New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.2994th
  Defense+0.2213th
• 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.
  Offense46.2%76th
  Defense43.8%46th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3393rd
  Defense+1.384th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2998th
  Defense+0.1912th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2980th
  Defense+0.2620th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.9%74th
  Defense46.8%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.
  Offense35.4%65th
  Defense37.8%9th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2385th
  Defense2.8857th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.5%85th
  Defense22.8%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%91st
  Defense16.5%52nd

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, 2016

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
   SDAK
2. L
   NMSU
3. L
   RUTG
4. W
   SJSU
5. L
   BOIS
6. W
   AF
7. W
   ULM
8. W
   HAW
9. W
   NEV
10. W
    USU
11. L
    CSU
12. W
    WYO
13. W
    UTSA

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

Players, 2016

1. Lamar JordanQB138 plays · +0.319 pts/play · 98th of 218 QBs
   0.83WAR0.53 to 1.10
2. Teriyon GipsonRB129 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 27th of 347 RBs
   0.64WAR0.47 to 0.80
3. Richard McQuarleyRB113 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 46th of 347 RBs
   0.53WAR0.39 to 0.67
4. Tyrone OwensRB119 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 80th of 347 RBs
   0.41WAR0.24 to 0.60
5. Austin ApodacaQB106 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 142nd of 218 QBs
   0.36WAR0.19 to 0.53
6. Jason SandersPK9 plays · +0.401 pts/play · 92nd of 116 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
7. Dameon GamblinWR28 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 320th of 417 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
8. Daryl ChestnutRB4 plays · +0.014 pts/play · 296th of 347 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  387387104th of 128Roster talent: 387, 104th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12112194th of 128Recruiting: 121, 94th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%47th of 128Returning production: 71%, 47th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.1−5.189th of 128SP+ rating: −5.1, 89th 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, 2016

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.26 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 USUQ4 10:05 4th & 1 at UNM 15, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−6.2 pts
2. vs NEVQ4 11:23 4th & 1 at UNM 33, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
3. at AFQ4 2:00 4th & 7 at AF 33, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. vs SJSUQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at SJSU 28, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. at RUTGQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at UNM 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. at RUTGQ2 6:52 4th & 4 at RUTG 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. at RUTGQ4 9:57 4th & 3 at UNM 8, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. at RUTGQ4 0:43 4th & 6 at RUTG 15, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

11th 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

   SDAK
2. L

   NMSU
3. L

   RUTG
4. W

   SJSU
5. L

   BOIS
6. W

   AF
7. W

   ULM
8. W

   HAW
9. W

   NEV
10. W

    USU
11. L

    CSU
12. W

    WYO
13. W

    UTSA

What moved it, 2016

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+2.21
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.51

Game by game

• SDAKW 48-21 vs SDAK79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23
• NMSUL 31-32 at NMSU82% → 22%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −2
• RUTGL 28-37 at RUTG40% → 3%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• SJSUW 48-41 vs SJSU66% → 97%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• BOISL 21-49 vs BOIS14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• AFW 45-40 at AF18% → 97%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• ULMW 59-17 vs ULM83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +19
• HAWW 28-21 at HAW41% → 95%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• NEVW 35-26 vs NEV77% → 97%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position +1
• USUW 24-21 at USU44% → 78%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• CSUL 31-49 at CSU37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• WYOW 56-35 vs WYO47% → 100%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +1
• UTSAW 23-20 at UTSA70% → 95%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +37, 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.