How Nebraska Would Have Done Elsewhere

[blessed2bahusker]

So, if I had to rank the teams in the ACC (including Nebraska): they would be ranked as such:

 

13. Maryland

12. Virginia

11. Virginia Tech

10. NC State

9. Boston College

8. Wake Forest

7. Duke

6. Miami

5. Georgia Tech

4. Nebraska

3. North Carolina

2. Clemson

1. Florida State

 

Remember that there is a distinct gap between teams 1-5 and teams 6-13, but not a gap at all between teams 6-13 and a small gap between teams 1-3 and teams 4 & 5

I'd put Nebraska over UNC.

 

Yeah, and the stats claim that that argument can be made. Heck, you could put Nebraska over Clemson and Florida State, and have it not be totally weird either. Against Nebraska, UNC would probably have more success running the ball against us than normal while we would have less success running the ball against them as we normally do.

 

One thing is certain, a game between Nebraska and UNC, Clemson, or Florida State last year would've been a fun one to watch.

 

Not trying to flame here BB Big XII because I appreciate this work and think it is very interesting. I have a genuine question about the validity however. Does any of this statistical analysis take into account strength of schedule or offensive and defensive rankings? Could it, or is that just far too complex? I am just a novice when it comes to statistical analysis, so forgive the question. For example would this type of analysis place us third or fourth in say the WAC or Mountain West?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

So, if I had to rank the teams in the ACC (including Nebraska): they would be ranked as such:

 

13. Maryland

12. Virginia

11. Virginia Tech

10. NC State

9. Boston College

8. Wake Forest

7. Duke

6. Miami

5. Georgia Tech

4. Nebraska

3. North Carolina

2. Clemson

1. Florida State

 

Remember that there is a distinct gap between teams 1-5 and teams 6-13, but not a gap at all between teams 6-13 and a small gap between teams 1-3 and teams 4 & 5

I'd put Nebraska over UNC.

 

Yeah, and the stats claim that that argument can be made. Heck, you could put Nebraska over Clemson and Florida State, and have it not be totally weird either. Against Nebraska, UNC would probably have more success running the ball against us than normal while we would have less success running the ball against them as we normally do.

 

One thing is certain, a game between Nebraska and UNC, Clemson, or Florida State last year would've been a fun one to watch.

 

Not trying to flame here BB Big XII because I appreciate this work and think it is very interesting. I have a genuine question about the validity however. Does any of this statistical analysis take into account strength of schedule or offensive and defensive rankings? Could it, or is that just far too complex? I am just a novice when it comes to statistical analysis, so forgive the question. For example would this type of analysis place us third or fourth in say the WAC or Mountain West?

 

No worries, it's a great question to ask. Every time research is conducted questions like these have to be asked, and the external, internal, measurement, and statistical conclusion validity must be constantly checked.

 

I'll run an analysis with the WAC and really briefly summarize the findings.

 

Here's the answer to your question, in graph form:

 

 

 

This graph depicts the standardized amount of wins expected for each team in the conference (including Nebraska). As you can see, Nebraska was placed in a cluster all of it's own, and that cluster had the highest amount of wins, by a significant amount. The following graphs depict the offensive and defensive differences between each cluster of teams.

 

 

 

This chart shows the offensive statistics. Nebraska is the bolded red line. It's easy to see why Nebraska would be the best offense: while they passed the ball fewer times, they executed with similar success to the next best cluster of teams. On top of that, Nebraska was far and away more successful running the ball.

 

 

This graph depicts the defensive statistics. As you can see, while Nebraska didn't statistically have the best defense, the Z SOS score is provides such a huge discrepancy that those statistics really can't be compared. Nebraska put up better offensive numbers compared to the next best cluster; with a harder SOS it would be assumed that Nebraska would put up even better numbers if it played a WAC schedule. While Nebraska put up statistically worse defensive statistics, it did so against a much harder schedule; so it would be assumed that, with a WAC schedule, Nebraska would've put up much better numbers.

 

 

So if I had to rank the teams in the WAC (including last year), it would be:

 

8. New Mexico State

7. Idaho

6. Texas State

5. Louisiana Tech

4. Texas-San Antonio

3. San Jose State

2. Utah State

1. Nebraska

[It'sNotAFakeID]

So, if I had to rank the teams in the ACC (including Nebraska): they would be ranked as such:

 

13. Maryland

12. Virginia

11. Virginia Tech

10. NC State

9. Boston College

8. Wake Forest

7. Duke

6. Miami

5. Georgia Tech

4. Nebraska

3. North Carolina

2. Clemson

1. Florida State

 

Remember that there is a distinct gap between teams 1-5 and teams 6-13, but not a gap at all between teams 6-13 and a small gap between teams 1-3 and teams 4 & 5

I'd put Nebraska over UNC.

 

Yeah, and the stats claim that that argument can be made. Heck, you could put Nebraska over Clemson and Florida State, and have it not be totally weird either. Against Nebraska, UNC would probably have more success running the ball against us than normal while we would have less success running the ball against them as we normally do.

 

One thing is certain, a game between Nebraska and UNC, Clemson, or Florida State last year would've been a fun one to watch.

Is this in regards of last year? Because I can see your point on running the ball w/UNC last year w/Gio Bernard, but he's gone now.

 

I think FSU would be better off to beat the Huskers because of their solid defense, but a Clemson - Neb game would be a back and forth, high scoring affair, and one that I think would go to the home team ultimately. I do not want this to happen.

 

Yeah, since I have the data, I'm only making a prediction with regards to last year. Not an attempt at forecasting future results. That will occur later this year.

[blessed2bahusker]

So, if I had to rank the teams in the ACC (including Nebraska): they would be ranked as such:

 

13. Maryland

12. Virginia

11. Virginia Tech

10. NC State

9. Boston College

8. Wake Forest

7. Duke

6. Miami

5. Georgia Tech

4. Nebraska

3. North Carolina

2. Clemson

1. Florida State

 

Remember that there is a distinct gap between teams 1-5 and teams 6-13, but not a gap at all between teams 6-13 and a small gap between teams 1-3 and teams 4 & 5

I'd put Nebraska over UNC.

 

Yeah, and the stats claim that that argument can be made. Heck, you could put Nebraska over Clemson and Florida State, and have it not be totally weird either. Against Nebraska, UNC would probably have more success running the ball against us than normal while we would have less success running the ball against them as we normally do.

 

One thing is certain, a game between Nebraska and UNC, Clemson, or Florida State last year would've been a fun one to watch.

 

Not trying to flame here BB Big XII because I appreciate this work and think it is very interesting. I have a genuine question about the validity however. Does any of this statistical analysis take into account strength of schedule or offensive and defensive rankings? Could it, or is that just far too complex? I am just a novice when it comes to statistical analysis, so forgive the question. For example would this type of analysis place us third or fourth in say the WAC or Mountain West?

 

No worries, it's a great question to ask. Every time research is conducted questions like these have to be asked, and the external, internal, measurement, and statistical conclusion validity must be constantly checked.

 

I'll run an analysis with the WAC and really briefly summarize the findings.

 

Here's the answer to your question, in graph form:

 

 

 

This graph depicts the standardized amount of wins expected for each team in the conference (including Nebraska). As you can see, Nebraska was placed in a cluster all of it's own, and that cluster had the highest amount of wins, by a significant amount. The following graphs depict the offensive and defensive differences between each cluster of teams.

 

 

 

This chart shows the offensive statistics. Nebraska is the bolded red line. It's easy to see why Nebraska would be the best offense: while they passed the ball fewer times, they executed with similar success to the next best cluster of teams. On top of that, Nebraska was far and away more successful running the ball.

 

 

This graph depicts the defensive statistics. As you can see, while Nebraska didn't statistically have the best defense, the Z SOS score is provides such a huge discrepancy that those statistics really can't be compared. Nebraska put up better offensive numbers compared to the next best cluster; with a harder SOS it would be assumed that Nebraska would put up even better numbers if it played a WAC schedule. While Nebraska put up statistically worse defensive statistics, it did so against a much harder schedule; so it would be assumed that, with a WAC schedule, Nebraska would've put up much better numbers.

 

 

So if I had to rank the teams in the WAC (including last year), it would be:

 

8. New Mexico State

7. Idaho

6. Texas State

5. Louisiana Tech

4. Texas-San Antonio

3. San Jose State

2. Utah State

1. Nebraska

 

Awesome stuff! I appreciate the response. I will look forward to seeing the rest of your conference breakdowns. Again thanks for your hard work and sharing it.

[Whistlebritches]

So if I had to rank the teams in the WAC (including last year), it would be:

 

8. New Mexico State

7. Idaho

6. Texas State

5. Louisiana Tech

4. Texas-San Antonio

3. San Jose State

2. Utah State

1. Nebraska

 

 

We're #1! We're #1!

 

 

This is interesting stuff. Seriously.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Now for a conference we were members of up until the 2011-2012 season, the Big XII. As we all know, the Big XII featured some of the best passing offenses in the country, and while Nebraska had the best passing defense in the country in 2012-2013, there is a ton of speculation on the board of whether or not that defense would hold up against better passing teams.

 

Generalities About the Big XII

 

Passing: Your typical Big XII passing attack attempted 34 passes per game while managing to complete 22 of those passes for 270 yards per game. In terms of execution, each completed pass netted them about 12 yards and they managed to convert 9.66% of those completions into touchdowns.

 

Rushing: A typical Big XII rushing attack managed to rush the ball 39 times a game for 186 yards per game, good for 4.72 yards per rush. In terms of execution, Big XII offenses converted 5.11% of their rush attempts to touchdowns.

 

Turnovers: Big XII offenses turned the ball over about 1.68 times per game.

 

Passing Defense: Not surprisingly, Big XII secondaries faced 34 pass attempts per game while only allowing 20 completions per game for 247 yards per game. In terms of execution, Big XII secondaries allowed 12.34 yards per completion and held opponents to convert 8.7% of their completions into touchdowns.

 

Rushing Defense: The front seven of Big XII defenses faced 38 rush attempts per game while allowing 167 yards per game, good for 4.31 yards per carry. In terms of execution, Big XII defenses allowed their opponents to convert 4.38% of their rush attempts into touchdowns.

 

Turnovers Forced: Big XII defenses forced about 1.72 turnovers per game.

 

Strength of Schedule: The average strength of schedule faced by Big XII defenses was about 5.02. As a reference, the highest SOS rating was in the 8.5 range.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Going to change up how I present this information, moving to a more graphical representation instead of a written explanation. That being said here are the clusters and how they compare in terms of passing offense/defense, rushing offense/defense, turnovers committed/forced, and strength of schedule. At the end of this post the standardized wins chart will be posted and the teams will be ranked.

 

 

West Virginia and Texas Tech had the best "volume passing" offenses, attempting the most passes (and likewise completing the most passes) while also passing for the most yards in the conference. They were teams who plugged their way down the field, and ultimately ended their touchdown possessions via the air instead of the ground.

 

Oklahoma State and Baylor had the most efficient passing offense, having the highest yards per completion and converting the highest percentage of their completions into touchdowns despite attempting and completing fewer passes than West Virginia and Texas Tech.

 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas featured passing offenses that weren't either good or bad; they were decidedly average, and were well below average at converting completed passes into touchdowns.

 

Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU weren't really passing teams, but were efficient when they decided to pass.

 

 

 

West Virginia and Texas Tech were gunslinging offenses, so it is not surprising that they were well below average in rush attempts and rush yards.

 

Oklahoma State and Baylor, despite being passing offenses, also loved to run the ball--which suggested that they were the type of team who ran up tempo offenses in order to get a lot of plays in per game. On top of that, they were really good at running the ball, as they were best in the conference at running the ball.

 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas were more balanced offenses (passing less than average, running more than average) that were better running the ball than they were passing the ball.

 

Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU, as the graph shows just weren't offensive teams as they were both below average in passing offense and below average in rushing offense.

 

 

The Best Offenses in the Big XII (including Nebraska) in 2012 belonged to Baylor and Oklahoma State

 

 

 

 

West Virginia and Texas Tech didn't surrender a lot of completions, but when they did, they were burned, allowing a significantly below average yards per completion and completions to touchdowns %.

 

Oklahoma State and Baylor saw a lot of teams complete passes against them, but they didn't allow those completions to do damage to them.

 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas had stellar passing defenses, allowing the fewest completions and passing yards. When they did give up a completed pass, they didn't allow it to do a lot of damage.

 

Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU allowed teams to complete passes, but were lights out in preventing opposing teams from scoring on them through the air.

 

 

 

West Virginia and Texas Tech, although they faced an above average amount of rushes from opposing teams, were slightly better than average at holding those opposing rushers to a low amount of yards.

 

Oklahoma State and Baylor, despite facing an average amount of rushing attempts, gave up a slightly above average amount of rushing yards and yards per carry. However, they failed at preventing teams from scoring on the ground.

 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas had decidedly below average run defenses and it was clear to opposing teams which way was the best to score against these defenses.

 

Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU had lights out run defenses.

 

The best defenses in the Big XII (including Nebraska) in 2012 belonged to Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU.

 

 

West Virginia and Texas Tech didn't turn the ball over much, but couldn't force opposing teams to turn the ball over either. Overall, they committed more turnovers than they forced.

 

Oklahoma State and Baylor turned the ball over the most, but they also forced opposing teams to turn the ball over at an equal rate.

 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas turned the ball over just about as much as Oklahoma State and Baylor, but because their defenses struggled at forcing opposing teams to turn the ball over, they committed a lot more turnovers than they forced.

 

Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU had their turnovers, but were so good at forcing turnovers that they gave their offenses a lot of chances to score, which was good because their offenses weren't that great.

 

The most opportunistic teams in the Big XII (including Nebraska) in 2012 were Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU.

 

 

West Virginia and Texas Tech faced the easiest schedules, followed by Oklahoma State and Baylor, then Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU; Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas faced the toughest schedules in the conference.

 

So how did these stats translate to deciding who the best teams in the conference were in 2012. The chart below gives the answer.

 

 

West Virginia and Texas Tech were the worst teams in the Big XII last year, followed by Oklahoma State and Baylor, then Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU.

 

The best teams in the Big XII (including Nebraska) in 2012 were Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas

 

Now wait, how come Kansas State, the team who won the Big XII last year, didn't fall into the best teams category? It's not because they weren't, it's because with the stats they gave up, they shouldn't have been. There offense was bad, it couldn't generate scores that a defense of their caliber needs in order to win football games. Despite forcing more turnovers than they committed, if the ball wasn't turned over close to scoring position or returned for touchdowns themselves, the offense struggled making teams pay for their mistakes.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Based on these results, match-ups between these teams should've gone:

 

Oklahoma & Texas vs. Oklahoma State and Baylor: Even mix between close and not close games with Oklahoma and Texas winning more games than they lose.

 

Actual:

Oklahoma 42 Baylor 34,

Oklahoma 51 Oklahoma State 48,

Texas 41 Oklahoma State 36,

Texas 56 Baylor 50.

 

Oklahoma & Texas vs. Kansas State, Iowas State and Baylor: More close than not close games with Oklahoma and Texas winning slightly more games than they lose.

 

Actual:

Texas 33 Iowa State 7,

Texas 13 TCU 20,

Texas 24 Kansas State 42,

Oklahoma 19 Kansas State 24,

Oklahoma 35 Iowa State 20,

Oklahoma 24 TCU 17

 

Oklahoma & Texas vs. West Virginia and Texas Tech: More not close than close games with Oklahoma and Texas winning more games than they lose.

 

Actual:

Oklahoma 41 Texas Tech 20,

Oklahoma 50 West Virginia 49,

Texas 45 West Virginia 48,

Texas 31 Texas Tech 22.

 

Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU vs. Oklahoma State & Baylor: Close games with KSU, ISU, and TCU winning slightly more games than they lose.

 

Actual:

Kansas State 44 Oklahoma State 30,

Kansas State 24 Baylor 52,

Iowa State 10, Oklahoma State 31,

Iowa State 35 Baylor 21, TCU 49 Baylor 21,

TCU 14 Oklahoma State 36

 

Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU vs West Virginia & Texas Tech: Even mix between close and not close games with KSU, ISU, and TCU winning more than they lose.

 

Actual:

TCU 39 West Virginia 38,

TCU 53 Texas Tech 56,

Iowa State 13 Texas Tech 24,

Iowa State 24 West Virginia 31,

Kansas State 55 West Virginia 14,

Kansas State 55 Texas Tech 24

 

Oklahoma State & Baylor vs. West Virginia & Texas Tech: Close games with OkSt and BU winning slightly more than they lose.

 

Actual:

Oklahoma State 55 West Virginia 34,

Oklahoma State 59 Texas Tech 21,

Baylor 63 West Virginia 70,

Baylor 52 Texas Tech 45.

 

 

Now the fun games; the games which featured teams of similar styles:

 

Oklahoma 63 Texas 21

Kansas State 27 Iowa State 21

Kansas State 23 TCU 10

Iowa State 37 TCU 23

Baylor 41 Oklahoma State 34

Texas Tech 49 West Virginia 14

 

 

 

So this does a pretty good job at predicting which teams should beat which teams; but those style v style match-ups are a crapshoot. Hopefully these results carry over into next season.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Based on this, here is how teams should've finished in 2012 and where Nebraska would have finished. Also included is how teams did in comparison to how they should've done.

 

11. Kansas

10. Texas Tech

9. West Virginia

8. Baylor

7. Oklahoma State

6. Iowa State

5. TCU

4. Kansas State

3. Texas

2. Nebraska

1. Oklahoma

 

Big XII Overachievers: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Baylor

Big XII Underachievers: TCU and Iowa State

[HuskerNationNick]

I don't mean to be rude, but there is no way we beat KSU or Baylor. The other teams are a toss up, but Baylor had too much of an offense for our defense to stop. Same with KSU. Oklahoma, I believe we would have beat, and Texas, statistically we are better, but we struggled against them, even at their weakest point. IMO, we would be 3rd or 4th best there, because of our turnovers and lack of defense.

[ADS]

I don't mean to be rude, but there is no way we beat KSU or Baylor. The other teams are a toss up, but Baylor had too much of an offense for our defense to stop. Same with KSU. Oklahoma, I believe we would have beat, and Texas, statistically we are better, but we struggled against them, even at their weakest point. IMO, we would be 3rd or 4th best there, because of our turnovers and lack of defense.

 

I agree to an extent, but there is also zero chance either Baylor's or KSU's defenses stop our O last year imo. Been a Penn State or MSU kind of game.

[beanman]

I don't mean to be rude, but there is no way we beat KSU or Baylor. The other teams are a toss up, but Baylor had too much of an offense for our defense to stop. Same with KSU. Oklahoma, I believe we would have beat, and Texas, statistically we are better, but we struggled against them, even at their weakest point. IMO, we would be 3rd or 4th best there, because of our turnovers and lack of defense.

I thought the same thing about K-State prior to them getting pummeled a couple times at the end of the year. Even our undisciplined team probably would have beat them in hindsight. The only question mark for me would have been how many missed tackles would we have against Klein.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I don't mean to be rude, but there is no way we beat KSU or Baylor. The other teams are a toss up, but Baylor had too much of an offense for our defense to stop. Same with KSU. Oklahoma, I believe we would have beat, and Texas, statistically we are better, but we struggled against them, even at their weakest point. IMO, we would be 3rd or 4th best there, because of our turnovers and lack of defense.

 

The analysis doesn't make it an absolute certainty that we would beat KSU or Baylor every time we play them. It suggests that more times than not, in a game between Nebraska and Kansas State or Baylor, Nebraska would come away victorious more times than they would lose.

 

I'm betting we would've had an Oklahoma-Kansas State type game against the Wildcats, a game that could've gone either way. And we would've had a similar result to what Texas and Oklahoma had against Baylor, high scoring affairs, but wins nonetheless.

[tschu]

Number 2 is close and a little surprising, I'd probably put us at #3. KSU definitely performed above their EV on the season and the rest of the conference was really meh. I mean the chances of KSU running as hot as they did on turnovers, with all the variance that comes with turnovers, has got to be extremely low. I think they lose that OU game much more often than they win it; they came up on the winning side of that crapshoot in Norman that night. I think they eye test probably has KSU above Nebraska, but only barely - from simply a pure power ranking standpoint, not based on actual game results. I would think that KSU would be maybe a 2 or 3 point favorite over last year's NU team on a neutral field, but no more than that. (Oregon -8 or whatever it was in the bowl game was the freest money of all time too BTW)

 

As for the rest of the conference, lots of bowl eligible teams but only 2 that made any sort of real noise whatsoever.

[HuskerShark]

Statistics in the end don't mean near as much as people play them up to mean. Especially in the world of college football, where there is sooooo much parity among teams top to middle. Chances are, we would have fared much better because we would not have had to endure a shift in recruiting philosophy in terms of the types of players we recruited on the defensive side of the ball. We could have continued to march 6 or 7 DBs onto the field and been just fine. In the B1G, that's not true at all. Success in our new conference starts at the line of scrimmage, which is why we've seen such huge struggles from our defense in the first 2 years of the switch. This definitely gets underplayed a lot more than it should. There's no way of truly knowing how we would have fared in the Big 12.

 

Which is why they play the game.