New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.018th
  Defense+0.2312th
• 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.
  Offense38.5%15th
  Defense41.8%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1917th
  Defense+1.463rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0632nd
  Defense+0.1522nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.083rd
  Defense+0.338th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.5%15th
  Defense46.9%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.9%29th
  Defense30.3%52nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2880th
  Defense3.1633rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.1%77th
  Defense17.0%41st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.5%17th
  Defense11.3%1st

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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. W
   SEMO
2. L
   LIB
3. L
   FRES
4. L
   SHSU
5. L
   UNM
6. L
   JXST
7. W
   LT
8. L
   FIU
9. L
   WKU
10. L
    TA&M
11. W
    MTSU
12. L
    UTEP

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

Players, 2024

1. Parker AwadQB153 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 113th of 232 QBs
   0.64WAR0.37 to 0.95
2. Seth McGowanRB117 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 71st of 373 RBs
   0.33WAR0.26 to 0.40
3. Mike Washington Jr.RB108 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 122nd of 373 RBs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.31
4. Santino MarucciQB71 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 190th of 232 QBs
   0.16WAR0.00 to 0.34
5. Brandon NunezQB44 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 204th of 232 QBs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.18
6. Abraham MontanoPK16 plays · +0.323 pts/play · 38th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Monte WatkinsRB10 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 304th of 373 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
8. Kordell DavidWR9 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 355th of 452 WRs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  370370129th of 131Roster talent: 370, 129th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  107107120th of 131Recruiting: 107, 120th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%125th of 130Returning production: 14%, 125th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.0−19.0122nd of 131SP+ rating: −19.0, 122nd of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.18 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 LIBQ4 2:59 4th & 3 at LIB 46, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
2. vs LIBQ2 9:26 4th & 1 at NMSU 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs SEMOQ4 11:54 4th & 7 at SEMO 41, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs LTQ4 10:41 4th & 3 at NMSU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs UTEPQ3 11:36 4th & 2 at UTEP 28, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs UNMQ4 11:30 4th & 3 at NMSU 39, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. at MTSUQ2 7:21 4th & 2 at NMSU 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs UTEPQ2 0:00 4th & 8 at UTEP 40, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

52nd of 134 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. W

   SEMO
2. L

   LIB
3. L

   FRES
4. L

   SHSU
5. L

   UNM
6. L

   JXST
7. W

   LT
8. L

   FIU
9. L

   WKU
10. L

    TA&M
11. W

    MTSU
12. L

    UTEP

What moved it, 2024

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−0.52
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.22
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.03

Game by game

• SEMOW 23-16 vs SEMO74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts −3
• LIBL 24-30 vs LIB5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −13, Clock −1
• FRESL 0-48 at FRES6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• SHSUL 11-31 at SHSU12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17
• UNML 40-50 vs UNM27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• JXSTL 13-54 at JXST7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• LTW 33-30 vs LT16% → 85%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −23
• FIUL 13-34 at FIU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts +3
• WKUL 28-41 vs WKU9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• TA&ML 3-38 at TA&M1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• MTSUW 36-21 at MTSU30% → 99%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +62, Timeouts +2
• UTEPL 35-42 vs UTEP51% → 4%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3

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.