New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0837th
  Defense+0.267th
• 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.
  Offense37.3%12th
  Defense48.5%8th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.5099th
  Defense+1.3115th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1991st
  Defense+0.234th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0116th
  Defense+0.329th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.9%13th
  Defense51.8%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.4%13th
  Defense40.2%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9362nd
  Defense3.0821st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.2%30th
  Defense14.7%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.3%28th
  Defense1.6%25th

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, 2015

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

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

Players, 2015

1. Tyler RogersQB126 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 129th of 205 QBs
   0.57WAR0.39 to 0.80
2. Larry Rose IIIRB191 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 18th of 333 RBs
   0.51WAR0.31 to 0.72
3. Nick JeantyQB72 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 162nd of 205 QBs
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.39
4. Teldrick MorganWR52 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 115th of 411 WRs
   0.16WAR0.07 to 0.25
5. Tyrain TaylorWR40 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 153rd of 411 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Gregory HoganWR32 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 284th of 411 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
7. Joshua BowenWR14 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 366th of 411 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Xavier HallRB18 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 254th of 333 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  251251126th of 128Roster talent: 251, 126th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8787126th of 128Recruiting: 87, 126th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%35th of 127Returning production: 78%, 35th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.6−18.6122nd of 128SP+ rating: −18.6, 122nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.23 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. at ULQ4 1:29 4th & 2 at UL 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−8.8 pts
2. vs GASTQ3 4:58 4th & 1 at NMSU 46, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. at ULMQ4 10:34 4th & 5 at ULM 15, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.6 pts
4. at UNMQ4 6:02 4th & 14 at NMSU 45, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
5. vs UTEPQ4 2:13 4th & 1 at NMSU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at ULMQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at NMSU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at TXSTQ4 1:06 4th & 1 at TXST 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at TXSTQ3 4:09 4th & 3 at NMSU 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

70th 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.

1. L

   FLA
2. L

   GAST
3. L

   UTEP
4. L

   UNM
5. L

   MISS
6. L

   GASO
7. L

   TROY
8. W

   IDHO
9. W

   TXST
10. W

    UL
11. L

    ARST
12. L

    ULM

What moved it, 2015

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−0.85
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.31
• Timeouts−0.40
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.88

Game by game

• FLAL 13-61 at FLA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• GASTL 32-34 vs GAST57% → 8%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• UTEPL 47-50 vs UTEP47% → 12%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −18
• UNML 29-38 at UNM17% → 4%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −22
• MISSL 3-52 at MISS1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• GASOL 26-56 at GASO5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• TROYL 7-52 vs TROY39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• IDHOW 55-48 vs IDHO46% → 84%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −21
• TXSTW 31-21 at TXST18% → 96%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• ULW 37-34 at UL16% → 90%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• ARSTL 28-52 vs ARST12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• ULML 35-42 at ULM46% → 5%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2

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.