Perception of Home Field Advantage vs. ATS results

Like it or not, for the most part, the "dumb betting public" views each team based on what they have seen from them lately, and their W/L record. The public has also been influenced by ESPN and other media to believe that certain teams are simply better at home or on the road.

Think of what you have heard... how hard it is to play at Mile High Stadium in Denver. How intimidating it is for teams to travel and play in the Black Hole out in Oakland. Other places that seem to hold a great home field advantage, such as the noise from the "12th man" in Quest Field in Seattle. The heat down in Miami in September/early October. What about KC, the frozen tundra of Lambeau, or the domes in NO, ATL, STL, Min, Det?

Well, I hope this article will shed some light as to which teams really do have a home field advantage, and which really do not. Therein, which teams win at home, and which teams do not. Even more important, which teams COVER at home and which do not.

And then we'll take it even further, and examine which teams have sustained success on the road, vs. those teams who can't quite cut it in games away from home.

In each scenario, I looked at how a team has done the last 5 years, and then also broke out this current year. Although this current year is young and less than halfway through, it is still interesting to see if a certain team has reversed its fortunes or has continued along the same path.

Home Teams ATS

http://img37.picoodle.com/img/img37/6/10/17/f_HomeTeamsATm_2c54dda.png

The Ravens have been solid at home ATS, but somewhat suprising that they are tops in the NFL over this 5 year span. Not really known for a huge home field advantage compared to some other clubs. You do have a couple Florida teams up there in Jac and TB, but the rest are pretty much the tops in the NFL in terms of solid teams the last few years: NE, Pit... KC is known for its home field advantage and it shows based on their ATS at home. Dal, though not near as dominant in the NFC the last few years (the past couple aside) still has covered well at home.

What's most interesting is the teams that are poor. NO, ATL and Oak are at the bottom. 2 dome teams and the Black Hole. Perhaps too much emphasis has been made in the line on their home field advantage, or at least in the public's mind, and really there is not much advantage for those teams at home. Some good teams over the last few years like Car, NYG and Cin also don't show up as much at home. But the biggest suprise is Denver. I'll get into them more after I show the next chart.

This is the same chart from above, but sorted by the column "SU-ATS". Basically, it shows which teams UNDERPERFORMED at home ATS but still managed good SU records. And similarly, which teams are known for losing at home, yet have solid ATS records.

http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/6/10/17/f_OvervaluedHm_49749da.png

As you can see from this chart, Den has the largest discrepancy in the NFL in terms of home games won vs. home games covered in the NFL. That could be in part because since 2002, they have only been home dogs one time, this weekend to Pittsburgh! I couldn't believe it at first, but it is true. They have never been home dogs since their 2002 Week 1 matchup w/ the Rams.

At any rate, their "home field" advantage has been played up far to much in the media and has caused bettors to lose out on $ far to long now. Let's look at the next offender (you have to skip Ind, KC, NE and Pit, because they are only up so high since they have such a large SU win %. They still cover 50% or much better ATS at home.)

Seattle, GB and St. Louis. 3 teams that have a supposed great home field advantage. While their SU records have been great, they don't get the cover in most cases. Lastly is Miami. Teams have to fly down to the tip of the Country in the heat to play them, but Miami just does not get the covers at home like you would think, whereas some other Florida teams do. In fact, even looking at the limited data from this season, you'll find that the only team above .500 ATS at home from this group in red has been GB.

Moving from the bad to the good, at the bottom are teams who may not win many home games, but have done very well in covering the past 5 years. And in fact, look over to 2007 and you'll see that none of these teams are below .500. Many have continued that stellar ATS at home this year.

With that look at how teams have done at home, let's move along to teams that are great or terrible on the road.

Road Teams ATS

http://img37.picoodle.com/img/img37/6/10/17/f_RoadTeamsATm_d33c055.png

It should be to no one's suprise that NE has been at the top of the league in road covers. 69% though is a huge number above and beyond the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place clubs. What is equally suprising, after studying the poor home teams, is the number of teams "in the red" who were bad at home covers are "in the green" with great road covers. The list includes Car, NO, ATL and Cin. Even GB, which was good at winning home games but poor at covering, is "in the green". It should be no suprise that 2 of the powerhouses in the AFC join NE "in the green": Indy and SD.

Let's look at the poor teams on the road. Try considering the entire NFC West as teams that don't cover well on the road. Ari, STL, ST, and Sea's right there too at 44%. The Raiders have just been bad, they can't get it done at home or on the road. Then a couple teams who play in extreme environments: Chi and TB. Chi plays a lot of road games in domes, as does TB, so that could factor in.

Getting back to good teams to bet on, this next chart is the same as the road teams chart, but it is sorted by "SU-ATS". This will show us teams on the road who win a lot but don't cover, and likewise, those that lose a lot but do cover.

http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/6/10/17/f_Undervaluedm_24f354e.png

First, the teams that are at the top, showing they "win a lot but don't cover" is not very meaningfull. Most of these teams landed here simply because they won so many SU that even if they have just above a .500 ATS on the road, it's not as great as their SU win %. But at the top, you find perhaps the top 4 teams since 2002 in the NFL. From the AFC you have Indy, NE and Pit. And from the NFC: Philly.

Moving down to numbers we can use: teams in the green don't win at a high rate on the road, but do bring a game usually, and pull off a suprising % of covers than you may expect. Det only has won 16% of its road games, but covered 44% of them. Houston, Cleveland, Buffalo are 3 other relatively "poor" teams who have done better than average on the road. Same w/ Washington and Cincy.

So there you have it. A look at which teams really do have a home field advantage, and which do not. And a look at which teams have got the job done on the road for bettors, even if they didn't win SU. These are the type of charts I print and refer to each and every week as I see the lines spit out from Vegas, and hear the talking heads blabbing about "poor weak Cleveland heading into the menacing Black Hole", or Denver's Mile High Stadium, or the "12th man" in Seattle.

You can keep talking up the hype, ESPN, trying to generate ratings. I'll keep my mouth shut and keep on winning.