Week 1: The Dial-Up Report
November 24, 2025Some teams are enigmas. They rise to the occasion against top-tier competition, looking like tournament contenders, only to turn around and sleepwalk through games against inferior opponents.
This weekly feature identifies the “Dial-Up” teams in Division I basketball: squads that consistently overperform against strong opponents but “phone it in” and underperform against weaker ones.
The rankings below highlight teams that play to the level of their competition—for better or worse.
Figure 1: Top 10 teams with the highest Dial-Up scores in Week 1. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: Oklahoma State (2-0)
Against #125 Texas A&M, #26 Oklahoma State pulled off a big win, 87-63. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed 34 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 33.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#2: Indiana (2-0)
Against #141 Marquette, #5 Indiana pulled off a big win, 100-77. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed outpacing the projection by 29.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#3: NC State (2-0)
Against #129 UAB, #8 NC State pulled off a big win, 94-70. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed beating the line by 26.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 26.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#4: New Orleans (1-1)
Against #137 TCU, #206 New Orleans pulled off a big win, 78-74. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed +23 versus projection.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 23.3 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#5: Bethune-Cookman (0-2)
Against #100 Auburn, #252 Bethune-Cookman battled tough in a 90-95 loss. The model expected a margin of -28, but they performed 23 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 22.6 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
Figure 2: Performance comparison for the top 5 Dial-Up teams. Green bars show total overperformance against strong opponents; orange bars show total underperformance against weak opponents.
#6: Georgetown (2-0)
Against #165 Maryland, #60 Georgetown pulled off a big win, 70-60. The model expected a margin of -13, but they performed outpacing the projection by 23.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 22.6 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#7: Tulsa (2-0)
Against #128 Rhode Island, #59 Tulsa pulled off a big win, 82-65. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed beating the line by 22.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 22.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#8: Cent Michigan (1-1)
Against #175 App State, #253 Cent Michigan pulled off a big win, 82-66. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed +19 versus projection.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 19.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#9: Wisconsin (2-0)
Against #168 Campbell, #36 Wisconsin pulled off a big win, 96-64. The model expected a margin of 16, but they performed 16 points better than projected. Facing #250 Northern Illinois, #36 Wisconsin struggled to put away Northern Illinois, winning just 97-72. Favored by 28, they underperformed by 3 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 2.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#10: Miami (3-0)
Against #177 Jacksonville, #42 Miami pulled off a big win, 86-69. The model expected a margin of -1, but they performed outpacing the projection by 18.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#11: UT Martin (2-0)
Against #143 UNLV, #94 UT Martin pulled off a big win, 86-81. The model expected a margin of -11, but they performed beating the line by 16.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 16.2 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#12: Youngstown St (2-1)
Against #111 Grand Canyon, #76 Youngstown St pulled off a big win, 90-81. The model expected a margin of -7, but they performed +16 versus projection.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 16.1 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
Figure 3: Scatter plot showing the relationship between overperformance against strong opponents (x-axis) and underperformance against weak opponents (y-axis). Bubble size and color indicate Dial-Up score magnitude. Top-right quadrant represents the biggest Dial-Up teams.
#13: MD-E Shore (1-2)
Against #134 Georgia Tech, #347 MD-E Shore battled tough in a 52-56 loss. The model expected a margin of -20, but they performed 16 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.9 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#14: Liberty (3-0)
Against #164 Florida Atlantic, #65 Liberty pulled off a big win, 88-68. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed outpacing the projection by 16.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#15: California Baptist (2-0)
Against #118 UC Irvine, #85 California Baptist pulled off a big win, 69-61. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed beating the line by 16.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#16: Pacific (1-1)
Against #92 Nevada, #116 Pacific battled tough in a 77-78 loss. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed +15 versus projection.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#17: E Washington (0-3)
Against #152 UCLA, #133 E Washington battled tough in a 74-80 loss. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed 13 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 13.2 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#18: Wofford (1-1)
Against #174 Milwaukee, #235 Wofford pulled off a big win, 86-76. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed outpacing the projection by 12.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.3 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#19: UNC (2-0)
Against #12 Kansas, #19 UNC pulled off a big win, 87-74. The model expected a margin of 1, but they performed beating the line by 12.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.3 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#20: Arizona (2-0)
Against #47 Florida, #29 Arizona pulled off a big win, 93-87. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed +12 versus projection. #29 Arizona defeated #191 Utah Tech 93-67 at home on November 07.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 11.9 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 0.0 points against weak competition (1 games).
#21: Mercer (2-1)
Against #14 Tennessee, #120 Mercer battled tough in a 61-76 loss. The model expected a margin of -27, but they performed 12 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 11.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#22: Coppin State (0-3)
Against #165 Maryland, #314 Coppin State battled tough in a 61-83 loss. The model expected a margin of -33, but they performed outpacing the projection by 11.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 11.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#23: UMBC (1-1)
Against #45 Dayton, #158 UMBC battled tough in a 71-77 loss. The model expected a margin of -17, but they performed beating the line by 11.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 11.3 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#24: Lehigh (1-2)
Against #89 Houston, #221 Lehigh battled tough in a 57-75 loss. The model expected a margin of -29, but they performed +11 versus projection.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 10.6 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#25: Colgate (0-2)
Against #99 Michigan State, #166 Colgate battled tough in a 69-80 loss. The model expected a margin of -17, but they performed 6 points better than projected. Facing #209 Northeastern, #166 Colgate suffered a bad loss, 65-68. Favored by 0, they underperformed by 3 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 6.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 3.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
What This Means
These rankings highlight teams that are dangerous underdogs but risky favorites. They have the ceiling to beat anyone in the country but the floor to lose to anyone.
Actionable Advice
- High Value as Underdogs: These teams often perform best when the lights are brightest. Look for them to cover spreads or pull off moneyline upsets against Top 50 competition.
- High Risk as Favorites: Be extremely cautious backing these teams as double-digit favorites against sub-200 opponents. Their tendency to “phone it in” makes them prime candidates to let inferior teams hang around and cover the spread.
Figure 4: Distribution of Dial-Up scores across all Division I teams. The top 25 teams (highlighted in green) represent those with the most extreme performance splits based on opponent quality.
Check back next week for updated rankings.
