Statistical Review: Nebraska #20

Nebraska. I'll take a blind shot in the dark. Offensively, I'd guess they were explosive, efficient when running, less efficient when throwing. They turned the ball over way too often. On defense, strong against the pass, but generally inconsistent.

How I'd do?

I could spend this time discussing the nitty gritty details that defined the 2012 variant of the Nebraska Cornhuskers, but instead I'm going to do that with a single narrative. Nebraska played Wisconsin twice. In the first game they scored 30 points; in the second they scored 31. They won the first by 3 but lost the second by 39. Why? Nebraska allowed a .14 opponent-adjusted EPA/rush in game 1 and a -.24 in game 2. To put that in perspective, the performance in the first game was one of the best 150 all season; the performance in the second was outside the top 1,400 of 1,540. That's really, really bad.

Projection:
Turns out Taylor Martinez still has a year of eligibility. Not sure how he did it, but apparently he convinced the NCAA to grant him a full decade. Nebraska gave away 96 points in turnovers in 2012, so if they can improve there and avoid meltdowns, they could have a real nice season. If not, at least they have this to look back on.

-------------------- The Statistical Review breaks down teams along a number of performance categories, everything from red zone scoring to field goal percentage, and compares that performance against the rest of the FBS. All 124 teams will be reviewed from 124 to 1 by the hybrid rankings. You can find short descriptions of the stats used in the table below.