Kin
New member
OldTimeHockey said:Those that say a jacked up home crowd doesn't effect the players on the ice/field have never really played competitive hockey in front of a large crowd.
I'll agree that it can drive some players to fail....On the other hand, it drives some of us to succeed.
No busta and Nik, there is no scientific proof, but does it always have to come down to that with you two? It's great that you can pick up a paper and read the numbers in front of you, but personal experience should also be held valid.
With all due respect, if I were going to write a post quite so condescending, and I have in the past and am doing so right now, I'd at least do so with a significantly better grasp of what's actually being said. Nobody has said anything to the effect of "a jacked up crowd doesn't effect(and that should be affect) the players on the ice/field". In fact, I wrote a post that says the exact opposite. What is being said, and apologies busta if I oversimplify your POV, is three-fold:
1) That whatever effect crowd noise does produce is very hard to link to any sort of improvement in performance, even for the players themselves.
2) That whatever effect crowd noise might have can affect visiting players as well as home players, thereby making any claim that it leads to any particular advantage for a home team inherently unknowable.
3) #2 is true and demonstrable because there is no evidence that having a loud/full crowd produces teams that have better than expected home W/L records over a sustained period of time.
And, again, I'd point out that the entire issue links back to the more specific point being made by some that the atmosphere at the ACC is itself deficient to produce the sort of noise that translates into this positive home ice effect. Even though I think it's entirely bogus, what James Reimer is saying is that the people who feel that way are wrong. That the ACC does get loud enough to give them this "boost". The argument that you find "silly" wouldn't have started if certain people who shouldn't be allowed sharp objects tried to use it as "evidence" that they were right when it actually directly contradicts their claims about the crowd at the ACC.
If you're going to make a specific point along the lines of "crowd noise helps a home team win games" then, yes, there does need to be something in your argument that has some actual basis in logic or fact. That is not a slavish devotion to fact over personal feelings, although I don't see that as quite the negative that you do, it's just basic critical thinking.