TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2014-15 Utah  26-9 (0.743)  |  Pac-12
All-Play Percentage: 0.980 (8th)
Schedule Strength: 0.680 (45th)
Record Quality: 0.393 (19th)
Avg. Season Rank: 8.41 (6th)
Pace: 61.72 (338th)
Momentum: -3.56 (316th)
Off. Momentum: -1.61 (305th)
Def. Momentum: -1.95 (255th)
Consistency: -11.14 (333rd)
Res. Consistency: -14.95 (329th)
Away From Home: -2.21 (330th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -0.87 (175th)
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 6, 2015. 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: 113.74 33.24 70.80 81.15 48.08 31.06 39.22 21.95 38.06 28.14 65.66 10.81 15.89 7.51 38.27 27.05 34.68 2.04
RANK: 14th 36th 122nd 206th 17th 65th 15th 285th 62nd 184th 20th 199th 129th 84th 63rd 292nd 174th 249th

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: 86.10 25.93 -- 83.11 36.58 26.16 29.36 29.86 33.03 27.08 47.46 8.66 12.30 4.38 31.48 35.93 32.59 1.99
RANK: 4th 72nd -- 217th 3rd 100th 4th 329th 64th 119th 3rd 16th 19th 8th 77th 329th 102nd 186th

ANALYSIS:
When you talk about the elite teams in college basketball this year, Utah most definitely is in the conversation. They are ranked #8 (out of 351) in the most recent Haslametrics ratings and have a record of 26-9. Of the 12 schools in the Pac-12 (average ranking 82.7), they're currently ranked as our #2 team in the conference.

The Utah defense will be extremely problematic for most opposing offenses. Allowing about 86 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO and demonstrating a preference for a more deliberate, half-court style of play (the 14th-slowest pace in D1), the club is ranked fourth overall in defensive efficiency. Utah will do a number on many an opponent's shooting percentage, as the team ranks in the top-25 in three of our four major defensive field goal categories. They allow AO to convert only 29.4% of their three-pointers (fourth in the nation), 47.5% of their near-proximity attempts (third), and 36.6% of their total shots from the field (third). Utah also 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 eighth in the NCAA), and with a rating of 12.30, they're 19th in potential points allowed off of the offensive glass as well.

Utah plays at about the same level on offense as they do on defense. The team ranks 14th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 114 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Utah 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 convert 39.2% of their three-pointers (15th in the nation), 65.7% of their near-proximity attempts (20th), and 48.1% of their total shots from the field (17th) vs. AO. Utah also 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 8.66, which ranks #16 in the country.

Utah has recently performed below their norm from an efficiency standpoint. The team is currently ranked 316th in the country in positive momentum. Utah has also been one of the most erratic teams in college basketball this year (currently ranked 333rd overall in consistency), which makes the outcomes of their future games far more difficult to predict. On the road, Utah performs noticeably worse than they do at home. The team is currently ranked 330th 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 are more proficient at draining the mid-range shot, Utah often performs worse than normal. Utah is more efficient than usual 13% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 35.88%. In their other contests, Utah performs better than the norm 72% of the time.
Utah does better vs. clubs that are likely to allow more second chances off of offensive rebounds. When playing squads that have a defensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 14.64, Utah performs above average 80% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 29% of the time.
Utah performs worse against squads that favor a faster tempo. When facing teams that have a pace vs. AO greater than 67.10, Utah is more efficient than normal 15% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 62% 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
2024-2577th76th209th118thBig 1267th104th60th362nd364th64th
2023-2448th48th126th57thPac-1259th263rd28th273rd361st41st
2022-2381st81st166th112thPac-12244th51st75th353rd344th56th
2021-22123rd123rd285th196thPac-12242nd52nd76th350th305th100th
2020-2134th33rd199th87thPac-12238th226th32nd204th290th56th
2019-2094th94th183rd89thPac-12281st192nd37th327th350th88th
2018-1986th86th139th97thPac-12264th81st74th306th279th119th
2017-1863rd63rd71st40thPac-12313th80th63rd183rd306th54th
2016-1751st50th85th88thPac-12170th234th91st259th326th49th
2015-1634th34th31st12thPac-12322nd324th22nd341st338th35th
2014-158th8th28th19thPac-12338th333rd45th175th330th6th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25105th40th352nd189th106th108th233rd322nd315th60th53rd46th18th31st110th324th64th159th
2023-2449th279th346th66th29th52nd16th299th160th79th45th211th143rd101st78th320th111th212th
2022-23129th186th225th56th171st124th171st181st247th117th146th253rd13th34th168th205th165th178th
2021-22102nd177th24th106th170th134th117th186th90th167th229th332nd43rd72nd154th202nd178th203rd
2020-2123rd188th14th267th3rd260th17th295th34th34th16th266th327th132nd240th279th18th42nd
2019-2075th50th91st281st35th247th133rd242nd165th109th28th302nd180th217th220th221st78th94th
2018-1929th41st154th239th33rd53rd53rd344th206th84th53rd283rd278th185th39th345th73rd229th
2017-1860th86th36th306th50th56th77th346th26th154th88th260th336th339th31st344th106th267th
2016-1745th247th274th215th2nd267th84th324th30th2nd15th191st127th5th261st322nd2nd7th
2015-1632nd115th70th276th13th125th65th345th55th22nd38th197th251st159th102nd345th14th84th
2014-1514th36th122nd206th17th65th15th285th62nd184th20th199th129th84th63rd292nd174th249th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2573rd158th--163rd61st250th178th241st278th62nd9th217th82nd84th263rd251st62nd76th
2023-2439th26th--320th32nd216th48th294th104th180th29th82nd132nd64th143rd267th126th166th
2022-2339th8th--362nd23rd241st29th303rd58th275th16th167th173rd16th131st243rd172nd208th
2021-22169th105th--321st117th289th120th56th89th325th76th99th270th205th232nd24th298th226th
2020-2159th38th--198th70th173rd177th143rd98th246th28th245th233rd214th161st131st242nd228th
2019-20132nd7th--332nd122nd236th226th224th53rd274th117th267th115th107th154th173rd208th208th
2018-19221st143rd--328th159th192nd167th318th136th150th223rd167th105th142nd120th301st104th174th
2017-1875th36th--328th29th311th91st297th128th81st21st173rd310th133rd260th273rd43rd56th
2016-1755th43rd--227th77th96th111th324th97th109th103rd309th5th15th79th325th96th185th
2015-1655th1st--348th52nd200th152nd333rd146th233rd20th239th19th54th75th301st126th203rd
2014-154th72nd--217th3rd100th4th329th64th119th3rd16th19th8th77th329th102nd186th