Get app

UTEP vs. New MexicoFinal score and model picks, graded

FinalUniversity Stadium (NM)
UTEP1–3
7–61Final
New Mexico3–1
Score by period
Team1234T
UTEP60017
UNM147162461

Top model pick, graded

Won

New Mexico −11.5 spread 78¢

CFB HeaterUp 8% return this season · 367 picks
Get the next picks first

How the picks did

Models went 9-8 on this game · −0% return

  1. New Mexico Lobos spread −233 models agree
    +96%Won

    Taken at 51¢ on ProphetX

    3 modelsSaturday Board Pairs, Key Number CFB +1
    Why 3 models like it
    Saturday Board Pairs
    • Four-game sample: New Mexico offense +0.168 EPA/play, .466 success, .122 explosive; UTEP defense allows +0.189 EPA/play.
    • UTEP offense averages +0.027 EPA/play versus New Mexico defense allowing -0.281; the matchup points strongly toward the Lobos.
    • LEAN cap: both programs are Group-of-Five teams, and each current efficiency sample contains only four games.
    Key Number CFB
    • New Mexico averages +0.1671 offensive EPA/play and -0.2823 defensive EPA/play; UTEP is +0.0265 and +0.1887.
    • PFF 2026 team card: New Mexico 91.1 overall versus UTEP 62.2, with an 88.4-to-64.4 defensive-grade gap.
    • UTEP's 1-3 record includes Oklahoma, Michigan and Oregon State; opponent quality may make its raw profile too pessimistic.
    ProphetX Pairs
    • cfb_predictor projects New Mexico by 29.208 points, 6.208 above the ProphetX -23 rung.
    • only current-season averages: New Mexico off EPA/play +0.104 vs UTEP -0.158; New Mexico defense -0.171 vs UTEP +0.312 allowed.
    • A 29.208-point projection is not a cover distribution; no simulation was run, so the 60% fair estimate is uncertain.
  2. Game total under 48.52 models agree
    −100%Lost

    Taken at −118 on FanDuel

    2 modelsKickoff Ledger, Tempo Board
    Why 2 models like it
    Kickoff Ledger
    • UNM averages 3.13 points per drive, but its 33.1-second pace and 34.9% pass rate suppress possessions.
    • UTEP averages 1.63 points per drive and only 8 points per game against Oklahoma, Michigan and Oregon State.
    • UNM's 12.2% explosive-play rate and UTEP's +0.189 defensive EPA allowed can produce efficient Lobos scoring.
    Tempo Board
    • the 48.5 full-game rung sits 0.5 points above ProphetX's 12.5 UTEP plus 35.5 New Mexico team-total sum (48.0).
    • Tempo context: New Mexico averages 33.14 seconds per play with -0.035 PROE; UTEP averages 30.87 seconds with +0.0314 PROE, only four 2026 games each.
    • UTEP's defense allows +0.1887 EPA per play, so short fields or one defensive breakdown can let New Mexico carry the total.
  3. New Mexico Lobos spread −23.52 models agree
    +91%Won

    Taken at −110 on DraftKings

    2 modelsD1 Winner, Long Way Home
    Why 2 models like it
    D1 Winner
    • Efficiency family strongly favors New Mexico: +0.127 offensive EPA/play and -0.235 defensive EPA allowed.
    • UTEP posted +0.007 offensive EPA/play and +0.183 defensive EPA allowed across the current-season sample.
    • New Mexico's QB starter is a young player with a limited passing sample and earlier rotation uncertainty.
    Long Way Home
    • New Mexico's 4-game profile is +0.168 offensive EPA/play and -0.281 defensive EPA/play.
    • UTEP is only +0.027 offensive EPA/play, with +0.189 defensive EPA/play allowed; both efficiency sides favor New Mexico.
    • Most likely loss: New Mexico wins but does not clear the 24-point margin.
  4. Game total under 482 models agree
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 51¢ on ProphetX

    2 modelsSaturday Board Pairs, House Rules
    Why 2 models like it
    Saturday Board Pairs
    • four-game sample shows UTEP at +0.0265 offensive EPA/play versus New Mexico allowing -0.2823 EPA/play.
    • Most likely loss: New Mexico converts UTEP’s +0.1887 defensive EPA allowed into early explosive scores.
    House Rules
    • under 48 pushes at exactly 48; it does not lose, unlike the adjacent half-point rung under 47.5.
    • Historical exact-total frequency is not matchup-specific and spans different eras, teams, and scoring environments.
  5. New Mexico −11.5 spreadFavorite
    +28%Won

    Taken at 78¢ on Polymarket

    CFB HeaterUp 16% last 7 days
  6. New Mexico Lobos first-half spread NO 13.5
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 49¢ on Kalshi

    Early CoverUp 1% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • own four-game matchup estimate is 22.6 full-game points: UNM (39.0 scored + 36.5 allowed) / 2 versus UTEP (18.75 scored + 11.5 allowed) / 2.
    • Pinnacle’s current full-game New Mexico spread is -22.5/-23.5; half-scaling gives an 11.3, 11.8 first-half mean, consistent with the model.
    • Only four 2026 games per team; opponent quality and cupcake inflation make the 22.6-point projection noisy.
Show all 12 picks
  1. UTEP Miners +23.5
    −100%Lost

    Taken at −110 on DraftKings

    Kickoff LedgerDown 24% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • UNM +0.167 offensive EPA/play and -0.282 defensive EPA allowed; UTEP: +0.027 and +0.189.
    • Opponent adjustment for UTEP's Oklahoma, Michigan and Oregon State slate makes my fair spread UNM -19.5.
    • Both teams have seven days' rest; no schedule disadvantage is priced into the dog.
    • UNM's +14 turnover margin and top-tier scoring defense can create a fast blowout.
  2. New Mexico Lobos spread
    +91%Won

    Taken at −110 on DraftKings

    Picks With Pink Grading SystemUp 11% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • PWP Composite Grade 74/100 (B): clears the 70-point fire bar.
    • CFB predictor projects New Mexico by 29.2 points, 5.7 above the posted spread.
    • New Mexico is 3-0 ATS in its three current-season lined games; UTEP is 1-3 ATS.
    • New Mexico's current-season ATS sample is only three lined games; the L10 gate is not fully established.
  3. UTEP Miners spread +20.5
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 43¢ on ProphetX

    Resting MoneyDown 24% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Book levels are 3 versus 3; backing UTEP, which is the thin-at-quote/deep-behind-it side, leg matches.
    • Venue self-reference is the only reference; there is no independent sharp-reference validation.
  4. UTEP +22 spread
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 48¢ on ProphetX

    House RulesDown 7% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Historical NCAAF check: New Mexico-home margin of exactly 22 occurred 50 times in 5,115 games, a 0.9775% push probability.
    • ProphetX prices UTEP +22 and the adjacent no-push UTEP +22.5 identically at +109 (47.85¢), despite +22 retaining the refund outcome.
    • The computed 0.9775% push mass is a historical frequency, not a forecast of this matchup's margin.
  5. Game total over 49
    +104%Won

    Taken at 49¢ on ProphetX

    Key Number CFBUp 13% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • 2026 CFB totals average 54.48; only 35.8% finished below 49 across 606 regular/postseason games.
    • New Mexico offense posts +0.1307 EPA/play; UTEP defense allows +0.1347 EPA/play through four games.
    • New Mexico scored 39.0 points per game; its 91.1 PFF team card is far stronger than UTEP's 62.2.
    • New Mexico's defense allows -0.1036 EPA/play, creating a credible UTEP shutdown path.
  6. Game total over 48
    +96%Won

    Taken at 51¢ on ProphetX

    Long Way HomeDown 5% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • 2026 scoring results point to roughly 53, 56 combined points, above ProphetX’s 48.
    • New Mexico’s offense posted positive EPA/play in three of four games, including 0.285 against New Mexico State.
    • UTEP’s defense allowed 0.240, 0.391 EPA/play against Oklahoma, Michigan, and Oregon State; explosive-play leakage supports New Mexico scoring.
    • Most likely loss: UTEP’s offense stalls again after scoring 7 at Oregon State, leaving New Mexico short of carrying the total alone.

Questions

Who won UTEP vs. New Mexico?

The New Mexico won 61–7 on Saturday, Oct 3, 2026.

App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. Apple and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc. Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google LLC.