Cowboys Are Best Road Team. By Far

[PA Cowboy Fan]

They're not good on the road, they've just played crappy teams.

2014
Titans 2-14
Rams 6-10
Seattle 12-4
Jacksonville 3-13
Giants 6-10
Bears 5-11
Eagles 10-6
Commanders 4-12

2015
Eagles 7-9
Dolphins 6-10
Commanders 9-7

2016
Commanders 8-7-1
49ers 2-14
Packers 10-6
Browns 1-15
Steelers 11-5
Vikings 8-8

2017
Cardinals 8-8
49ers 6-10
Commanders 7-9
Giants 3-13
Raiders 6-10
Eagles 13-3

They have 7 road wins against teams that finished with a winning record, one of those was the 8-7-1 Skins and another was the Eagles with all of their starters benched in a meaningless week 17 game. There are 3 good wins on this list - Seattle, GB, and Pitt.

That's usually the way things have been with Garrett...beat the crappy teams and struggle with the good ones.

 

[HanD]

Since it's construction, AT&T stadium gives the worse "home field advantage" to it's team of the 32 stadiums in the NFL. In fact,since moving into Jerry World in 2009,the Cowboys have a distinct "homefield disadvantage"

How bad?

Since 2009,the Cowboys are the only team in the NFL that have won more on the road than at home. That is pathetic.

Homefield advantage is the degree to which a team benefits from playing at home rather than away or at a neutral site. Mathematically then, It is the difference in success or lack of success between the home games and away games.This is regardless of a team's overall success.
The numbers are taken by subtracting each teams away win percentage from their home win percentage.

For example, since 2009, the Minnesota Vikings have won 66.7% of their home games and 38.0% of their away games, a difference of 28.6% which is good for 2nd place among teams.

The Cowboys have won 51.4% of their home games and 58.3% of their away for a difference of -6.9%, the only negative score and obviously last place anong NFL teams.

Even if a team only won 20% of their home games, if they won only 10% of their away games, then they would still have a home field advantage of 10%

Here is the complete list since 2009:

1 BAL 31.94%
2 MIN 28.64%
3 SEA 24.35%
4 GNB 23.30%
5 ARI 21.73%
6 BUF 20.83%
7 JAX 20.83%
8 NWE 19.44%
9 SFO 18.88%
10 CLE 16.67%
11 DET 15.28%
12 IND 15.28%
13 NOR 15.28%
14 CIN 14.25%
15 DEN 13.89%
16 HOU 13.89%
17 NYJ 13.89%
18 PIT 13.89%
19 CAR 13.26%
20 LAC 12.50%
21 ATL 11.11%
22 WAS 10.64%
23 NYG 9.72%
24 OAK 9.72%
25 TEN 9.72%
26 KAN 8.33%
27 CHI 6.94%
28 MIA 6.94%
29 LAR 5.09%
30 PHI 2.78%
31 TAM 0.00%
32 DAL -6.94%

It should be no surprise to see teams such as the Seahawks, Packers,and Vikings near the top of the list and I knew the Ravens like to play at home but I didn't expect to see them in 1st place.

All 4 NFC East teams are in the bottom 11 teams or the bottom third of the NFL My theory for this would be the intensity of the rivalries within the division actually give NFC east teams an added incentive to win away games in that they get to cruelly disappoint their opponent's fans, something they relish given the verbal abuse and emotional torment they typically experience in those cities.

I also have a theory that teams with traditionally strong defenses benefit more at home but that is a theory....for now.

Why are the Cowboys in last place? Why does their stadium seem to lend aide and comfort to their enemies?

The answer is simple. This stadium was not designed to give the team any kind of advantage in terms of fan support.Instead, it was designed to bring in more revenue by making the stadium comfortable and friendly to opponent fans.The stadium is a tourist attraction that NFL fans of all teams can appreciate. And, what better way to appreciate it then to visit it on a day that your team is playing the Cowboys?

The stadium is spacious but acoustics are often very poor so a large part of the noise generated by a crowd is buffered

Everything you love from home is there, from Philly Cheesesteak sandwiches to New York style pizza.

The stadium represents the conflict of interest that exists when the team owner is also the team GM.

Unfortunately for the Cowboys,successful seasons require that the team be road warriors.

it's not just jerry world, although the new stadium doesn't help with high prices and boutique style all around. fandom was sad in the last stadium as well. i was sorely disappointed having been a life long fan in DC and seeing how people were un-enthusiastic during games. i was asked to sit down so people around me could see. i couldn't believe it.

 

[HanD]

They're not good on the road, they've just played crappy teams.

2014
Titans 2-14
Rams 6-10
Seattle 12-4
Jacksonville 3-13
Giants 6-10
Bears 5-11
Eagles 10-6
Commanders 4-12

2015
Eagles 7-9
Dolphins 6-10
Commanders 9-7

2016
Commanders 8-7-1
49ers 2-14
Packers 10-6
Browns 1-15
Steelers 11-5
Vikings 8-8

2017
Cardinals 8-8
49ers 6-10
Commanders 7-9
Giants 3-13
Raiders 6-10
Eagles 13-3

They have 7 road wins against teams that finished with a winning record, one of those was the 8-7-1 Skins and another was the Eagles with all of their starters benched in a meaningless week 17 game. There are 3 good wins on this list - Seattle, GB, and Pitt.

by this line of thinking, does it support that the schedule at home was much harder since we have basically been a .500 team in the league under JG? did we struggle with home wins because those teams had much better records?

 

[atlantacowboy]

I’ve got a truck load to say but I’m not sure some will handle it well. It’s controversial, troubling. It will bring agitation... raise hackles. Some will run, others fight. It will be tough times for the Zone.

All this will come in the form of a simple question. And then another. Both Incendiary.

So we need to lay the foundation. Rationally, coolly.

Let’s first review:
Dallas has the same record—ON THE ROAD—that the best NFC teams have had AT HOME. Over 4 seasons.

Who cares? What does the road record matter? There is no trophy or even a participation ribbon awarded for a great road record. The objective of the regular season is to qualify for the playoffs. Once you get to the playoffs, then you can start measuring success and this teams fails on all accounts and has for the past 22 years by every measure that matters to all but the stat freaks and the guys that get excited about the number of pro bowl selections.

 

[Angus12]

4 pages for this seems underwhelming

No doubt. What a huge waste of time on an attention grab.

For two questions that have already been hashed over ad nauseam?

 

[CWR]

OK...here it is: Controversial question #1:

Who is more responsible for the Boys not climbing further:
A. Jason Garrett or
B. The Cowboys 12th man...who chronically refuses to show up on game day?

While I don’t believe Garrett to be anything special as a coach...he has prepared his team in such a fashion that they are top dogs on the road.

But the 12th man at home games? He’s missing in action, which I believe is sometimes overtly deflating to the team.

Could the very fan who goes to the game, sits on his ***...and slams Garrett afterwards...be in fact more at the center of the problem than Garrett himself?

Well good buddy I have to admit I was thinking you were going more in the direction of Vegas and mob ties/fixed games lol. This isnt as controversial as I was hoping.

Honestly Ive always thought our home crowds seem fairly weak, although the crowd was pretty wild for the Bengals game in 2016. Everyone was so pumped for our star rookies.

Only other time I've been impressed by our crowd was when 22 broke the record. Holy crap that building shook for about 30 mins straight.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

While it’s a concerning trend, i think a better reason is simply that the cowboys have been to the playoffs twice in 8 years. When you’re extraordinarily inconsistent, odd things will occur.

I don’t disagree that the other teams you list have great home field advantage,, would you say your crowd is why GB won in the 2016 playoff game? Maybe they didnt help as much as they should, but the Cowboys lost that game. If your home games were really away games, shouldn’t they play like they do in actual away games? Fluke isn’t the right word, more ‘chaos theory.’ You’ve had a bipolar decade where you’re either great or you’re an afterthought. No 10, 11 win seasons where you’re just pretty good. No playoff.... or completely dominant.

Romo’s fragility has as much to do with this as anything else. I loved Romo, thought even you guys underrated him. Same thing is happeneing to the Packers. But if he stayed healthy like the other elite qbs in his time, Garrett would have made the playoffs 4-5 times already. You would not have viewed him as badly as you do now, and he would have clearly been the most successful coach since Johnson/Switzer.

What is the home/away of the last two years? Dak & Zeke will add stability and this should simmer down. It may not go green as high as these other teams, but the aberration should go away.

 

[GenoT]

OK...here it is: Controversial question #1:

Who is more responsible for the Boys not climbing further:
A. Jason Garrett or
B. The Cowboys 12th man...who chronically refuses to show up on game day?

While I don’t believe Garrett to be anything special as a coach...he has prepared his team in such a fashion that they are top dogs on the road.

But the 12th man at home games? He’s missing in action, which I believe is sometimes overtly deflating to the team.

Could the very fan who goes to the game, sits on his ***...and slams Garrett afterwards...be in fact more at the center of the problem than Garrett himself?

When the Cowboys are out there winning on the road (against what are, coincidentally, mostly bad/mediocre teams), why isn’t the “12th man” advantage, which their opponents should be enjoying at home, keeping the Cowboys from winning their away games?

Cowboys: weak “12th man” at home doesn’t help them win.

Opponents: strong “12th man” at home doesn’t help them win.

 

[Future]

by this line of thinking, does it support that the schedule at home was much harder since we have basically been a .500 team in the league under JG? did we struggle with home wins because those teams had much better records?

Idk, I don't really think so, but I haven't looked. That's a good question.

 

[Future]

Over 4 years I am gonna guess that most teams faced a relatively similar schedule.

Probably. I'd bet some were easier, tbh. Like Seattle in the NFCW and NE in the AFCE probably have an "advantage" because of how crappy those conferences have been. But that should be countered out a bit by the fact that they've had to play a lot of first-place conference schedules.

 

[Future]

There's no question that they are a better road team - or a dismal home team depending on how you choose to look at it.

(Sticking with the same time frame as the OP)
Their winning percentage as a road underdog (53.3%) is almost as high as their winning percentage as a home favorite (56.5%).

As a road favorite they are 82.3% and as a home underdog they are only 27.3%.

Only team better as a road favorite is Houston who is 100% (4-0), while the Cowboys 82.3% is for 17 games.

What matters more is who are those "road favorite" losses against. You're going to be a road favorite a lot of the time when you play some of those weak schedules...in 2016 they should have been a road favorite almost every week.

 

[CPanther95]

What matters more is who are those "road favorite" losses against. You're going to be a road favorite a lot of the time when you play some of those weak schedules...in 2016 they should have been a road favorite almost every week.

The road favorite record isn't really what stands out The remarkable stat is their better than 50% record as a road underdog, and to the point made in the OP, that it's almost as high a percentage as their record as a favorite at home.

 

[HanD]

What matters more is who are those "road favorite" losses against. You're going to be a road favorite a lot of the time when you play some of those weak schedules...in 2016 they should have been a road favorite almost every week.

maybe later in the year but i wouldn't imagine a rookie rb and qb to be favored a lot on the road early in the season.

 

[plasticman]

OK...here it is: Controversial question #1:

Who is more responsible for the Boys not climbing further:
A. Jason Garrett or
B. The Cowboys 12th man...who chronically refuses to show up on game day?

While I don’t believe Garrett to be anything special as a coach...he has prepared his team in such a fashion that they are top dogs on the road.

But the 12th man at home games? He’s missing in action, which I believe is sometimes overtly deflating to the team.

Could the very fan who goes to the game, sits on his ***...and slams Garrett afterwards...be in fact more at the center of the problem than Garrett himself?

The demeanor of the fans have not changed,they were given the same type of description back when the Cowboys produced 20 consecutive winning seasons.

If you want to find the cause of an issue then you first must pinpoint the time it began.

When did the Cowboys stop being a perennial playoff team?Since this issue has never been resolved,we must then ask,is there one consistency within the organization from it's beginning right up to this point?

Let's work backwards when considering most of the responsibility.

Is it Jason Garrett?

The premise here is the Cowboys seemed to be well along the way towards a consistent presence in the playoffs until Jason showed up.If this is true then why did the Dallas Cowboys make him the Head Coach, why was Wade Phillips fired.In fact, why was Parcells hired?

When did the Cowboys experience their first losing season after winning three Super Bowls in four seasons? Did they recover enough to reel of an impressive number of consecutive winning seasons?

Is there one guy that has been there for the duration,in a position of authority to change or continue this issue?The typical NFL answer is "Of course not! He would certainly have been fired by now!".

Is there something unique about the Cowboys organization that prevents them from making the kind of changes that other teams consider an obvious necessity?

I believe I have the correct answer.

 

[Direwolf63]

When the team gives the fans a reason to cheer they are loud enough.

So many times they come out of the locker room at home and seem disinterested and lethargic. They get off to terrible starts and spend the rest of the game trying to catch up. Meanwhile their opponents dictate the play. That feeds into the seeming disinterest of the fans.

Other times they get big leads then decide the game is over at halftime and go through the motions as the other teams roar back. Home games against the Packers and Lions come immediately to mind.

If the team wants crowd support for the entire game they need to play 60 minutes like they care. Watch the Seahawks and Packers play at home. They don't win all their games, but they never look disinterested or like they wish they were somewhere else. You see that in the play of the Cowboys at home all the time.

 

[Prime21]

The Cowboys mitigate the home crowd.

JerryWorld is a tourist attraction and we get a lot of away fans. Texas also has a laid back culture that is just not as loud.

On the road, Cowboys fans are always well represented. We do not travel well, we are just everywhere. This quiets the home crowd. Against some weaker home crowds like the 49ers, we take over.

Hopefully our home crowd gets better.

 

[Richmond Cowboy]

Ok here's my controversial question...

Would you favor the Cowboys move to a different city that has been yearning for an NFL team? A city with a hungry fanbase ready to assume the role of the 12th man? Let's assume they kept the name and uniform but moved say to St.Louis or Portland. Unless you live in Dallas, would you really care? For the vast majority of Cowboys fans that live outside the Dallas Metroplex, I assume we root for the team and uniform and not for "Dallas" per se. So if moving the team would improve the results, would you be for it?

 

[Future]

The road favorite record isn't really what stands out The remarkable stat is their better than 50% record as a road underdog, and to the point made in the OP, that it's almost as high a percentage as their record as a favorite at home.

Idk, being a 3-point underdog to a sub-.500 team is pretty meaningless when you're also a sub-.500 team.

For instance, we were probably underdogs against both WAS and MIA in 2014, but those teams were both terrible also lol.

maybe later in the year but i wouldn't imagine a rookie rb and qb to be favored a lot on the road early in the season.

Good point - but until Pitt on November 13, Week 10, they'd only played WAS, SF, CLE and GB on the road. They only would've been underdogs in two of those games, at most.

 

[John813]

Here is the complete list since 2009:


10 CLE 16.67%

32 DAL -6.94%

A team that has gone 1-31 the past two years is higher than us.
10th place. Seems hard to picture.

 

[CPanther95]

Idk, being a 3-point underdog to a sub-.500 team is pretty meaningless when you're also a sub-.500 team.

For instance, we were probably underdogs against both WAS and MIA in 2014, but those teams were both terrible also lol.

We can cherry pick games, but we're looking at 4 seasons worth of games - and an underdog is an underdog.

If you're determined to be critical, focus on why they're just above 500 when they are favored at home.