Percentile among the 138 FBS teams on each measure this season, offence and defence, both teams. Raw values, plays behind them and ranks are in the tables below.
What actually happens around a number like this
Each bar is how often a college game lands on that margin, from 7,877 FBS games 2015–2025, centred on our card line. The spread misses by 12.3 points on average (37% within a touchdown). UNM wins about 59% of the time at a number like ours.
UTEP
Games
4
Plays per game
56.5
Drives per game
11.5
SP+
-24.0 (134th, offence 128th, defence 135th)
Returning production
-1% (pass 18%, rush -31%, receiving 15%)
UNM
Games
4
Plays per game
66.0
Drives per game
12.0
SP+
7.7 (46th, offence 61st, defence 29th)
Returning production
58% (pass 74%, rush 71%, receiving 43%)
What each side chooses to do
Offence
UTEP
UNM
pass rate, all downs
43%108th
35%132nd
pass rate, standard downs
40%81st
30%129th
pass rate, 1st down
44%57th
35%114th
no-huddle share
75%53rd
22%108th
pass rate, passing downs
48%130th
46%133rd
pass rate, red zone
46%30th
19%130th
seconds per play (own drives)
31.221st
33.82nd
choices, from CFBD play-by-play; a choice repeats within a season, a result mostly does not Rank 1 = highest rate / fastest among FBS.
UTEP offence
UTEP offence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
-0.179
226
138 of 138
success rate
0.367
226
124 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.092
226
127 of 138
rush: points added per play
-0.197
226
136 of 138
rush: success rate
0.357
226
128 of 138
rush: explosiveness
0.867
226
95 of 138
pass: points added per play
-0.037
226
131 of 138
pass: success rate
0.402
226
97 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.371
226
118 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.442
226
115 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.200
226
135 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
2.516
226
133 of 138
rushes stopped at or behind the line
0.240
226
131 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.500
226
135 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
1.700
226
136 of 138
havoc allowed (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.217
226
137 of 138
havoc allowed by the front seven
0.173
226
137 of 138
havoc allowed by the secondary
0.044
226
48 of 138
average starting field position (yards from own goal)
68.800
226
100 of 138
UNM offence
UNM offence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
0.163
264
67 of 138
success rate
0.417
264
96 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.235
264
66 of 138
rush: points added per play
0.264
264
19 of 138
rush: success rate
0.462
264
59 of 138
rush: explosiveness
1.126
264
18 of 138
pass: points added per play
-0.021
264
129 of 138
pass: success rate
0.337
264
129 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.542
264
71 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.473
264
90 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.287
264
94 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
3.285
264
44 of 138
rushes stopped at or behind the line
0.140
264
38 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.889
264
8 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
4.273
264
52 of 138
havoc allowed (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.117
264
34 of 138
havoc allowed by the front seven
0.087
264
69 of 138
havoc allowed by the secondary
0.030
264
14 of 138
average starting field position (yards from own goal)
59.600
264
138 of 138
UTEP defence
UTEP defence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
0.252
254
130 of 138
success rate
0.472
254
131 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.209
254
63 of 138
rush: points added per play
0.136
254
112 of 138
rush: success rate
0.439
254
104 of 138
rush: explosiveness
0.922
254
71 of 138
pass: points added per play
0.512
254
137 of 138
pass: success rate
0.528
254
138 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.571
254
78 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.508
254
116 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.369
254
129 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
2.969
254
91 of 138
rushes stopped (by this defence) at or behind the line
0.223
254
105 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.667
254
52 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
4.500
254
128 of 138
havoc created (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.126
254
17 of 138
havoc created by the front seven
0.094
254
59 of 138
havoc created by the secondary
0.031
254
4 of 138
opponent average starting field position
67.400
254
11 of 138
UNM defence
UNM defence
value
plays
FBS rank
points added per play
-0.146
237
7 of 138
success rate
0.321
237
13 of 138
explosiveness (points added on successful plays)
1.374
237
116 of 138
rush: points added per play
-0.145
237
18 of 138
rush: success rate
0.307
237
13 of 138
rush: explosiveness
0.926
237
74 of 138
pass: points added per play
0.086
237
58 of 138
pass: success rate
0.351
237
28 of 138
pass: explosiveness
1.828
237
126 of 138
standard downs: success rate
0.368
237
12 of 138
passing downs: success rate
0.247
237
36 of 138
line yards per rush (the O-line)
1.917
237
3 of 138
rushes stopped (by this defence) at or behind the line
0.246
237
119 of 138
short-yardage conversion rate
0.500
237
8 of 138
points per trip inside the 40
2.583
237
21 of 138
havoc created (TFL, forced fumbles, breakups per play)
0.249
237
137 of 138
havoc created by the front seven
0.169
237
133 of 138
havoc created by the secondary
0.080
237
116 of 138
opponent average starting field position
77.400
237
135 of 138
points added per play: CFBD predicted points added (their EPA); positive helps the offence · success rate: share of plays that gain 50% of needed yards on 1st, 70% on 2nd, 100% on 3rd/4th · explosiveness: average points added on the plays that succeeded - big-play size · havoc: tackles for loss, forced fumbles, interceptions and breakups as a share of plays · rank: 1 = best among FBS teams in the direction that helps that side · fei: bcftoys.com FEI: opponent-adjusted possession efficiency, offence/defence/special teams, with FBS rank - theirs · fplus: bcftoys.com F+: FEI and SP+ combined, in standard deviations above average - theirs