I don’t think it balances out. If we have two undefeated teams at the end of this year, that’s more than enough proof it doesn’t balance out.
IF Baylor/Gonzaga goes undefeated
- Thread starter Original_Irish
- Start date
Maybe. I don’t know. FSU is making up a canceled conference game on Saturday.
I can tell you that in general, fans are vastly overvaluing the impact having fans in the arena causes on the outcome, and undervaluing how difficult the stop/starts and extra protocols are for establishing a real rhythm to the season.
I can guarantee you we won’t have two undefeated teams at the end of the tournament, so you don’t have to worry about that outcome.
If you take it that literally then sure! I’m certain you wouldn’t think a thing of it if Gonzaga and Baylor entered the Final Four or title game undefeated. Just another year!
Lol, how else should I take “if we have two undefeated teams at the end of the year”?
Way to dance around the entire point of the post. There’s been three teams that have entered the final four undefeated in the last forty years. But all of a sudden we have two in the same year? Very silly to argue this is just another season.
We haven’t had any enter the final four undefeated yet this season. You’re just making assumptions. Maybe they lose like many other teams who were undefeated through mid-February?
How about the valid points I’ve made throughout that you’re ignoring?
Give me a few of them in summary and I will respond to them. Haven’t kept up with the entire thread. Or even just quote yourself
@JimboBBN
And in another thread I shared some insight from players that the two biggest factors that make playing on the road difficult are the optics and the disruption to routine, not the fans.
Last edited:
They aren’t bad points and I’ve seen others make similar arguments. I guess my feelings will be determined by how the tournament unfolds, ultimately. Like I said before, if we get two undefeated teams in the final four or title game, it would be hard for me to argue it’s even a remotely harder season. Players and coaches missing games all year, some teams have even gone a month or longer without getting a game in. That’s more than enough down time to kill a hot team or keep them from getting on a streak before the tournament starts.
I see both sides of the coin in this debate. To me, there’s just too many significant differences for me to see the title winner in the same light as previous and future winners. Let’s see how things play out, though.
What if... Baylor and the Zags both go into the Tourney undefeated, come up with a positive test or 2, do they have to forfeit? That’ll go over well lol.
I don’t think you’re wrong in that the season is way different. I just think the automatic assumption is that it’s been easier when in reality I think it could be the opposite. The level of protocols I’ve seen just for teams to practice has been pretty time consuming and frustrating. Takes away a lot of time that would be spent on game planning and skill development. Players have to be much stronger mentally this year than in the past.
Like you said, we will see.
But I’ll add this—it’s not a surprise these two teams are great. They returned a ton of production from elite teams last year, and added new talent. I mean Baylor was number 1 at times last year and returned guys like Butler, Teague, and Mitchel. Is it really that hard to believe they would be a once in 25 year type of team?
It’s just hard to compare them to other great teams on a historical perspective because they haven’t played true road games. As I’ve explained a few times already, home court benefits lesser teams far more than it does great ones. So while Baylor doesn’t have home fans for teams that are lesser than them, teams like Oklahoma State or Texas Tech where fans historically show up for big games don’t have the crowd behind them.
It may be frustrating going through COVID protocols but no one is complaining when they play a team down 2 of its top 3 players. It’s all how you look at it and subjective. I do see your side and others side. I just can’t for the life of me see myself, all things considered, really thinking this year is somehow tougher than a normal year.
No lie, if you believe home fans don’t have any positive effect on the top teams, ie the teams selling out their arenas, how much of an advantage do lesser programs get from a home crowd when they have less than half the stands full, in a normal year.
And how can you argue it’s easier to win on the road bc of no fans, and that home fans have little to no affect on top teams???
I can remember Wichita state(I think), st joes(I know), and UK(I know) entering the tourney undefeated pretty recently. Obviously they didn’t finish the deal but I don’t see any correlation in having two undefeated teams and covid.
if it were duke and UK or any two big time programs, I could see it being a huge deal to their fan bases, but for Gonzaga and Baylor, I’m sure they’d be ecstatic just to win a natty, undefeated or not.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that it’s normal, I just think that just bc it’s different, it doesn’t make it any easier somehow.
Yes no road fans, but no home fans. Every team is playing with the same deck of cards. Just bc it’s different doesn’t mean it should be discredited imo.
Great post. If anything I lean towards this year being more challenging than a “normal” year. Obv not the road games, but just the grind of the season mixed with the testing and protocols and pauses and schedule changes etc.
So hypothetically if covid never happened, who beats Gonzaga this year on their schedule? They dog walked every big name team they played OOC. Do they slip up on the road bc of the hostile crowds in the WCC? I guess they were supposed to play Baylor though so both couldn’t still be undefeated.
IDK I just have a hard time discrediting anyone when the differences this season doesn’t give one team an advantage over any other team in the nation. The players on the court win/lose the games. I can’t knock the teams who are winning bc of something no one on the planet had a plan for, and is literally affecting every aspect of life, not just basketball.
Your looking at the fan thing through UK glasses. Of course bottom feeding sec teams fans “get up” for playing UK. But UK plays every home game in front of a packed house. But a game like say vandy@ole miss, is Mississippi gonna pack the house for the vandy game and give them a huge advantage that big boys don’t get from their home crowd? No it’d be more likely they don’t even fill up half the arena. Besides UK, Do any sec fan bases always sell out their arena regardless of opponent besides maybe arky, fla, tenn, and auburn? And that’s only when those teams are good.
I agree that home crowd benefits underdogs in big games way more than it would benefit the favored team at home. But not so much when lesser programs are playing lesser programs. So I disagree that home crowds don’t benefit the big boys just as much as the little fellas.
I’m not going to go through every detail of their schedule. I will give you the same example I gave Borden and hopefully won’t have to repeat
Myself a third time.
What is a more hostile environment, a team like TCU going to Baylor or Baylor going to play at a team like TCU. Stop pretending it’s the same thing, because it’s not.
You argue covid protcols make it harder, I raise you playing against short handed teams making it easier. Every single argument you make,
I have a counter point where I can argue the opposite. It blows my mind we have teams missing months at a time with no games, teams missing key players, and folks like you want to argue things are harder on teams like Baylor and Gonzaga. It’s honestly crazy.
Take the name Kentucky out of the equation. Do bottom feeders from the Big 12 or WAC get up to play the number one and number two teams in the county? Of course they do.
I never said it makes it harder for only Baylor and Gonzaga. It makes it harder for EVERYONE.
And yes I would say missing key players,teams missing months at a time with no games, makes it much harder for those teams. Baylor for example should be gearing up for a run in March, shortening the rotation, etc. instead they aren’t doing anything. You get better by playing, not taking pauses.
You act as if Gonzaga and Baylor are immune to getting corona.
And your counterpoints have counterpoints lol. Of course it’s easier if you get to play a team who is missing key players. But on the flip side it’s obv much harder if it’s your team missing key players. We played wisconsin without carlik and got smacked by 40. It made it easier for them, but harder for us.
Yes of course. But the number 1-2 team in the nation is likely selling out every single one of their home games, where as I doubt the wcc gets many packed houses for games not involving Gonzaga.
So Gonzaga gets a full home crowd every single game, and the other teams in the conference probly only sell out the Gonzaga game. So they get one game with a packed house, when Gonzaga gets every home game packed regardless of opponent.
I see your angle now though. You are saying the home crowd benefits the underdogs when a big boy comes to town, and I totally agree.
I thought you meant like any average game that home crowds benefit lesser programs than the big boys and I can’t wrap my head around that when the big boys play all home games in front of a packed house, whereas the lesser programs aren’t packing the house against other lesser programs.
But totally agree about fan bases “getting up” for when the big dog in the conference comes to town. I’m on the same page now.
The “hostile” environment just doesn’t matter that much. That’s the point I’m trying to make. The fans are worth at most 1-2 points on a spread. At most.
Two things make playing on the road more challenging:
1. Different sight lines and arena optics — this is largely the same this year as every other year, although it’s possible that empty space directly behind the basket is making this harder.
2. The routine disruption that is a product of traveling — this is way way way worse this year than prior years.
Fans just aren’t that big of an influence. Which is why you see home teams winning 66.3% of their games in the ACC this year, which is actually higher than any of the last three years.
Fans are just one aspect of my argument and why I think this year is less challenging for a champion. Even assuming you are right, which I’m not sure how anyone can calculate momentum and energy that a crowd helps build for a home team. That doesn’t seem right at all. Again, assuming it is, I still feel confident the top teams have an easier road to the title than a normal year.
Ok here is a thought. The hardest thing about playing on the road is how the atmosphere can affect you mentally. It's not like you play on the road and automatically you are just a worse player/team. But the crowd noise can get in a team's head and can make winning more difficult.
So how do we measure the mental fatigue of playing every game in a pandemic? You've got players opting out of the entire season because they are dealing with high levels of depression right now. You have got way more players that are currently playing with depression. I don't play high level college basketball, but this sheltering in place has greatly affected my mentality.
Playing on the road is tough mentally, no doubt, I think playing this season in isolation is tough mentally as well.
So how do we measure the mental fatigue of playing every game in a pandemic? You've got players opting out of the entire season because they are dealing with high levels of depression right now. You have got way more players that are currently playing with depression. I don't play high level college basketball, but this sheltering in place has greatly affected my mentality.
Playing on the road is tough mentally, no doubt, I think playing this season in isolation is tough mentally as well.
I was pretty surprised when I first heard that too. But I’ve asked dozens of players over the years from various teams and, while the fans were brought up on occasion, the only two consistent answers were the arena optics and the disruption to day to day routine.
And again, just look at the data. Home winning percentages aren’t really down all that much this year, with some leagues actually having higher home winning percentages. Facts are facts.
Several recent teams have not lost a regular season game. St. Joe’s, Wichita State, Kentucky all come to mind.
You really aren’t focusing on the main talking point I’m bringing up. Which is the top teams, or teams expected to do well in the tournament, having easier games because of no fans. It’s fantastic that Arkansas State has a better winning percentage this year than normal, but in all reality, they’re a team that wouldn’t stand a chance in hell in winning the title in any kind of year.
We are discussing a team possibly going undefeated, correct? Then we need to focus on the teams that haven’t lost yet. If we are talking about the teams with potentially a chance to win the title, then we need to talk about a handful or small group of teams. All teams that would face a ton of adversity in hostile road games.
If you are arguing as a generality that fans make no difference or a small difference in games, I truly don’t care to argue that because it’s meaningless for what we are discussing. Your facts don’t mean anything if they aren’t pertaining to the actual discussion or something close to it. Unless you’re giving all 300 some teams an even chance at winning the title at this point.
WSU and St Joe's didn't play anybody. So they were easily able to be discredited. Who was St Joe's best regular season opponent? Rhode Island? Don't get me wrong, St Joe's was good, but there's a reason why they got to the tourney and barely scraped by two teams that were simply above average teams from major conferences. Had they played in a major conference, they definitely would have had a few losses. WSU? Again, a good team, and I think they were unfairly given a 2nd round matchup against a UK team that was good, but underperformed all year, and only finally hits its stride in the tourney. But the best regular season opponent that WSU team played, was a Tennessee team that ended up being an 11 seed in the NCAA tourney. A slightly above average team from a power conference. That WSU team would have lost multiple games if they played in a major conference.
No, the only one that can't have its undefeated streak discredited was that UK team. That team was truly great. Probably the most dominant team of the last 20 years.
A very good team can easily go undefeated when they play in a crap league. But going undefeated in a major conference, even a bad major conference, is insanely difficult to do. Nearly every team you play, has at least a couple elite athletes. You go into arenas with a target on your back and thousands of fans right on top of you. This ultimately leads to at least one off night, or a night where the home team plays out of their minds with the crowd backing them up. For every team except that UK team. The closest any other major conference team has come is the 1996-1997 KU team, which was stacked with NBA talent and experience. The best KU team I've ever seen. Yet even they stumbled in a triple overtime game on the road against their rival, Mizzou.
What makes it so tough is the difficulty of winning road games with a target on your back. There's just something about a wild crowd that can make a great team make mistakes, or give the home team the energy to play far above their abilities. So yeah, if Baylor goes undefeated, they will very much have it discredited. For one, they didn't play all of their games, and for another, they won't have to play against any crazy crowds like they would have had to any other year. Don't get me wrong. This Baylor team is very good. I'd put them about where last year's KU team was. They're dominant. They have a great chance to win the title if they get healthy. But they absolutely wouldn't go undefeated in a normal year playing in front of crazy crowds every night.
Same with Gonzaga. A great team, but if they had to play tougher competition, they'd absolutely lose a game or three. The toughest teams they've played this year are KU, Iowa, WVU, and Virginia. These teams are simply above average major conference teams, but not great by any means. KU had the game tied halfway through the 2nd half, before Gonzaga went on a shooting barrage. Iowa shot exceptionally bad, and still had the game within striking distance late, if they could have hit a few jumpers. And WVU had a 2nd half lead and was right there in it to the end. If Gonzaga played in a major conference, they'd play games like that night in and night out. Eventually there'd be a time when Gonzaga missed those shots at the end, or their opponent made them, and they'd lose.
It's exceptionally difficult to go undefeated in a regular season playing in a major conference, during a normal year where crowds are allowed. It's only been done once in the last few decades, and that was an exceptional UK team. That UK team would beat both Gonzaga and Baylor by 20 on most nights. Either team would have to play a flawless game like Wisconsin did in order to beat that team.
People always mention the optics when playing in some football stadiums for like the final 4. The view point on shooting is different with fans not being right on top of you behind the basket.
Fan presence doesn't make that much difference on the overall results. Most teams are playing meaningless games, and the crowd presence is very small except for the big programs.
Fan presence makes a difference for the big programs(why they rarely ever lose at home), and it makes a difference when those programs play on the road, because opponents that usually get very small crowds, will sell out their arenas and bring the hype for the best teams/programs.
But this is only maybe 10% of games, so of course the overall numbers aren't going to be affected that much. But it is absolutely impactful for the best teams, which is why it's relevant when discussing a team going undefeated. When a great program goes on the road and plays in a hostile environment, does it make them play bad? Sometimes, but I'd argue that usually that isn't the big impact from the crowd. The biggest differences from the crowd are 1) the play from the home team, and 2) officiating. 90% of calls are likely the same regardless, but I don't think there's much denying that a hostile crowd can absolutely affect a % of calls. And as for the play of the home team.... a middle of the pack team likely has very little chance against a top program in the league on a neutral court or on the road. But at home with a huge crowd, it's been pretty obvious over the years that crowds can and do energize a home team to play with more effort, which can often translate into momentum that helps improve shooting, and greatly improves defense. There's been some years where we struggle to even get the ball across half-court, because an opponent is hyped up from the crowd and they're playing out of their minds. I haven't seen that this year to near the same degree, and our ball handlers are worse this year than in years past. Teams don't come with the same energy that they did.
Your point is that top teams would have had harder road games against average teams because those average teams would fill up their stadium and suddenly all those fans make a huge difference in upsetting the top teams.
My point is that those average teams are winning home games at the same clip they always do. So the stadium being filled up for top 10 opponents doesn’t really matter.
Ohio State is a top team. They lost on the road to a middling Northwestern. In fact, 3 of their 4 losses are on the road.
Michigan is a top team. They lost to Minnesota on the road, while beating them by almost 30 at home 10 days earlier. Was it the crazy sold out environment? No that didn’t exist.
Houston is a top team. They have 3 losses, all on the road, all against middling teams.
Sold out crowds aren’t what leads to upsets. Shooting in weird arenas and not having your normal routine are what leads to upsets.
Just for an example, let’s say Gonzaga and a random school, I’ll just use Oregon for this case, play two times. Both games are played at Oregon.
What you are essentially saying is that Gonzaga would only win by one or two points more at Oregon if there was no fans vs a sold out, packed arena. And I’m telling you that there’s no way in hell you really believe that. If you do, I can’t help you.
You don’t really get the whole picture of playing on the road in front of crazy fans and kids. Momentum, the crowd affecting calls, players not being able to hear their coach across the court. It isn’t just noise vs no noise.
Similar threads
