New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2275th
  Defense+0.286th
• 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.
  Offense41.1%30th
  Defense47.1%14th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4499th
  Defense+1.3112th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2489th
  Defense+0.257th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1943rd
  Defense+0.3313th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%50th
  Defense49.8%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.4%10th
  Defense40.9%3rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0261st
  Defense3.1320th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%59th
  Defense17.5%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%62nd
  Defense1.8%38th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 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
   ASU
3. W
   NMSU
4. L
   FRES
5. W
   UTSA
6. L
   SDSU
7. L
   AF
8. W
   UNLV
9. L
   BOIS
10. L
    USU
11. L
    CSU
12. W
    WYO

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

Players, 2014

1. Lamar JordanQB192 plays · +0.292 pts/play · 97th of 199 QBs
   1.05WAR0.64 to 1.45
2. Jhurell PressleyRB103 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 58th of 350 RBs
   0.32WAR0.20 to 0.43
3. Teriyon GipsonRB140 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 66th of 350 RBs
   0.30WAR0.17 to 0.42
4. Zack RogersP56 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 6th of 94 punters
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
5. Crusoe GongbayRB60 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 176th of 350 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
6. Cole GautscheTE39 plays · +0.014 pts/play · 11th of 212 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.05 to 0.06
7. David AnayaRB6 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 300th of 350 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
8. Reece WhiteTE11 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 14th of 212 TEs
   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'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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'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 0.06 of the 0.15 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 WYOQ4 6:57 4th & 2 at WYO 12, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.1 pts
2. at NMSUQ2 8:13 4th & 14 at NMSU 27, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.4 pts
3. at NMSUQ2 8:13 4th & 14 at NMSU 27, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.3 pts
4. vs WYOQ4 3:24 4th & 3 at WYO 46, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
5. at UTSAQ4 11:07 4th & 9 at UTSA 40, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
6. vs FRESQ4 9:28 4th & 2 at UNM 43, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
7. vs FRESQ1 1:09 4th & 1 at UNM 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
8. at AFQ2 0:33 4th & 13 at AF 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

65th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up New Mexico's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   UTEP
2. L

   ASU
3. W

   NMSU
4. L

   FRES
5. W

   UTSA
6. L

   SDSU
7. L

   AF
8. W

   UNLV
9. L

   BOIS
10. L

    USU
11. L

    CSU
12. W

    WYO

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at New Mexico'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−0.68
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.45

Game by game

• UTEPL 24-31 vs UTEP69% → 5%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• ASUL 23-58 vs ASU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• NMSUW 38-35 at NMSU60% → 78%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• FRESL 24-35 vs FRES46% → 4%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• UTSAW 21-9 at UTSA14% → 97%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +62, Clock +1
• SDSUL 14-24 vs SDSU33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• AFL 31-35 at AF23% → 9%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −2
• UNLVW 31-28 at UNLV49% → 82%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +39, Clock +4
• BOISL 49-60 vs BOIS16% → 4%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• USUL 21-28 at USU16% → 3%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• CSUL 20-58 at CSU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• WYOW 36-30 vs WYO71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2

Points of win probability, from New Mexico's side.

Closest call

UNM 31-24 BOIS (2015) - New Mexico dropped to a 4.2% win probability before pulling it out.