Week 1 · Final
7 – 38
Vegas Line
New Mexico -10.5
Total 47.5
Model Projection
UNM -7.0
UNM 74.6% win · O/U 47.5
Value Edge
3.5 pt edge: CMU
Total delta 0.0
Model Rationale
Shifted by +2.9 pts toward UNM on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- CMU -1.0
Both rosters returned largely intact this cycle, so the 2021–2025 archive keeps its full weight in the preseason baseline.
Central Michigan — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
New Mexico ranks #73 nationally allowing 119.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #2 pass defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Central Michigan converts 18.2% of third downs (#129 nationally) versus New Mexico's 53.8%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Fix the turnover margin
Central Michigan is -2 in turnover margin (0 forced, 2 lost) across 1 recorded games; New Mexico sits at +2.
4Clear 24 points
The market total for this game is 47.5. Anything above 24 points puts Central Michigan on the winning side of an even split.
New Mexico — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Central Michigan ranks #118 nationally allowing 205.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #57 pass defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
New Mexico converts 53.8% of third downs (#39 nationally) versus Central Michigan's 18.2%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Protect the turnover edge
New Mexico is +2 in turnover margin (2 forced, 0 lost) across 1 recorded games; Central Michigan sits at -2.
4Clear 24 points
The market total for this game is 47.5. Anything above 24 points puts New Mexico on the winning side of an even split.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
Leading Rusher
Primary Receiver
Defensive Leader
Matchup Simulator
Starts from the CFB 360 projection for this exact game. Turnover swings are valued at 4.2 points each; pace scales the projected total against a 140-play baseline.
Simulated Winner
UNM by 7.0
Baseline UNM -7.0
Simulated Total
47.5
Baseline 47.5
Unit Edge
UNM QB
UNM Below average · CMU Below average
CMU passing vs UNM coverage
| 30.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 30.0 |
| 43.8% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 1.9 |
| 1.9 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 43.8% |
| 0.00:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 18.8% |
| -0.383 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | -0.383 |
CMU rushing vs UNM run defense
| 119.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 119.0 |
| 3.7 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 3.7 |
| 3.3 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 0.0% |
| 0.0% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 4 |
| 0.134 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | 0.134 |
UNM passing vs CMU coverage
| 159.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 159.0 |
| 6.4 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 68.0% |
| 68.0% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 6.4 |
| 8.0% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 1.00:1 |
| 0.162 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.162 |
Efficiency & situational
| 18.2% | Third-down conversion | 53.8% |
| 149.0 | Total yards / game | 364.0 |
| 364.0 | Yards allowed / game | 149.0 |
| -2 | Turnover margin | +2 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.