New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2282nd
  Defense+0.1629th
• 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.
  Offense47.1%88th
  Defense44.5%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2648th
  Defense+1.2361st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2395th
  Defense+0.1523rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2552nd
  Defense+0.1961st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.5%87th
  Defense50.5%17th
• 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%71st
  Defense30.0%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5497th
  Defense3.1930th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%59th
  Defense15.7%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.1%84th
  Defense15.5%31st

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   MASS
2. W
   WIU
3. L
   LIB
4. W
   UNM
5. L
   HAW
6. W
   FIU
7. W
   SHSU
8. W
   UTEP
9. W
   LT
10. W
    MTSU
11. W
    WKU
12. W
    AUB
13. W
    JXST
14. L
    LIB
15. L
    FRES

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

Players, 2023

1. Diego PaviaQB455 plays · +0.306 pts/play · 1st of 250 QBs
   2.60WAR1.78 to 3.46
2. Star ThomasRB105 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 123rd of 383 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
3. Monte WatkinsRB57 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 158th of 383 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
4. Trent HudsonWR31 plays · +0.263 pts/play · 111th of 457 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
5. Eli StowersTE54 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 35th of 212 TEs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.21
6. Ethan AlbertsonPK21 plays · +0.283 pts/play · 28th of 113 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Jamoni JonesRB79 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 219th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.17
8. Zachary HaynesP41 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 40th of 103 punters
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.17

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  379379115th of 130Roster talent: 379, 115th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  117117114th of 130Recruiting: 117, 114th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  84%84%12th of 128Returning production: 84%, 12th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.8−1.872nd of 130SP+ rating: −1.8, 72nd 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, 2023

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 0.09 of the 0.17 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 UNMQ4 6:01 4th & 1 at UNM 44, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. vs MASSQ2 0:03 4th & 1 at MASS 17, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. vs MASSQ3 12:43 4th & 1 at NMSU 26, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at UNMQ2 4:31 4th & 2 at UNM 9, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at WKUQ3 12:18 4th & 3 at WKU 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at UTEPQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at UTEP 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at WKUQ4 0:00 4th & 19 at NMSU 34, up 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at FRESQ2 0:27 4th & 10 at FRES 38, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

18th of 133 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

   MASS
2. W

   WIU
3. L

   LIB
4. W

   UNM
5. L

   HAW
6. W

   FIU
7. W

   SHSU
8. W

   UTEP
9. W

   LT
10. W

    MTSU
11. W

    WKU
12. W

    AUB
13. W

    JXST
14. L

    LIB
15. L

    FRES

What moved it, 2023

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+1.80
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• MASSL 30-41 vs MASS76% → 5%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −60, Possession & field position +4
• WIUW 58-21 vs WIU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• LIBL 17-33 at LIB32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −33, Clock +1
• UNMW 27-17 at UNM52% → 97%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• HAWL 17-20 at HAW43% → 5%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1
• FIUW 34-17 vs FIU69% → 98%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• SHSUW 27-13 vs SHSU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +1
• UTEPW 28-7 at UTEP61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• LTW 27-24 at LT45% → 94%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• MTSUW 13-7 vs MTSU66% → 84%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• WKUW 38-29 at WKU42% → 95%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• AUBW 31-10 at AUB6% → 99%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +94: Scoreboard +63, Clock +4
• JXSTW 20-17 vs JXST57% → 96%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• LIBL 35-49 at LIB28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts +1
• FRESL 10-37 at FRES62% → 0%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −56, Possession & field position +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.