New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0316th
  Defense+0.246th
• 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.
  Offense40.5%25th
  Defense48.8%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1526th
  Defense+1.1861st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0648th
  Defense+0.252nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0117th
  Defense+0.2428th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.5%56th
  Defense54.4%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.7%5th
  Defense35.8%25th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0874th
  Defense3.481st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.4%64th
  Defense15.2%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.3%15th
  Defense15.7%5th

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, 2019

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
   WSU
2. L
   ALA
3. L
   SDSU
4. L
   UNM
5. L
   FRES
6. L
   LIB
7. L
   CMU
8. L
   GASO
9. L
   MISS
10. W
    UIW
11. W
    UTEP
12. L
    LIB

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

Players, 2019

1. Josh AdkinsQB306 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 142nd of 228 QBs
   0.39WAR−0.08 to 0.90
2. Jason HuntleyRB113 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 108th of 349 RBs
   0.37WAR0.28 to 0.46
3. Christian GibsonRB59 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 197th of 349 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.24
4. Tony NicholsonWR45 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 210th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
5. Dylan BrownPK11 plays · +0.411 pts/play · 88th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
6. Izaiah LottieWR23 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 371st of 439 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
7. OJ ClarkWR47 plays · +0.017 pts/play · 428th of 439 WRs
   0.01WAR−0.04 to 0.07
8. Payton TheislerP38 plays · +0.012 pts/play · 92nd of 100 punters
   0.01WAR−0.04 to 0.06

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  270270127th of 130Roster talent: 270, 127th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  106106126th of 130Recruiting: 106, 126th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  70%70%46th of 130Returning production: 70%, 46th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −22.0−22.0123rd of 130SP+ rating: −22.0, 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, 2019

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 0.08 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 UIWQ2 9:35 4th & 1 at UIW 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs UTEPQ4 6:20 4th & 6 at UTEP 35, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs UIWQ2 7:21 4th & 13 at UIW 31, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs UTEPQ3 11:44 4th & 2 at NMSU 37, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs SDSUQ4 11:11 4th & 12 at SDSU 19, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs UIWQ3 4:46 4th & 3 at UIW 10, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at GASOQ2 13:54 4th & 13 at GASO 42, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs SDSUQ4 11:11 4th & 11 at SDSU 31, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

103rd 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

   WSU
2. L

   ALA
3. L

   SDSU
4. L

   UNM
5. L

   FRES
6. L

   LIB
7. L

   CMU
8. L

   GASO
9. L

   MISS
10. W

    UIW
11. W

    UTEP
12. L

    LIB

What moved it, 2019

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−1.42
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• WSUL 7-58 at WSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• ALAL 10-62 at ALA0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• SDSUL 10-31 vs SDSU13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• UNML 52-55 at UNM40% → 4%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• FRESL 17-30 vs FRES10% → 4%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• LIBL 13-20 vs LIB38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• CMUL 28-42 at CMU27% → 2%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• GASOL 7-41 at GASO20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position +1
• MISSL 3-41 at MISS4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• UIWW 41-28 vs UIW73% → 98%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• UTEPW 44-35 vs UTEP72% → 95%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position −2
• LIBL 28-49 at LIB16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1

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.