New Mexico

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0944th
  Defense+0.0471st
• 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.
  Offense40.7%33rd
  Defense39.5%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2347th
  Defense+1.2259th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1057th
  Defense−0.0180th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1233rd
  Defense+0.1459th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%31st
  Defense45.9%58th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.3%42nd
  Defense26.9%80th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1680th
  Defense2.6287th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.9%91st
  Defense22.9%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.8%67th
  Defense17.2%73rd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   MICH
2. W
   IDST
3. W
   UCLA
4. W
   NMSU
5. L
   SJSU
6. L
   BOIS
7. W
   NEV
8. W
   USU
9. W
   UNLV
10. W
    CSU
11. W
    AF
12. W
    SDSU
13. L
    MINN

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

Players, 2025

1. Jack LayneQB305 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 63rd of 231 QBs
   1.25WAR0.67 to 1.79
2. Damon BankstonRB103 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 116th of 365 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.27
3. DJ McKinneyRB100 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 132nd of 365 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
4. Luke DrzewieckiPK13 plays · +0.351 pts/play · 52nd of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
5. Keagan JohnsonWR71 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 235th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.06 to 0.20
6. Cade KeithTE17 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 84th of 213 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Dorian ThomasTE55 plays · +0.038 pts/play · 112th of 213 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.06 to 0.14

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  379379131st of 134Roster talent: 379, 131st of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  5454131st of 134Recruiting: 54, 131st of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  3%3%132nd of 132Returning production: 3%, 132nd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.9+0.972nd of 134SP+ rating: +0.9, 72nd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.13 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 CSUQ4 0:13 4th & 3 at CSU 12, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.4 pts
2. at UNLVQ3 6:35 4th & 8 at UNM 27, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.1 pts
3. vs SDSUQ2 5:13 4th & 1 at UNM 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs IDSTQ3 0:13 4th & 4 at IDST 4, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at UNLVQ4 0:49 4th & 6 at UNLV 38, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at MINNQ2 6:18 4th & 3 at MINN 12, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs CSUQ2 0:01 4th & 3 at CSU 28, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs NMSUQ3 9:55 4th & 4 at NMSU 26, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

3rd of 136 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

   MICH
2. W

   IDST
3. W

   UCLA
4. W

   NMSU
5. L

   SJSU
6. L

   BOIS
7. W

   NEV
8. W

   USU
9. W

   UNLV
10. W

    CSU
11. W

    AF
12. W

    SDSU
13. L

    MINN

What moved it, 2025

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+2.52
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.31
• Timeouts−0.26
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.37

Game by game

• MICHL 17-34 at MICH1% → 2%Before kickoff −49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −5
• IDSTW 32-22 vs IDST86% → 97%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19
• UCLAW 35-10 at UCLA10% → 100%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +90: Scoreboard +72
• NMSUW 38-20 vs NMSU80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts −1
• SJSUL 28-35 at SJSU34% → 3%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• BOISL 25-41 at BOIS9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −15, Clock +1
• NEVW 24-22 vs NEV76% → 96%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• USUW 33-14 vs USU47% → 99%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts −1
• UNLVW 40-35 at UNLV31% → 91%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +47, Possession & field position +3
• CSUW 20-17 vs CSU76% → 88%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• AFW 20-3 at AF50% → 99%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +50, Clock +5
• SDSUW 23-17 vs SDSU37% → 81%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts −22
• MINNL 17-20 at MINN32% → 9%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29, Clock +4

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.