TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2015-16 USF  8-25 (0.242)  |  American
All-Play Percentage: 0.314 (241st)
Schedule Strength: 0.616 (88th)
Record Quality: -0.188 (256th)
Avg. Season Rank: 252.72 (254th)
Pace: 68.32 (264th)
Momentum: 0.49 (146th)
Off. Momentum: -0.14 (210th)
Def. Momentum: 0.64 (105th)
Consistency: -9.89 (289th)
Res. Consistency: -13.72 (299th)
Away From Home: 3.45 (2nd)
Paper Tiger Factor: 0.38 (80th)
NOTE: All data below reflects predicted performance against the "AO" (average opponent), a fictitious opponent who represents the average in every stat category.
Hover over column headers or visit "ABOUT" page for an explanation of each measurement.
Includes games through April 4, 2016. Data shown on this page is based on time-dependent ratings.
OFFENSE Eff Upc FTAR FT% FGAR FGMR FG% 3PAR 3PMR 3P% MRAR MRMR MR% NPAR NPMR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
RATING: 95.42 29.23 65.55 80.90 43.29 19.25 32.27 29.51 34.40 32.14 58.06 8.11 19.63 8.99 23.79 36.48 39.72 1.84
RANK: 275th 147th 320th 234th 191st 351st 283rd 38th 232nd 49th 190th 316th 16th 29th 351st 30th 34th 5th

DEFENSE Eff Upc FTAR FT% FGAR FGMR FG% 3PAR 3PMR 3P% MRAR MRMR MR% NPAR NPMR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
RATING: 102.76 28.83 -- 87.49 41.22 33.90 32.15 20.10 34.12 33.49 54.65 13.49 19.02 6.89 38.75 22.97 38.28 2.00
RANK: 177th 167th -- 338th 63rd 338th 45th 36th 93rd 316th 47th 335th 340th 177th 295th 8th 268th 163rd

ANALYSIS:
They're far from the worst of the worst, but USF should not be a terribly frightening opponent for most clubs. Ranked 241st overall (out of 351) in our most recent ratings, they presently have a record of 8-25. They are also ranked by this site as the worst team (out of 11) in the AAC (average ranking 108.1).

USF is not one of the better offensive teams you will find. They are rated #275 in efficiency on that end of the court and only score about 95 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO. USF tends to be very careless with the ball and allows far too many breakaway opportunities off of their own turnovers. The team's rating for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals vs. AO is 13.49, which ranks 335th in D1. USF is also not one of the better teams when it comes to sinking foul shots. Converting just 65.5% of their attempts, the squad is ranked #320 overall in free throw percentage. If USF does have a strength offensively, it would have to be the team's knack for obtaining second-chance opportunities from offensive rebounds. The squad has a rating of 19.63 in potential points off of second chances vs. AO, which ranks 16th in all of college hoops.

Though they rate better on defense than they do on offense, USF still isn't one of the more capable defensive teams in college hoops. Allowing roughly 103 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #177 in the nation in defensive efficiency. USF gives up far too many offensive rebounds and second chances to their opponents. The club has a rating of 19.02 vs. AO in potential points allowed off of second chances (340th nationally). USF also allows the opposition to get off far too many shots from the floor. The team is ranked 338th in the nation in defensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 87.49 vs. AO. If USF does have a bright spot on defense, it would have to be their ability to hinder opponents from sinking threes. AO will convert only 32.1% of their three-point attempts, and the team ranks 45th-best in the NCAA in that category because of it.

When playing on the road, USF has played their best basketball this season. The team is currently ranked second in the country in the away-from-home metric our site tracks.
SORTABLE SCHEDULE / RESULTS:
Projections are based on present-day ratings. Stars indicate games played at a neutral location.
Game efficiencies only account for data before a contest has gone analytically final and are adjusted to extract home-court advantage.
CURIOUS TRENDS:
USF is typically worse vs. teams that typically allow more than a fair share of breakaway opportunities. Against foes that have a potential point rate allowed off steals vs. AO greater than 12.26, USF performs above their norm 25% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 71% of the time.
When facing teams that do not defend well on the perimeter, USF often performs worse than normal. USF is more efficient than usual 41% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 32.78%. In their other contests, USF performs better than the norm 82% of the time.
USF does better vs. clubs that tend to capitalize off breakaway opportunities. When playing squads that have a potential point rate off steals vs. AO greater than 10.31, USF performs above average 68% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 27% of the time.
HASLAMETRICS ALL-PLAY PERCENTAGE RANKING BY DAY: Select data to plot:

HASLAMETRICS TEAM HISTORY: Select data to view:
SUMMARY Rk AP% Rec (WinPct) RQ Conference Pace Con SOS PTF AFH ASR
2024-25194th194th273rd225thAAC79th57th145th53rd76th169th
2023-2483rd83rd23rd45thAAC142nd258th135th25th45th118th
2022-23139th139th242nd188thAAC59th169th122nd105th3rd141st
2021-22241st241st326th257thAAC255th133rd101st22nd139th235th
2020-21242nd241st239th182ndAAC228th232nd82nd311th178th153rd
2019-20132nd132nd237th160thAAC321st317th81st15th186th156th
2018-19102nd102nd86th88thAAC192nd83rd111th48th9th131st
2017-18274th274th304th274thAAC316th343rd176th194th233rd294th
2016-17288th288th331st274thAAC163rd322nd106th82nd155th282nd
2015-16241st241st327th256thAAC264th289th88th80th2nd254th
2014-15286th285th320th276thAAC224th76th113th244th165th253rd
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25231st73rd212th284th208th271st323rd218th222nd112th181st10th265th343rd244th200th87th80th
2023-2485th57th101st228th135th84th33rd265th131st228th217th82nd241st271st67th260th217th277th
2022-23172nd173rd336th233rd97th218th128th189th98th185th118th175th201st94th199th179th184th166th
2021-22340th325th312th32nd328th331st356th3rd141st244th331st190th148th154th344th5th291st80th
2020-21245th158th348th54th265th289th168th39th252nd141st288th215th77th114th314th52nd187th86th
2019-20209th33rd323rd204th221st214th282nd257th166th54th270th78th34th130th216th253rd57th81st
2018-19206th5th334th305th219th231st239th331st251st35th291st22nd15th84th188th327th18th55th
2017-18274th154th134th316th228th318th141st173rd225th94th310th236th248th231st301st139th58th49th
2016-17295th267th311th329th119th346th145th165th97th42nd266th223rd160th38th343rd127th18th6th
2015-16275th147th320th234th191st351st283rd38th232nd49th190th316th16th29th351st30th34th5th
2014-15279th283rd343rd224th127th342nd241st42nd91st125th159th270th193rd98th344th31st104th26th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25151st259th--109th124th237th213th190th133rd82nd146th64th275th157th268th206th102nd91st
2023-2483rd206th--175th86th197th94th148th41st217th118th207th320th337th194th150th217th203rd
2022-23137th314th--65th109th171st237th145th84th122nd95th238th153rd42nd225th168th166th146th
2021-22101st233rd--41st108th248th231st54th22nd99th135th39th128th61st288th88th135th82nd
2020-21239th168th--75th288th291st285th59th311th101st281st328th43rd77th320th74th121st54th
2019-2059th153rd--17th167th177th163rd79th308th54th140th173rd9th50th276th142nd111th79th
2018-1929th297th--7th66th79th82nd7th130th248th24th164th219th53rd186th11th333rd280th
2017-18249th179th--293rd212th275th88th75th317th289th178th322nd97th179th241st48th255th197th
2016-17234th238th--221st118th336th348th11th4th220th39th329th307th64th336th6th200th62nd
2015-16177th167th--338th63rd338th45th36th93rd316th47th335th340th177th295th8th268th163rd
2014-15250th293rd--212th155th216th332nd193rd95th176th93rd215th183rd160th199th179th159th161st