TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2017-18 TCU  21-12 (0.636)  |  Big 12
All-Play Percentage: 0.931 (25th)
Schedule Strength: 0.739 (22nd)
Record Quality: 0.318 (37th)
Avg. Season Rank: 32.87 (30th)
Pace: 70.17 (179th)
Momentum: 0.14 (165th)
Off. Momentum: -1.62 (296th)
Def. Momentum: 1.77 (55th)
Consistency: -8.38 (97th)
Res. Consistency: -7.57 (2nd)
Away From Home: -1.07 (248th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.14 (205th)
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: 115.20 27.88 70.61 83.27 50.58 28.54 39.54 17.84 44.90 36.90 61.87 11.89 16.36 8.78 34.27 21.42 44.31 1.90
RANK: 14th 98th 218th 108th 7th 247th 20th 307th 2nd 3rd 97th 103rd 91st 43rd 258th 314th 3rd 16th

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: 97.74 23.16 -- 81.66 43.13 28.15 36.45 23.38 39.06 30.14 52.52 7.79 13.11 6.01 34.47 28.63 36.91 1.98
RANK: 80th 72nd -- 151st 115th 69th 233rd 218th 259th 227th 16th 6th 71st 92nd 74th 230th 238th 271st

ANALYSIS:
When listing some of the better squads you will find in NCAA basketball this year, one can definitely make a case for TCU. They are ranked #25 (out of 351) in the most recent Haslametrics ratings and have a record of 21-12. They are also ranked by this site as the #4 team (out of 10) in the Big 12 (average ranking 38.9). Sporting a strength-of-schedule rating of 0.739 (the 22nd-highest in the country), TCU has prepared themselves by challenging some of the best teams in the college game.

TCU will create problems for opponents with their extremely prolific offense. Scoring roughly 115 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO, the squad is rated #14 in offensive efficiency. TCU is a very dangerous team when it comes to shooting the rock, ranking in the top-25 in three of our four major field goal categories. They can be considered sharpshooters out on the perimeter, converting 39.5% of their three-pointers (20th in the nation), 44.9% of their mid-range chances (second), and 50.6% of their total shots from the field (seventh) vs. AO. TCU will also routinely look to penetrate, pound the ball inside, and score from as short a distance as possible. The ball-club is third in the NCAA in ratio of near-proximity attempts to total field goal attempts. TCU lastly allows very few breakaway opportunities for the opposition, which typically translates to fewer turnovers. The team's rating vs. AO for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals is 7.79, which ranks #6 in the country.

TCU is also a fairly decent team on the defensive end of the court. The team ranks 80th nationally in defensive efficiency, allowing about 98 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. TCU does tremendous work shutting down the opposition from the inside. They are ranked 16th in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on only 52.5% of their attempts from close-up. TCU also does a fairly satisfactory job to deny opponents chances to score off of the offensive glass. They have a rating of 13.11 vs. AO in potential points allowed off of second chances (ranked 71st in the country).
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:
TCU is typically better vs. teams that effectively clean the offensive glass. Against foes that have an offensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 15.22, TCU performs above their norm 77% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 31% of the time.
When facing teams that are typically efficient on offense, TCU often performs worse than normal. TCU is more efficient than usual 31% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 109.68. In their other contests, TCU performs better than the norm 70% of the time.
TCU does worse vs. clubs that prefer the outside shot. When playing squads that have an offensive shooting proximity score vs. AO greater than 2.05, TCU performs above average 30% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 65% 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
2024-2567th67th196th82ndBig 12259th35th18th326th356th63rd
2023-2445th45th104th69thBig 12100th106th77th340th315th26th
2022-2322nd22nd92nd39thBig 1294th151st33rd19th224th28th
2021-2228th28th115th48thBig 12246th50th13th16th61st73rd
2020-21155th155th207th127thBig 12264th336th65th196th36th108th
2019-2081st81st192nd108thBig 12322nd334th33rd338th349th68th
2018-1934th34th91st42ndBig 12151st46th28th281st139th33rd
2017-1825th25th84th37thBig 12179th97th22nd205th248th30th
2016-1734th34th98th47thBig 12270th108th19th331st298th39th
2015-16124th124th268th180thBig 12111th328th38th310th339th140th
2014-1559th59th147th112thBig 12237th248th86th347th333rd38th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25116th61st348th28th149th277th274th136th161st20th184th13th13th19th318th169th54th31st
2023-2440th32nd141st43rd83rd313th35th115th258th22nd135th10th2nd1st331st137th52nd25th
2022-2336th54th250th23rd39th328th121st183rd280th1st84th24th31st8th336th220th4th5th
2021-2248th74th304th45th35th307th213th111th155th11th41st78th33rd20th334th141st29th14th
2020-21153rd119th259th199th131st243rd118th161st317th130th67th177th58th62nd244th159th120th107th
2019-2099th275th337th56th100th59th21st220th213th164th142nd136th70th85th77th243rd207th262nd
2018-1953rd156th292nd96th25th212th94th284th151st15th79th57th52nd9th230th296th21st41st
2017-1814th98th218th108th7th247th20th307th2nd3rd97th103rd91st43rd258th314th3rd16th
2016-1732nd147th231st20th24th214th120th140th51st32nd40th64th83rd22nd253rd181st53rd48th
2015-16198th18th269th272nd231st298th109th110th284th148th257th139th57th102nd286th88th121st65th
2014-1566th3rd338th70th91st340th180th55th226th21st90th73rd41st33rd345th61st42nd9th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2544th45th--64th86th261st41st77th53rd104th193rd72nd22nd42nd293rd101st136th90th
2023-2441st189th--18th134th57th86th48th43rd237th172nd55th37th41st112th101st310th301st
2022-2323rd122nd--83rd51st143rd11th140th95th177th82nd109th94th122nd187th157th226th202nd
2021-2220th89th--90th39th123rd26th198th44th138th74th107th54th47th159th227th167th198th
2020-21165th178th--209th171st147th161st205th164th226th183rd108th144th65th122nd195th217th229th
2019-2069th101st--118th120th48th237th280th150th167th55th82nd102nd142nd59th296th190th266th
2018-1931st17th--241st62nd114th9th262nd122nd228th101st110th273rd271st91st247th205th238th
2017-1880th72nd--151st115th69th233rd218th259th227th16th6th71st92nd74th230th238th271st
2016-1747th32nd--178th69th180th123rd162nd104th198th50th21st62nd82nd164th172nd193rd208th
2015-1679th173rd--19th147th191st131st42nd231st129th112th234th35th71st267th77th202nd131st
2014-1564th303rd--76th71st9th92nd208th112th293rd13th44th172nd99th11th243rd313th337th