A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.8% · rank 58 of 366 · 37 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
New Mexico
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.40
+15.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
26–112025–26 recorded finals
114.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
98.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
71.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on New Mexico.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
26–1137 recorded games · 37 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.7Mean opponent adj. net 5.0 · 36 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.6%37 games · higher is betterRank 91 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.1%37 games · lower is betterRank 84 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.8%37 games · lower is betterRank 58 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.2%37 games · higher is betterRank 60 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.8%37 games · higher is betterRank 196 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.4%37 games · lower is betterRank 64 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.9%37 games · higher is betterRank 158 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.4%37 games · lower is betterRank 155 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 114.8 | 37 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 100.2 | 37 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.7% | 37 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.6% | 37 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.8% | 37 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.2% | 37 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 42.9% | 37 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 47.8% | 37 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.0% | 37 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.1% | 37 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.8% | 37 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.9% | 37 | 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?
2,623 source possession rows across 37 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
Turnovers forced
19.2% · rank 60 of 366 · 37 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
35.9% · rank 158 of 366 · 37 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
30.8% · rank 196 of 366 · 37 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 9 times in the selected window; New Mexico 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
Apr 2, 2026 · neutral vs Tulsa · L 69–74 · offense 97.1 / defense 104.2
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 · 37 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TulsaApr 2, 2026 · neutral | L 69–74 | 116 | 97.1 | 104.2 | 71.1 | 40.4 | 14.1 | 33.3 |
| Saint Joseph'sMar 25, 2026 · home | W 84–69 | 108 | 113.9 | 93.5 | 73.8 | 52.5 | 13.6 | 21.9 |
| G WashingtonMar 23, 2026 · home | W 86–61 | 110 | 125.8 | 89.2 | 68.4 | 56.2 | 13.2 | 38.5 |
| Sam HoustonMar 19, 2026 · home | W 107–83 | 127 | 140.7 | 109.2 | 76.0 | 61.5 | 6.6 | 35.1 |
| San Diego StMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 62–64 | 43 | 93.7 | 96.8 | 66.1 | 38.5 | 16.6 | 39.2 |
| San José StMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 93–77 | 226 | 135.2 | 111.9 | 68.8 | 64.6 | 16.0 | 46.4 |
| Utah StateMar 7, 2026 · road | L 90–94 | 30 | 130.0 | 135.8 | 69.2 | 58.2 | 11.6 | 41.2 |
| Colorado StMar 5, 2026 · home | L 74–82 | 67 | 101.9 | 112.9 | 72.6 | 50.8 | 16.5 | 28.6 |
| San Diego StFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 81–76 | 43 | 115.3 | 108.1 | 70.3 | 45.9 | 8.5 | 32.6 |
| NevadaFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 60–67 | 59 | 84.9 | 94.7 | 70.7 | 43.6 | 18.4 | 17.5 |
| Fresno StFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 80–78 | 188 | 119.0 | 116.0 | 67.2 | 57.5 | 13.4 | 26.7 |
| Air ForceFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 98–61 | 347 | 138.6 | 86.3 | 70.7 | 66.9 | 15.6 | 45.5 |
| Grand CanyonFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 70–64 | 65 | 102.1 | 93.4 | 68.6 | 55.9 | 20.4 | 20.0 |
| Boise StFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 90–91 | 50 | 133.5 | 135.0 | 67.4 | 60.5 | 7.4 | 33.3 |
| Utah StateFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 66–86 | 30 | 90.6 | 118.1 | 72.9 | 44.1 | 20.6 | 20.6 |
| San José StFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 90–80 | 226 | 141.1 | 125.5 | 63.8 | 63.9 | 9.4 | 28.0 |
| UNLVJan 28, 2026 · road | W 89–61 | 111 | 119.0 | 81.5 | 74.8 | 58.5 | 13.4 | 29.4 |
| NevadaJan 25, 2026 · home | W 80–73 | 59 | 113.6 | 103.7 | 70.4 | 48.4 | 12.8 | 30.2 |
| Fresno StJan 22, 2026 · home | W 83–74 | 188 | 105.4 | 94.0 | 78.7 | 49.3 | 12.7 | 28.3 |
| San Diego StJan 18, 2026 · road | L 79–83 | 43 | 101.1 | 106.3 | 78.1 | 52.5 | 21.8 | 23.7 |
| Grand CanyonJan 14, 2026 · home | W 87–64 | 65 | 118.8 | 87.4 | 73.2 | 60.0 | 15.0 | 22.2 |
| Air ForceJan 10, 2026 · road | W 91–49 | 347 | 132.2 | 71.2 | 68.8 | 58.2 | 13.1 | 38.9 |
| Colorado StJan 7, 2026 · road | W 80–70 | 67 | 122.0 | 106.7 | 65.6 | 63.2 | 15.2 | 31.0 |
| WyomingJan 4, 2026 · home | W 78–58 | 132 | 128.0 | 95.2 | 60.9 | 53.9 | 14.8 | 48.6 |
| Boise StDec 31, 2025 · road | L 53–62 | 50 | 75.5 | 88.3 | 70.2 | 33.1 | 11.4 | 18.4 |
| San José StDec 21, 2025 · home | W 88–65 | 226 | 129.1 | 95.4 | 68.2 | 67.6 | 14.7 | 16.0 |
| FGCUDec 14, 2025 · home | W 75–59 | 219 | 109.9 | 86.5 | 68.2 | 42.5 | 19.1 | 44.4 |
| VCUDec 11, 2025 · road | W 81–78 | 39 | 115.9 | 111.6 | 69.9 | 57.4 | 20.0 | 31.0 |
| Santa ClaraDec 7, 2025 · home | W 98–71 | 42 | 137.0 | 99.2 | 71.6 | 67.5 | 16.8 | 34.6 |
| NM HighlandsDec 2, 2025 · home | W 97–47 | Unrated | 132.1 | 64.0 | 73.4 | 57.5 | 12.3 | 35.7 |
| Alabama StNov 27, 2025 · home | W 93–87 | 322 | 127.8 | 119.5 | 72.8 | 61.1 | 15.1 | 33.3 |
| Mississippi StNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 80–78 | 64 | 110.3 | 107.5 | 72.5 | 48.4 | 13.8 | 31.7 |
| NebraskaNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 72–84 | 24 | 88.8 | 103.6 | 81.1 | 48.5 | 19.7 | 19.5 |
| New Mexico StNov 16, 2025 · road | L 68–76 | 169 | 103.5 | 115.7 | 65.7 | 49.1 | 19.8 | 28.1 |
| UC RiversideNov 12, 2025 · home | W 82–68 | 241 | 123.1 | 102.1 | 66.6 | 56.3 | 7.5 | 25.7 |
| UT ArlingtonNov 8, 2025 · home | W 74–56 | 179 | 102.6 | 77.7 | 72.1 | 45.6 | 16.6 | 27.3 |
| E Texas A&MNov 6, 2025 · home | W 76–54 | 329 | 98.6 | 70.1 | 77.1 | 49.2 | 19.5 | 30.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jake HallG | 37 | 31.0 | 16.4 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 64.1 | 21.8% | 37 | 1.5437 games | 26737 games |
| Luke HauptG | 37 | 28.1 | 7.8 | 4.5 | 3.1 | 54.6 | 14.9% | 37 | 2.2237 games | 5437 games |
| Uriah TenetteG | 36 | 27.5 | 10.6 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 53.9 | 19.2% | 36 | 3.0636 games | 13636 games |
| Tomislav BuljanF | 35 | 26.0 | 13.1 | 10.3 | 1.5 | 57.0 | 25.1% | 35 | 0.8035 games | 2635 games |
| Antonio CholF | 37 | 24.2 | 7.7 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 50.7 | 16.7% | 37 | 1.1637 games | 18637 games |
| Deyton AlburyG | 35 | 24.8 | 11.7 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 61.3 | 23.3% | 35 | 1.3235 games | 5335 games |
| Tajavis MillerG | 32 | 16.7 | 5.6 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 52.1 | 17.3% | 32 | 1.7832 games | 10532 games |
| JT RockC | 37 | 12.8 | 6.2 | 3.5 | 0.4 | 62.8 | 21.3% | 37 | 0.6737 games | 5837 games |
| Chris HowellG | 11 | 24.5 | 5.5 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 52.3 | 14.0% | 11 | 1.8511 games | 1811 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?
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.
14Source-listed players
12Same-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 | 10 | 5,008 | 5,008 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,919 | 1,919 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 473 | 473 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,400 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Hall →G | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 31.0 | 16.4 | 64.1% |
| Luke Haupt →G | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 28.1 | 7.8 | 54.6% |
| Uriah Tenette →G | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 27.5 | 10.6 | 53.9% |
| Tomislav Buljan →F | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 26.0 | 13.1 | 57.0% |
| Antonio Chol →F | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 24.2 | 7.7 | 50.7% |
| Deyton Albury →G | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 24.8 | 11.7 | 61.3% |
| Tajavis Miller →G | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 16.7 | 5.6 | 52.1% |
| JT Rock →C | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 12.8 | 6.2 | 62.8% |
| Chris Howell →G | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 24.5 | 5.5 | 52.3% |
| Milos Vicentic →F | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 7.1 | 3.1 | 46.5% |
| Kevin Patton Jr. →G | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 9.7 | 2.6 | 42.1% |
| Timéo Pons →G | Same programNew Mexico Lobos | 5.4 | 2.6 | 50.3% |
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 vs UTEP
78.4New Mexico
67.3UTEP
UTEP win estimate26.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-11.1
Projected total145.7
80% home-margin range-27.0 to 4.9
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.5 pts
UTEP attack 49.4% · New Mexico defense 49.1%New Mexico attack 52.7% · UTEP defense 51.9%
Ball securityAway 4.6 pts
UTEP attack 18.1% · New Mexico defense 19.0%New Mexico attack 15.1% · UTEP defense 20.5%
Second chancesHome 0.8 pts
UTEP attack 27.6% · New Mexico defense 27.1%New Mexico attack 31.2% · UTEP defense 31.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.1 pts
UTEP attack 35.6% · New Mexico defense 33.5%New Mexico attack 36.2% · 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 →
Nevada vs New Mexico
71.6Nevada
78.1New Mexico
New Mexico win estimate70.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.4
Projected total149.7
80% home-margin range-9.5 to 22.4
Estimated possessions69.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
New Mexico attack 52.7% · Nevada defense 49.8%Nevada attack 52.1% · New Mexico defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
New Mexico attack 15.1% · Nevada defense 17.5%Nevada attack 15.2% · New Mexico defense 19.0%
Second chancesHome 1.5 pts
New Mexico attack 31.2% · Nevada defense 27.0%Nevada attack 29.8% · New Mexico defense 27.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.6 pts
New Mexico attack 36.2% · Nevada defense 37.1%Nevada attack 42.3% · New Mexico defense 33.5%
The Pit
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
San José St vs New Mexico
67.4San José St
84.8New Mexico
New Mexico win estimate88.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.5
Projected total152.2
80% home-margin range1.6 to 33.4
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.4 pts
New Mexico attack 52.7% · San José St defense 53.3%San José St attack 50.9% · New Mexico defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
New Mexico attack 15.1% · San José St defense 16.6%San José St attack 16.1% · New Mexico defense 19.0%
Second chancesAway 3.5 pts
New Mexico attack 31.2% · San José St defense 32.3%San José St attack 29.5% · New Mexico defense 27.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.4 pts
New Mexico attack 36.2% · San José St defense 31.9%San José St attack 31.4% · New Mexico defense 33.5%
The Pit
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 →