Crunching through a little data (yes, I'm retired...): More or less one-third through the MWC season of scheduled doubleheaders instead of the traditional home-and-home format, most series are ending up in sweeps. Thus far of 18 doubleheaders played, 15 (83%) have been sweeps -- only AFA/Nevada, Wyoming/Fresno and SDSU/CSU have split (and CSU needed that historic comeback to earn theirs.) Last year, 27 of the 44 two-game series, or 61%, were sweeps.

This surprising to anybody? It's hard to win on the road, but I'm still a little surprised by how big a difference the doubleheader format has made. Maybe it's mostly a function of who's been playing whom -- there have been a lot of series between the top and bottom teams in the conference so far (nine of the 18 completed series have been between the top three teams in the standings (USU/BSU/CSU) and the bottom five (AF/UNLV/UW/UNM/SJSU)) -- and will even out by the end of the season. Or maybe it's just too hard to play back-to-back games against the same team on the road.

What do you think? Does it matter?

I think no or limited fans has a bigger impact. With a large crowd, a less talented team can pull off an upset (causing the 61% number you mentioned). With no or small crowds, the more talented team wins (causing a high percentage of sweeps).

Is there a statistical difference on winning percentage for home/away games year-over-year? I think that would in part answer your question. Although there are limitations there, I think it would be interesting to review in the context of the analysis you've already done.

No statistical analysis here, just my worthless 2 cents. I think this format with limited to no fans in the stands makes the better team much more likely to win both games. It has more to do with talent than a crazy crowd carrying the underdog to an emotional upset.

RivertonAG wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 10:07 am

No statistical analysis here, just my worthless 2 cents. I think this format with limited to no fans in the stands makes the better team much more likely to win both games. It has more to do with talent than a crazy crowd carrying the underdog to an emotional upset.

I agree with this. Including what Provo Aggie mentioned as well that since the games are only 48 hours apart teams are not magically getting better over that time. Where in a traditional schedule you may not see the team for 4-6 weeks and a lot of improving/declining can happen. In addition taking the crowd out of it really affects it as well. We don't beat NM at the pit by 35 points this year. We would have won, but I would have guessed in 20 point range. A good home court college basketball atmosphere is worth I would guess 3-5 points.

Aggie84025 wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 10:11 am

RivertonAG wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 10:07 am

No statistical analysis here, just my worthless 2 cents. I think this format with limited to no fans in the stands makes the better team much more likely to win both games. It has more to do with talent than a crazy crowd carrying the underdog to an emotional upset.

I agree with this. Including what Provo Aggie mentioned as well that since the games are only 48 hours apart teams are not magically getting better over that time. Where in a traditional schedule you may not see the team for 4-6 weeks and a lot of improving/declining can happen. In addition taking the crowd out of it really affects it as well. We don't beat NM at the pit by 35 points this year. We would have won, but I would have guessed in 20 point range. A good home court college basketball atmosphere is worth I would guess 3-5 points.

35-(3 or 5) = 20

Sorry I couldn't resist.

slcagg wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 10:14 am

Aggie84025 wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 10:11 am

RivertonAG wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 10:07 am

No statistical analysis here, just my worthless 2 cents. I think this format with limited to no fans in the stands makes the better team much more likely to win both games. It has more to do with talent than a crazy crowd carrying the underdog to an emotional upset.

I agree with this. Including what Provo Aggie mentioned as well that since the games are only 48 hours apart teams are not magically getting better over that time. Where in a traditional schedule you may not see the team for 4-6 weeks and a lot of improving/declining can happen. In addition taking the crowd out of it really affects it as well. We don't beat NM at the pit by 35 points this year. We would have won, but I would have guessed in 20 point range. A good home court college basketball atmosphere is worth I would guess 3-5 points.

35-(3 or 5) = 20

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Yeah, the math didn't translate. The Honeyville Hawks elementary education failed me.

ProvoAggie wrote:It has a lot to do with teams being in the same place in their progression when they play the 2 games. Teams get better or regress as a season goes on, chemistry changes, players get hurt. These changes last to different outcomes. 2 years ago we got beat bad by Nevada at the start of the year. Had we played them again the next game the results would have likely been the same. We improved as the year went on though and we're able to beat them at the end.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

This. And if a player is out for one he's probably out for both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aggiefan160 wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 9:53 am

Is there a statistical difference on winning percentage for home/away games year-over-year? I think that would in part answer your question. Although there are limitations there, I think it would be interesting to review in the context of the analysis you've already done.

Home/away winning percentages for the past three years in the MWC:
19-20: home teams win 63/99, or 64%
18-19: home teams win 60/99, or 61%
17-18: home teams win 58/99, or 59%

20-21 to date: home teams win 24/40, or 60%

ProvoAggie wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 7:42 am

It has a lot to do with teams being in the same place in their progression when they play the 2 games. Teams get better or regress as a season goes on, chemistry changes, players get hurt. These changes lead to different outcomes. 2 years ago we got beat bad by Nevada at the start of the year. Had we played them again the next game the results would have likely been the same. We improved as the year went on though and we're able to beat them at the end.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I’m not a statistician, but would those changes essentially even out? Half the time, the winner of an early season game would progress more than the loser of the initial game (making a 2nd win even more probable) and half the time they would progress less (making a different outcome more likely).

Typically with a normal MW schedule, teams will play on, say, Wednesday, then have a full, hard practice on Thursday, a light practice with film on Friday, and a shoot around on Saturday. Now with just a day between games the full practice goes out the window. 90% of adjustments that teams are making between games in a series come in the film room. Therefore, I really believe that this type of a schedule benefits the teams with great coaches (a.k.a. Craig Smith).

I think it is weird but this is a weird time these days.

What I don't like is Nevada has only played 4 different schools rather than 8 at this point..It makes it hard for me to judge who is really good yet..

I think your home wins over SDSU are solid but I find the CSU win 'at' SDSU to be more impressive..

Boise has blown out the dregs of the MW but has yet to play a top half team. Yet, they are constantly rated as the best team.

Nevada has lost 3 games by a total of 9 points..One really bad loss to AF and two extremely close games in San Diego. Yet the Pack is dismissed as a bad team..

Is Boise great? Is USU their only competition? Is CSU under rated or over rated?

Is Nevada a bad team?

I just can't tell much of anything one way or the other until every school plays every school..

nvspuds wrote: ↑

January 19th, 2021, 2:54 pm

I think it is weird but this is a weird time these days.

What I don't like is Nevada has only played 4 different schools rather than 8 at this point..It makes it hard for me to judge who is really good yet..

I think your home wins over SDSU are solid but I find the CSU win 'at' SDSU to be more impressive..

Boise has blown out the dregs of the MW but has yet to play a top half team. Yet, they are constantly rated as the best team.

Nevada has lost 3 games by a total of 9 points..One really bad loss to AF and two extremely close games in San Diego. Yet the Pack is dismissed as a bad team..

Is Boise great? Is USU their only competition? Is CSU under rated or over rated?

Is Nevada a bad team?

I just can't tell much of anything one way or the other until every school plays every school..

The pack are not a bad team, they are just 10-15 points worse than USU.

I'm with you to some extent. I am not 100% sold on BSU yet, but they are dismantling the bad teams in roughly the same fashion USU did and played better than USU did in the OOC, so I can understand why people are putting them at the top. SDSU is living a lot off their OOC performance, which was pretty impressive. To me, there seems to be a clear line of demarcation after BSU, USU, SDSU, CSU, and Nevada. I would be somewhat surprised if CSU and Nevada aren't the 4th and 5th best teams in the conference (not sure which is which yet), but CSU and Nevada both have have a chance to break into the top 3, and I think UNLV has a chance to play spoiler too.

But this view is based mostly on looking at comparative scores against the dregs and extrapolating that the transitive property will apply to some extent, so definitely inexact science.

I agree that the CSU win at SDSU is more impressive than either USU win, but it was also imminently more flukey than either USU win, IMO.

ineptimusprime wrote: ↑

January 19th, 2021, 3:08 pm

nvspuds wrote: ↑

January 19th, 2021, 2:54 pm

I think it is weird but this is a weird time these days.

What I don't like is Nevada has only played 4 different schools rather than 8 at this point..It makes it hard for me to judge who is really good yet..

I think your home wins over SDSU are solid but I find the CSU win 'at' SDSU to be more impressive..

Boise has blown out the dregs of the MW but has yet to play a top half team. Yet, they are constantly rated as the best team.

Nevada has lost 3 games by a total of 9 points..One really bad loss to AF and two extremely close games in San Diego. Yet the Pack is dismissed as a bad team..

Is Boise great? Is USU their only competition? Is CSU under rated or over rated?

Is Nevada a bad team?

I just can't tell much of anything one way or the other until every school plays every school..

The pack are not a bad team, they are just 10-15 points worse than USU.

I'm with you to some extent. I am not 100% sold on BSU yet, but they are dismantling the bad teams in roughly the same fashion USU did and played better than USU did in the OOC, so I can understand why people are putting them at the top. SDSU is living a lot off their OOC performance, which was pretty impressive. To me, there seems to be a clear line of demarcation after BSU, USU, SDSU, CSU, and Nevada. I would be somewhat surprised if CSU and Nevada aren't the 4th and 5th best teams in the conference (not sure which is which yet), but CSU and Nevada both have have a chance to break into the top 3, and I think UNLV has a chance to play spoiler too.

But this view is based mostly on looking at comparative scores against the dregs and extrapolating that the transitive property will apply to some extent, so definitely inexact science.

I agree that the CSU win at SDSU is more impressive than either USU win, but it was also imminently more flukey than either USU win, IMO.

Yeah csu second game was also essentially a blow out vs SDSU.

They also went wire to wire with unlv at home. Who hasn’t been a great team this year.

Csu may beat usu but they haven’t look as good as usu has either with common opponents.