59
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Home sweet home: Quantifying home court advantages for NCAA basketball statistics

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Box score statistics are the baseline measures of performance for National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball. Between the 2011-2012 and 2015-2016 seasons, NCAA teams performed better at home compared to on the road in nearly all box score statistics across both genders and all three divisions. Using box score data from over 100,000 games spanning the three divisions for both women and men, we examine the factors underlying this discrepancy. The prevalence of neutral location games in the NCAA provides an additional angle through which to examine the gaps in box score statistic performance, which we believe has been underutilized in existing literature. We also estimate a regression model to quantify the home court advantages for box score statistics after controlling for other factors such as number of possessions, and team strength. Additionally, we examine the biases of scorekeepers and referees. We present evidence that scorekeepers tend to have greater home team biases when observing men compared to women, higher divisions compared to lower divisions, and stronger teams compared to weaker teams. Finally, we present statistically significant results indicating referee decisions are impacted by attendance, with larger crowds resulting in greater bias in favor of the home team.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Favoritism Under Social Pressure

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Officiating bias: the effect of foul differential on foul calls in NCAA basketball.

            In this study, we examined the pattern of foul calls exhibited during 365 NCAA basketball games during the 2004-2005 season. Results of the analysis indicate that officials are more likely to call fouls on the team with the fewest fouls, making it likely that the number of fouls will tend to even out during the game. This increased probability increases as the foul differential increases. In addition, there is a significant bias towards officials calling more fouls on the visiting team, and a bias towards foul calls on the team that is leading. The result is that the probability of the next foul being called on the visiting team can reach as high as 0.70. Finally, the implications of this officiating bias are explored, including the fact that basketball teams have an incentive to play more aggressively, leading to more physical play over time.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Restricted generalized poisson regression model

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Sports Analytics
                JSA
                IOS Press
                2215020X
                22150218
                April 05 2021
                April 05 2021
                : 7
                : 1
                : 25-36
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
                [2 ]School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
                [3 ]School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
                Article
                10.3233/JSA-200450
                8570cbe9-e099-43a5-8a9b-e1c3bb9f24da
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article