New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0114th
  Defense+0.245th
• 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%19th
  Defense43.8%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2154th
  Defense+1.3211th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0541st
  Defense+0.1227th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.077th
  Defense+0.363rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%24th
  Defense48.6%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.2%14th
  Defense33.1%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0975th
  Defense2.8753rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%58th
  Defense18.7%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%67th
  Defense15.9%6th

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, 2019

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
   SHSU
2. L
   ND
3. W
   NMSU
4. L
   LIB
5. L
   SJSU
6. L
   CSU
7. L
   WYO
8. L
   HAW
9. L
   NEV
10. L
    BOIS
11. L
    AF
12. L
    USU

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

Players, 2019

1. Tevaka TuiotiQB159 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 124th of 228 QBs
   0.51WAR0.20 to 0.80
2. Ahmari DavisRB119 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 105th of 349 RBs
   0.38WAR0.27 to 0.49
3. Sheriron JonesQB87 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 146th of 228 QBs
   0.38WAR0.20 to 0.56
4. Bryson CarrollRB76 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 179th of 349 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.29
5. Andrew ShelleyPK14 plays · +0.515 pts/play · 41st of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. Brandt HughesQB30 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 204th of 228 QBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Jordan KressWR34 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 231st of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. Tyson DyerP44 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 28th of 100 punters
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  402402104th of 130Roster talent: 402, 104th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  122122109th of 130Recruiting: 122, 109th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%23rd of 130Returning production: 79%, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.0−17.0119th of 130SP+ rating: −17.0, 119th 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, 2019

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 0.10 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 SHSUQ3 9:38 4th & 1 at UNM 37, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at WYOQ3 5:11 4th & 2 at WYO 41, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at LIBQ4 12:32 4th & 8 at LIB 10, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at NEVQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at NEV 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs CSUQ3 6:30 4th & 3 at UNM 49, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs SHSUQ3 12:35 4th & 2 at UNM 36, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at WYOQ4 6:31 4th & 15 at WYO 21, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at LIBQ3 8:47 4th & 5 at LIB 41, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

110th 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

   SHSU
2. L

   ND
3. W

   NMSU
4. L

   LIB
5. L

   SJSU
6. L

   CSU
7. L

   WYO
8. L

   HAW
9. L

   NEV
10. L

    BOIS
11. L

    AF
12. L

    USU

What moved it, 2019

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−1.85
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.57

Game by game

• SHSUW 39-31 vs SHSU71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• NDL 14-66 at ND2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• NMSUW 55-52 vs NMSU60% → 96%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• LIBL 10-17 at LIB28% → 3%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• SJSUL 21-32 at SJSU33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• CSUL 21-35 vs CSU39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• WYOL 10-23 at WYO14% → 3%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position +1
• HAWL 31-45 vs HAW24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• NEVL 10-21 at NEV41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• BOISL 9-42 at BOIS6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• AFL 22-44 vs AF7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13, Clock −1
• USUL 25-38 vs USU23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −34, 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.