TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2024-25 Utah  16-17 (0.485)  |  Big 12
All-Play Percentage: 0.793 (76th)
Schedule Strength: 0.681 (60th)
Record Quality: 0.116 (118th)
Avg. Season Rank: 66.67 (64th)
Pace: 68.30 (71st)
Momentum: -2.24 (281st)
Off. Momentum: 0.06 (201st)
Def. Momentum: -2.30 (289th)
Consistency: -8.97 (104th)
Res. Consistency: -14.30 (289th)
Away From Home: -4.98 (364th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -6.74 (362nd)
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 5, 2025. 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: 111.48 31.74 64.43 86.93 45.49 36.01 33.16 15.56 33.52 35.35 63.34 15.01 19.44 8.04 41.43 17.90 40.67 2.01
RANK: 104th 44th 352nd 192nd 105th 109th 228th 324th 315th 59th 51st 46th 18th 27th 109th 324th 63rd 159th

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: 101.83 26.70 -- 86.77 41.05 34.84 33.99 22.93 40.04 29.00 50.34 12.71 13.25 5.22 40.15 26.43 33.42 2.07
RANK: 71st 157th -- 163rd 62nd 240th 171st 246th 284th 61st 7th 225th 83rd 86th 258th 258th 64th 79th

ANALYSIS:
Despite what their win percentage might indicate, Utah is a good team that can cause more than enough trouble for most opponents. Ranked 76th overall (out of 364) in our most recent ratings, they presently have a record of 16-17. They are also ranked by this site as the #14 team (out of 16) in the Big 12 (average ranking 43.6).

Utah will mainly try to find success through their defense. They are ranked 71st in defensive efficiency and allow fewer than 102 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Utah does tremendous work shutting down the opposition from the inside. They are ranked seventh in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on only 50.3% of their attempts from close-up. Utah also does a pretty solid job providing themselves chances to score quickly off of steals. They're ranked 46th in potential points off of breakaway steals vs. AO with a rating of 15.01.

Utah plays at about the same level on offense as they do on defense. The team ranks 104th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 111 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Utah appears to be one of the top-notch offensive rebounding teams you will find this year. Against AO, the squad has a rating of 19.44 in potential points scored off of second chances (ranked 18th in the NCAA), and they convert 8.0% of their second-chance opportunities (ranked 27th) as well. Utah also does a really good job to acquire opportunities from the free throw line. With a free throw attempt rate of 31.74 vs. AO, they are ranked 44th in the nation at getting to the charity stripe. Unfortunately, the team struggles mightily from the line, making only 64.4% of their attempts (13th-worst in the nation). If Utah does have a weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's inability to drain mid-range jumpers. The squad makes just 33.5% of their mid-range field goal attempts vs. AO, which ranks 50th-worst in the nation.

On the road, Utah performs noticeably worse than they do at home. The team is currently ranked last 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 playing teams that do a nice job converting inside the paint, Utah usually performs worse than average. Utah is more efficient than normal 33% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 59.24%. In all other contests, Utah performs better than average 83% of the time.
Utah is typically worse vs. teams that are typically efficient on offense. Against foes that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 110.85, Utah performs above their norm 33% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 83% of the time.
When facing teams that allow a greater number of field goal opportunities, Utah often performs better than normal. Utah is more efficient than usual 68% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 84.52. In their other contests, Utah performs better than the norm 18% 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
2024-2576th76th209th118thBig 1271st104th60th362nd364th64th
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
2024-25104th44th352nd192nd105th109th228th324th315th59th51st46th18th27th109th324th63rd159th
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
2024-2571st157th--163rd62nd240th171st246th284th61st7th225th83rd86th258th258th64th79th
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