Week 2: 2026’s Biggest Bullies
November 21, 2025College basketball efficiency rankings can be misleading. Some teams inflate their numbers by demolishing weaker opponents far beyond what statistical models predict, while simultaneously failing to meet expectations against quality competition.
This weekly feature identifies the biggest “bullies” in Division I basketball: teams whose efficiency metrics are artificially elevated by their performance against inferior opponents.
The rankings below count from #1 (biggest bully) to #25, highlighting teams that excel at padding stats against overmatched opponents while struggling to meet expectations against quality competition.
Figure 1: Top 10 teams with the highest bully scores in Week 2. Bully scores reflect the combination of overperformance against weak opponents and underperformance against quality competition.
#1: UConn (4-0)
#5 UConn was projected to beat #340 UMass Lowell by 19. They cruised to a 110-47 victory, 44 points better than projected. Against #21 BYU, UConn won 86-84 but fell 1 points short of the 3-point projection.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 43.8 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 0.9 points against quality competition (2 games).
#2: TCU (2-2)
Against #326 Saint Francis, #202 TCU rolled to a 41-point win, 104-63. The model had them winning by 10; the actual margin was 41, outpacing the projection by 31. Facing #128 New Orleans, TCU came up short, losing 78-74 after being projected to win by 19.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 31.2 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 23.3 points against quality competition (2 games).
#3: Minnesota (3-1)
#130 Minnesota faced #301 Alcorn State as 10-point favorites and won handily 95-50, 35 points above the spread. Minnesota fell to #56 Missouri 83-60, missing the 8-point projection by 15.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 53.3 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 15.0 points against quality competition (1 games).
#4: NC State (4-0)
Expected to win by 1 over #315 UNC Greensboro, #4 NC State coasted to a 110-64 win—beating the line by 45.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 80.9 total points against weak opponents (2 games).
#5: Akron (3-1)
#26 Akron cruised to a 104-69 victory against #298 Princeton. Favored by 6, the 35-point margin was +29 versus projection. Against #8 Purdue, Akron lost 97-79. They were projected to lose by 7.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.6 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 11.2 points against quality competition (1 games).
Figure 2: Performance comparison for the top 5 biggest bullies. Red bars show total overperformance against weak opponents; blue bars show total underperformance against strong opponents.
#6: Wright State (2-3)
#187 Wright State defeated #215 Radford 92-59 on a neutral court on November 15. Facing #104 Toledo, Wright State came up short, losing 81-71 after being projected to win by 1.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 33.0 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 18.5 points against quality competition (3 games).
#7: Auburn (3-1)
#53 Auburn handled #239 Merrimack, winning 95-57. That 38-point margin was a 20-point swing from the projection. Favored by 28 over #120 Bethune-Cookman, Auburn won by just 5, 95-90.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 32.2 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 22.6 points against quality competition (1 games).
#8: Illinois (4-0)
Facing #334 Jackson State, #12 Illinois coasted to a 113-55 win. With a projected spread of 21, the result was 37 points past expectations. To their credit, Illinois met expectations against stronger #75 Florida Gulf Coast, suggesting they may simply be that good rather than inflating numbers against weak competition.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 36.7 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 0.0 points against quality competition (3 games).
#9: Clemson (4-1)
#7 Clemson was projected to beat #363 New Hampshire by 27. They cruised to a 88-38 victory, 23 points better than projected. Against #74 Georgetown, Clemson lost 79-74. They were projected to win by 12.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 39.3 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 16.9 points against quality competition (1 games).
#10: Bradley (1-3)
Against #212 Central Michigan, #288 Bradley rolled to a 31-point win, 85-54. The model had them winning by 10; the actual margin was 31, outpacing the projection by 21. Facing #111 UT Martin, Bradley came up short, losing 78-67 after being projected to win by 16.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 20.6 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 46.9 points against quality competition (3 games).
#11: Yale (3-0)
#11 Yale faced #318 Quinnipiac as 8-point favorites and won handily 97-60, 29 points above the spread. Favored by 21 over #122 Stony Brook, Yale won by just 7, 86-79.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 44.2 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 14.1 points against quality competition (1 games).
#12: Marquette (3-2)
Expected to win by 16 over #273 Little Rock, #95 Marquette coasted to a 89-49 win—beating the line by 24. The model had Marquette winning by 6 against #6 Indiana. Instead, they lost 100-77.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 24.0 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 33.9 points against quality competition (3 games).
Figure 3: Scatter plot showing the relationship between overperformance against weak opponents (x-axis) and underperformance against strong opponents (y-axis). Bubble size and color indicate bully score magnitude. Top-right quadrant represents the biggest bullies.
#13: Charleston (2-3)
#149 Charleston won comfortably 88-61 against #364 South Carolina State. Favored by 5, the 27-point margin was +22 versus projection. Against #100 Florida Atlantic, Charleston lost 94-77. They were projected to lose by 2.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 22.4 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 25.0 points against quality competition (2 games).
#14: Nevada (3-1)
The model gave #98 Nevada a 2-point edge over #358 Louisiana Tech. They pulled away for a 77-50 win, finishing 25 beyond the expected margin. Nevada beat #170 Pacific 78-77, though the 1-point margin was 15 below the projected spread.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 24.6 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 28.6 points against quality competition (3 games).
#15: Texas A&M (2-2)
#177 Texas A&M handled #316 Texas Southern, winning 104-70. That 34-point margin was a 16-point swing from the projection. Texas A&M fell to #136 Oklahoma State 87-63, missing the 10-point projection by 34.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.9 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 51.4 points against quality competition (3 games).
#16: Miami (3-1)
Facing #354 Stetson, #110 Miami coasted to a 102-61 win. With a projected spread of 9, the result was 32 points past expectations. To their credit, Miami met expectations against stronger #120 Bethune-Cookman, suggesting they may simply be that good rather than inflating numbers against weak competition.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 32.2 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 0.0 points against quality competition (2 games).
#17: Georgia (5-0)
#58 Georgia was projected to beat #365 Maryland Eastern Shore by 25. They cruised to a 94-29 victory, 40 points better than projected. To their credit, Georgia met expectations against stronger #179 Bellarmine, suggesting they may simply be that good rather than inflating numbers against weak competition.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 63.4 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 0.0 points against quality competition (1 games).
#18: UAB (3-2)
Against #342 Mississippi Valley State, #241 UAB rolled to a 51-point win, 106-55. The model had them winning by 33; the actual margin was 51, outpacing the projection by 18. Facing #4 NC State, UAB came up short, losing 94-70 after being projected to win by 2.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 18.0 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 26.5 points against quality competition (2 games).
#19: Kansas (3-1)
#46 Kansas faced #279 Green Bay as 23-point favorites and won handily 94-51, 20 points above the spread. Kansas fell to #34 North Carolina 87-74, missing the 1-point projection by 12.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 37.5 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 12.3 points against quality competition (1 games).
#20: Louisville (4-0)
Expected to win by 15 over #364 South Carolina State, #16 Louisville coasted to a 104-45 win—beating the line by 44. To their credit, Louisville met expectations against stronger #23 Kentucky, suggesting they may simply be that good rather than inflating numbers against weak competition.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 59.8 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 0.0 points against quality competition (2 games).
#21: Milwaukee (2-3)
#137 Milwaukee won comfortably 92-72 against #273 Little Rock. Favored by 6, the 20-point margin was +14 versus projection. Against #6 Indiana, Milwaukee lost 101-70. They were projected to lose by 4.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 13.9 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 30.9 points against quality competition (2 games).
#22: USF (3-1)
The model gave #42 USF a 17-point edge over #351 Coppin State. They rolled to a 50-point win, 100-50, finishing 33 beyond the expected margin. Facing #43 George Washington, USF came up short, losing 99-95 after being projected to lose by 4.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 57.6 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 0.4 points against quality competition (2 games).
#23: Syracuse (3-0)
#80 Syracuse handled #311 Binghamton, winning 85-47. That 38-point margin was a 30-point swing from the projection.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 86.2 total points against weak opponents (3 games).
#24: Winthrop (2-2)
Facing #219 Mercer, #157 Winthrop coasted to a 105-69 win. With a projected spread of 7, the result was 29 points past expectations. To their credit, Winthrop met expectations against stronger #172 Queens University, suggesting they may simply be that good rather than inflating numbers against weak competition.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.7 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 0.0 points against quality competition (1 games).
#25: Gonzaga (5-0)
#22 Gonzaga was projected to beat #316 Texas Southern by 27. They cruised to a 98-43 victory, 28 points better than projected. To their credit, Gonzaga met expectations against stronger #33 Oklahoma, suggesting they may simply be that good rather than inflating numbers against weak competition.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.2 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 0.0 points against quality competition (2 games).
What This Means
These rankings highlight teams whose efficiency numbers may not tell the full story. While crushing inferior opponents is expected, doing so far beyond statistical projections while simultaneously underperforming against quality teams suggests inflated metrics.
As the season progresses, these teams will face the ultimate test: can they maintain their efficiency rankings when conference play forces them to face quality opponents night after night?
Figure 4: Distribution of bully scores across all Division I teams. The top 25 bullies (highlighted in red) represent teams whose efficiency metrics are most inflated by their performance patterns.
Check back next week for updated bully rankings.
