New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0522nd
  Defense+0.1435th
• 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.
  Offense40.6%22nd
  Defense45.5%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2570th
  Defense+1.2038th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1366th
  Defense+0.1427th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0210th
  Defense+0.1843rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%16th
  Defense48.9%41st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.7%48th
  Defense37.7%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2887th
  Defense3.0832nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.1%23rd
  Defense19.0%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.2%9th
  Defense15.2%31st

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, 2016

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
   UTEP
2. W
   UNM
3. L
   UK
4. L
   TROY
5. W
   UL
6. L
   IDHO
7. L
   GASO
8. L
   TA&M
9. L
   ARST
10. W
    TXST
11. L
    APP
12. L
    USA

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

Players, 2016

1. Tyler RogersQB337 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 90th of 218 QBs
   0.92WAR0.41 to 1.47
2. Larry Rose IIIRB118 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 111th of 347 RBs
   0.32WAR0.20 to 0.47
3. Xavier HallRB66 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 199th of 347 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
4. Conner CramerQB41 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 183rd of 218 QBs
   0.12WAR0.01 to 0.24
5. Gregory HoganWR41 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 241st of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14
6. Parker DavidsonPK13 plays · +0.350 pts/play · 70th of 116 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.12
7. OJ ClarkWR40 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 288th of 417 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
8. Nick JeantyQB5 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 214th of 218 QBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  268268125th of 128Roster talent: 268, 125th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9090126th of 128Recruiting: 90, 126th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%103rd of 128Returning production: 43%, 103rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.2−17.2123rd of 128SP+ rating: −17.2, 123rd 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, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.13 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 ULQ4 6:02 4th & 3 at UL 30, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at USAQ4 5:17 4th & 2 at NMSU 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at USAQ3 3:24 4th & 9 at NMSU 45, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
4. at UKQ2 4:38 4th & 1 at NMSU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs ULQ3 8:14 4th & 3 at NMSU 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at ARSTQ2 6:25 4th & 13 at ARST 30, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs ULQ4 10:31 4th & 4 at UL 16, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at UTEPQ1 6:53 4th & 1 at UTEP 1, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

39th 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. L

   UTEP
2. W

   UNM
3. L

   UK
4. L

   TROY
5. W

   UL
6. L

   IDHO
7. L

   GASO
8. L

   TA&M
9. L

   ARST
10. W

    TXST
11. L

    APP
12. L

    USA

What moved it, 2016

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−0.43
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.25
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.26

Game by game

• UTEPL 22-38 at UTEP35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• UNMW 32-31 vs UNM18% → 78%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +2
• UKL 42-62 at UK7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• TROYL 6-52 at TROY12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• ULW 37-31 vs UL28% → 83%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts −26
• GASOL 19-22 vs GASO14% → 11%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −25, Clock −2
• TA&ML 10-52 at TA&M1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• ARSTL 22-41 at ARST10% → 2%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −16
• TXSTW 50-10 vs TXST68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• APPL 7-37 vs APP12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• USAL 28-35 at USA19% → 4%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −23

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.