New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0315th
  Defense+0.2113th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%29th
  Defense46.7%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1838th
  Defense+1.3116th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0218th
  Defense+0.1617th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1030th
  Defense+0.2916th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.7%32nd
  Defense50.1%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.8%19th
  Defense38.4%8th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6922nd
  Defense3.315th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.5%23rd
  Defense14.3%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%22nd
  Defense14.3%18th

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, 2018

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
   UIW
2. L
   WIS
3. W
   NMSU
4. L
   LIB
5. W
   UNLV
6. L
   CSU
7. L
   FRES
8. L
   USU
9. L
   SDSU
10. L
    AF
11. L
    BOIS
12. L
    WYO

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

Players, 2018

1. Sheriron JonesQB172 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 117th of 225 QBs
   0.66WAR0.37 to 0.98
2. Tyrone OwensRB127 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 123rd of 351 RBs
   0.33WAR0.22 to 0.45
3. Coltin GerhartQB53 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 189th of 225 QBs
   0.18WAR0.07 to 0.28
4. Delane Hart-JohnsonWR30 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 198th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13
5. Tyson DyerP49 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 40th of 91 punters
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
6. Tevaka TuiotiQB17 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 209th of 225 QBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
7. Jay Griffin IVWR22 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 345th of 434 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Marcus WilliamsTE12 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 79th of 204 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  41241293rd of 130Roster talent: 412, 93rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  118118111th of 130Recruiting: 118, 111th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%30th of 129Returning production: 79%, 30th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.5−9.599th of 130SP+ rating: −9.5, 99th of 130 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, 2018

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.07 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 CSUQ3 1:13 4th & 1 at CSU 47, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at AFQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at AF 4, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs SDSUQ2 3:45 4th & 2 at SDSU 24, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at AFQ4 14:53 4th & 2 at UNM 37, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at CSUQ3 10:54 4th & 3 at UNM 27, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at NMSUQ2 15:00 4th & 3 at UNM 44, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at USUQ1 6:33 4th & 1 at UNM 45, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs WYOQ1 5:39 4th & 6 at WYO 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

115th 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

   UIW
2. L

   WIS
3. W

   NMSU
4. L

   LIB
5. W

   UNLV
6. L

   CSU
7. L

   FRES
8. L

   USU
9. L

   SDSU
10. L

    AF
11. L

    BOIS
12. L

    WYO

What moved it, 2018

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−1.41
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.22

Game by game

• UIWW 62-30 vs UIW98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• WISL 14-45 at WIS2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• NMSUW 42-25 at NMSU63% → 98%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• LIBL 43-52 vs LIB68% → 4%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −58, Clock −4
• UNLVW 50-14 at UNLV29% → 100%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +66, Clock +1
• CSUL 18-20 at CSU57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −52, Clock +4
• FRESL 7-38 vs FRES17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• USUL 19-61 at USU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• SDSUL 23-31 vs SDSU21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• AFL 24-42 at AF19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts +1
• BOISL 14-45 vs BOIS8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12
• WYOL 3-31 vs WYO34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1

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.