New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1343rd
  Defense+0.279th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense40.0%23rd
  Defense52.8%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2880th
  Defense+1.0296th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0633rd
  Defense+0.312nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2150th
  Defense+0.2340th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%33rd
  Defense58.9%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.8%14th
  Defense34.9%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6022nd
  Defense3.731st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.2%31st
  Defense13.4%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.7%14th
  Defense1.9%47th

Percentiles among the 128 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2014

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what New Mexico State allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   CP
2. W
   GAST
3. L
   UTEP
4. L
   UNM
5. L
   LSU
6. L
   GASO
7. L
   TROY
8. L
   IDHO
9. L
   TXST
10. L
    UL
11. L
    ULM
12. L
    ARST

Bars above the line: better than expected for New Mexico State.

Players, 2014

1. Tyler RogersQB292 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 77th of 199 QBs
   1.34WAR0.95 to 1.87
2. Larry Rose IIIRB132 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 46th of 350 RBs
   0.36WAR0.22 to 0.50
3. Teldrick MorganWR63 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 75th of 469 WRs
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.30
4. Xavier HallRB73 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 223rd of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
5. Joshua BowenWR35 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 307th of 469 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
6. Gregory HoganWR28 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 307th of 469 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
7. Andrew AllenWR6 plays · +0.010 pts/play · 453rd of 469 WRs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares New Mexico State's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than New Mexico State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.11 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs CPQ3 0:53 4th & 1 at NMSU 40, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs GASOQ3 11:37 4th & 1 at NMSU 34, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs ULQ2 6:44 4th & 1 at NMSU 46, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs UNMQ2 1:05 4th & 10 at UNM 33, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs GASOQ2 10:52 4th & 9 at GASO 29, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at ARSTQ3 11:58 4th & 16 at ARST 33, down 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs GASOQ4 8:12 4th & 6 at GASO 13, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at TROYQ2 12:35 4th & 3 at midfield, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

109th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up New Mexico State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   CP
2. W

   GAST
3. L

   UTEP
4. L

   UNM
5. L

   LSU
6. L

   GASO
7. L

   TROY
8. L

   IDHO
9. L

   TXST
10. L

    UL
11. L

    ULM
12. L

    ARST

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at New Mexico State's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−2.06
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.94

Game by game

• CPW 28-10 vs CP37% → 98%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +47, Clock +1
• UTEPL 24-42 at UTEP23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −28, Clock +1
• UNML 35-38 vs UNM40% → 22%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• LSUL 7-63 at LSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• GASOL 28-36 vs GASO14% → 3%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −24, Clock −2
• TROYL 24-41 at TROY34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• IDHOL 17-29 at IDHO38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• TXSTL 29-37 vs TXST23% → 6%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• ULL 16-44 vs UL13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• ULML 17-30 vs ULM30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• ARSTL 35-68 at ARST7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10

Points of win probability, from New Mexico State's side.

Closest call

USA 17-22 NMSU (2017) - New Mexico State dropped to a 3.5% win probability before pulling it out.