New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0740th
  Defense+0.0462nd
• 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.
  Offense41.7%37th
  Defense41.3%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2678th
  Defense+1.2147th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0964th
  Defense+0.0165th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0829th
  Defense+0.0963rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%23rd
  Defense46.4%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.6%78th
  Defense30.9%69th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9662nd
  Defense2.7762nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%59th
  Defense22.0%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.4%21st
  Defense18.0%71st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   ASU
2. W
   UNM
3. L
   TROY
4. W
   UTEP
5. L
   ARK
6. L
   APP
7. W
   GASO
8. L
   ARST
9. W
   TXST
10. L
    UL
11. W
    IDHO
12. W
    USA
13. W
    USU

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

Players, 2017

1. Tyler RogersQB563 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 41st of 226 QBs
   1.53WAR0.60 to 2.43
2. Larry Rose IIIRB207 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 74th of 352 RBs
   0.36WAR0.21 to 0.48
3. Jaleel ScottWR86 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 19th of 426 WRs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.33
4. Jason HuntleyRB101 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 199th of 352 RBs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.22
5. Dylan BrownPK14 plays · +0.445 pts/play · 45th of 110 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
6. Anthony MuseWR36 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 156th of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.09 to 0.14
7. Johnathan BooneWR41 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 226th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. OJ ClarkWR59 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 242nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  233233125th of 130Roster talent: 233, 125th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9191125th of 130Recruiting: 91, 125th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  77%77%28th of 128Returning production: 77%, 28th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.4−9.499th of 128SP+ rating: −9.4, 99th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.24 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 14:19 4th & 2 at UL 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. at USUQ4 6:45 4th & 6 at USU 21, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.5 pts
3. at USUQ3 12:24 4th & 1 at NMSU 13, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs TROYQ4 8:11 4th & 4 at NMSU 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. vs IDHOQ4 12:29 4th & 3 at IDHO 6, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. at APPQ4 5:45 4th & 6 at APP 26, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
7. at UNMQ3 15:00 4th & 4 at UNM 43, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs TROYQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at NMSU 34, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

45th of 130 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

   ASU
2. W

   UNM
3. L

   TROY
4. W

   UTEP
5. L

   ARK
6. L

   APP
7. W

   GASO
8. L

   ARST
9. W

   TXST
10. L

    UL
11. W

    IDHO
12. W

    USA
13. W

    USU

What moved it, 2017

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−0.45
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.22

Game by game

• ASUL 31-37 at ASU6% → 19%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +13: Scoreboard −10, Possession & field position +1
• UNMW 30-28 at UNM34% → 93%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• TROYL 24-27 vs TROY24% → 7%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• UTEPW 41-14 vs UTEP90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +12
• ARKL 24-42 at ARK12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16
• APPL 31-45 at APP19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• GASOW 35-27 at GASO71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• ARSTL 21-37 vs ARST41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −48, Clock −1
• TXSTW 45-35 at TXST76% → 96%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• ULL 34-47 at UL68% → 1%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −2
• IDHOW 17-10 vs IDHO77% → 93%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position +1
• USAW 22-17 vs USA80% → 4%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• USUW 26-20 at USU61% → 90%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +16

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.