Weather Effects in Football

[johnnylovescandy]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, dome teams are usually terrible in cold weather games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard NFL players contest this point, since many of them played in cold weather often & regularly enough. Most dome teams just suck, regardless of weather. Indy last year was obvious exception, along with 1998 Vikes & Falcons

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]

I thought this was the case, but you hear the casual fan say the opposite VERY frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]
God you are so right. One game I attended in the student section of Tiger Stadium was Oregon State a few years ago. I had what had to have been the stupidest LSU fan ever behind me (and trust me, we have some stupid fans!) -- loud mouthed SOB. It was POURING. I mean we were all soaked in the stadium, and lightening delayed the game, but no one went anywhere. We just stayed there, getting soaked... waiting. (There were several field rushers doing Pete Roses at midfield, including one streaker!)

Anyway, I remember him saying "this weather is PERFECT for us. We are a running team!" That was so stupid on so many levels... he drove me nuts. He would yell [censored] like "F*ck you Marcus Randell!" And "hey Saban, get Randall out of there -- he obviously doesn't have the leadership." What a hell does that even mean?

Thankfully he left early because we were down a couple of scores, and we pulled out a crazy win where the evil Staruday night South Louisiana voodoo swamp demons made OSU's kicker miss 3 xps!

EDIT: Only fitting that Marcus Randall ran for the winning TD. Not a great LSU QB, but a good kid. I hope that idiot felt good and stupid... but he probably didn't, and likely still thinks he is a football genius.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]

I would also guess that bad fields brings teams closer together

[/ QUOTE ]

I am picturing two football teams cuddled up by the fire on a wet, cold, gloomy day sipping hot chocolate with marshmallows and whipped cream.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]


Brag: I did the research for this article.

[/ QUOTE ]


how does this compare to the baseline of teams playing away from their home field?

was the competition different from home environs to road games?

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]


Brag: I did the research for this article.

[/ QUOTE ]

These stats seem incredibly skewed.

Take the Colts: 2-6. How many of those games are at New England? Playing at the best team in the league has a huge effect on that record.

Take the Viking: They have a big disparity but look at their division. I'd guess that stat is full of them beating the Lions on the road in a dome (a team they have been better than) and losing on the road to GB and Chicago teams that were better than them.

[Billy Bibbit]

Yeah, including playoff games skews things because they're going to be against much better competition as well as usually being under 50 degrees. Even ignoring playoff games though, there's still a big disparity.

The thing that surprised me the most was that the Saints had a winning road record from 2000 to present. Didn't they suck for a long, long time?

Edit: I guess they didn't suck but they were an average at best team, so it surprises me that they were a .500 team on the road.

[TheNoodleMan]

The true era of Saints suckitude was pre-Mora. Anything since then is just ordinary suck.

[Jack of Arcades]

The Saints have sucked hard at home for the last decade.

[doubLe a tom]

cant really answer your question op, but it sure is fun to play football in inclement weather imo

[Jack of Arcades]

Valid point, imo. lemme find the NYT article (RR)

The article was written at the end of the 05 season, so the Colts only lost twice to the Pats on the road; once was the Jets. The Vikings won 2 of the 5 road games against the Packers. I'm not sure how many of the 5 were in cold weather, but the two of their wins were.