TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2023-24 UT Rio Grande  6-25 (0.194)  |  WAC
All-Play Percentage: 0.061 (340th)
Schedule Strength: 0.455 (152nd)
Record Quality: -0.357 (332nd)
Avg. Season Rank: 324.75 (332nd)
Pace: 70.47 (39th)
Momentum: -4.19 (326th)
Off. Momentum: -2.52 (331st)
Def. Momentum: -1.67 (253rd)
Consistency: -8.34 (68th)
Res. Consistency: -12.43 (201st)
Away From Home: -1.77 (324th)
Paper Tiger Factor: 1.70 (12th)
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: 92.92 27.29 71.43 82.08 39.73 26.97 30.44 25.56 37.56 29.55 50.08 12.20 11.70 4.01 32.86 31.14 36.00 1.97
RANK: 346th 147th 215th 326th 342nd 316th 337th 112th 246th 235th 351st 133rd 256th 318th 292nd 76th 187th 103rd

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: 112.49 24.35 -- 87.18 47.87 31.08 35.75 23.92 41.77 32.18 64.10 13.48 14.04 5.63 35.65 27.44 36.91 1.99
RANK: 322nd 94th -- 271st 345th 164th 264th 234th 298th 249th 349th 313th 237th 199th 120th 215th 209th 234th

ANALYSIS:
UT Rio Grande presently has one of the below-average teams in college basketball. They are ranked #340 (out of 362) in the most recent Haslametrics ratings and have a record of 6-25. Of the 11 schools in the WAC (average ranking 183.5), they're currently ranked as the worst team in the conference.

UT Rio Grande has one of the most anemic offenses around. They rank 346th in efficiency on that end of the court and score fewer than 93 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. UT Rio Grande struggles to drain shots consistently from most spots on the floor, ranking in the bottom-50 in three of the four primary field goal shooting categories. They only convert 30.4% of their three-pointers (337th in the nation), 50.1% of their near-proximity attempts (351st), and 39.7% of their total shots from the field (342nd) vs. AO. UT Rio Grande is also one of the more inferior teams in the college game when it comes to maximizing opportunities to score on offense. The team is nationally ranked 326th in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of only 82.08 vs. AO.

UT Rio Grande doesn't rate much better on defense than they do on offense. Allowing roughly 112 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #322 in the nation in defensive efficiency. UT Rio Grande fares terribly when attempting to stop opponents from converting from the inside. The team is ranked 349th in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on 64.1% of their attempts from close-up. UT Rio Grande is also one of the very worst teams in the country in terms of overall defensive field goal percentage. The ball-club ranks #345 nationally in field goal percentage allowed, as AO will convert approximately 47.9% of their total attempts from the floor.

UT Rio Grande has recently performed below their norm from an efficiency standpoint. The team is currently ranked 326th in the country in positive momentum. When playing on the road, UT Rio Grande performs somewhat worse than they normally do on their home court. The club is nationally ranked 324th in our site's away-from-home metric.
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:
UT Rio Grande does better vs. clubs that tend to capitalize off breakaway opportunities. When playing squads that have a potential point rate off steals vs. AO greater than 10.46, UT Rio Grande performs above average 84% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team never performs better than the norm.
UT Rio Grande performs worse against squads that aren't terribly skilled defensively. When facing teams that have a defensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 104.91, UT Rio Grande is more efficient than normal 9% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 83% of the time.
When playing teams that do not defend well on the perimeter, UT Rio Grande usually performs worse than average. UT Rio Grande is more efficient than normal 18% of the time when facing clubs that have a defensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 35.24%. In all other contests, UT Rio Grande performs better than average 78% 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
2024-25230th229th181st233rdSouthland37th107th253rd57th2nd206th
2023-24340th339th351st332ndWAC39th68th152nd12th324th332nd
2022-23230th228th220th227thWAC10th157th195th114th276th264th
2021-22305th305th326th311thWAC13th242nd175th264th35th286th
2020-21272nd272nd203rd283rdWAC82nd40th240th161st241st237th
2019-20238th238th233rd263rdWAC65th86th224th91st228th259th
2018-19189th188th152nd176thWAC39th146th201st75th21st193rd
2017-18276th276th214th225thWAC13th6th221st86th91st254th
2016-17297th297th295th311thWAC5th264th215th187th195th303rd
2015-16346th346th318th330thWAC164th206th245th91st286th346th
2014-15327th327th298th327thWAC192nd263rd286th90th112th306th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25210th362nd211th55th183rd12th267th218th67th324th63rd37th241st222nd22nd232nd336th351st
2023-24346th147th215th326th342nd316th337th112th246th235th351st133rd256th318th292nd76th187th103rd
2022-23198th34th274th307th192nd251st224th336th225th27th268th324th88th42nd227th328th10th42nd
2021-22261st59th249th337th194th244th320th292nd104th108th205th188th87th54th206th264th60th90th
2020-21321st94th340th103rd345th229th355th171st334th63rd277th18th23rd92nd253rd184th83rd82nd
2019-20230th179th117th158th245th313th204th8th84th313th295th32nd260th237th319th9th308th144th
2018-19261st42nd204th301st208th348th301st34th110th177th239th5th146th254th346th24th135th32nd
2017-18285th52nd100th191st328th316th324th68th197th147th340th54th269th304th318th61st135th65th
2016-17255th291st84th139th284th98th268th117th201st295th223rd33rd267th188th109th125th303rd285th
2015-16328th343rd246th185th307th147th279th97th268th301st268th323rd327th332nd144th96th309th266th
2014-15322nd210th164th212th301st324th349th44th163rd186th275th251st100th190th322nd33rd173rd67th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25260th124th--291st243rd177th240th271st246th211th227th157th355th337th137th243rd163rd197th
2023-24322nd94th--271st345th164th264th234th298th249th349th313th237th199th120th215th209th234th
2022-23283rd296th--145th277th121st209th173rd256th255th257th348th247th361st121st171st270th258th
2021-22325th313th--195th308th293rd198th112th354th158th292nd311th348th312th279th97th140th90th
2020-21179th342nd--32nd211th43rd214th42nd231st295th93rd95th292nd277th78th69th334th325th
2019-20247th336th--8th312th64th336th39th238th150th246th87th97th281st156th96th280th246th
2018-19123rd305th--2nd257th29th240th10th163rd230th185th143rd96th244th128th40th330th304th
2017-18245th349th--20th284th31st306th12th274th327th95th228th81st130th73rd22nd349th334th
2016-17306th350th--17th331st30th314th5th205th338th227th265th206th290th78th7th350th340th
2015-16340th184th--349th282nd202nd151st191st341st345th159th268th349th305th67th102nd314th313th
2014-15332nd200th--272nd300th235th230th82nd310th302nd250th317th298th315th196th55th285th236th