Playing on grass
(Written by kencraw)
I’ve got a pet theory running about the Bears playing on grass as opposed to artificial turf. It seems the Bears have a lot more trouble when they play on grass than when the play on turf. So, in pursuit of some data about this, I got game data from the entire Tedford era to see how they did on grass versus how they did on turf.
The scariest numbers are the last 3 years, 2006 to 2008. The Bears are 0-9 on grass during the regular season. That compares to 5-10 (33%) overall on the road (of course all home games are played on artificial turf) for the same span. Turn that same comparison over and the Bears are 5-1 (83%) on the road playing on turf, the only loss being to Washington last year towards the end of the slide.
In fairness, if you include earlier years and bowl games, the numbers are more balanced. The Bears are 12-15 (44%) on grass during the Tedford years while they are 23-20 (53%) overall on the road. However, if you just look at the turf road games, the Bears are 11-5 (69%). Seeing as how the overall win record of the Bears during the same time is 66%, it sure feels like the Bears do just fine on the road when the surface is artificial turf.
Are these numbers conclusive? No, they’re not. It could just be that the best teams the Bears face on the road play on grass, USC being an obvious example. However, if one is searching for reasons that the Bears struggle against teams like UCLA, Arizona, Maryland and even Tennessee on the road but seem to do much better against teams like Oregon and Oregon State, this might be another reason to consider.
It sure feels to me like the Bears struggle on grass far more than just on the road.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Pretty interesting stuff. I feel as Cal fans this is just one of the things to add to the superstition that follows our losses. Besides the band guy throwing his baton in the air and catching it, I remember during the 05, 06, 07 years we thought the white away jerseys were a curse.
November 15th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Artificial turf is faster than grass, so faster teams have more of an advantage playing on the artificial surface.
In the case of USC and UCLA, these are both fast teams, so Cal should not suffer from a lack of speed advantage on their grass fields. However, Cal still finds a way to lose when favored over UCLA in the Rose Bowl.
Cal has done well on Qualcomm’s grass field at the Holiday Bowl.
Conclusion — the causal relationship between Cal loses and natural grass is skewed by USC’s dominance and UCLA’s frequent upsets. The only surface that haunts Cal is the surface of their brains.