New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0821st
  Defense+0.335th
• 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.
  Offense41.9%39th
  Defense50.0%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1816th
  Defense+1.3910th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1661st
  Defense+0.1922nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0715th
  Defense+0.591st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%61st
  Defense53.6%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.7%16th
  Defense40.1%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1356th
  Defense3.527th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.9%56th
  Defense13.1%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.2%7th
  Defense17.0%56th

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, 2021

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. L
   SDSU
3. L
   UNM
4. W
   SCST
5. L
   HAW
6. L
   SJSU
7. L
   NEV
8. L
   HAW
9. L
   USU
10. L
    ALA
11. L
    UK
12. W
    MASS

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

Players, 2021

1. Jonah JohnsonQB367 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 93rd of 219 QBs
   0.99WAR0.30 to 1.81
2. Juwaun PriceRB97 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 107th of 387 RBs
   0.38WAR0.29 to 0.47
3. Jared WyattWR48 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 109th of 474 WRs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
4. O'Maury SamuelsRB51 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 249th of 387 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19
5. Josh CarlsonP35 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 50th of 101 punters
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
6. Isaiah Garcia-CastanedaWR55 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 209th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
7. Ethan AlbertsonPK18 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 46th of 128 kickers
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14
8. Terrell WarnerWR26 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 299th of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  117117128th of 130Roster talent: 117, 128th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  118118123rd of 130Recruiting: 118, 123rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  170%170%1st of 128Returning production: 170%, 1st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −24.2−24.2128th of 130SP+ rating: −24.2, 128th 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, 2021

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 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 HAWQ3 10:09 4th & 1 at NMSU 29, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs HAWQ2 7:58 4th & 1 at HAW 1, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs HAWQ4 14:06 4th & 9 at HAW 29, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
4. at SJSUQ4 1:48 4th & 3 at SJSU 7, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at SJSUQ3 8:58 4th & 2 at SJSU 48, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs USUQ4 13:13 4th & 7 at USU 7, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs USUQ4 13:13 4th & 7 at USU 7, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at UNMQ3 12:16 4th & 2 at NMSU 45, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

90th 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

   UTEP
2. L

   SDSU
3. L

   UNM
4. W

   SCST
5. L

   HAW
6. L

   SJSU
7. L

   NEV
8. L

   HAW
9. L

   USU
10. L

    ALA
11. L

    UK
12. W

    MASS

What moved it, 2021

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−1.37
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.66

Game by game

• UTEPL 3-30 vs UTEP35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• SDSUL 10-28 at SDSU4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −9
• UNML 25-34 at UNM13% → 6%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• SCSTW 43-35 vs SCST62% → 90%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position +2
• HAWL 21-41 vs HAW21% → 5%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• SJSUL 31-37 at SJSU8% → 3%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• NEVL 28-55 at NEV5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• HAWL 34-48 at HAW18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23
• USUL 13-35 vs USU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• ALAL 3-59 at ALA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• UKL 16-56 at UK3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• MASSW 44-27 vs MASS93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12, Clock −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.