Skip to content
New Mexico

New Mexico Lobos

Mountain West·2-0·
Compare
Elo
1558#50
SP+
4.4#53
FPI
0.9
AP
NR
Next@ Oklahoma · Wk 3Win prob 10%Model +19.5
Talent #112 (568.2)Recruiting class #8758% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on New Mexico

All news →

New Mexico dismantles Central Michigan, 38-7

Matchup · 6d ago

Strip the home field and our number is 12 where the market's is 7

Matchup · Aug 31

Roster · 115 players

FR 28SO 24JR 25SR 38
#PlayerPosClHtWt
2Jack LayneQBSR6'2"209
3Gabriel MotschenbacherQBJR6'0"195
10Luke MogaQBJR6'1"208
12James LaubsteinQBSR6'3"209
13Toa Fa'avaeQBSO6'0"188
15Cade MitchellQBFR6'1"220
8Deshaun BuchananRBSR5'9"188
20Darrion BowersRBSO5'8"200
21Kiefer SibleyRBJR5'9"179
22Scottre HumphreyRBSR5'10"215
23Cameron MathewsRBSO5'7"187
24Jerod Terry Jr.RBFR5'7"182
0Miles WilliamsWRSR6'0"192
1Shawn MillerWRSR6'0"205
5Troy OmeireWRSR6'5"226
6Zhaiel SmithWRSO5'11"188
9Kader DiopWRSR5'10"178
11Massiah MingoWRFR5'9"170
14DJ DarlingWRFR5'11"175
16Jacob MaldonadoWRFR5'10"170
18Evan WysongWRSR5'9"171
25Dorian PattersonWRFR6'3"192
26KJ CherryWRJR6'2"185
81Bailen GeorgeWRFR6'0"160
82JT JeterWRSO6'0"178
83Mikey BeckWRSO6'1"160
87Abraham WilliamsWRSR6'1"192
4Joey OlsenTEJR6'5"246
7Tripp WalshTESR6'5"245
17Bear TenneyTESO6'6"255
80Max LeeperTEFR6'7"228
84Trey MooreTEFR6'5"210
85Simon MapaTESR6'3"255
86Aldin BilalbegovicTESO6'4"225
88Cade KeithTEJR6'5"245
89Enrique ZatarainTEFR6'4"217
51Malik AlianeOLSR6'2"320
54JoJo MatautiaOLSO5'10"305
55Elvin HarrisOLSR6'6"315
56Sa'Kylee WoodardOLJR6'3"278
57Jonny ShivelyOLSO6'3"290
58Jaymar TasiOLSO6'2"308
59Kaden RobnettOLSR6'2"302
60Jubilee Siitia-TasiOLSO6'2"302
62Sebastian DawkinsOLFR6'1"290
65Brody LittonOLFR6'4"285
66Markus FetchoOLSO6'5"308
68Tyler LawrenceOLSR6'5"306
69Jerbralon StewartOLFR6'2"260
71Danzel NewellOLFR6'5"265
72Matheu AldermanOLFR6'5"285
75Ty'aun GatesOLFR6'5"295
76Braden ChickOLFR6'2"285
77Tevin ShawOLSR6'5"320
79Cole MillwardOLSR6'5"297
10Darren AguDESR6'6"252
19Elijah BrodyDEJR6'1"240
22Jalen CharlesDEJR6'3"245
32Trent RockerDEJR6'5"215
35Victor VillafuerteDESR6'2"220
36Albert TuakalauDEJR6'4"245
45Brett KarhuDESR6'0"226
47Marcus StevensDEJR6'2"238
48John SierraDEJR6'2"237
91Brayden EllisDEJR6'3"230
97Cody ThumlertDESO6'3"225
99Jack BurzynskiDESO6'4"225
15Xavier SlaytonDTSR6'2"255
46Jake DeVosDTSO6'2"255
88AJ RobinsonDTSR6'2"275
90Devin PalmerDTFR6'1"255
92Brian BookerDTSR6'3"330
93Deven DyerDTSR6'1"290
94Jalen McIverDTJR6'3"278
98Nick BarberDTFR6'3"280
2Mercury SwaimLBSR5'11"216
6Jaxton EckLBSR6'1"228
11C.J. JohnsonLBJR6'2"215
18Clay MartineauLBJR6'3"228
26Thomas PettusLBSO6'1"212
33Hayes BaumLBFR5'11"222
34Broden SchmidtLBFR6'2"227
41Eli CroninLBFR6'0"216
48Jayden FlakerLBSR6'2"222
50Ricklan Holmes IILBFR5'11"227
1Jahmir TorresCBSO5'10"182
4Jayden SheridanCBSR5'11"182
5Frankie Edwards IIICBJR5'10"178
8Ormanie ArnoldCBSR5'8"178
9Eric McClainCBJR5'11"183
14Melaki GutierrezCBJR6'0"165
24Joshua BarnesCBJR5'9"185
24Azariah LevellsCBSR5'11"186
27Brannon HamptonCBFR6'1"166
0Austin BrawleySSR5'10"180
3CJ McBeanSSO6'1"195
7Tavian CombsSSR6'2"198
12Drew SpeechSSR6'2"204
13Chris Gant Jr.SJR5'9"192
16Marco Beltran Jr.SFR5'10"190
17Will HicksSJR6'0"198
20Kevin LongstreetSSR5'8"185
21Josh MensahSFR6'0"187
23Nick WheelerSSO6'0"208
28Deriece BrownSSO6'1"200
29Xavier Rivera-RogersSFR6'2"190
30Keshawn MonroeSSO5'8"175
39Jaron LilesSFR6'1"200
31Grant GlasgowPKSR6'1"192
41Nick RomeroPKSO5'8"172
95Konner OlsonPKSR5'10"208
19Michael KernPJR6'4"195
35Charles SteinkampPSR6'5"208
50Lincoln EpsteinLSJR5'9"215
53Caden BeckLSSO5'9"195

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
54.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
7.0
scoring defense
Differential
+47.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
412.0#71
Yards / play
5.9#74
Passing yards / game
166.0#115
Rushing yards / game
246.0#21
First downs / game
25.5#24
3rd down %
46.2%#49
4th down %
50.0%#71
Time of possession
35:31#10
Defense
Yards allowed / game
152.0#3
Yards / play allowed
3.0#4
Pass yards allowed / game
83.5#2
Rush yards allowed / game
68.5#16
3rd down % allowed
16.7%#6
Sacks
8#8
Tackles for loss
16#16
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+7#1
Takeaways
8#1
Giveaways
1#21
Penalties / game
4.0#17
Penalty yards / game
32.0#16

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

New Mexico is in year 2 under Jason Eck. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 14th at staying out of the backfield.

New Mexico has played 1 game against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Offensegetting stopped at the line
    #14
    projected
  • Defensegetting stopped at the line
    #25
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 10 to play
8.5 – 3.5
projected final record (now 2–0)
Exp. wins left
6.5
of 10 games
Bowl odds
99%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
95%
vs UTEP
Toughest
10%
vs Oklahoma

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 10 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

23456789101112
final winstallest bar = 29% chance
Likeliest finish 9-3 (29%)Bowl eligible 99% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
RBKiefer Sibley, Deshaun Buchanan +1
+15.8 EPA
QBLuke Moga, James Laubstein +1
+12.7 EPA
TETripp Walsh, Cade Keith
+7.3 EPA
WRTroy Omeire, Miles Williams +5
+2.3 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
QBLuke Moga
~$582K
EPA +6.00.239/play25 snaps
QBToa Faavae
~$486K
EPA +2.80.114/play25 snaps
RBScottre Humphrey
~$263K
EPA +13.80.493/play28 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.3066th#48
Def-0.1596th#6
Explosiveness
Off1.1629th#98
Def1.4711th#123
Field position
Off60.41st#136
Def76.99th#126
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off4.8973rd#38
Def3.5044th#78
Turnovers
Won 8Lost 1
Margin +7

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.0912th#121
Off · rush
0.4794th#9

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.4794th#9
Def-0.0766th#47
Passing
Off0.0912th#122
Def-0.1197th#5

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.77#19
2nd-level / open-field
1.47 / 1.60
Power / stuff (off)
90.0% / 5.3%
Havoc — total (def)
29.5%#3
Havoc — front 7 / DB
20.0% / 9.5%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.28
Def-0.26
Pass downs
Off0.37
Def-0.04

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.00#960.53#190.87#23
Defense-0.36#3-0.16#180.24#48

Elo Trajectory

Central MichiganFinal
Elo rating 1496 → 1564+68 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.2247th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed-0.0569th
  • Offense success rate49%61st
  • Defense success rate allowed27%85th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs55%67th
  • Offense success — passing downs31%42nd
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs30%85th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs21%66th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness0.936th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.338th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.9229th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs0.996th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.780th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.845th
  • Offense highlight yards0.7642nd
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.6752nd
  • Offense power success1.099th
  • Defense power success allowed0.6761st
  • Offense stuff rate0.0790th
  • Defense stuff rate0.031st

Third down

  • Third down conversion54%72nd
  • Third down distance faced5.877th
  • Third down conversion allowed18%88th
  • Third down distance forced7.353rd

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.2979th
  • Net success rate — second half0.2277th

Drives

  • Points per drive4.187th
  • Points per drive allowed0.7885th
  • Average starting field position3382nd
  • Opponent starting field position2664th
  • Available yards gained65%78th
  • Available yards allowed21%93rd
  • Scoring opportunities per drive100%99th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed67%84th
  • Points per scoring opportunity4.182nd
  • Points allowed per opportunity1.287th
  • Three-and-out rate11%81st
  • Three-and-outs forced56%96th

Roster

  • Returning usage57%67th
  • Returning EPA17469th
  • Team talent composite56819th
  • Recruiting class rank87.037th
  • Recruiting class points18337th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

⚡

Offensive DNA

EPA/play
+0.301#48 · above avg
Pass EPA/play
+0.092#122
Rush EPA/play
+0.469#9
Explosiveness
1.163#98
Pts/opportunity
4.89#38
Success rate
51.5%

Rush efficiency edge: 0.378 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

High-pressure defense — top 5 nationally in EPA/play allowed
EPA/play allowed
-0.150#6 · elite
Havoc rate (total)
29.5%#3
Front-7 havoc
20.0%
DB havoc
9.5%
Big play rate allowed
1.470#123
Success rate allowed
22.4%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

54.0 PPG offense, 7.0 allowed — +47.0 margin/game
Points per game
54.0
Points allowed/game
7.0
Scoring margin/game
+47.0
Turnover margin
+7won 8 · lost 1
Production returning
58%
Talent rank (247)
#112

2-0 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE66thEXPLOSIVENESS29thFINISHING73thFIELD POS1thDEFENSE96thHAVOC99th50th100th
Offense
66th
Explosiveness
29th
Finishing
73th
Field Pos
1th
Defense
96th
Havoc
99th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
+7.4
#41
Offense
-1.6
#76
Defense
-9.0
#19
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 9 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive4.110.78
Starting field positionown 33.1own 25.8
Available yards64.8%21.0%
Scoring opportunities100.0%66.7%
Points per opportunity4.111.17
Three-and-out rate11.1%55.6%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
42.3%
Expected, given the spots
46.4%
Over expected
-4.1
Fourth down vs peers
+1
Fourth down vs the model
+0
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. New Mexico is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to New Mexico in 2026

by EPA/play distance
James MadisonSP+ -0.3
Off EPA/play +0.303Def EPA/play -0.133Elo 1776
Match
99%
AlabamaSP+ +20.0
Off EPA/play +0.274Def EPA/play -0.174Elo 1823
Match
98%
Kansas StateSP+ +12.7
Off EPA/play +0.314Def EPA/play -0.219Elo 1616
Match
96%
Texas A&MSP+ +23.9
Off EPA/play +0.224Def EPA/play -0.097Elo 1849
Match
94%
MarylandSP+ +9.1
Off EPA/play +0.348Def EPA/play -0.059Elo 1424
Match
94%
North CarolinaSP+ +5.8
Off EPA/play +0.330Def EPA/play -0.045Elo 1398
Match
94%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 2015–2026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: -17.1, #108 of 1282016: +0.1, #64 of 1282017: -16.4, #109 of 1302018: -22.7, #125 of 1302019: -19.3, #121 of 1302020: -12.4, #100 of 1242021: -25.2, #122 of 1302022: -24.9, #127 of 1312023: -10.7, #101 of 1332024: -10.9, #101 of 1342025: +0.5, #63 of 1362026: +7.4, #41 of 138
20152026
Now +7.4 · #41 of 138Best +7.4 in 2026Worst -25.2 in 2021

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
2.0+0.0
20259-46-2
69%
7.5+1.5
20245-73-4
42%
4.1+0.9
20234-82-6
33%
4.3-0.3
20222-100-8
17%
2.4-0.4
20213-91-7
25%
3.3-0.3
20202-52-5
29%
2.3-0.3
20192-100-8
17%
1.9+0.1
20183-91-7
25%
3.8-0.8
20173-91-7
25%
4.7-1.7

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

9.1%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 9.2-3.3. Wins the Mountain West in 30%.

If they finish with…

97%
0 losses
54%
1 loss
7.5%
2 losses
0.0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 1.

Win out and it is 97%. One bid goes to the best champion outside the four power leagues, so running the table only enters them into that argument.

up 4.2 points since preseason — won 38-7 over Central Michigan against an expected margin of +18, so +13.5 against the number.

  • At 1 loss they are 54% where the average Mountain West team is 51%.
  • The Mountain West takes 0.23 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 9.0% of seasons, having won their league in 95% of those.

New Mexico’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk3at Oklahoma27.2
  • wk11vs UNLV14.5
  • wk10at Nevada12.6
  • wk13vs Air Force11.8
  • wk7at Hawai'i11.7
  • wk9at San José State10.4

Who to root for

Games New Mexico is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk9Notre Dame over Navy2.4
  • wk8Washington State over Boise State2.1
  • wk10Sacramento State over Toledo2.0
  • wk11Oregon State over Boise State1.8
  • wk6Fresno State over Boise State1.6
  • wk10Colorado State over Boise State1.6
The full playoff picture →

Mountain West

0-0 in league play, projected 5.9-2.12 of 10 by title odds
30%
Wins the Mountain West
52%
Reaches the title game

The Mountain West sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 35% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk11UNLV at New Mexico34.5
  • wk13Air Force at New Mexico28.3
  • wk10New Mexico at Nevada27.9
  • wk7New Mexico at Hawai'i25.2

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Mountain West race →

If not the playoff, then

97%
Bowl eligible
87%
Placed in a bowl
9.1%
In the playoff
3.7%
Season over in November

New Mexico is 1-0 and needs 5 more wins from 11 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent.

  • LA Bowl26%
  • New Mexico Bowl19%
  • Independence Bowl9.0%
  • Arizona Bowl8.6%
  • Frisco Bowl5.7%
  • Cure Bowl4.6%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 7 have sent New Mexico a player since 2010 — 16 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of New Mexico's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
CentennialCA30
Fort Bend MarshallTX30
HamiltonAZ30
Spring WestfieldTX30
CentralAL20
FriscoTX11
Friendship AcademyDC10
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.