(10-02-2014, 08:59 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:And we all know that a wet field favors, even more, the teams with the stronger lines and the team that favors an inside running game.Â
That certainly is the common wisdom, but it's not necessarily true - perhaps depending upon just how bad field conditions are.
A qb does indeed have to be able to grip the ball to throw, but if so, then the other side of the coin is receivers getting open. A slippery field tends to help receivers as they know where they are going and don't have to make cuts quite as sharply.
A vaguely similar issue with lines. If you know your line is stronger, you probably want good footing to make sure they can use that strength. A slippery field nobody gets traction.
Broadly speaking, a bad field helps randomness and thus favours underdogs. If the teams are evenly matched, it's a much tougher call - probably the benefit goes to the team that is less scared of it.
Quote:Does ND have a home field advantage? Maybe a tiny one, but it's an exhilirating place to play for a visiting player, and silencing that stadium is even more encouraging to a defensive player.Â
A lot of home field advantage has nothing to do with crowds.
Notre Dame is playing in familiar surroundings, staying in their own beds longer (and presumably night-before accommodations that they are well used to), eating their usual food, etc.
Stanford is traveling across the country, doing different stuff than usual, and starting at a not-too-awful but not somewhat earlier than usual 12:30 Pacific Time.
Lately, Stanford's only loss in the past five years was in South Bend. For awhile before that we just lost every game, but came closer at home as in the last game of Wlat's first year where we really had no business almost winning. From 1994 through 2002 the home team won every game (though no games in 1995,96). The only real exception was in 1990 and 1992 we pulled off two big upsets in South Bend while losing at home in the surrounding years.
(10-02-2014, 09:16 AM)NDIrish link Wrote:Dont know if it will happen, and if it does, it definitely wont be an oregon style, but i circled this game weeks ago for when kelly releases a quick play offense... but we will see
I certainly have no idea if that might be Kelly's plan. However, it doesn't seem to be particularly advantageous in playing Stanford. By this point, Stanford has plenty of practice in playing up-tempo offenses, and indeed that is one of the things that our defense seems to have figured out how to handle - with Oregon the past two years being the extreme example.
Some Stanford followers have determined that the toughest match-ups for Stanford are teams like itself. Examples of that are losses to MSU in the Rose Bowl and S.-C. the past two years [though this year's S.-C. game would be less applicable if you focus on tempo and more if you focus on the spread the field aspect]. I am not sure that this is exactly correct. While MSU was certainly one of the defense's poorer performances last year, it happened as they abandoned what they usually did (power run game - only 65 rushing yards against us) but they went crazy through the air in Connor Cook's career best passing game. S.-C. last year was a similar story. They only had 23 rushing yards but managed to win by combining key moments passing with Stanford self-destruction (2 INTs, lost fumble, missed FG - ugh that's two years in a row of this now vs those guys).
This year it appears that Stanford has sacrificed some of the imperative to stop the run in order to shore up the passing defense. So far so good, as not only is the defense ranked #1 in the country in total D in yds/gm (#2 in yds/play), but also #1 nationally in pass defense yds/gm, yds/att, and #5 in PER allowed. How that plays out going forward is a key for Stanford given the nature of the teams we are going to face.
