Freakonomics: The source of home-field advantage (and Iowa referees)

Of why the blue hairs can suck it.

It sure didn't help the snow job Toussaint TD reversal against Ohio.

I 100% agree with their assessment.  I believe that referee's are greatly influenced by the crowd for the simple reason that most humans would rather be cheered than boo'd and when calls are close (a-la the end of the Iowa game) refs have a built in (and involuntary) bias to make the calls that will elicit the most support.  The key thing in the Freakonomics article for me anyways was that it's involuntary which is why all refs deny it exists.  Even when shown data (thank you Mark Cuban) that demonstrates that the same refs calling the same two teams make radically different calls depending on if the game is home or away.

I can't remember where, but I've read an article that shows the strongest correlation to distance of travel. It claimed that crowd noise was heavily overrated. Econometrics is fun.
 

I'm sure the 114,000 at the BIg House have some effect on the refs at our place so I'm not going to ever complain about home field advantage and the refs. We shouldn't have been in that position with Iowa in the first place

Also, is that Brian at the 1:56 mark of the video at the bottom?

I went to the Iowa game and was underwhelmed by the crowd noise factor.  In general, it did not live up to the Kinnick hype I had always heard.  But... on the final set of downs, it was pretty nuts and I remember thinking on the 4th down play, "well... ain't no one calling PI right now," as the whole Iowa sideline swept out onto the field and I could not even spot a referee to see what their reaction might be.  It felt like no one would have even noticed if a flag was thrown, it all happened so fast.

As a soccer referee, I would be lying if I said that the crowd or coaches never had an effect on how I called games. 

I agree with this assessment - I think that, from a simply human standpoint, we'd rather be praised than booed or, as is the case in  some stadiums, threatened. I can't imagine that it doesn't affect, to some degree, how games are called. 

I call bullshit.  The Freakonomics guys are pop scientists.

The book "Soccernomics" is the biggest piece of garbage I've ever read.

Someone needs to teach Freakonomics about causation vs correlation.

Yeah the seats are REALLY close to the field. There was a small aisle between the front row and the sideline benches, and that was it. Sideline was so narrow that the guys next to me were talking with the end guy on the kickoff team for Iowa.

Sports illustrated ran an article claiming essentially the same thing about a year ago. That the size of the crowd influences referees decisions and that that is the only homefield advantage that exists.

i think i also read where the distance between the refs and crowd plays a role-which is why basketball calls tend to skew to the home team.  there is basically no separation between the crowd and the officials.  the proximity in hockey is mitigated by the boards and the glass.

Maybe I"m stating the obvious here but crowd noise does make a significant difference in football quite aside from the officials' decisions; a team with a relatively intelligent fan base will make a lot of noise when the team's on defense. Even if this doesn't cause false starts themselves, the offense might not get as good of a jump off the snap. Since the defense goes on ball movement mostly, it doesn't affect them as much. I wouldn't want to be driving down the field right in front of the M student section in the fourth quarter if I were the opposing offense, much less in louder stadiums like the Swamp.

Isn't this obvious?  I mean does anyone really think officials can just block 100 percent of that out?

refs wear earplugs, or something that softened noice, whether the home field advantage might even out. If you think about the numerous advantages that the bigger and wealthier schools already enjoy. . .  

whether this is true or not i do not know. 

the immaculate (sp?) reception was actually an incompletion.  when you watch the highlight of franco harris "catching" the ball on this play, the camera does not give a full shot of the actuall "catch."  apparently the refs went to the sideline and called to see how much security is available for them (the refs).  the security official on the other end of the line asked why the ref was asking such a question.  the ref responded by saying that the deflected pass that franco "caught" had actually touched the ground and was therefore incomplete.  the refs knew that if they made the "correct" call they would have been tarred and feathered by the three rivers faithful.  the security official told the refs that they could not provide additional security for them.  thus the refs called the "catch" complete and the steelers won the game against the raiders. 

home field won the steelers that game and propelled them to the super bowl.

In Bo: Life, laughs, and lessonsof a college football legend , our legandary coach recounts how, as an assistant at Presbytarian College this happened to his team.  They were on the Wofford 1-yard line, with only time for one play.  A sneak seemed to have made it in, winning the game.  While the ref was sorting thru the pile, the students piled on the edges of the field chanting "terrier meat, terrier meat" (Wofford being The Terriers, you see.)  As Bo  recounted, the ref was visibly shaken and placed the ball on the inch-line, no touchdown, clock expired, Wofford wins.

If Bo acknowledges that this happens, then it certainly happens.