TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2023-24 Utah  22-15 (0.595)  |  Pac-12
All-Play Percentage: 0.870 (48th)
Schedule Strength: 0.699 (28th)
Record Quality: 0.272 (57th)
Avg. Season Rank: 44.58 (41st)
Pace: 69.89 (59th)
Momentum: 2.16 (80th)
Off. Momentum: 2.11 (75th)
Def. Momentum: 0.05 (139th)
Consistency: -9.83 (263rd)
Res. Consistency: -16.40 (351st)
Away From Home: -4.49 (361st)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.98 (273rd)
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 8, 2024. 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: 113.69 23.86 65.34 87.94 48.01 35.67 38.32 18.76 39.50 33.51 63.08 10.87 14.05 6.31 40.56 21.33 38.11 2.02
RANK: 49th 279th 346th 66th 29th 52nd 16th 299th 160th 79th 45th 211th 143rd 101st 78th 320th 111th 212th

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: 97.42 21.92 -- 88.95 40.46 32.16 31.80 25.83 37.27 30.97 52.12 10.12 12.81 4.59 36.15 29.04 34.81 2.01
RANK: 39th 26th -- 320th 32nd 216th 48th 294th 104th 180th 29th 82nd 132nd 64th 143rd 267th 126th 166th

ANALYSIS:
This website places Utah in the top 25% of all NCAA college basketball teams this year. They are ranked #48 (out of 362) in the most recent Haslametrics ratings and have a record of 22-15. Of the 12 schools in the Pac-12 (average ranking 75.2), they're currently ranked as our #4 team in the conference.

Utah will mainly try to find success through their defense. They are ranked 39th in defensive efficiency and allow fewer than 98 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Utah does a pretty solid job avoiding careless fouls and minimizing opponents' opportunities from the free throw line. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 21.92 vs. AO, they are currently rated 26th in the country in that category. Utah will also take a bite out of many opponents' shooting percentages, based on the fact that the team ranks in the top-50 in three of our four primary defensive field goal categories. They allow AO to convert only 31.8% of their three-pointers (48th in the nation), 52.1% of their near-proximity attempts (29th), and 40.5% of their total shots from the field (32nd). If Utah does exhibit a weakness on the defensive end of the floor, it'd likely be the team's propensity to allow too many shot attempts per trip. The squad has a rating of 88.95 in defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO, which ranks 43rd-worst in college basketball.

Utah plays at about the same level on offense as they do on defense. The team ranks 49th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 114 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Utah is 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 38.3% of their three-pointers (16th in the nation), 63.1% of their near-proximity attempts (45th), and 48.0% of their total shots from the field (29th) vs. AO. Utah also does a pretty decent job in most cases to maximize opportunities to score on offense. The team is ranked 66th in the NCAA in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 87.94 vs. AO. If Utah does have a glaring weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's poor shooting at the line. The squad makes just 65.3% of their free throw attempts, which ranks 17th-worst in Division I.

On the road, Utah performs noticeably worse than they do at home. The team is currently ranked second from the bottom 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 convert more frequently off of offensive rebounds, Utah often performs worse than normal. Utah is more efficient than usual 27% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 6.68%. In their other contests, Utah performs better than the norm 64% of the time.
Utah does better vs. clubs that prefer the outside shot. When playing squads that have an offensive shooting proximity score vs. AO greater than 2.01, Utah performs above average 71% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 35% of the time.
Utah performs worse against squads that typically allow more than a fair share of breakaway opportunities. When facing teams that have a potential point rate allowed off steals vs. AO greater than 10.40, Utah is more efficient than normal 35% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 71% 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