New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0629th
  Defense+0.1634th
• 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.
  Offense40.0%29th
  Defense44.6%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2028th
  Defense+1.3421st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1368th
  Defense+0.0264th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0313th
  Defense+0.3021st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%22nd
  Defense50.2%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.0%38th
  Defense30.4%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1475th
  Defense3.1921st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.4%87th
  Defense20.3%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%56th
  Defense14.7%28th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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. L
   SJSU
2. L
   HAW
3. L
   NEV
4. L
   AF
5. L
   USU
6. W
   WYO
7. W
   FRES

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

Players, 2020

1. Bobby ColeRB101 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 58th of 338 RBs
   0.40WAR0.31 to 0.47
2. Isaiah ChavezQB50 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 125th of 212 QBs
   0.21WAR0.08 to 0.34
3. Nathaniel JonesRB48 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 193rd of 338 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.20
4. Bryson CarrollRB30 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 261st of 338 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
5. Tevaka TuiotiQB70 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 176th of 212 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.07 to 0.21
6. Jordan KressWR21 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 254th of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
7. Trae HallWR25 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 261st of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
8. Mannie Logan-GreeneWR52 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 278th of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.10

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  340340106th of 127Roster talent: 340, 106th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  122122120th of 127Recruiting: 122, 120th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%65th of 127Returning production: 63%, 65th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.0−15.0117th of 127SP+ rating: −15.0, 117th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.20 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 SJSUQ3 0:09 4th & 5 at SJSU 20, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal10.7 pts
2. vs SJSUQ3 5:40 4th & 4 at SJSU 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
3. vs SJSUQ2 14:35 4th & 1 at SJSU 30, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
4. at HAWQ2 3:48 4th & 2 at UNM 47, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
5. vs WYOQ3 9:29 4th & 1 at UNM 24, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
6. vs SJSUQ2 2:06 4th & 4 at UNM 4, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)0.9 pts
7. vs SJSUQ2 1:17 4th & 4 at SJSU 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
8. at USUQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at UNM 36, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

86th of 127 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. L

   SJSU
2. L

   HAW
3. L

   NEV
4. L

   AF
5. L

   USU
6. W

   WYO
7. W

   FRES

What moved it, 2020

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−0.35
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.77

Game by game

• SJSUL 21-38 vs SJSU83% → 98%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position −1
• HAWL 33-39 at HAW18% → 5%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• NEVL 20-27 vs NEV12% → 5%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• AFL 0-28 at AF32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −34
• USUL 27-41 at USU72% → 2%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −3
• WYOW 17-16 vs WYO15% → 84%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• FRESW 49-39 vs FRES18% → 96%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +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.