New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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−0.141st
  Defense+0.0859th
• 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.
  Offense32.8%1st
  Defense43.3%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.011st
  Defense+1.1386th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0019th
  Defense+0.1038th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.201st
  Defense+0.2148th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.0%3rd
  Defense50.9%16th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense17.9%1st
  Defense23.0%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9019th
  Defense3.1635th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%22nd
  Defense15.0%30th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.5%1st
  Defense16.9%61st

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

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

Players, 2022

1. Miles KendrickQB149 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 138th of 234 QBs
   0.38WAR0.10 to 0.71
2. Nathaniel JonesRB102 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 111th of 384 RBs
   0.26WAR0.17 to 0.34
3. Justin HoladayQB67 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 159th of 234 QBs
   0.26WAR0.12 to 0.39
4. Christian WashingtonRB62 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 196th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19
5. Aaron RodriguezP59 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 42nd of 102 punters
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
6. Luke WysongWR32 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 326th of 455 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
7. Jaden HullabyTE8 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 198th of 214 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
8. CJ MontesQB47 plays · −0.041 pts/play · 232nd of 234 QBs
   −0.04WAR−0.13 to 0.06

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  313313121st of 129Roster talent: 313, 121st of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  133133102nd of 129Recruiting: 133, 102nd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%105th of 128Returning production: 31%, 105th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −26.9−26.9128th of 129SP+ rating: −26.9, 128th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.08 of the 0.16 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 UTEPQ3 9:39 4th & 1 at UTEP 48, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs UTEPQ2 9:00 4th & 1 at UNM 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. vs WYOQ3 0:14 4th & 3 at WYO 5, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at CSUQ2 9:07 4th & 3 at CSU 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at USUQ3 8:17 4th & 10 at USU 32, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs SDSUQ2 3:23 4th & 8 at UNM 33, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at USUQ2 0:01 4th & 5 at USU 35, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs SDSUQ4 11:59 4th & 1 at UNM 29, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

113th of 131 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

   ME
2. L

   BOIS
3. W

   UTEP
4. L

   LSU
5. L

   UNLV
6. L

   WYO
7. L

   NMSU
8. L

   FRES
9. L

   USU
10. L

    AF
11. L

    SDSU
12. L

    CSU

What moved it, 2022

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−0.83
• Clock−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.53

Game by game

• MEW 41-0 vs ME66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +35
• BOISL 14-31 vs BOIS13% → 2%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• UTEPW 27-10 vs UTEP43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +47
• LSUL 0-38 at LSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• UNLVL 20-31 at UNLV16% → 99%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +65, Clock +5
• WYOL 14-27 vs WYO43% → 2%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• NMSUL 9-21 at NMSU68% → 4%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• FRESL 9-41 vs FRES20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• USUL 10-27 at USU14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19
• AFL 3-35 at AF7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• SDSUL 10-34 vs SDSU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• CSUL 0-17 at CSU30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +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.