New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2692nd
  Defense+0.312nd
• 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.
  Offense48.9%95th
  Defense50.4%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2338th
  Defense+1.2747th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3599th
  Defense+0.1523rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1745th
  Defense+0.492nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.1%92nd
  Defense54.6%4th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.4%93rd
  Defense38.3%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.8199th
  Defense3.2623rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.4%98th
  Defense15.9%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.5%86th
  Defense13.8%17th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   MTST
2. L
   ARIZ
3. L
   AUB
4. L
   FRES
5. W
   NMSU
6. W
   AF
7. W
   USU
8. L
   CSU
9. L
   WYO
10. W
    SDSU
11. W
    WSU
12. L
    HAW

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

Players, 2024

1. Devon DampierQB377 plays · +0.310 pts/play · 17th of 232 QBs
   2.19WAR1.51 to 2.80
2. Eli SandersRB108 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 98th of 373 RBs
   0.28WAR0.20 to 0.35
3. Ryan DavisWR41 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 107th of 452 WRs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.20
4. NaQuari RogersRB44 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 239th of 373 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.13
5. Caleb MedfordWR17 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 178th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.14
6. Luke DrzewieckiPK11 plays · +0.345 pts/play · 70th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
7. Luke WysongWR41 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 284th of 452 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.02 to 0.10
8. Javen JacobsRB11 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 332nd of 373 RBs
   0.02WAR−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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  465465118th of 131Roster talent: 465, 118th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  8787128th of 131Recruiting: 87, 128th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%87th of 130Returning production: 35%, 87th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.8−14.8113th of 131SP+ rating: −14.8, 113th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.21 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 WSUQ4 4:40 4th & 2 at WSU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.3 pts
2. at SDSUQ4 4:25 4th & 10 at SDSU 34, up 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.6 pts
3. vs WSUQ3 5:19 4th & 1 at UNM 17, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. at NMSUQ3 1:27 4th & 3 at NMSU 3, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs WYOQ2 7:46 4th & 1 at UNM 25, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs WYOQ3 5:07 4th & 2 at UNM 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs MTSTQ4 5:16 4th & 5 at MTST 37, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at SDSUQ3 6:59 4th & 8 at SDSU 38, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

40th of 134 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

   MTST
2. L

   ARIZ
3. L

   AUB
4. L

   FRES
5. W

   NMSU
6. W

   AF
7. W

   USU
8. L

   CSU
9. L

   WYO
10. W

    SDSU
11. W

    WSU
12. L

    HAW

What moved it, 2024

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−0.55
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.06
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.62

Game by game

• MTSTL 31-35 vs MTST20% → 13%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position −2
• ARIZL 39-61 at ARIZ3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −6
• AUBL 19-45 at AUB2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• FRESL 21-38 vs FRES13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• NMSUW 50-40 at NMSU73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• AFW 52-37 vs AF68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −1
• USUW 50-45 at USU45% → 35%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −8
• CSUL 6-17 at CSU29% → 2%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• WYOL 45-49 vs WYO65% → 5%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• SDSUW 21-16 at SDSU36% → 96%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• WSUW 38-35 vs WSU19% → 74%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts −1
• HAWL 30-38 at HAW50% → 1%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −43

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.