TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2024-25 Columbia  12-15 (0.444)  |  Ivy
All-Play Percentage: 0.248 (274th)
Schedule Strength: 0.367 (266th)
Record Quality: -0.153 (256th)
Avg. Season Rank: 214.62 (216th)
Pace: 69.90 (18th)
Momentum: -6.12 (353rd)
Off. Momentum: -4.52 (357th)
Def. Momentum: -1.60 (255th)
Consistency: -9.99 (242nd)
Res. Consistency: -14.84 (311th)
Away From Home: -2.40 (332nd)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.24 (201st)
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 7, 2025. 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: 106.40 25.51 73.82 86.63 43.81 35.02 33.31 17.76 35.04 33.85 59.28 12.31 14.04 5.77 40.42 20.51 39.07 2.01
RANK: 204th 246th 119th 204th 174th 134th 220th 284th 266th 108th 159th 170th 207th 201st 130th 287th 106th 166th

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: 116.25 23.50 -- 88.89 48.24 34.32 38.24 22.21 40.98 32.36 63.84 11.64 13.15 6.57 38.61 24.99 36.40 2.02
RANK: 324th 48th -- 260th 343rd 220th 350th 223rd 305th 197th 338th 139th 70th 252nd 182nd 206th 167th 166th

ANALYSIS:
If you're looking for a squad in the bottom quartile of all Division I basketball teams this year, Columbia likely fits the bill. Their record this season is 12-15, and the club is ranked 274th overall (out of 364) in Haslametrics' most recent ratings. Of the eight schools in the Ivy League (average ranking 191.8), they're currently ranked as our #7 team in the conference.

Columbia does not provide much of a challenge on defense. They are ranked at #324 in efficiency on that end of the court and give up about 116 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO. Columbia allows opposing teams far too many easy chances from the floor, ranking in the bottom-50 in three of the four main defensive field goal shooting categories. AO will convert a healthy 38.2% of their three-pointers (350th in the nation), 63.8% of their near-proximity attempts (338th), and 48.2% of their total shots from the field (343rd). If Columbia does have a bright spot on defense, it would have to be their success preventing opponents from getting to the free throw line. The team has a defensive free throw attempt rate of 23.50 vs. AO, which ranks 48th-best in the country.

Even though the team ranks considerably higher in offensive efficiency, Columbia isn't a powerhouse on that end of the floor either. Scoring roughly 106 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #204 in the nation in offensive efficiency. Columbia has some difficulties converting mid-range shot attempts. The team is ranked 266th in field goal percentage from that distance, making only 35.0% of their mid-range attempts vs. AO.

Columbia has been playing some of their worst basketball of the season as of late, and they're presently ranked 353rd in positive momentum because of it. When playing on the road, Columbia performs somewhat worse than they normally do on their home court. The club is nationally ranked 332nd in our site's away-from-home metric.
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:
Columbia performs worse against squads that are typically efficient on offense. When facing teams that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 102.44, Columbia is more efficient than normal 24% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 88% of the time.
When playing teams that do a nice job converting inside the paint, Columbia usually performs worse than average. Columbia is more efficient than normal 25% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 54.94%. In all other contests, Columbia performs better than average 78% of the time.
Columbia is typically better vs. teams that fail to defend efficiently inside the paint. Against foes that have a defensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 61.66%, Columbia performs above their norm 78% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 25% 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
2024-25274th274th240th256thIvy League18th242nd266th201st332nd216th
2023-24235th235th222nd241stIvy League113th280th253rd251st68th218th
2022-23337th336th345th331stIvy League67th291st161st219th68th345th
2021-22355th355th352nd349thIvy League44th270th257th53rd11th351st
2020-21244th244th--170thIvy League76th--------252nd
2019-20299th299th340th328thIvy League119th95th201st346th201st274th
2018-19199th199th281st260thIvy League172nd117th160th5th160th243rd
2017-18211th210th314th303rdIvy League84th259th217th43rd220th202nd
2016-17235th235th256th251stIvy League97th54th231st116th72nd237th
2015-16112th112th50th102ndIvy League295th218th229th56th43rd130th
2014-15180th180th215th213thIvy League333rd351st213th149th21st158th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25204th246th119th204th174th134th220th284th266th108th159th170th207th201st130th287th106th166th
2023-24169th248th135th256th121st152nd61st302nd238th93rd169th119th306th237th132nd297th76th147th
2022-23334th301st207th207th343rd83rd334th235th305th264th298th156th302nd295th73rd232nd257th302nd
2021-22351st331st351st274th325th163rd180th210th278th257th344th243rd300th341st133rd182nd226th233rd
2020-21255th270th141st176th228th207th272nd142nd214th180th189th226th304th245th213th141st175th154th
2019-20287th334th42nd96th296th158th335th100th207th216th204th294th320th346th178th110th243rd217th
2018-19201st341st197th170th117th145th129th108th65th274th75th252nd185th203rd146th104th277th251st
2017-18125th324th108th39th181st17th120th290th258th148th179th183rd113th138th35th309th190th287th
2016-17249th321st188th93rd277th88th149th221st293rd146th302nd138th279th253rd108th248th183rd222nd
2015-1659th130th65th179th113th17th35th351st321st28th239th231st241st324th12th351st23rd246th
2014-15138th346th198th90th146th4th108th351st97th45th249th337th192nd56th4th351st64th319th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25324th48th--260th343rd220th350th223rd305th197th338th139th70th252nd182nd206th167th166th
2023-24311th152nd--286th299th233rd274th124th337th295th208th211th297th236th190th93rd271st238th
2022-23304th221st--339th294th68th88th228th235th359th273rd321st317th303rd25th191st342nd351st
2021-22349th157th--320th330th273rd347th127th280th306th262nd355th259th222nd207th78th265th214th
2020-21214th223rd--173rd233rd121st171st85th180th314th199th114th74th245th106th77th318th305th
2019-20279th89th--319th280th218th205th175th258th296th252nd88th71st104th153rd127th253rd236th
2018-19186th324th--92nd174th68th197th177th190th211th128th199th225th164th95th210th247th264th
2017-18309th145th--268th238th305th336th147th209th164th168th183rd264th224th288th116th134th98th
2016-17202nd190th--135th177th298th241st132nd222nd83rd173rd70th209th193rd309th140th83rd53rd
2015-16201st88th--196th255th224th263rd85th320th261st127th93rd190th194th211th78th255th216th
2014-15240th235th--263rd200th64th151st114th303rd342nd65th156th214th268th41st85th336th326th