New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.0110th
  Defense+0.0661st
• 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.
  Offense36.7%10th
  Defense42.0%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2661st
  Defense+1.2166th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.121st
  Defense−0.0281st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1128th
  Defense+0.2038th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.3%8th
  Defense48.9%34th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.6%20th
  Defense26.8%81st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.131st
  Defense2.9933rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.4%1st
  Defense19.5%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.3%2nd
  Defense15.6%48th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   BRY
2. W
   TLSA
3. L
   LT
4. L
   UNM
5. W
   SHSU
6. L
   LIB
7. L
   MOST
8. L
   WKU
9. L
   KENN
10. L
    TENN
11. W
    UTEP
12. L
    MTSU

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

Players, 2025

1. Logan FifeQB342 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 89th of 231 QBs
   0.90WAR0.27 to 1.48
2. Adam DamanteQB98 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 149th of 231 QBs
   0.34WAR0.16 to 0.51
3. Kadarius CallowayRB128 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 119th of 365 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.27
4. Gavin HarrisTE52 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 8th of 213 TEs
   0.17WAR0.06 to 0.27
5. Donovan FaupelWR74 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 99th of 451 WRs
   0.17WAR0.04 to 0.28
6. TK KingWR56 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 103rd of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
7. Dijon StanleyRB83 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 198th of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
8. Max DeanP41 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 12th of 100 punters
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  403403130th of 134Roster talent: 403, 130th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  100100124th of 134Recruiting: 100, 124th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%31st of 132Returning production: 56%, 31st of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.5−15.5121st of 134SP+ rating: −15.5, 121st of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.06 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 LIBQ4 3:46 4th & 5 at LIB 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. at UTEPQ4 4:19 4th & 6 at UTEP 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs MOSTQ4 5:23 4th & 8 at MOST 8, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at LIBQ2 8:07 4th & 1 at NMSU 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at WKUQ2 7:15 4th & 3 at WKU 10, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs BRYQ2 5:49 4th & 2 at NMSU 49, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at WKUQ3 9:49 4th & 6 at WKU 32, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at TENNQ2 0:04 4th & 1 at NMSU 39, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

80th of 136 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

   BRY
2. W

   TLSA
3. L

   LT
4. L

   UNM
5. W

   SHSU
6. L

   LIB
7. L

   MOST
8. L

   WKU
9. L

   KENN
10. L

    TENN
11. W

    UTEP
12. L

    MTSU

What moved it, 2025

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−0.70
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.29
• Timeouts−0.37
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.77

Game by game

• BRYW 19-3 vs BRY91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts −1
• TLSAW 21-14 vs TLSA40% → 89%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• LTL 14-49 at LT24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26
• UNML 20-38 at UNM20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts +1
• SHSUW 37-10 vs SHSU46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +50
• LIBL 27-30 at LIB23% → 18%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −14, Possession & field position −1
• MOSTL 17-24 vs MOST45% → 14%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −19
• WKUL 16-35 at WKU31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• KENNL 21-24 vs KENN27% → 5%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• TENNL 9-42 at TENN1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• UTEPW 34-31 at UTEP32% → 90%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• MTSUL 24-31 vs MTSU56% → 14%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −20

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.