College / Teams / Mountain West
New Mexico
Updated Tue Nov 10, 6:04 AM CT
Next game · Week 11
Sat Nov 14, 6:30 PM CTOur call blends our core models. Each bar is one model's predicted winning margin for New Mexico.
Sat Nov 14, 6:30 PM CT · University Stadium (NM) · TV: CW
Home field: 2.5 points in SP+ and Elo. Who's been right ›
Ratings, series, schedule strength and how to read this
Next up projections
vs UNLV
Week 11 · Sat Nov 14, 6:30 PM CT · University Stadium (NM) · UNLV (FBS, Mountain West)
·
Our call: New Mexico by 14.6
All 10 models favor New Mexico.
The average of SP+, Elo and Our model. More ›
Regression watch: Last game's 28-point win matched the play (score +4 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›
Schedule: Played the 127th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -11.5); 105th-toughest remaining (-8.2). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 9 played · 3 left
- Week 1 vs Central Michigan (-10.6)
- Week 2 vs Mercyhurst (-34.0) · FCS, pooled
- Week 3 at Oklahoma (+14.2)
- Week 4 at New Mexico State (-15.5)
- Week 5 vs UTEP (-20.2)
- Week 7 at Hawai'i (-10.9)
- Week 8 vs North Dakota State (-0.8)
- Week 9 at San José State (-12.5)
- Week 10 at Nevada (-13.5)
- Remaining:
- Week 11 vs UNLV (-6.2)
- Week 12 at Wyoming (-10.8)
- Week 13 vs Air Force (-7.7)
Each opponent's rating from our model's week 11 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 10. Experimental, like the Our model card.
Series: UNLV leads 15–13 · last: New Mexico 40–35, 2025
Series history 28 meetings since 1978
- Since 1978: UNLV leads 15–13 (28 meetings in our records; the schools' own all-time counts can reach further back)
- Last meeting: New Mexico 40–35, 2025, Allegiant Stadium
- Streak: none
- Biggest margins: New Mexico 50–14 (2018) · UNLV 72–7 (1980)
- Since 2000: UNLV leads 11–10 (21 meetings)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | New Mexico 40–35 | Allegiant Stadium |
| 2023 | UNLV 56–14 | University Stadium (NM) |
| 2022 | UNLV 31–20 | Allegiant Stadium |
| 2021 | UNLV 31–17 | University Stadium (NM) |
| 2018 | New Mexico 50–14 | Sam Boyd Stadium |
| 2017 | UNLV 38–35 | University Stadium (NM) |
| 2014 | New Mexico 31–28 | Sam Boyd Stadium |
| 2013 | UNLV 56–42 | University Stadium (NM) |
| 2012 | UNLV 35–7 | Sam Boyd Stadium |
| 2011 | New Mexico 21–14 | University Stadium (NM) |
| 2010 | UNLV 45–10 | Sam Boyd Stadium |
| 2009 | UNLV 34–17 | University Stadium (NM) |
| 2008 | UNLV 27–20 | Sam Boyd Stadium |
| 2007 | New Mexico 27–6 | University Stadium (NM) |
| 2006 | New Mexico 39–36 | Sam Boyd Stadium |
| 2005 | New Mexico 24–22 | University Stadium (NM) |
| 2004 | New Mexico 24–20 | Sam Boyd Stadium |
| 2003 | UNLV 37–35 | University Stadium (NM) |
| 2002 | New Mexico 25–16 | Sam Boyd Stadium |
| 2001 | New Mexico 27–17 | University Stadium (NM) |
| 2000 | UNLV 18–14 | away |
| Rating | New Mexico | UNLV |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +14.4 #23 | -3.7 #89 |
| Elo | 1713 | 1457 |
Projected margin for New Mexico · four models side by side
More models: ESPN FPI New Mexico by 13.5 · SRS New Mexico by 17.5 · Sagarin New Mexico by 14.9 · Sonny Moore New Mexico by 22.8 · The Margin New Mexico by 15.5 · Record New Mexico (better record) Who's been right ›
How to read this
- SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
- Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
- Market is the margin the market expected before kickoff, shown from New Mexico's side, a model like the others.
- Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
- In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (New Mexico); the market already includes its own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
- "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model). Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
- Our call, above the cards, is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
- Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
- After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not, and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring, where a tie credits each.
- Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›
Efficiency matchup · season to date · New Mexico 9 games, UNLV 9 games
Edge: New Mexico wins 3 of 5
New Mexico moves the ball better, stops plays better and is more disruptive. UNLV has the edge on big plays and allows fewer big plays.
-
43%✓ Moves the ballsuccessful plays 39%
-
29%✓ Stops playssuccessful plays allowed 43%
-
26%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 14%
-
1.26 Big playson offense ✓1.30
-
1.38 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.22
Run game, head to head · season to date
New Mexico's runs work 44% of the time; UNLV's run defense allows 51%. UNLV's runs work 39% of the time; New Mexico's run defense allows 24%.
More numbers
| Measure | New Mexico | UNLV | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 42.9% | 39.0% | New Mexico |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.26 | 1.30 | UNLV |
| Def. success rate allowed | 28.5% | 42.7% | New Mexico |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.38 | 1.22 | UNLV |
| Havoc created | 25.7% | 14.0% | New Mexico |
- Run game, success rate: New Mexico offense 43.8% · UNLV defense allows 50.8% · edge: New Mexico
- Run game, success rate: UNLV offense 39.4% · New Mexico defense allows 24.4% · edge: New Mexico
- Run game, PPA per play: New Mexico offense +0.17 · UNLV defense allows +0.19 · edge: New Mexico
- Run game, PPA per play: UNLV offense +0.08 · New Mexico defense allows -0.23 · edge: New Mexico
- Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.
How to read this
- Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
- The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 42%, PPA per play +0.07, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
- In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
- Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
- These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
- Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›
Season so far
9 games playedEvery game this season, with our call before kickoff (✓ right winner, ✗ wrong). Our call is shown for the games that had a game page before kickoff, as it stood then.
| Date | Opponent | Result | Our call | Avg miss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5 | vs Central Michigan | W 38-7 | — | — |
| Sep 12 | vs Mercyhurst | W 70-7 | — | — |
| Sep 19 | at Oklahoma | L 6-14 | — | — |
| Sep 26 | at New Mexico State | W 42-18 | — | — |
| Oct 3 | vs UTEP | W 61-7 | — | — |
| Oct 17 | at Hawai'i | W 21-10 | — | — |
| Oct 24 | vs North Dakota State | W 21-16 | — | — |
| Oct 31 | at San José State | W 21-16 | — | — |
| Nov 6 | at Nevada | W 31-3 | New Mexico by 9.3 ✓ | 18.7 |
Last game · at Nevada
Final, Fri Nov 6, 8:00 PM CTThe 28-point win matched the play: New Mexico's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.15 vs -0.28, success rate 44% vs 16%) implies roughly a +24 margin.
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Mexico | 14 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 31 |
| Nevada | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Rest of the season
Experimental projectionWin chance in each remaining game, from our model's projected margin.
From our model's simulation of the rest of the season (10,000 times); the win chance is how often we won that game in the simulations. Playoff chances ›
Roster
2026Where the talent comes from and how much of last year's production is back.
Returning production: share of last season's points added that is back.
Injuries
Week 11Only official team or conference reports change a status here.
The detail
The numbers behind the cards above.
Injuries
The Mountain West posts its own availability report; this list does not read it yet: the conference's report ›
Score, verdict and efficiency of the game
Score and result
New Mexico 31, Nevada 3W
Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›
Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +7.9 ✓ · Our model +10.0 ✓ · Market +12.5 ✓ · actual +28 · Closest: Market
New Mexico was as low as 44% and won
- Q1 11:31 · 1st & 2 · 53% → 69%(11:31) Shotgun #22 S.Humphrey rush middle for 2 yards gain to the Nevada00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 11:31 #41 N.Romero kick attempt good (H: #19 M.Kern, LS: #50 L.Epstein)
- Q3 8:45 · 3rd & 1 · 84% → 96%(08:45) Shotgun #22 S.Humphrey rush middle for 1 yard gain to the Nevada00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 08:45 PENALTY Nevada Offside declined Timeout New Mexico, clock 08:49 #41 N.Romero kick attempt good (H: #19 M.Kern, LS: #50 L.Epstein)
- Q1 6:48 · 3rd & 12 · 67% → 77%(06:48) Shotgun #41 A.Bianco pass incomplete deep left to #7 G.Givens III thrown to Nevada48 broken up by #1 J.Torres
Away at Mackay Stadium (Reno) · Fri Nov 6, 8:00 PM CT · vs Nevada (FBS, Mountain West)
Opponent for every game-level number: Nevada (FBS, Mountain West).
- By quarter: New Mexico 14-0-7-10 · Nevada 0-3-0-0
- Week 10 polls: Coaches: New Mexico #25 · AP: New Mexico #22
- Pregame Elo: New Mexico 1667, Nevada 1408
- Postgame win probability: 100.0%
Verdict
The 28-point win matched the play: New Mexico's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.15 vs -0.28, success rate 44% vs 16%) implies roughly a +24 margin.
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Edge: New Mexico won 4 of 4
New Mexico moved the ball better, got more from each play, hit the bigger plays and was more disruptive.
-
44%✓ Moved the ballsuccessful plays 16%
-
+0.15✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth -0.28
-
1.25✓ Big playssize of the good plays 1.21
-
26%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 15%
More numbers
New Mexico ran 68 plays, Nevada 51. Each number is that team's offense; Nevada's column is also what New Mexico's defense allowed.
| Measure | New Mexico | Nevada | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.15 | -0.28 | New Mexico |
| Total PPA | +9.9 | -14.5 | New Mexico |
| Success rate | 44.1% | 15.7% | New Mexico |
| Explosiveness | 1.25 | 1.21 | New Mexico |
| Havoc created | 26.0% | 14.9% | New Mexico |
- Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.
How to read this
- The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
- A check marks the better side of a row. The sentence above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
- Metrics explained ›
Top performers
New Mexico players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.
Passing
| Player | Pass usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Toa Fa'avae QB | 100% | +2.8 | +0.15 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Toa Fa'avae QB | 16% | +1.8 | +0.35 |
| Scottre Humphrey RB | 44% | +1.6 | +0.11 |
| Tripp Walsh TE | 3% | -0.3 | -0.34 |
| Kiefer Sibley RB | 31% | -0.8 | -0.08 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cade Keith TE | 22% | +5.5 | +1.37 |
| DJ Darling WR | 11% | +1.1 | +0.54 |
| Zhaiel Smith WR | 11% | +1.0 | +0.49 |
| Bailen George WR | 28% | +0.5 | +0.10 |
By play type
| Measure | New Mexico | Nevada | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.17 | -0.71 | New Mexico |
| Rushing success | 46.5% | 6.2% | New Mexico |
| Passing PPA | +0.13 | -0.09 | New Mexico |
| Passing success | 41.7% | 20.6% | New Mexico |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.13 | -0.31 | New Mexico |
| Standard downs success | 48.0% | 20.0% | New Mexico |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.18 | -0.26 | New Mexico |
| Passing downs success | 33.3% | 11.5% | New Mexico |
Havoc detail — New Mexico defense: TFL 4, sacks 3, takeaways 1, breakups 5 on 50 snaps. Nevada defense: TFL 5, sacks 2, takeaways 0, breakups 3 on 67 snaps.
Drives
A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.
By half
Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.41 points a play (New Mexico +0.29 in the first half, +0.70 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.
| New Mexico | Nevada | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | |
| PPA / play | +0.18 | +0.13 | -0.10 | -0.56 |
| Success rate | 43% | 46% | 23% | 5% |
| Plays | 30 | 37 | 30 | 20 |
Recruiting and the transfer portal
Recruiting
New Mexico's 2026 class: #87 · 182.61 points.
| Measure | New Mexico | Nevada |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 568.2 #112 of 138 |
550.0 #118 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 14 in, 14 out
Arrivals (14)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jalen Charles EDGE | Memphis | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Eric McClain CB | Ball State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 11, 2026 |
| Ormanie Arnold CB | Cincinnati | 3 | Immediate | Jan 13, 2026 |
| Joey Olsen TE | USC | 3 | Immediate | Jan 13, 2026 |
| Nick Romero K | Wagner | 3 | Immediate | Jan 20, 2026 |
| Konner Olson K | Western Kentucky | 3 | Immediate | Jan 20, 2026 |
| Clay Martineau LB | Boise State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 20, 2026 |
| Troy Omeire WR | UNLV | 3 | Immediate | Jan 23, 2026 |
| Luke Moga QB | Oregon | 3 | Immediate | Jan 23, 2026 |
| Ken Meir IOL | Temple | 3 | Immediate | Jan 27, 2026 |
+4 more not shown (14 total).
Departures (14)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dorian Thomas TE | California | 4 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Travis Gray OT | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 27, 2025 |
| Aiden Valdez TE | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 28, 2025 |
| Marko Luera IOL | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Marcus Vinson TE | Florida Atlantic | 3 | Immediate | Jan 14, 2026 |
| Cole Welliver QB | Southeastern Louisiana | 3 | Immediate | Jan 17, 2026 |
| Clint Stephens S | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 17, 2026 |
| Landon Williams EDGE | Stephen F. Austin | 3 | Immediate | Feb 2, 2026 |
| Trey Dubuc LS | Texas | 2 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Mihalis Santorineos LB | undecided | 2 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
+4 more not shown (14 total).
2026 commits · 26
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cade Mitchell QB | Beaverton, OR | 3 | 0.8733 |
| DJ Darling WR | Missouri City, TX | 3 | 0.8622 |
| Brody Litton DL | Beloit, KS | 3 | 0.8611 |
| Massiah Mingo WR | Las Vegas, NV | 3 | 0.8600 |
| Ricklan Holmes II LB | Oklahoma City, OK | 3 | 0.8589 |
| Josh Mensah ATH | Fontana, CA | 3 | 0.8578 |
| Max Leeper TE | Claremont, CA | 3 | 0.8556 |
| Dorian Patterson WR | Crete, IL | 3 | 0.8533 |
| Eli Cramer-Cronin LB | Chandler, AZ | 3 | 0.8533 |
| Walter Moore EDGE | Ventura, CA | 3 | 0.8522 |
| Jerod Terry RB | Chatsworth, CA | 3 | 0.8500 |
| Jaron Liles ATH | Queen Creek, AZ | 3 | 0.8489 |
| Ty Gates OT | Peoria, AZ | 3 | 0.8478 |
| Azari Warren CB | Chino, CA | 3 | 0.8450 |
| Hayes Baum LB | Albuquerque, NM | 3 | 0.8450 |
+11 more not shown (26 total).
Returning production
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for New Mexico in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 58.2% | 174.1 | 57.3% |
| Passing | 74.0% | 65.9 | 96.8% |
| Receiving | 43.2% | 64.3 | 26.9% |
| Rushing | 71.4% | 44.0 | 45.4% |
A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.