New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0113th
  Defense+0.1821st
• 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.
  Offense39.1%16th
  Defense46.3%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2669th
  Defense+1.1960th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0953rd
  Defense+0.1619th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.029th
  Defense+0.2326th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.0%17th
  Defense49.7%29th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.7%26th
  Defense38.8%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8136th
  Defense3.1614th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%16th
  Defense18.5%37th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.1%20th
  Defense13.6%10th

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, 2018

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
   WYO
2. L
   MINN
3. L
   USU
4. L
   UNM
5. W
   UTEP
6. W
   LIB
7. L
   UL
8. L
   GASO
9. L
   TXST
10. W
    ALCN
11. L
    BYU
12. L
    LIB

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

Players, 2018

1. Josh AdkinsQB331 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 83rd of 225 QBs
   0.98WAR0.52 to 1.52
2. Jason HuntleyRB125 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 174th of 351 RBs
   0.26WAR0.15 to 0.35
3. Christian GibsonRB62 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 177th of 351 RBs
   0.25WAR0.21 to 0.30
4. Matt RomeroQB109 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 176th of 225 QBs
   0.22WAR0.06 to 0.40
5. Johnathan BooneWR74 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 168th of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.01 to 0.21
6. Dylan BrownPK9 plays · +0.409 pts/play · 89th of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
7. Anthony MuseWR21 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 283rd of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Drew DanWR42 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 305th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.10

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  249249127th of 130Roster talent: 249, 127th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9797125th of 130Recruiting: 97, 125th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%113th of 129Returning production: 31%, 113th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.2−20.2123rd of 130SP+ rating: −20.2, 123rd of 130 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, 2018

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 0.03 of the 0.10 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 UTEPQ3 12:02 4th & 1 at NMSU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. at LIBQ3 7:14 4th & 3 at LIB 44, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at LIBQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at LIB 49, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at LIBQ2 9:59 4th & 1 at NMSU 31, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs GASOQ2 6:18 4th & 4 at GASO 5, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at TXSTQ3 12:07 4th & 8 at TXST 38, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at LIBQ4 12:35 4th & 5 at LIB 20, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at BYUQ2 8:24 4th & 1 at NMSU 17, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

106th 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

   WYO
2. L

   MINN
3. L

   USU
4. L

   UNM
5. W

   UTEP
6. W

   LIB
7. L

   UL
8. L

   GASO
9. L

   TXST
10. W

    ALCN
11. L

    BYU
12. L

    LIB

What moved it, 2018

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−1.40
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• WYOL 7-29 vs WYO34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• MINNL 10-48 at MINN7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• USUL 13-60 at USU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• UNML 25-42 vs UNM37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• UTEPW 27-20 at UTEP63% → 94%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• LIBW 49-41 vs LIB41% → 96%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• ULL 38-66 at UL26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −27
• GASOL 31-48 vs GASO22% → 2%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• TXSTL 20-27 at TXST52% → 2%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −43, Possession & field position +1
• ALCNW 52-42 vs ALCN84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• BYUL 10-45 at BYU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• LIBL 21-28 at LIB32% → 5%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, 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.