RESEARCH NOTES & COMMENTS
SOCIOLOGY OF SPORT JOURNAL, 1985, 2, 352-356
The Home Advantage
in Collegiate Basketball
Eldon E. Snyder and Dean A. Purdy
Bowling Green State University
This study substantiates the notion of a home advantage for the sport of basketball.
The findings indicate that home teams win 66% of their games and this advantage is
as important for game outcomes as team quality. However, the advantage varies according to the quality of home and visiting teams. The paper provides a review of
the Durkheimian perspective, which views the home team as a representative of the
home collectivity that draws support from its fans. Additionally, the home advantage
may be seen as an expression of Goffman, whereby the players are highly motivated
to respond in a manner that will maintain their proper demeanor and self-esteem.
Several factors are considered important in successful athletic performances, including the players' abilities, coaching techniques, team cohesion, and morale; these fall
under the general category of team quality. Additionally, for spectator sports, performances
may be influenced by playing before a home audience. The belief in the home advantage
is reflected in the frequent attempts by athletic directors to schedule more home than away
games, and the desire of coaches to have the home court in playoff tournaments at the
end of regular conference season play. Furthermore, coachhig strategies, especially in
basketball, often reflect coaches' belief in the audience effect on their players. For example, when playing away from home, coaches may try to change the game tempo by
going into a delay offense or calling a time out to "take the crowd out of the game" or,
if at home, they may try to "get the crowd into the game" by baiting the officials or otherwise expressing behavior that might arouse the crowd.
Schwartz and Barsky (1977) provided the initial research on the home advantage.
They demonstrated that the advantage for the home team is most evident in basketball
and ice hockey and least so in baseball and football. Apparently the indoor setting of hockey
and basketball provide the immediacy, compactness, and resonance to the supportive effects of the crowd on the players' performances, whereas these collective (fan) tributes
are attenuated in the spaciousness of outdoor arenas (1977:652). The advantage of playing at home was also substantiated by the research of Varca (1980), who studied collegiate
basketball teams in the Southeastern Conference during the 1977-78 season; he found that
the home team had a winning percentage of 70%.
A portion of this paper was presented at the NASSS meetings, St. Louis, 1983. We appreciate the assistance provided by the sports information directors of the Mid-American Conference.
Direct all correspondence to Eldon E. Snyder, Dept. of Sociology, Bowling Green State
University, Bowling Green, OH 43403.
COLLEGIATE BASKETBALL
353
The present study focuses on collegiate basketball teams, with data collected on
games played within an established league in which each team played every other team
on a home and away format. The findings provide additional support for the home advantage phenomenon; also, because data are available on league standings, the findings extend the results of other studies by specifying the effect of the home advantage vis B vis
team quality on game outcomes. Finally, the sociological explanations for these findings
are discussed and are grounded by Durkheirnian and interactionist perspectives.
Data Collection
Data were collected on the basketball games played among the 10 universities
in the Mid-American Conference during the 1982-83 season. These teams are classified
by the National Collegiate Athletic Association as Division I-A and the universities range
in size from 15,000to 22,000 students. Archival data were initially collected from newspaper
box scores. These findings were verified and additional data were provided by the sports
information directors of the respective schools.
Results
The home advantage effect is evident to the extent that the home team wins more
than 50% of alI games played. Table 1 shows the home team won 66% of the games played.
During the season all teams in the league played each team twice in a home and away
format; thus, the differential qualities of the teams were counterbalanced.
This home advantage may vary according to the quality df both the home team
and its visiting opponents, however. For example, a superior home team would be expected to win a greater percentage (and win more decisively) of their games against a
visiting team of inferior quality than against a team of equal ability. Thus, the variables
of the game location and team quality may interact to produce the percentage differentials
in game outcome. Table 1 provides data on the first and second division teams based on
Table 1
Percentage of Games Won by the Home Team
and Mean Final Scores by Division Standing
Division of
Home
team
Visitor
First
First
Second
Second
Total
First
Second
First
Second
Percentage of
games won by
home team
(N = 20)
(N = 25)
(N = 25)
(N = 20)
65.0
84.0
40.0
75.0
66.0
Mean final score
Home
team
Visitor
Mean
difference
(A)
(B)
(A) - (B)
68.1
72.5
67.0
69.8
69.4
66.2
60.5
68.8
63.5
64.8
+ 1.9
+ 12.0
-
+
+
1.8
6.3
4.6
Snyder and Purdy
354
final league standings; that is, the five teams who won more than 50% of their games
were classified as first division and the remaining five teams were second division teams.
It is apparent that both the team quality and home location of the game contribute
to the winning percentages. Thus, when first division teams played opponents that were
of the same quality, the home team won 65 % of the time; consequently, the visiting team
won 35% of these games (65-35, a 30% difference). When second division teams played
each other, the home advantage had a greater effect; that is, the home team won 75%
of these games (a percent difference of 50, e.g., 75-25 = 50). However, when first division home teams played second division visiting teams, the home and team quality effects
(i.e., home versus visitor plus first division versus second division) resulted in an 84%
winning record and a percentage difference of 68 (84-16). Conversely, when second division home teams played visiting first division teams, the home team won 40% of these
games. This is a 20% differential (40% of these games were won by the home team, with
the visiting team winning 60%) and the only category of games in which the home team
lost more games than they won. In these games the superiority of the visiting (i.e., first
division) teams is possibly more important for the outcome than the home advantage for
the second division teams.
The data presented in Table 1 indicate that the winning percentage of the home
team may not reflect the closeness of the games. For example, when first division teams
play similar teams the home team wins 65% of the time, yet the mean score difference
is only 1.9 points. Likewise, when a home second division team plays a first division visiting
team the home team wins only 40% of the time; however, the home location has its effect
in the close score, that is, a mean difference of 1.8 points.
Thus far, we have noted the interaction effects of team quality and the game
location. Following the rationale and computational comparisons provided by Schwartz
and Barsky (1977:569-661), we estimated the effect of team quality, with location held
constant, as 3.4 points per game. By contrast, the game locale effect controlling for team
quality was 4.6 points. This finding should be accepted with caution because team location is a real dichotomy whereas team quality is not. Because we collapsed team quality
into first and second divisions, this results in a reduction of some variance in quality that
would otherwise be reflected in performance variations. However, these calculations are
adequate for establishing the fact that the location of the game was at least as important
for the outcome as the team quality.
The underlying performance variables that are associated with game outcomes for
home and away teams were also analyzed. These data indicate that the home team generally
Table 2
Percentage of Games Won by the Home Team
by Distance Traveled by Visiting Schools
Distance traveled
by visiting school
200 miles or less
More than 200 miles
Percentage of games
won by home team
COLLEGIATE BASKETBALL
355
has more rebounds, steals, and blocked shots, while the visiting teams usually commit
more fouls-including technical fouls. Moreover, the home team is likely to have more
assists and the visitors more turnovers.
Because there are no neutral playing sites during conference play, one difference
between the home and away teams is that one team must travel to the playing site. Table
2 provides data on the game outcomes based on the distance traveled by the visiting team.
Further analysis of the data indicates that when the visiting team traveled 175 miles rather
than 200 miles the percentage of games won by the home team declined; this advantage
declined further when the visiting team traveled 150 miles or less.
Discussion and Conclusion
This paper presents empirical support for the contention that playing before a
home crowd is an advantage. Drawing on the theoretical work of Durkheim, the sociological
explanation for these findings emphasizes the social support effect of the home audience
on the player's performances at athletic events (Schwartz & Barsky, 1977). For Durkheim,
the collective may provide inspiration and confidence to the individual, as the following
quotation indicates:
There are occasions when this strengtheningand vivifying action of society is especially
apparent. In the midst of an assembly animated by a common passion, we become
susceptibleof acts and sentiments of which we are incapable when reduced to our own
forces; and when the assembly is dissolved and when finding ourselves alone again,
we fall back to our ordinary level, we are then able to measure the height to which
we have been raised above ourselves. (1965:240)
Thus, to paraphrase Schwartz and Barsky, the home advantage is a dual process.
Home support is a celebration of the local community in the presence of representatives
of the opposing community-the visiting team. The game is an integrative ritual that
manifests a sense of social commitment to the community and its representatives. By supporting the team, the audience is part of the game itself. Accordingly, the team draws
strength and power from its supporters that finds expression in the activity of the team
(1977:658).
This Durkheimian perspective that focuses on the social influence of the crowd
is also supported by the research of Greer (1983), who compared the scoring, violations,
and turnovers of home and visiting basketball teams. He found that crowd booing against
the visiting teams was related to a decline in their performance and a corresponding improvement in the performance of home teams.
The data presented on the distances traveled by the visiting team and their performance also gives indirect credence to the social support effect. Because visiting teams'
chances of losing increase with the distance traveled, the most obvious explanation for
this is that the visiting team suffers from fatigue. However, for long trips teams are likely
to travel to the playing site the day before the game; thus, the fatigue factor would seem
to be attenuated. Perhaps more important is that with the increased distance there is less
likelihood of having the support of friendly fans.
This Durkheimian perspective may be supplemented by the symbolic interactionist
orientation explicated by Goffman (1967). In an excellent essay, Birrell (1981) synthesizes
Snyder and Purdy
356
Durkheim and Goffman by pointing out that while sport events provide a ritualistic affirmation of community values, they also, as Goffman noted, focus on the "homage paid
to idealized role performances.. .i.e., the way actors perform their roles and react to others
in theirs. This process represents a more private act, yet it is still an act of reaffirmation
of values of significance to the community" (1981:362). In his essay on deference and
demeanor, Goffman (1967) presents the argument that a governing principle in daily interaction is the maintenance of persons as sacred ritual objects-that likewise achieves
social order. Athletic contests are fateful and problematic situations where demeanor, poise,
and character can be displayed as individuals attempt to respond to risky situations effectively and correctly under conditions of stress (1967:217).
As Birrell notes, "In action situations, when the interaction ritual is public, the
actor generates character which reflects not only on self but has social significance because
it reflects the values of the community. Such a situation exists in sporting contests witnessed
by the public" (1981:365). Goffman has described four major attributes that are socially
desired in fateful situations-courage, gameness, integrity, and composure. These
characteristics are applicable to athletic contexts, and it is evident that players who display
such characteristics will be motivated to perform well and enhance their self-esteemparticularly before a home crowd.
There are other nuances of the home advantage that the present study does not
consider. For example, if players are influenced by the crowd, it is reasonable to assume
that officials may likewise, perhaps unconsciously, be intimidated or in some way influenced
by the crowd. Additionally, research by Baumeister (1985) of professional baseball and
basketball suggests that in the final games of World Series and National Basketball Association playoffs the home crowd may actually have a negative, that is, "choking" effect on
the home team. Other factors not considered may include the familiarity with the home
playing area, audience size, density, and intimacy. Further research might focus on these
dimensions as well as on the subjective meanings players and coaches associate with their
performances with different playing conditions and places.
References
Baumeister, Roy
1985 "The championship choke." Psychology Today, 19:48-52.
Birrell, Susan
1981 "Sport as ritual: interpretations from Durkheim to Goffman." Social Forces, 60:354-376.
Durkheim, Emile
1965 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: Free Press.
Goffman, Erving
1967 Interaction Ritual. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Greer, Donald L.
1983 "Spectator booing and the home advantage: a study of social influence in the basketball
arena." Social Psychology Quarterly, 46:252-261.
Schwartz, Barry and Stephen F. Barsky
1977 "The home advantage." Social Forces, 55:641-661.
Varca, Philip, D.
1980 "An analysis of home and away game performance of male college basketball teams."
Journal of Sport Psychology, 2:245-257.