New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2178th
  Defense+0.281st
• 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.
  Offense46.8%84th
  Defense47.8%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2960th
  Defense+1.2933rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2393rd
  Defense+0.218th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3174th
  Defense+0.395th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.2%91st
  Defense50.7%14th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.8%72nd
  Defense38.9%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3382nd
  Defense3.448th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%52nd
  Defense15.7%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%24th
  Defense14.9%20th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   TA&M
2. W
   TNTC
3. L
   NMSU
4. W
   MASS
5. L
   WYO
6. L
   SJSU
7. W
   HAW
8. L
   NEV
9. L
   UNLV
10. L
    BOIS
11. W
    FRES
12. L
    USU

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

Players, 2023

1. Dylan HopkinsQB241 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 109th of 250 QBs
   0.76WAR0.32 to 1.18
2. Devon DampierQB56 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 166th of 250 QBs
   0.28WAR0.16 to 0.39
3. Jacory Croskey-MerrittRB103 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 96th of 383 RBs
   0.26WAR0.15 to 0.34
4. Caleb MedfordWR29 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 126th of 457 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.20
5. Andrew HenryRB35 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 244th of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Luke DrzewieckiPK8 plays · +0.326 pts/play · 99th of 113 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
7. Aaron RodriguezP27 plays · +0.038 pts/play · 97th of 103 punters
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.06
8. Justin HoladayQB1 plays · +0.292 pts/play · 244th of 250 QBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  375375117th of 130Roster talent: 375, 117th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  120120110th of 130Recruiting: 120, 110th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%106th of 128Returning production: 31%, 106th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.5−16.5121st of 130SP+ rating: −16.5, 121st 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, 2023

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 0.08 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 USUQ2 0:04 4th & 29 at UNM 23, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.4 pts
2. vs USUQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at USU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. at MASSQ3 0:38 4th & 7 at MASS 38, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs UNLVQ1 7:39 4th & 20 at UNM 39, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs USUQ2 14:18 4th & 7 at USU 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at WYOQ4 1:12 4th & 5 at WYO 11, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs USUQ1 5:49 4th & 6 at USU 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at FRESQ4 5:22 4th & 8 at FRES 44, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

49th of 133 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

   TA&M
2. W

   TNTC
3. L

   NMSU
4. W

   MASS
5. L

   WYO
6. L

   SJSU
7. W

   HAW
8. L

   NEV
9. L

   UNLV
10. L

    BOIS
11. W

    FRES
12. L

    USU

What moved it, 2023

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+0.59
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.22
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.91

Game by game

• TA&ML 10-52 at TA&M1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• TNTCW 56-10 vs TNTC86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• NMSUL 17-27 vs NMSU48% → 3%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• MASSW 34-31 at MASS39% → 88%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +20
• WYOL 26-35 at WYO14% → 93%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +54, Clock +2
• SJSUL 24-52 vs SJSU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −32, Clock −1
• HAWW 42-21 vs HAW39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +52, Timeouts +2
• NEVL 24-34 at NEV48% → 4%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position −1
• UNLVL 14-56 vs UNLV19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• BOISL 14-42 at BOIS3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• FRESW 25-17 at FRES7% → 97%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +91: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• USUL 41-44 vs USU31% → 32%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −10, Possession & field position −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.