Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ACC'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Sports
    • Husker Football
    • Football Recruiting
    • Husker Volleyball
    • Husker Basketball
    • Husker Baseball
    • Other Husker Sports
    • The Big Ten
    • Other Sports
  • Other Stuff
    • Big Red Lounge: Official BS Forum
    • Politics & Religion
    • Tech Central - Computers, Games, Phones, A/V, etc.
    • Contest Crib
    • Board Feedback

Categories

  • Board Info
  • Husker Info
  • Season Archives
    • 2011
    • 2012

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


MSN


Website URL


Yahoo


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 1 result

  1. People on this board, when they look at our performances on the field ask the question, whether aloud or in their heads, "How would we do if we were in the SEC, the Big XII, the Pac 12, and to a much lesser extent, the ACC?" The answers to those questions, at least for the 2012 questions can be found here as I'll be looking at how Nebraska's performance in the 2012 season would have fared in the SEC, Pac 12, Big XII, and the ACC, the legitimate BCS conferences. How did I get here: Using a multitude of variables, I created a database with all of the data from Nebraska and from the SEC, Pac 12, Big XII, and ACC. In order to create a fair comparison, those stats were standardized as if they were measured using the same scale. Then, through the use of a cluster analysis, four distinct clusters were identified, and the means on those standardized values (as well as the unstandardized wins value) were compared. So all that being said, here's how Nebraska would have fared in the Southeastern Conference, the best conference in the nation. The Worst The season was a struggle for these teams in the SEC. They averaged just .67 conference wins and 7.33 conference losses. In comparison to the rest of the SEC, these teams: Offensively: These teams were 2nd in attempted passes but 3rd in completed passes. However, their completed passes did not go for many yards, as they came in last in pass yards, yards per completion, and completion to touchdown percentage. In the running game, these teams didn't run the ball very often, coming in 3rd in rush attempts. They also weren't very effective at running the ball, as these teams came in last in rushing yards, yards per carry, and attempts to touchdown conversion. In the turnover department, these teams had trouble holding onto the ball, having the 2nd most turnovers in the conference. Defensively: Opponents of these teams didn't attempt to pass the ball very much as these teams faced the 3rd fewest pass attempts. But teams found mixed success in the passing game ranking 2nd in completions, pass yards, and completions to touchdowns allowed, but 3rd in yards allowed per completion. The combination of these results suggest that opponents mostly ran the ball down the field, threw the occasional pass in the drive, then passed a lot in goal line situations against these teams. The reason opponents ran the ball so much against these teams is because these teams' run defenses were atrocious throughout the year. These teams faced the 2nd most rushing attempts, but allowed the most rush yards, rush yards per attempt, and rush to touchdown conversion. These guys also had problems forcing opposing teams to make mistakes, ranking 3rd in turnovers forced. Strength of Schedule: The wins column may be misleading for these teams, as they faced the toughest schedules in the entire conference. So either they just weren't good period, or they were good, but the teams they faced were just flat out better. Who Are They? Would you think Nebraska belongs to this group of teams? If you do, you'll have to guess again. The teams who belong to this cluster are: Auburn, Kentucky, and Missouri.
×
×
  • Create New...