New Mexico State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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−0.029th
  Defense+0.0753rd
• 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.
  Offense38.7%13th
  Defense40.5%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3888th
  Defense+1.1867th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0636th
  Defense+0.0742nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0110th
  Defense+0.0965th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.1%9th
  Defense45.0%61st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%48th
  Defense31.5%34th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0446th
  Defense2.6777th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%72nd
  Defense22.7%79th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%14th
  Defense14.2%29th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   FSU
2. W
   MERC
3. L
   HAW
4. L
   UNM
5. W
   WKU
6. L
   FIU

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

Players, 2026

1. Trey HeddenQB80 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 125th of 192 QBs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.23
2. James JonesRB55 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 55th of 320 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
3. Adam DamanteQB50 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 144th of 192 QBs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.14
4. TK KingWR31 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 61st of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
5. TJ Washington Jr.RB29 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 191st of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06
6. Josiah ThomasTE14 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 31st of 164 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
7. Brodie Malone-BradfordWR8 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 261st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Dijon StanleyRB10 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 259th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  460460135th of 138Roster talent: 460, 135th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  103103128th of 138Recruiting: 103, 128th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  24%24%93rd of 136Returning production: 24%, 93rd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.7−13.7121st of 138SP+ rating so far: −13.7, 121st of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.01 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 FIUQ2 0:53 4th & 4 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
2. at HAWQ3 0:22 4th & 4 at NMSU 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
3. vs WKUQ4 9:42 4th & 5 at WKU 45, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
4. vs MERCQ2 7:59 4th & 4 at MERC 21, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs UNMQ4 5:46 4th & 7 at NMSU 33, down 30Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs WKUQ1 13:42 4th & 2 at NMSU 33, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
7. at FIUQ2 10:12 4th & 6 at FIU 8, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

85th of 138 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

   FSU
2. W

   MERC
3. L

   HAW
4. L

   UNM
5. W

   WKU
6. L

   FIU

What moved it, 2026

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−0.39
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.23

Game by game

• FSUL 17-34 at FSU3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −7
• MERCW 51-14 vs MERC96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• HAWL 19-29 at HAW27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• UNML 18-42 vs UNM19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• WKUW 34-13 vs WKU46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2
• FIUL 3-22 at FIU30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −32, 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.