New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0946th
  Defense+0.1334th
• 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.
  Offense38.9%17th
  Defense43.7%40th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3194th
  Defense+1.2720th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1377th
  Defense+0.0553rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0018th
  Defense+0.2621st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%29th
  Defense48.0%42nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.4%5th
  Defense34.3%41st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5914th
  Defense2.9336th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.2%42nd
  Defense20.1%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%40th
  Defense3.1%94th

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, 2015

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. W
   MVSU
2. L
   TLSA
3. L
   ASU
4. W
   WYO
5. W
   NMSU
6. L
   NEV
7. W
   HAW
8. L
   SJSU
9. W
   USU
10. W
    BOIS
11. L
    CSU
12. W
    AF
13. L
    ARIZ

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

Players, 2015

1. Lamar JordanQB241 plays · +0.304 pts/play · 70th of 205 QBs
   1.37WAR0.84 to 1.91
2. Jhurell PressleyRB127 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 34th of 333 RBs
   0.42WAR0.26 to 0.56
3. Austin ApodacaQB103 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 154th of 205 QBs
   0.33WAR0.18 to 0.51
4. Teriyon GipsonRB155 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 58th of 333 RBs
   0.32WAR0.18 to 0.46
5. Zack RogersP66 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 2nd of 92 punters
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.32
6. Dameon GamblinWR35 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 289th of 411 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
7. Reece WhiteTE18 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 15th of 189 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.04
8. David AnayaRB3 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 312th of 333 RBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  342342108th of 128Roster talent: 342, 108th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  111111104th of 128Recruiting: 111, 104th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%29th of 127Returning production: 81%, 29th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.7−8.798th of 128SP+ rating: −8.7, 98th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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. vs ARIZQ4 6:42 4th & 13 at ARIZ 28, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.1 pts
2. vs HAWQ4 12:59 4th & 1 at UNM 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs USUQ3 14:56 4th & 2 at UNM 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs NMSUQ4 11:52 4th & 4 at NMSU 24, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at WYOQ3 3:25 4th & 2 at UNM 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at NEVQ3 8:19 4th & 2 at UNM 28, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at SJSUQ3 15:00 4th & 4 at SJSU 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs NMSUQ4 3:15 4th & 5 at NMSU 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

21st 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. W

   MVSU
2. L

   TLSA
3. L

   ASU
4. W

   WYO
5. W

   NMSU
6. L

   NEV
7. W

   HAW
8. L

   SJSU
9. W

   USU
10. W

    BOIS
11. L

    CSU
12. W

    AF
13. L

    ARIZ

What moved it, 2015

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−0.06
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.19

Game by game

• MVSUW 66-0 vs MVSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TLSAL 21-40 vs TLSA58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −57, Clock −1
• ASUL 10-34 at ASU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• WYOW 38-28 at WYO60% → 96%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• NMSUW 38-29 vs NMSU83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +22
• NEVL 17-35 at NEV38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• HAWW 28-27 vs HAW62% → 89%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −5
• SJSUL 21-31 at SJSU27% → 3%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position −1
• USUW 14-13 vs USU19% → 76%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position −3
• BOISW 31-24 at BOIS4% → 88%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• CSUL 21-28 vs CSU48% → 5%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• AFW 47-35 vs AF26% → 98%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +2
• ARIZL 37-45 vs ARIZ20% → 3%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −30, Clock −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.