You ever felt the sensation of snorting a ice cream sandwich out your nose? I just did. 
116-91 (.560) looks to be about the same as in past years (random choice: 2001, .548).
Galatasaray’s Ali Sami Yen Stadium (aka Hell) in Istanbul Turkey has got to be up there. Though I agree with the OP that that the altitude of some of the Latin American stadiums probably make the most difference to the visiting team.
Actually I think that’s a myth. I couldn’t find anything definitive on the NCAA website, but seethis article.
Boise State’s Bronco Stadium wikipedia page says this:
It is there, but when you are 9-1 or 8-2 year after year the home and away difference is small.
I think he was looking at it more from a gambling/covering the spread viewpoint, meaning even when the home team wins they’re not winning by as much as Vegas thinks they should win by.
Without wading through all of the silly responses, I would think you have a winner. I doubt I could walk a block at 12,000 feet, let alone play a sport.
He’s probably right, which is why FIFA banned World Cup qualifying matches above a certain altitude. It’s something slightly above the elevation of Mexico city. I think it outlaws Ecuador’s favorite stadium though.
The last two World Cup qualifiers played between the US and Mexico were in 2005. They were played in Mexico City (Mexico won 2-1) and Columbus, OH (USA 2-0). The two countries played a pair of friendlies in 2007 in Glendale, AZ and Chicago and the USA won both matches. The 2001 World Cup qualifier between the USA and Mexico was in Columbus. In 1997, it was played in Foxboro.
You’re insulting the taste of urine!
That’s an interesting approach, but I don’t buy it. You do have to come up with something that weights out the “but they’d win anywhere” factor - but all that seems to do is pick out the teams that suck on the road and play in really weak conferences.
I mean, yes - I buy that Hawaii and Boise State would be high, for the uniqueness those stadiums present (distance and horribleness). I would probably give the edge to Oregon St - they’re apparently extremely loud and intimidating. It’s the lack of LSU, Florida, Michigan and Tennessee near the top that have me perplexed and doubting the method.
And the main problem with the Fresno States, the Akrons and the Wyomings is that they have bigger home/road splits because they can’t get the competition to come to them - they have to travel to make a name for themselves. Anyone honestly think that Pete Carroll is going to take his team out to play Bowling Green?
Or you could remove the randomness the same way they actually do it, by playing multi-game series. That’ll incoherently add the noise, but coherently add any non-random factors. So what I’m suggesting is that if you play a long enough series to get the same determinism as basketball, all in one team’s home turf, that you’d get a larger home field advantage than in basketball. Of course, this is precisely why they don’t play a full series all on one team’s turf, but the thought experiment is simple enough to perform, with the current teams.
Yeah. I’m not buying that we’d be willing to play a qualifier in San Diego if they’d move their game out of Azteca. That would be stupid. Too stupid even for the USSF.
In Soviet Russia, bags of urine throw fans at YOU.
I don’t really grasp why those numbers are relevant to each other. That baseball teams are closer to each other in winning percentage is interesting, but unless I’m missing part of your logic, it doesn’t have anything to do with home field advantage being more or less important. The collective winning percentage in a sport is always .500; the standard deviation from that can vary, but what does that have to do with home field advantage?