TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2017-18 Mid Tennessee  25-8 (0.758)  |  Conference USA
All-Play Percentage: 0.869 (47th)
Schedule Strength: 0.615 (85th)
Record Quality: 0.348 (26th)
Avg. Season Rank: 68.96 (66th)
Pace: 68.74 (256th)
Momentum: 1.11 (115th)
Off. Momentum: 1.55 (103rd)
Def. Momentum: -0.44 (169th)
Consistency: -8.30 (88th)
Res. Consistency: -12.03 (196th)
Away From Home: -2.80 (340th)
Paper Tiger Factor: 0.14 (77th)
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 2, 2018. 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: 108.78 24.75 73.99 82.82 48.14 27.86 38.48 25.98 38.42 28.98 66.15 11.29 15.95 10.59 33.64 31.37 34.99 1.99
RANK: 66th 226th 88th 133rd 33rd 271st 41st 85th 115th 153rd 29th 151st 108th 8th 280th 86th 165th 111th

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: 93.98 27.93 -- 76.67 42.16 29.09 32.61 24.86 36.60 22.72 60.47 10.28 11.14 4.36 37.94 32.43 29.64 2.08
RANK: 36th 249th -- 12th 79th 106th 39th 267th 146th 14th 180th 122nd 10th 7th 207th 310th 38th 76th

ANALYSIS:
Mid Tennessee is a moderately good team, capable of testing many an opponent that they'll encounter. Haslametrics has them ranked 47th overall (out of 351) in All-Play Percentage, and the team holds a record of 25-8. Of the 14 schools in Conference USA (average ranking 163.7), they're currently ranked as the best team in the conference.

Mid Tennessee will mainly try to find success through their defense. They are ranked 36th in defensive efficiency and allow fewer than 94 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Mid Tennessee does a fantastic job to prevent opposing teams from capitalizing on chances from offensive rebounds. The squad allows AO to convert only 4.4% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked seventh in the NCAA), and with a rating of 11.14, they're tenth in potential points allowed off of the offensive glass as well. Mid Tennessee also has extremely pesky defenders that ceaselessly attempt to deny opponents ample opportunity to shoot. The club is ranked 12th in Division I in defensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 76.67 vs. AO.

Mid Tennessee plays at about the same level on offense as they do on defense. The team ranks 66th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 109 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Mid Tennessee does an outstanding job finishing any scoring chances they obtain from offensive rebounds. Against AO, the team successfully converts 10.6% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked eighth nationally). Mid Tennessee is also an excellent shooting team, capable of converting from multiple locations on the court and ranking in the top-50 in three of our four primary field goal categories. They convert 38.5% of their three-pointers (41st in the nation), 66.2% of their near-proximity attempts (29th), and 48.1% of their total shots from the field (33rd) vs. AO.

On the road, Mid Tennessee performs noticeably worse than they do at home. The team is currently ranked 340th in the country in the away-from-home metric we track.
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 facing teams that find ways to get to the free throw line, Mid Tennessee often performs better than normal. Mid Tennessee is more efficient than usual 69% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive free throw attempt rate vs. AO greater than 26.93. In their other contests, Mid Tennessee performs better than the norm 26% of the time.
Mid Tennessee does worse vs. clubs that favor a faster tempo. When playing squads that have a pace vs. AO greater than 69.72, Mid Tennessee performs above average 21% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 61% of the time.
Mid Tennessee performs better against squads that do not defend well on the perimeter. When facing teams that have a defensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 34.94%, Mid Tennessee is more efficient than normal 63% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 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
2024-25110th110th82nd70thConference USA112th12th100th220th105th109th
2023-24257th257th261st223rdConference USA268th136th143rd186th359th251st
2022-23113th113th130th113thConference USA210th238th103rd147th337th123rd
2021-2296th96th54th84thConference USA213th315th171st49th243rd140th
2020-21309th309th322nd319thConference USA193rd326th146th130th280th273rd
2019-20301st301st326th314thConference USA97th164th118th240th74th312th
2018-19253rd253rd289th245thConference USA156th299th99th292nd296th296th
2017-1847th47th29th26thConference USA256th88th85th77th340th66th
2016-1740th39th4th32ndConference USA322nd250th147th78th51st47th
2015-16130th130th50th76thConference USA222nd63rd159th69th49th137th
2014-15166th166th164th145thConference USA310th91st147th300th301st188th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25115th146th298th144th105th151st182nd254th196th86th90th229th64th58th163rd267th100th137th
2023-24296th194th228th221st332nd85th274th272nd350th210th284th355th171st266th70th271st196th270th
2022-23127th192nd267th67th129th245th154th262nd191st8th213th66th91st35th270th280th17th30th
2021-22101st103rd53rd211th147th83rd169th340th342nd54th108th39th132nd57th78th340th56th182nd
2020-21316th282nd277th116th343rd108th297th209th346th170th301st110th227th308th120th226th184th227th
2019-20272nd257th314th174th283rd121st191st86th223rd319th232nd121st22nd32nd119th84th313th289th
2018-19296th243rd328th165th278th235th300th62nd257th235th184th133rd27th51st236th59th248th185th
2017-1866th226th88th133rd33rd271st41st85th115th153rd29th151st108th8th280th86th165th111th
2016-1746th250th170th27th33rd261st78th28th17th157th42nd62nd225th91st302nd43rd217th106th
2015-16160th192nd349th116th140th149th26th102nd286th243rd121st216th120th98th163rd113th257th230th
2014-15204th146th171st235th247th109th50th197th325th270th237th327th147th273rd94th188th260th259th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25128th91st--295th133rd99th58th227th190th325th109th52nd254th214th66th203rd297th314th
2023-24200th176th--284th193rd27th231st237th153rd347th81st212th241st305th19th212th334th349th
2022-23124th230th--34th190th20th259th137th149th271st99th194th89th137th58th186th327th338th
2021-2295th284th--33rd100th147th83rd75th157th156th69th74th217th137th206th119th219th187th
2020-21255th130th--95th329th106th224th46th118th317th348th181st8th175th110th52nd331st319th
2019-20312th329th--44th329th27th335th186th323rd231st244th271st213th275th54th233rd281st306th
2018-19193rd273rd--148th149th240th202nd236th97th74th245th338th147th103rd245th244th67th74th
2017-1836th249th--12th79th106th39th267th146th14th180th122nd10th7th207th310th38th76th
2016-1748th191st--33rd74th74th81st270th118th41st128th105th10th53rd133rd316th61st123rd
2015-1699th305th--40th144th63rd193rd184th121st128th143rd109th169th103rd115th240th179th209th
2014-15131st252nd--19th227th40th264th148th202nd132nd213th127th6th64th90th230th205th246th