New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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−0.121st
  Defense+0.1639th
• 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.
  Offense29.3%1st
  Defense41.8%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2028th
  Defense+1.2940th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.121st
  Defense+0.1147th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.043rd
  Defense+0.2344th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense37.7%2nd
  Defense48.5%41st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense15.1%1st
  Defense28.3%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.251st
  Defense2.9656th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.6%1st
  Defense19.1%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.3%11th
  Defense14.8%24th

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, 2021

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

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

Players, 2021

1. Terry WilsonQB123 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 152nd of 219 QBs
   0.37WAR0.19 to 0.56
2. Aaron DumasRB69 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 178th of 387 RBs
   0.25WAR0.19 to 0.31
3. Bobby ColeRB63 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 216th of 387 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.27
4. Isaiah ChavezQB41 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 193rd of 219 QBs
   0.13WAR0.00 to 0.26
5. Aaron RodriguezP45 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 59th of 101 punters
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.17
6. Andrew EricksonWR9 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 423rd of 474 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
7. Mannie Logan-GreeneWR6 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 439th of 474 WRs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
8. Luke WysongWR15 plays · +0.040 pts/play · 439th of 474 WRs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  361361112th of 130Roster talent: 361, 112th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  130130110th of 130Recruiting: 130, 110th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  89%89%31st of 128Returning production: 89%, 31st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.6−18.6120th of 130SP+ rating: −18.6, 120th 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, 2021

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 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. at UTEPQ4 5:16 4th & 4 at UNM 20, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at WYOQ4 5:01 4th & 3 at WYO 39, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at UTEPQ3 2:18 4th & 2 at UNM 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at UTEPQ2 9:35 4th & 3 at UTEP 26, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs UNLVQ2 6:04 4th & 4 at UNLV 4, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at SDSUQ3 11:36 4th & 2 at UNM 44, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at SDSUQ3 0:57 4th & 3 at UNM 30, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at WYOQ3 10:57 4th & 4 at UNM 46, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

96th 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

   HCU
2. W

   NMSU
3. L

   TA&M
4. L

   UTEP
5. L

   AF
6. L

   SDSU
7. L

   CSU
8. W

   WYO
9. L

   UNLV
10. L

    FRES
11. L

    BOIS
12. L

    USU

What moved it, 2021

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−1.19
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.22

Game by game

• HCUW 27-17 vs HCU94% → 95%Before kickoff +44 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +11, Clock +1
• NMSUW 34-25 vs NMSU87% → 94%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• TA&ML 0-34 at TA&M3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• UTEPL 13-20 at UTEP58% → 10%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• AFL 10-38 vs AF24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• SDSUL 7-31 at SDSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15
• CSUL 7-36 vs CSU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −28
• WYOW 14-3 at WYO10% → 97%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +86: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• UNLVL 17-31 vs UNLV57% → 2%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −57, Timeouts +3
• FRESL 7-34 at FRES6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• BOISL 0-37 at BOIS5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• USUL 10-35 vs USU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −24, 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.