Week 2: 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 2. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: SF Austin (4-0)
Against #177 Arkansas State, #51 SF Austin pulled off a big win, 90-65. The model expected a margin of -13, but they performed 38 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 37.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#2: UAB (3-2)
Against #35 High Point, #179 UAB pulled off a big win, 91-74. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed outpacing the projection by 19. Facing #273 Alabama State, #179 UAB suffered a bad loss, 74-77. Favored by 15, they underperformed by 18 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 19.2 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 18.1 points against weak competition (1 games).
#3: Oklahoma State (4-0)
Against #161 Texas A&M, #54 Oklahoma State pulled off a big win, 87-63. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed beating the line by 34.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 33.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#4: Indiana (4-0)
Against #93 Marquette, #7 Indiana pulled off a big win, 100-77. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed +29 versus projection. Facing #341 Incarnate Word, #7 Indiana struggled to put away Incarnate Word, winning just 69-61. Favored by 12, they underperformed by 4 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 4.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#5: Tulsa (3-1)
Against #98 Rhode Island, #81 Tulsa pulled off a big win, 82-65. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed 22 points better than projected. Facing #262 Oral Roberts, #81 Tulsa struggled to put away Oral Roberts, winning just 88-87. Favored by 6, they underperformed by 5 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 22.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 4.8 points against weak competition (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: NC State (4-0)
Against #179 UAB, #4 NC State pulled off a big win, 94-70. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed outpacing the projection by 26.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 26.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#7: Buffalo (4-0)
Against #178 DePaul, #88 Buffalo pulled off a big win, 66-53. The model expected a margin of -12, but they performed beating the line by 25.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 24.6 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#8: West Virginia (5-0)
Against #87 Pittsburgh, #53 West Virginia pulled off a big win, 71-49. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed +24 versus projection.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 23.9 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#9: UVA (4-0)
Against #122 Marshall, #10 UVA pulled off a big win, 104-78. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed 23 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 23.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#10: New Orleans (2-1)
Against #131 TCU, #119 New Orleans pulled off a big win, 78-74. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed outpacing the projection by 23.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 23.3 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#11: Gonzaga (5-0)
Against #70 Creighton, #2 Gonzaga pulled off a big win, 90-63. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed beating the line by 22.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 22.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#12: Missouri (5-0)
Against #78 Minnesota, #72 Missouri pulled off a big win, 83-60. The model expected a margin of 8, but they performed +15 versus projection. Facing #294 Southeast Missouri State, #72 Missouri struggled to put away Southeast Missouri State, winning just 89-84. Favored by 12, they underperformed by 7 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 6.9 points against weak competition (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: Saint Mary’s (4-0)
Against #139 North Texas, #5 Saint Mary’s pulled off a big win, 80-49. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed 27 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 43.3 total points against strong opponents (2 games).
#14: Presbyterian (3-3)
Against #71 East Tennessee State, #280 Presbyterian pulled off a big win, 68-64. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed outpacing the projection by 12. Facing #249 Sacramento State, #280 Presbyterian suffered a bad loss, 62-64. Favored by 7, they underperformed by 9 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 8.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#15: Illinois State (2-2)
Against #146 Cornell, #182 Illinois State pulled off a big win, 76-65. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed beating the line by 12. Facing #302 Long Beach State, #182 Illinois State struggled to put away Long Beach State, winning just 82-80. Favored by 12, they underperformed by 10 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 16.5 points against weak competition (2 games).
#16: Winthrop (2-2)
Against #160 Queens University, #120 Winthrop pulled off a big win, 81-74. The model expected a margin of 2, but they performed +6 versus projection. Facing #223 Coastal Carolina, #120 Winthrop suffered a bad loss, 66-72. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 15 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 5.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 15.1 points against weak competition (1 games).
#17: Saint Louis (4-0)
Against #138 Grand Canyon, #50 Saint Louis pulled off a big win, 78-64. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed 20 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 20.2 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#18: Georgetown (4-0)
Against #115 Maryland, #67 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 39.5 total points against strong opponents (2 games).
#19: Ohio State (4-0)
Against #180 App State, #46 Ohio State pulled off a big win, 75-53. The model expected a margin of 8, but they performed beating the line by 14. Facing #226 IU Indianapolis, #46 Ohio State struggled to put away IU Indianapolis, winning just 118-102. Favored by 21, they underperformed by 5 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 14.1 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 5.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#20: Northeastern (2-2)
Against #153 Harvard, #169 Northeastern pulled off a big win, 77-60. The model expected a margin of 2, but they performed +15 versus projection. Facing #229 Boston University, #169 Northeastern suffered a bad loss, 75-76. Favored by 4, they underperformed by 5 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 14.6 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 4.7 points against weak competition (1 games).
#21: Cent Michigan (2-2)
Against #180 App State, #193 Cent Michigan pulled off a big win, 82-66. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed 19 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 19.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#22: Stanford (3-0)
Against #172 Montana, #125 Stanford pulled off a big win, 91-68. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed outpacing the projection by 19.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 18.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#23: Wisconsin (4-0)
Against #157 Campbell, #31 Wisconsin pulled off a big win, 96-64. The model expected a margin of 16, but they performed beating the line by 16. Facing #247 Northern Illinois, #31 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).
#24: New Mexico St (3-0)
Against #116 New Mexico, #65 New Mexico St pulled off a big win, 76-68. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed +18 versus projection.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 18.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#25: USC (3-0)
Against #182 Illinois State, #34 USC pulled off a big win, 87-67. The model expected a margin of 2, but they performed 18 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 18.4 total points against strong opponents (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.
