The SportsWire

2026 · week 10 result vs Nevada

Updated Tue Nov 10, 6:04 AM CT

College / Teams / Mountain West

New Mexico

#23 AP8-1 overall · 5-0 Mountain West1st in the Mountain WestNext: vs UNLV, Sat Nov 14, 6:30 PM CTTV: CWOur call: New Mexico by 14.6Availability: no official report for this game yet
SP+ rating
+14.4
#23 nationally
Projected wins
10.4
Most likely 11-1
Mountain West title chance
66%
Our projection
Playoff chance
18%
Our projection

Updated Tue Nov 10, 6:04 AM CT

Next game · Week 11

Sat Nov 14, 6:30 PM CT

Our call blends our core models. Each bar is one model's predicted winning margin for New Mexico.

#23 New Mexico
8-1 · 5-0 Mountain West
VS
UNLV

Sat Nov 14, 6:30 PM CT · University Stadium (NM) · TV: CW

Our call
New Mexico by 14.6 · 78% win chance
All 10 models favor New Mexico.
Pick it in Beat the ModelGame page ›
+14.4UNM SP+ (#23)
-3.7UNLV SP+ (#89)
+18.1SP+ gap
SP+
UNM by 20.6
Elo
UNM by 12.7
Market
UNM by 13.5
Our model
UNM by 10.6
ESPN FPI
UNM by 13.5
SRS
UNM by 17.5
Sagarin
UNM by 14.9
Sonny Moore
UNM by 22.8
The Margin
UNM by 15.5
Record
Favors UNM

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 ›

Game page: vs UNLV ›

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)
SeasonResultSite
2025New Mexico 40–35Allegiant Stadium
2023UNLV 56–14University Stadium (NM)
2022UNLV 31–20Allegiant Stadium
2021UNLV 31–17University Stadium (NM)
2018New Mexico 50–14Sam Boyd Stadium
2017UNLV 38–35University Stadium (NM)
2014New Mexico 31–28Sam Boyd Stadium
2013UNLV 56–42University Stadium (NM)
2012UNLV 35–7Sam Boyd Stadium
2011New Mexico 21–14University Stadium (NM)
2010UNLV 45–10Sam Boyd Stadium
2009UNLV 34–17University Stadium (NM)
2008UNLV 27–20Sam Boyd Stadium
2007New Mexico 27–6University Stadium (NM)
2006New Mexico 39–36Sam Boyd Stadium
2005New Mexico 24–22University Stadium (NM)
2004New Mexico 24–20Sam Boyd Stadium
2003UNLV 37–35University Stadium (NM)
2002New Mexico 25–16Sam Boyd Stadium
2001New Mexico 27–17University Stadium (NM)
2000UNLV 18–14away
RatingNew MexicoUNLV
SP+ +14.4 #23 -3.7 #89
Elo 1713 1457

Projected margin for New Mexico · four models side by side

SP+
+20.6
New Mexico +14.4 vs UNLV -3.7
avg miss 11.6
closest 55/192
Elo
+12.7
New Mexico 1713 vs UNLV 1457
avg miss 12.6
closest 64/192
Market
+13.5
the market's pregame margin
avg miss 11.5
closest 74/192
Our model · experimental
+10.6
New Mexico +1.9 vs UNLV -6.2
prior 40%
avg miss 12.7
closest 33/153

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.

New Mexicolonger bar = betterUNLV
  • 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
MeasureNew MexicoUNLVEdge
Off. success rate42.9%39.0%New Mexico
Off. explosiveness1.261.30UNLV
Def. success rate allowed28.5%42.7%New Mexico
Def. explosiveness allowed1.381.22UNLV
Havoc created25.7%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 played

Every 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.

DateOpponentResultOur callAvg miss
Sep 5vs Central MichiganW 38-7——
Sep 12vs MercyhurstW 70-7——
Sep 19at OklahomaL 6-14——
Sep 26at New Mexico StateW 42-18——
Oct 3vs UTEPW 61-7——
Oct 17at Hawai'iW 21-10——
Oct 24vs North Dakota StateW 21-16——
Oct 31at San José StateW 21-16——
Nov 6at NevadaW 31-3New Mexico by 9.3 ✓18.7

Last game · at Nevada

Final, Fri Nov 6, 8:00 PM CT

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.

TeamQ1Q2Q3Q4Final
New Mexico14071031
Nevada03003
100%Postgame win probability
MarketClosest model (actual +28)
Top performers (points added)
QB Toa Fa'avae+2.8
RB Toa Fa'avae+1.8
WR Cade Keith+5.5
New MexicoNevada
Moved the ball
44% / 16%
Points per play
+0.15 / -0.28
Big plays
1.25 / 1.21
Disruption
26% / 15%

Rest of the season

Experimental projection

Win chance in each remaining game, from our model's projected margin.

Sat Nov 14 · vs UNLV
83%New Mexico by 14.6
Fri Nov 20 · at Wyoming
80%New Mexico by 12.6
Fri Nov 27 · vs Air Force
81%New Mexico by 13.4
10.4Projected wins
11-1 (56%)Most likely record
9 played / 3 leftPlayed the 127th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -11.5); 105th-toughest remaining (-8.2). More ›

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

2026

Where the talent comes from and how much of last year's production is back.

#872026 class
#112Talent (of 138)
14 / 14Portal in / out
Overall
58.2%
Passing
74.0%
Receiving
43.2%
Rushing
71.4%

Returning production: share of last season's points added that is back.

Injuries

Week 11

Only official team or conference reports change a status here.

The Mountain West posts its own availability report, which this page does not read yet: the conference's report ›. That is not a sign anyone is healthy.

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 New Mexico was as low as 44% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 31–3
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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.

New Mexicolonger bar = betterNevada
  • 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.

MeasureNew MexicoNevadaEdge
PPA / play+0.15-0.28New Mexico
Total PPA+9.9-14.5New Mexico
Success rate44.1%15.7%New Mexico
Explosiveness1.251.21New Mexico
Havoc created26.0%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

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Toa Fa'avae QB 100% +2.8 +0.15

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/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

PlayerTarget usagePPA/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
MeasureNew MexicoNevadaEdge
Rushing PPA+0.17-0.71New Mexico
Rushing success46.5%6.2%New Mexico
Passing PPA+0.13-0.09New Mexico
Passing success41.7%20.6%New Mexico
Standard downs PPA+0.13-0.31New Mexico
Standard downs success48.0%20.0%New Mexico
Passing downs PPA+0.18-0.26New Mexico
Passing downs success33.3%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.

◀ New MexicoNevada ▶
  • 13Drives12
  • 11Scoring opportunities8
  • 2.8Points per opportunity0.4
  • own 39Avg. starting field positionown 21
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 MexicoNevada
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.18+0.13-0.10-0.56
Success rate43%46%23%5%
Plays30373020
Recruiting and the transfer portal

Recruiting

New Mexico's 2026 class: #87 · 182.61 points.

MeasureNew MexicoNevada
Talent composite 568.2
#112 of 138
550.0
#118 of 138
Transfer portal · 14 in, 14 out

Arrivals (14)

PlayerFrom★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)

PlayerTo★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
PlayerHometown★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% PPAPPAUsage
Overall58.2%174.157.3%
Passing74.0%65.996.8%
Receiving43.2%64.326.9%
Rushing71.4%44.045.4%

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.