker room theory stand!

I REST MY CASE

WOW......I'm not the only one that is not busy at work today....Really Guys? C'mon

kboz and I have made our closing arguments. I'll refer you back to mine to address your comment.