How Nebraska Would Have Done Elsewhere

[It'sNotAFakeID]

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.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Getting Better

 

There is a big step up between the teams in the last level and teams in this level, but they still lag behind teams in the next tier. Teams in this cluster hung just under .500, going an average 3-5 in conference play.

 

Offensively: These teams were the gunslingers in the SEC and they had success throwing it around against the defenses, ranking 1st in pass attempts, pass completions, and passing yards. But they had trouble converting those completions into meaningful points ranking 2nd in yards per completion and completions to touchdowns. These guys didn't run the ball very much, but had success when they did ranking last in rush attempts but 1st in yards per carry and rushes to touchdowns. However, they had problems holding onto the ball coming in 1st in turnovers.

 

Defensively: These teams did not have very good secondaries and opposing teams were aware of it, as they faced the most pass attempts and gave up the most completions, passing yards, yards per completion, and completions to touchdowns. These teams were a mixed bag of sorts, giving up the 2nd fewest rushing yards, but 3rd fewest yards per carry and surrendered the 2nd highest rushes to touchdowns. Teams were more at home just throwing the ball because they could have more success than they could running it. However, when they ran, they didn't run into much trouble. These teams also couldn't force turnovers coming in last in forced turnovers.

 

Strength of Schedule: And there is really no reason for their struggles either; while they had a tougher than average schedule, they had the 3rd easiest schedules in the conference. Yet, they struggled, much to the dismay of their fans.

 

Who Are They?

 

A team in this list will come as a surprise to all of us, because it was surprising to me. But the teams who belong in this cluster are Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas A&M.

 

A&M is a very strange one as they managed a shocking 6-2 record in a conference that was just supposed to be too tough for them. Perhaps they would've been down to that 3 win average had they had a run-of-the-mill quarterback. But that wasn't the case. There was a reason Manziel won the Heisman. I believe he is single-handedly responsible for A&M going 6-2 (with a victory @Alabama) instead of 3-5.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Nearly There But Not Quite

 

We're one cluster away from the cream of the crop of the SEC, and Nebraska still hasn't found itself on the list. Teams making this tier managed to go an average of 5-3 in the SEC.

 

Offensively: Teams belonging in this category didn't sling the ball around very much, but made each of their passes count. They ranked 3rd in pass attempts, 2nd in completions and pass yards, but 1st in yards per completion and completions to touchdowns. These teams were more at home running the ball racking up the 2nd most rushing yards but couldn't make a lot of those runs count ranking 3rd in both yards per rush and rushes to touchdowns. It was a struggle for these teams to hold on to the football, but not in comparison to other teams in the conference.

 

Defensively: The secondaries on these teams were lights out, and opposing teams respected that. They faced the fewest amounts of passes and surrendered the fewest amount of completions. However, some of the completed passes sometimes resulted in big plays, as these teams gave up the 2nd most yards per completion. Around the end zone, these teams surrendered very few touchdowns through the air coming in 2nd in completions to touchdowns allowed. The run defense wasn't a big problem, but it was annoying to these teams as they gave up the 3rd most yards on the ground and were 2nd in yards per rush allowed. When the ball got to the end zone, theses teams didn't allow very many touchdowns through via the running game. Forcing turnovers also wasn't a problem for these teams as they forced the 2nd most amount of turnovers.

 

Strength of Schedule: A reason for the success of these teams? How about a weak schedule? Teams in this cluster had the easiest schedules in the conference.

 

Who Are They? Nebraska makes an appearance in this group of teams, and this is the biggest cluster. Teams who fit this category are: Nebraska, Georgia, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The Cream of the Crop

 

So only three teams remain, and if you know your conferences, you know which teams haven't been mentioned. For these teams, a very simple analysis is all that needs to be done, because they are the best for a reason. But what is that reason?

 

These teams weren't passing teams, but they had marginal success when they did throw it. It was the ground game where these teams won games. Furthermore, these teams did not make errors, turning the ball over a significantly fewer amount of times than even the teams in the second tier. Defensively, there was no success passing and there was no success running the ball. Opposing offenses came in with high hopes and walked out with those hopes dashed. These defenses just forced so many mistakes from their opponents.

 

It's even more impressive when you consider they did this facing the second toughest schedules in the conference.

 

Who Are They?

 

Like I said, if you know your conferences, you know which teams remain. But these elite teams in the best conference in the nation are LSU, Florida, and Alabama

[NUance]

Nice way to look at it. But I think I'd swap out aTm for Vandy (or maybe Ole Miss). Other than that, nice! :

[It'sNotAFakeID]

So if I had to rank the teams in the SEC (Nebraska included), I would rank them:

 

14. Auburn

13. Kentucky

12. Missouri

11. Arkansas

10. Tennessee

9. Vanderbilt

8. Mississippi State

7. Nebraska

6. Ole Miss

5. South Carolina

4. Georgia

3. LSU

2. Florida

1. Alabama

 

 

Statistically, Alabama was the best team when compared to LSU and Florida--other teams who made the elite tier. Where Nebraska stands in comparison to the rest of the teams in its tier is a little sobering.

 

I've purposely left aTm from this ranking. With where they ended up on the tier totem pole, and with how they actually performed; there is too much of a discrepancy for me to feel comfortable ranking them that low.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Nice way to look at it. But I think I'd swap out aTm for Vandy (or maybe Ole Miss). Other than that, nice! :

 

I just rolled with what the stats told me. Believe me, where aTm wound up surprised me, too.

[PaulCrewe]

Deep sh#t here buddy. Nice work. I can't wait for what kind of dumpster fire this thread may become after your good analysis.

 

PS remember you don't have to eat off the kiddie menu anymore. You're 15now.

[Count 'Bility]

Deep sh#t here buddy. Nice work. I can't wait for what kind of dumpster fire this thread may become after your good analysis.

 

PS remember you don't have to eat off the kiddie menu anymore. You're 15now.

Back off. I knew he was a genius the first time I saw him and he put a Hedley nametag on.

[NebraskaHarry]

So if I had to rank the teams in the SEC (Nebraska included), I would rank them:

 

14. Auburn

13. Kentucky

12. Missouri

11. Arkansas

10. Tennessee

9. Vanderbilt

8. Mississippi State

7. Nebraska

6. Ole Miss

5. South Carolina

4. Georgia

3. LSU

2. Florida

1. Alabama

 

 

Statistically, Alabama was the best team when compared to LSU and Florida--other teams who made the elite tier. Where Nebraska stands in comparison to the rest of the teams in its tier is a little sobering.

 

I've purposely left aTm from this ranking. With where they ended up on the tier totem pole, and with how they actually performed; there is too much of a discrepancy for me to feel comfortable ranking them that low.

So we'd be 8th, right?

 

I know you left them out, but really if you included them A&M was the better team last year.

[tschu]

Oh man, +1s for Bye Bye all around. So far it passes the eye test perfectly, 7th seems about right.

 

It's weird how low Texas A&M ended up. Especially how in 2011, they were like top-8 in Sagarin predictor with a .500 record (good losses plus poor variance) Exact opposite here

[Husker from Kansas]

I think we would be above ole miss, but other than that, sounds pretty good to me

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Deep sh#t here buddy. Nice work. I can't wait for what kind of dumpster fire this thread may become after your good analysis.

 

PS remember you don't have to eat off the kiddie menu anymore. You're 15now.

 

Wait until I put a similar result with the ACC

 

:steam :steam

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I think we would be above ole miss, but other than that, sounds pretty good to me

 

Statistically, a game between Nebraska and Ole Miss is a toss-up. That sucks to say that, because Ole Miss has been down for...ever, but the way the games were played last year, it would be a toss up. It was also very unexpected that we stuck with Georgia for as long as we did.

[huskeraddict]

You didn't need to do a bunch of statistics to tell me that Missouri sucks. I already knew that.