TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2021-22 Creighton  23-12 (0.657)  |  Big East
All-Play Percentage: 0.868 (48th)
Schedule Strength: 0.703 (20th)
Record Quality: 0.351 (30th)
Avg. Season Rank: 64.02 (58th)
Pace: 67.75 (184th)
Momentum: 5.51 (6th)
Off. Momentum: 2.58 (58th)
Def. Momentum: 2.92 (21st)
Consistency: -10.18 (287th)
Res. Consistency: -14.34 (311th)
Away From Home: 0.70 (116th)
Paper Tiger Factor: 2.02 (10th)
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, 2022. 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: 106.22 23.83 73.03 84.18 46.55 31.69 32.97 23.08 39.78 29.41 66.49 10.08 13.10 5.66 37.64 27.42 34.94 2.03
RANK: 86th 223rd 137th 197th 41st 143rd 187th 232nd 80th 162nd 15th 212th 177th 98th 144th 234th 157th 195th

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: 91.26 18.47 -- 90.09 38.30 29.06 30.09 32.46 34.57 28.57 50.88 10.78 13.09 3.34 32.26 36.03 31.71 2.01
RANK: 25th 7th -- 349th 13th 104th 39th 353rd 55th 163rd 13th 181st 173rd 20th 41st 346th 84th 218th

ANALYSIS:
Creighton has been extremely effective at times this year and should be regarded as a serious opponent. They have a record of 23-12 and are ranked 48th overall (out of 358) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #6 team (out of 11) in the Big East (average ranking 64.5). With a strength-of-schedule rating of 0.703 (which ranks 20th nationally), Creighton is one of the more battle-tested teams in the college game.

The Creighton defense will be extremely problematic for most opposing offenses. Allowing about 91 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO, the club is ranked 25th overall in defensive efficiency. Creighton is a superior unit when it comes to preventing opponents from getting to the foul line. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 18.47 vs. AO, they are currently rated seventh in the country in that category. Creighton will also take a bite out of many opponents' shooting percentages, based on the fact that the team ranks in the top-50 in three of our four primary defensive field goal categories. They allow AO to convert only 30.1% of their three-pointers (39th in the nation), 50.9% of their near-proximity attempts (13th), and 38.3% of their total shots from the field (13th). Creighton lastly does a fantastic job to prevent opposing teams from capitalizing on chances from offensive rebounds. The squad allows AO to convert only 3.3% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 20th in the NCAA). If Creighton does exhibit a noticeable weakness on the defensive end of the floor, it'd likely be the team's propensity to allow too many shot attempts per trip. The squad has a rating of 90.09 in defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO, which ranks tenth-worst in college basketball.

Creighton is also a fairly decent team on the offensive end of the court. The team ranks 86th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 106 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Creighton is one of the nation's most effective teams finishing close to the iron. The team is ranked 15th in the country in near-proximity field goal percentage, making approximately 66.5% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO. The squad likewise lands in the top-50 in overall offensive field goal percentage and makes good on about 46.5% of their total attempts vs. AO.

Creighton has been playing some of its most efficient basketball of the season recently and is presently ranked sixth in positive momentum.
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:
When playing teams that allow a greater number of field goal opportunities, Creighton usually performs better than average. Creighton is more efficient than normal 75% of the time when facing clubs that have a defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 84.55. In all other contests, Creighton performs better than average 26% of the time.
Creighton is typically worse vs. teams that have trouble defending the mid-range shot. Against foes that have a defensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 36.34%, Creighton performs above their norm 21% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 67% of the time.
When facing teams that shoot the ball well from the field, Creighton often performs better than normal. Creighton is more efficient than usual 60% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 43.77%. In their other contests, Creighton performs better than the norm 20% of the time.
LATEST NEWS ITEMS:
NCAA Tournament 2022: Saturday's Round 2 Winners and Losers
(3/19/2022 9:53:51 PM) No matter if you had a rooting interest, the opening day of the 2022 men's NCAA tournament's second round probably spiked your blood pressure. And the drama started immediately...
UNC tops defending champ Baylor in OT after Bears rally
(3/19/2022 8:55:51 PM) FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — RJ Davis scored a career-high 30 points with a nifty layup while being fouled in overtime, and eighth-seeded North Carolina b...
No. 4 Providence Routs No. 12 Richmond, Will Face Top-Seed Kansas in Men's Sweet 16
(3/19/2022 8:20:01 PM) Providence punched its ticket to the Sweet 16 of the 2022 NCAA men's basketball tournament thanks to a 79-51 win over No. 12 Richmond. This is the sixth time...
Follow live: 4-seed UCLA...
(3/19/2022 8:06:47 PM) Get a summary of the Saint Mary's Gaels vs. UCLA Bruins basketball game
March Madness: Winners and losers from Saturday's NCAA Tournament games
(3/19/2022 6:56:13 PM) The NCAA Tournament's second round started off in exciting fashion Saturday, with one No. 1 seed going down and another barely avoiding an upset.
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
2024-2530th30th51st24thBig East192nd75th26th315th309th25th
2023-2412th12th34th14thBig East252nd194th38th349th293rd10th
2022-239th9th76th27thBig East172nd159th6th335th311th12th
2021-2248th47th75th30thBig East184th287th20th10th116th58th
2020-2120th20th43rd13thBig East154th328th44th297th319th11th
2019-208th8th19th10thBig East200th284th21st10th332nd41st
2018-1957th57th129th64thBig East113th317th42nd202nd123rd50th
2017-1829th29th84th45thBig East73rd50th36th349th351st23rd
2016-1729th29th46th30thBig East42nd154th34th290th53rd23rd
2015-1639th39th138th91stBig East87th230th66th200th292nd50th
2014-1577th77th237th138thBig East288th85th44th58th113th93rd
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2524th283rd105th186th13th6th46th339th22nd250th1st354th249th104th10th341st254th347th
2023-247th283rd5th107th9th7th14th280th2nd310th2nd347th333rd193rd9th293rd321st355th
2022-2316th143rd6th157th20th68th72nd312th22nd118th32nd268th263rd166th66th318th119th238th
2021-2286th223rd137th197th41st143rd187th232nd80th162nd15th212th177th98th144th234th157th195th
2020-2128th264th342nd34th22nd23rd49th270th177th116th4th46th294th171st53rd299th178th269th
2019-202nd207th76th26th5th35th2nd247th61st151st17th117th189th112th58th274th210th274th
2018-1976th260th236th232nd26th34th58th329th92nd184th24th113th264th157th26th326th161st285th
2017-1825th329th73rd50th17th24th52nd320th238th86th4th168th259th250th44th328th125th257th
2016-1735th286th224th119th5th162nd4th253rd101st52nd16th167th314th128th174th270th62nd118th
2015-1627th99th113th134th23rd75th145th299th31st82nd21st108th230th120th81st306th101st199th
2014-1554th139th105th113th113th23rd95th287th185th209th95th310th269th233rd33rd304th233rd310th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2532nd1st--363rd26th78th45th364th136th125th15th214th62nd49th10th364th38th207th
2023-2434th1st--362nd31st18th50th362nd159th155th11th64th16th25th1st362nd41st283rd
2022-2314th2nd--359th18th16th37th363rd69th136th8th58th132nd46th4th362nd57th275th
2021-2225th7th--349th13th104th39th353rd55th163rd13th181st173rd20th41st346th84th218th
2020-2123rd19th--264th24th296th29th247th63rd81st66th35th22nd81st288th220th56th51st
2019-2082nd18th--313th66th270th60th320th189th69th113th1st267th278th217th306th37th64th
2018-1958th25th--108th137th193rd166th246th188th69th169th90th122nd141st216th265th75th98th
2017-1850th18th--201st92nd223rd116th295th125th55th149th48th31st131st209th297th47th86th
2016-1745th36th--199th62nd237th14th313th184th30th204th57th69th94th239th318th30th44th
2015-1664th68th--178th70th180th118th314th84th35th140th82nd93rd60th174th312th28th76th
2014-15117th99th--210th123rd212th192nd342nd222nd7th197th43rd53rd67th193rd342nd5th36th