TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2017-18 Rice  7-24 (0.226)  |  Conference USA
All-Play Percentage: 0.203 (280th)
Schedule Strength: 0.532 (130th)
Record Quality: -0.309 (312th)
Avg. Season Rank: 290.91 (295th)
Pace: 69.37 (221st)
Momentum: 0.16 (164th)
Off. Momentum: 0.96 (135th)
Def. Momentum: -0.80 (184th)
Consistency: -8.21 (78th)
Res. Consistency: -10.85 (115th)
Away From Home: 0.23 (111th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -0.91 (180th)
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: 96.10 24.60 67.65 81.60 41.39 36.81 32.37 22.44 36.35 22.35 61.29 8.32 13.23 6.35 45.11 27.50 27.39 2.18
RANK: 271st 232nd 304th 190th 300th 22nd 305th 171st 206th 340th 113th 301st 238th 192nd 21st 172nd 341st 347th

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: 107.40 22.59 -- 85.25 45.67 36.65 37.78 21.88 39.75 26.72 61.34 13.00 13.73 6.35 42.99 25.67 31.34 2.12
RANK: 265th 51st -- 302nd 218th 343rd 293rd 149th 280th 102nd 213th 318th 106th 122nd 331st 110th 75th 27th

ANALYSIS:
Not one of the better ball-clubs in college basketball, Rice should be a fairly easy win for most capable opponents. Haslametrics has them ranked 280th overall (out of 351) in All-Play Percentage, and the team holds a record of 7-24. Of the 14 schools in Conference USA (average ranking 163.7), they're currently ranked as our #13 team in the conference.

Rice is not one of the better offensive teams you will find. They are rated #271 in efficiency on that end of the court and only score about 96 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO. Rice has some difficulty protecting the ball efficiently when in possession, which leads to some quick and easy baskets for the opposition. The team's rating for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals vs. AO is 13.00, which ranks 318th in D1. Rice also won't enter the conversation if you're looking to list the best three-point shooting teams in the country. They are ranked 305th in three-point field goal percentage nationally and make just 32.4% of their attempts from long vs. AO.

Rice doesn't rate much better on defense than they do on offense. Allowing roughly 107 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #265 in the nation in defensive efficiency. Rice struggles on occasion to deny opponents opportunities to shoot from the floor. The team is ranked 302nd in the nation in defensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 85.25 vs. AO. Rice will also fail to secure many opportunities to score quickly off of steals. They're ranked #301 in potential points off of breakaway steals with a rating of only 8.32 vs. AO.
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 are more proficient at draining the mid-range shot, Rice often performs worse than normal. Rice is more efficient than usual 21% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 35.42%. In their other contests, Rice performs better than the norm 80% of the time.
Rice does worse vs. clubs that allow a greater number of field goal opportunities. When playing squads that have a defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 79.68, Rice performs above average 22% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 73% of the time.
Rice performs worse against squads that allow a higher number of conversions off of the offensive glass. When facing teams that have a defensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 6.04%, Rice is more efficient than normal 19% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 69% 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
2024-25195th194th273rd229thAAC288th221st189th223rd126th176th
2023-24201st200th302nd238thAAC289th328th126th296th35th186th
2022-23218th218th160th150thConference USA79th300th123rd130th91st216th
2021-22231st230th197th209thConference USA201st135th187th329th309th188th
2020-21202nd200th159th164thConference USA134th274th151st246th304th196th
2019-20204th204th224th213thConference USA95th166th175th180th248th211th
2018-19259th258th249th244thConference USA60th274th206th89th268th235th
2017-18280th279th330th312thConference USA221st78th130th180th111th295th
2016-17180th180th66th130thConference USA19th16th288th46th24th126th
2015-16264th263rd259th275thConference USA81st105th225th64th251st271st
2014-15200th200th269th263rdConference USA305th1st173rd25th22nd240th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25186th9th314th156th288th238th214th48th228th291st265th333rd50th157th241st48th299th208th
2023-24155th238th280th156th124th138th151st220th319th136th62nd350th319th202nd138th226th147th185th
2022-23139th275th86th224th91st96th173rd293rd224th164th47th153rd286th128th82nd291st154th239th
2021-22159th271st172nd91st166th98th152nd214th265th186th90th264th321st289th107th223rd207th237th
2020-21140th316th41st153rd176th16th106th272nd325th300th36th274th235th292nd13th278th306th344th
2019-20136th198th125th181st211th6th106th309th229th323rd109th194th318th348th4th314th320th351st
2018-19260th111th285th290th259th139th192nd123rd325th330th91st285th170th198th110th98th316th304th
2017-18271st232nd304th190th300th22nd305th171st206th340th113th301st238th192nd21st172nd341st347th
2016-17145th75th82nd320th155th132nd86th175th228th326th85th165th283rd290th86th134th310th298th
2015-16152nd77th12th319th130th131st313th300th227th203rd27th94th273rd205th86th282nd134th225th
2014-15209th303rd27th326th208th10th76th341st246th337th187th90th317th345th2nd338th315th350th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25240th274th--343rd112th263rd150th331st52nd122nd257th150th69th17th180th307th66th108th
2023-24281st27th--333rd220th312th355th212th11th192nd289th155th253rd287th268th167th129th101st
2022-23282nd38th--269th320th273rd328th238th251st128th328th157th40th125th246th218th89th97th
2021-22292nd8th--358th261st247th220th336th269th219th320th216th118th93rd123rd311th99th174th
2020-21287th26th--317th275th287th312th165th245th242nd242nd284th258th328th241st119th188th151st
2019-20283rd170th--196th293rd284th200th188th309th85th331st133rd49th62nd286th179th68th59th
2018-19261st120th--252nd240th250th243rd319th216th47th338th240th48th21st220th320th34th49th
2017-18265th51st--302nd218th343rd293rd149th280th102nd213th318th106th122nd331st110th75th27th
2016-17232nd204th--175th237th83rd199th326th243rd81st304th323rd144th171st80th332nd76th172nd
2015-16332nd152nd--206th331st238th351st268th303rd85th310th285th222nd224th237th256th70th78th
2014-15169th206th--171st194th120th212th239th140th162nd248th281st130th78th121st239th167th199th