Week 3 2025 · September 12, 2025
New Mexico at UCLA, Week 3 2025: who deserved to win?
New Mexico beat UCLA 35–10, and the replays back it up: with the way both teams actually played, New Mexico wins 8 of 10.
An off day for UCLA: its offense played far below its usual level. In a fresh game against New Mexico it would win 77% of the time; with this day’s form, 15%. The numbers
Before kickoff UCLA was an 84% favorite.
Final
 New Mexico Lobos | 35 |
|---|---|
 UCLA Bruins | 10 |
Replay with same day's form
Luck index +15 New Mexico about even · −15 UCLA
Each team’s own plays from this game, resampled into new drives 4,000 times: with the way both teams actually played, how often does this performance win? How the replay works
Ten replays. New Mexico wins 8, UCLA wins 2.
- 1 UNM 48 UCLA 7
- 2 UNM 42 UCLA 14
- 3 UNM 30 UCLA 7
- 4 UNM 27 UCLA 7
- 5 UNM 31 UCLA 14
- 6 UNM 28 UCLA 17
- 7 UNM 35 UCLA 28
- 8 UNM 24 UCLA 21
- 9 UNM 20 UCLA 24
- 10 UNM 7 UCLA 17
Three other ways to ask
Each answers a different question, so none of them replaces the replay above.
Before kickoff
The closing betting line, turned into a probability. What everyone knew before the game.
Same teams, fresh game
The line plus what this game showed, weighted by how much one game can tell. It stays close to the line because one game says little.
Only coin-flips re-rolled
Every kick, fumble bounce, conversion and judgment call redrawn; everything else fixed. The narrowest view of luck.
An off day for UCLA
Its offense played far below its usual level. In a fresh game against New Mexico it would win 77% of the time; with this day’s form, 15%.
Same teams, fresh game
Replay with same day's form
61 points apart for UCLA: the gap is how differently this game went from what the two teams usually are.
| Unit | This game | Usual level | Better or worse than usual |
|---|---|---|---|
| New Mexico offenseEPA per play gained | +0.13 | +0.15 | worse by 0.02 |
| New Mexico defenseEPA per play allowed | −0.11 | +0.13 | better by 0.24 |
| UCLA offenseEPA per play gained | −0.11 | +0.06 | worse by 0.18 |
| UCLA defenseEPA per play allowed | +0.13 | +0.08 | worse by 0.05 |
EPA (expected points added) per play on competitive snaps, turnovers left out because they are valued as luck. Usual level: the team’s earlier games this season plus half of last season, pulled toward the league average. One team’s defense and the other team’s offense are the same snaps, so one game can’t fully say whose day it was; it shows how far this one was from both teams’ norms.
How 4,000 replays ended
New Mexico wins 85% of them, UCLA 15%, counting the 1% still level after regulation as half each. The line is what actually happened: New Mexico by 25.
Show as a table
| Final margin in the replays | Share of replays |
|---|---|
| New Mexico by 17+ | 43.7% |
| New Mexico by 9–16 | 20.0% |
| New Mexico by 1–8 | 20.5% |
| Level after regulation | 0.8% |
| UCLA by 1–8 | 9.2% |
| UCLA by 9–16 | 4.3% |
| UCLA by 17+ | 1.5% |
Where the luck was
What the luck was worth
Every lucky and unlucky play, weighted by the moment it happened: its swing in win probability, added up by kind. A missed kick in a decided game counts for nothing; the same kick at the end of a tie game can be most of a win.
Penalties: New Mexico 4 for 29 yards, UCLA 9 for 65 yards
Every accepted flag, in order, and what it did to the helped team’s chance of winning at that moment, including any play it wiped out (points on the scoreboard in grey). A flag in a decided game is worth nothing; one at the turn of a close game can be worth most of a win. Judgment calls count toward luck, pre-snap fouls mostly don’t. How calls are valued
| When | Flag | Win probability for |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 12:50 | False Start on UCLA, 5 yards · pre-snap | +2% UNM +1.2 pts |
| Q1 0:51 | Personal Foul on UCLA, 15 yards | +4% UNM +1.6 pts |
| Q2 11:37 | False Start on UCLA, 5 yards · pre-snap | +2% UNM +0.6 pts |
| Q2 10:31 | Roughing the Passer on New Mexico, 15 yards | +5% UCLA +2.1 pts |
| Q2 9:13 | Illegal Substitution on UCLA, 5 yards · pre-snap | +2% UNM +0.7 pts |
| Q2 8:03 | False Start on New Mexico, 5 yards · pre-snap | +1% UCLA +0.4 pts |
| Q2 0:01 | False Start on UCLA, 5 yards · pre-snap | 0% UNM +1.3 pts |
| Q3 13:20 | False Start on New Mexico, 4 yards · pre-snap | +4% UCLA +1.5 pts |
| Q3 12:52 | Face Mask on UCLA, 15 yards | +7% UNM +2.4 pts |
| Q3 5:01 | False Start on UCLA, 5 yards · pre-snap | +3% UNM +0.7 pts |
| Q3 4:40 | False Start on UCLA, 5 yards · pre-snap | +3% UNM +0.6 pts |
| Q4 10:13 | False Start on UCLA, 5 yards · pre-snap | +3% UNM +0.7 pts |
| Q4 7:40 | Illegal Motion on New Mexico, 5 yards · pre-snap | 0% UCLA +0.9 pts |
When it happened
UCLA’s chance of winning
As low as 0% and as high as 87%. Numbers mark the biggest luck moments, listed below.
| # | When | What happened | Win probability for | Next drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Q1 0:51 | Personal Foul on UCLA, 15 yardsJudgment calls | +4% UNM | UNM: Touchdown |
| 2 | Q2 12:43 | New Mexico converted 4th & 23rd & 4th downs · 61% expected | +5% UNM | UNM: Punt |
| 3 | Q2 10:31 | Roughing the Passer on New Mexico, 15 yardsJudgment calls | +5% UCLA | UCLA: Touchdown |
| 4 | Q2 1:09 | New Mexico was stopped on 4th & 13rd & 4th downs · 76% expected | +6% UCLA | UNM: Turnover on downs |
| 5 | Q3 12:52 | Face Mask on UCLA, 15 yardsJudgment calls | +7% UNM | UNM: Turnover on downs |
| 6 | Q3 3:34 | M. Bhaghani made a 51-yard field goalKicks · 55% expected for him, 5 of 7 from 45+ before | +6% UCLA | UCLA: Turnover on downs |
| 7 | Q4 14:06 | New Mexico converted 4th & 13rd & 4th downs · 81% expected | +5% UNM | UNM: Touchdown |
| 8 | Q4 9:13 | UCLA was stopped on 4th & 43rd & 4th downs · 49% expected | +6% UNM | UCLA: Turnover |
Adjust the assumptions
Disagree with how much of a fumble bounce or a pass interference call is luck? Change it and the coin-flip replay reruns in your browser.
Only coin-flips re-rolled
New Mexico 100% · UCLA 0%
- Final margin
- New Mexico by 25
- Luck in points
- 5.9 for New Mexico
- Luck-adjusted margin
- New Mexico by 19.1
- Replay with same day's form
- New Mexico 85% · UCLA 15% unchanged: why
About these numbers
Play-by-play and expected points from CollegeFootballData.com via cfbfastR; win probability from our own model of the score, the possession and the betting line; kicks valued against each kicker’s own record. College play-by-play has no charting of drops or interception-worthy throws and no injury reports, so those kinds of luck aren’t counted here.
Methodology and validation · All Week 3 2025 games · 
New Mexico · 
UCLA
More from Week 3 2025
- Middle Tennessee at Nevada MTSU 14–13 · replay 21% for the winner
- Portland State at Hawai'i HAW 23–3 · replay 63% for the winner
- Minnesota at California CAL 27–14 · replay 72% for the winner
- USC at Purdue USC 33–17 · replay 74% for the winner
- Wisconsin at Alabama ALA 38–14 · replay 96% for the winner
- Youngstown State at Michigan State MSU 41–24 · replay 96% for the winner
- Utah at Wyoming UTAH 31–6 · replay 98% for the winner
- Norfolk State at Rutgers RUTG 60–10 · replay 98% for the winner
- Oregon at Northwestern ORE 34–14 · replay 98% for the winner
- Massachusetts at Iowa IOWA 47–7 · replay 99% for the winner
- Western Michigan at Illinois ILL 38–0 · replay 99% for the winner
- Air Force at Utah State USU 49–30 · replay 100% for the winner