A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
47.6% · rank 41 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
New Mexico St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.169
-0.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–162025–26 recorded finals
106.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on New Mexico St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1632 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.1Mean opponent adj. net 0.0 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 309 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 41 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 85 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 231 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 104 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 171 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 173 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
43.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 348 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.5 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.1% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.2% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.6% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.1% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.8% | 32 | Opponent assists / FGM. |
Window changes describe the historical sample; they do not refit the preseason model. Full-season ranks require 10 games. Percentiles compare qualifying programs in the model’s rated field. Source coverage can differ by metric.
NCAA source context / 2025–26
What did the possessions look like?
2,219 source possession rows across 32 recorded team-games. These are descriptive NCAA source aggregates: they do not assign individual credit or enter the forecast.
02 / The film queue
Turn a number into a question.
A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.2% · rank 85 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.0% · rank 309 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
43.6% · rank 348 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
These are stat-led film prompts, not verified explanations of a scheme. Lower-ranked factors can still be above average. A five-point-or-closer final occurred 11 times in the selected window; New Mexico St won 4. That small-sample record is not a clutch-skill estimate.
03 / How the season moved
Read beyond the average.
● Offense● Opponent offenseRaw points / 100 possessions · game order
Mar 12, 2026 · neutral vs Sam Houston · L 61–69 · offense 85.3 / defense 96.5
Higher offense and lower opponent offense are better. Opponent strength and venue are not adjusted here. Missing paired boxes create gaps.
Open the game-by-game scouting log · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam HoustonMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 61–69 | 127 | 85.3 | 96.5 | 71.5 | 39.8 | 19.6 | 28.6 |
| Jax StateMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 68–63 | 173 | 105.9 | 98.1 | 64.2 | 44.6 | 15.6 | 30.8 |
| Kennesaw StMar 7, 2026 · home | W 79–76 | 159 | 116.9 | 112.5 | 67.6 | 45.8 | 14.8 | 47.2 |
| Jax StateMar 6, 2026 · home | W 77–75 | 173 | 101.5 | 98.8 | 67.5 | 43.5 | 11.9 | 25.6 |
| MTSUFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 85–86 | 164 | 113.0 | 114.3 | 66.9 | 49.3 | 10.6 | 32.6 |
| Western KYFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 70–93 | 157 | 88.7 | 117.8 | 78.9 | 36.9 | 16.5 | 23.4 |
| UTEPFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 67–63 | 230 | 115.0 | 108.2 | 58.3 | 47.0 | 6.9 | 35.9 |
| Jax StateFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 79–70 | 173 | 119.9 | 106.3 | 65.9 | 52.0 | 12.1 | 28.1 |
| LibertyFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 75–77 | 96 | 111.4 | 114.4 | 67.3 | 54.0 | 14.9 | 30.3 |
| UTEPFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 88–91 | 230 | 108.0 | 111.7 | 72.4 | 51.4 | 12.3 | 29.5 |
| Louisiana TechFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 72–63 | 156 | 113.4 | 99.2 | 63.5 | 56.4 | 18.9 | 36.7 |
| Kennesaw StJan 31, 2026 · road | L 53–76 | 159 | 79.3 | 113.7 | 66.9 | 27.1 | 17.9 | 26.3 |
| DelawareJan 29, 2026 · home | L 64–73 | 251 | 106.7 | 121.7 | 60.0 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 34.3 |
| FIUJan 24, 2026 · home | L 78–81 | 229 | 103.2 | 107.2 | 75.6 | 41.7 | 19.9 | 43.1 |
| Missouri StJan 23, 2026 · home | L 75–84 | 186 | 116.0 | 129.9 | 64.7 | 48.4 | 7.7 | 28.9 |
| DelawareJan 17, 2026 · road | W 97–68 | 251 | 156.7 | 109.9 | 61.9 | 68.3 | 6.5 | 33.3 |
| LibertyJan 15, 2026 · road | L 71–73 | 96 | 121.9 | 125.4 | 58.2 | 56.6 | 12.0 | 33.3 |
| MTSUJan 11, 2026 · home | L 55–59 | 164 | 84.7 | 90.9 | 64.9 | 40.4 | 16.9 | 20.0 |
| Western KYJan 9, 2026 · home | W 80–64 | 157 | 121.1 | 96.9 | 66.0 | 48.2 | 16.7 | 43.6 |
| Missouri StJan 4, 2026 · road | L 82–89 | 186 | 115.1 | 125.0 | 71.2 | 51.6 | 16.8 | 39.4 |
| FIUJan 2, 2026 · road | L 74–89 | 229 | 104.2 | 125.3 | 71.0 | 57.9 | 21.1 | 20.0 |
| SouthwestDec 28, 2025 · home | W 104–33 | Unrated | 138.0 | 43.8 | 75.4 | 57.7 | 14.6 | 55.0 |
| Sam HoustonDec 21, 2025 · home | W 87–78 | 127 | 117.1 | 105.0 | 74.3 | 58.1 | 9.4 | 21.2 |
| TulsaDec 13, 2025 · neutral | L 70–83 | 116 | 100.0 | 118.6 | 70.0 | 44.6 | 15.7 | 21.1 |
| Abilene ChrstnDec 6, 2025 · road | L 69–77 | 248 | 109.0 | 121.7 | 63.3 | 43.8 | 19.0 | 41.9 |
| South AlabamaDec 3, 2025 · neutral | L 75–77 | 165 | 113.0 | 116.1 | 66.4 | 49.2 | 19.6 | 45.0 |
| Georgia StNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 77–58 | 293 | 103.8 | 78.2 | 74.2 | 44.1 | 12.1 | 39.1 |
| UC IrvineNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 57–45 | 95 | 81.7 | 64.5 | 69.8 | 39.6 | 30.1 | 40.6 |
| SamfordNov 22, 2025 · home | W 81–72 | 147 | 130.0 | 115.6 | 62.3 | 60.5 | 9.6 | 32.1 |
| New MexicoNov 16, 2025 · home | W 76–68 | 40 | 115.7 | 103.5 | 65.7 | 50.0 | 12.2 | 30.8 |
| NM HighlandsNov 12, 2025 · home | W 74–58 | Unrated | 115.2 | 90.3 | 64.2 | 57.8 | 20.2 | 37.9 |
| Adams StNov 5, 2025 · home | W 83–72 | Unrated | 93.1 | 80.7 | 89.2 | 44.2 | 16.8 | 27.9 |
04 / The people behind the possessions
Personnel and workload.
2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →
| Player | GP | MIN/G | PTS/G | REB/G | AST/G | TS% | Est. usage | Usage games | AST/TO | 3PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jemel JonesG | 32 | 28.4 | 17.8 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 54.3 | 31.2% | 32 | 1.7332 games | 13732 games |
| Julius MimsF | 31 | 27.5 | 10.6 | 8.4 | 0.6 | 60.9 | 17.7% | 31 | 0.6331 games | 3231 games |
| Anthony WrzeszczG | 32 | 24.6 | 7.4 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 52.9 | 15.8% | 32 | 1.3932 games | 16732 games |
| Jae'Coby OsborneF | 32 | 23.3 | 6.0 | 4.9 | 0.6 | 56.9 | 13.0% | 32 | 0.7532 games | 1932 games |
| Gabe PickensG | 31 | 20.8 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 3.0 | 46.5 | 15.6% | 31 | 1.7731 games | 4931 games |
| Jayland RandallG | 32 | 19.9 | 8.9 | 3.1 | 0.7 | 50.4 | 23.3% | 32 | 1.2832 games | 12832 games |
| Elijah ElliottG | 31 | 18.6 | 8.3 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 47.3 | 26.9% | 31 | 1.7331 games | 11431 games |
| Chris TerrellG | 31 | 12.8 | 4.2 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 54.2 | 18.2% | 31 | 2.3231 games | 4431 games |
| Kyrese MullenF | 26 | 14.0 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 43.5 | 18.6% | 26 | 0.4426 games | 3426 games |
| Cyr MalongaC | 24 | 11.6 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 62.1 | 15.1% | 24 | 0.2524 games | 024 games |
| Augustine EkweC | 23 | 10.4 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 0.2 | 60.3 | 13.8% | 23 | 0.2923 games | 023 games |
Usage is a minutes-based estimate over the stated sample, not a direct measure of on-court possessions. Low-minute estimates are noisy. AST/TO is unavailable when recorded turnovers are zero; missing fields are never filled with zero.
05 / Recruiting evidence
What changed around New Mexico St?
This panel keeps dated school publications, source-listed roster observations and prior college production in separate evidence lanes. A source record does not establish eligibility, availability or a future role.
15Source-listed players
14Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
100%Prior minutes represented
Role workload watch
Which source-listed role is represented?
Prior minutes are grouped by the source-reported position on the current listing. “Unrepresented” means prior minutes not attached to a same-program listing in this release; it does not establish a departure, transfer, eligibility or expected role.
| Role | Listed | Prior minutes | Returning minutes | Incoming prior minutes | Returning share | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard | 8 | 3,972 | 3,972 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,985 | 1,985 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 518 | 518 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,475 minutes).
No dated school announcement is in the selected review file for this program. The roster row below is observation-only; absence of a reviewed announcement does not mean the program made no move.
No announced additions are in the reviewed file for this program.
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
15 source-listed players. Prior rates below are attached by exact source ID where available; missing values remain missing.
| Player | Observation | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Prior TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jemel Jones →G | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 28.4 | 17.8 | 54.3% |
| Julius Mims →F | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 27.5 | 10.6 | 60.9% |
| Anthony Wrzeszcz →G | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 24.6 | 7.4 | 52.9% |
| Jae'Coby Osborne →F | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 23.3 | 6.0 | 56.9% |
| Gabe Pickens →G | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 20.8 | 4.5 | 46.5% |
| Jayland Randall →G | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 19.9 | 8.9 | 50.4% |
| Elijah Elliott →G | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 18.6 | 8.3 | 47.3% |
| Chris Terrell →G | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 12.8 | 4.2 | 54.2% |
| Kyrese Mullen →F | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 14.0 | 3.8 | 43.5% |
| Cyr Malonga →C | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 11.6 | 3.7 | 62.1% |
| Augustine Ekwe →C | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 10.4 | 2.7 | 60.3% |
| Christian Villegas →G | Same programNew Mexico State Aggies | 3.4 | 0.8 | 25.2% |
Showing the 12 highest prior-minute records. Open the full roster board for every source-listed player.
Recruiting review edition Sep 8, 2026 · coverage is partial (14 programs reviewed). See the full methodology and coverage map before drawing a roster conclusion.
Look ahead / 2026–27
The next assignments.
Checking the live schedule edition…
New Mexico St vs UTEP
68.1New Mexico St
68.7UTEP
UTEP win estimate55.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.5
Projected total136.8
80% home-margin range-15.4 to 16.5
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.3 pts
UTEP attack 49.4% · New Mexico St defense 49.5%New Mexico St attack 48.5% · UTEP defense 51.9%
Ball securityAway 7.5 pts
UTEP attack 18.1% · New Mexico St defense 15.5%New Mexico St attack 15.6% · UTEP defense 20.5%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
UTEP attack 27.6% · New Mexico St defense 28.9%New Mexico St attack 31.0% · UTEP defense 31.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.0 pts
UTEP attack 35.6% · New Mexico St defense 41.6%New Mexico St attack 34.3% · UTEP defense 41.2%
Don Haskins Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UTEP vs New Mexico St
65.4UTEP
71.4New Mexico St
New Mexico St win estimate69.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.0
Projected total136.8
80% home-margin range-9.9 to 21.9
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.3 pts
New Mexico St attack 48.5% · UTEP defense 51.9%UTEP attack 49.4% · New Mexico St defense 49.5%
Ball securityHome 7.5 pts
New Mexico St attack 15.6% · UTEP defense 20.5%UTEP attack 18.1% · New Mexico St defense 15.5%
Second chancesHome 0.8 pts
New Mexico St attack 31.0% · UTEP defense 31.4%UTEP attack 27.6% · New Mexico St defense 28.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.0 pts
New Mexico St attack 34.3% · UTEP defense 41.2%UTEP attack 35.6% · New Mexico St defense 41.6%
Pan American Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
FIU vs New Mexico St
69.9FIU
76.1New Mexico St
New Mexico St win estimate69.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.2
Projected total145.9
80% home-margin range-9.7 to 22.1
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.8 pts
New Mexico St attack 48.5% · FIU defense 52.9%FIU attack 49.8% · New Mexico St defense 49.5%
Ball securityHome 7.9 pts
New Mexico St attack 15.6% · FIU defense 20.5%FIU attack 18.5% · New Mexico St defense 15.5%
Second chancesAway 3.9 pts
New Mexico St attack 31.0% · FIU defense 32.8%FIU attack 30.9% · New Mexico St defense 28.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.9 pts
New Mexico St attack 34.3% · FIU defense 36.5%FIU attack 34.5% · New Mexico St defense 41.6%
Pan American Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Read the evidence correctly.
The top-line adjusted ratings use the full published preseason model. Split statistics below them are unadjusted observations from 2025–26. Opponent ranks are the current model’s ranks, not what was known before each historical game. The “top 50” split is descriptive and does not enter model evaluation.
Rates pool numerators and denominators from games with all fields required for that metric. Missing values remain unavailable; every metric shows its game count. Ranks require at least 10 games and compare programs in the model’s rated field. Ties share rank; percentiles use their average position. High percentiles mean favorable values only for metrics with a defined direction.
Player workloads refer to recorded 2025–26 appearances. Estimated usage divides FGA + 0.475 × FTA + turnovers by minutes-prorated team opportunities in those same games. It assumes team opportunity rates were constant while a player was on court; it is not a lineup or play-by-play measurement. Overtime is included in available minutes. Minutes and usage samples can differ.
Source statistics: SportsDataverse bulk releases, CC BY 4.0. Calculations and model: Silvermine. Definitions draw on publicly documented Four Factors and basketball rate statistics; these are not another publisher’s proprietary ratings. Model notebook →