New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2015th
• 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.
  Offense39.9%23rd
  Defense42.7%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1947th
  Defense+1.359th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0445th
  Defense+0.0745th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.125th
  Defense+0.3410th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%20th
  Defense47.5%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.7%21st
  Defense33.8%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9664th
  Defense2.8057th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.9%36th
  Defense18.2%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%53rd
  Defense15.1%36th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   ACU
2. L
   NMSU
3. L
   BOIS
4. W
   TLSA
5. W
   AF
6. L
   FRES
7. L
   CSU
8. L
   WYO
9. L
   USU
10. L
    TA&M
11. L
    UNLV
12. L
    SDSU

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

Players, 2017

1. Lamar JordanQB125 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 128th of 226 QBs
   0.45WAR0.20 to 0.70
2. Tevaka TuiotiQB86 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 143rd of 226 QBs
   0.34WAR0.20 to 0.48
3. Tyrone OwensRB116 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 84th of 352 RBs
   0.34WAR0.22 to 0.45
4. Coltin GerhartQB53 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 178th of 226 QBs
   0.19WAR0.04 to 0.32
5. Daryl ChestnutRB67 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 179th of 352 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
6. Richard McQuarleyRB71 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 214th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.22
7. Jason SandersPK13 plays · +0.576 pts/play · 26th of 110 kickers
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.18
8. Corey BojorquezP50 plays · +0.050 pts/play · 49th of 95 punters
   0.05WAR−0.09 to 0.14

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  345345102nd of 130Roster talent: 345, 102nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  11911998th of 130Recruiting: 119, 98th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%78th of 128Returning production: 56%, 78th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.4−12.4107th of 128SP+ rating: −12.4, 107th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 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 NMSUQ4 6:11 4th & 4 at NMSU 4, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. vs CSUQ4 0:24 4th & 12 at CSU 12, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
3. vs NMSUQ4 5:18 4th & 5 at UNM 40, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at TLSAQ2 1:57 4th & 2 at TLSA 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs AFQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at UNM 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs USUQ2 1:14 4th & 2 at USU 43, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs UNLVQ4 5:56 4th & 7 at UNM 46, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at BOISQ3 6:40 4th & 3 at UNM 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

125th of 130 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

   ACU
2. L

   NMSU
3. L

   BOIS
4. W

   TLSA
5. W

   AF
6. L

   FRES
7. L

   CSU
8. L

   WYO
9. L

   USU
10. L

    TA&M
11. L

    UNLV
12. L

    SDSU

What moved it, 2017

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−2.13
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.55

Game by game

• ACUW 38-14 vs ACU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• NMSUL 28-30 vs NMSU66% → 7%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• BOISL 14-28 at BOIS14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18
• TLSAW 16-13 at TLSA30% → 93%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• AFW 56-38 vs AF41% → 98%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +45, Possession & field position +1
• FRESL 0-38 at FRES52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −49
• CSUL 24-27 vs CSU21% → 17%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• WYOL 3-42 at WYO43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −41
• USUL 10-24 vs USU57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• TA&ML 14-55 at TA&M10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• UNLVL 35-38 vs UNLV56% → 6%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• SDSUL 10-35 at SDSU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12

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.