Week 3: 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 3. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: E Washington (1-5)
Against #75 UCLA, #275 E Washington battled tough in a 74-80 loss. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed 13 points better than projected. Facing #304 Central Arkansas, #275 E Washington suffered a bad loss, 65-92. Favored by 6, they underperformed by 33 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 13.2 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 32.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#2: Bowling Green (3-2)
Against #180 Texas State, #108 Bowling Green pulled off a big win, 83-48. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed outpacing the projection by 37. Facing #197 William & Mary, #108 Bowling Green suffered a bad loss, 74-82. Favored by 0, they underperformed by 8 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 37.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 8.3 points against weak competition (1 games).
#3: Cent Michigan (2-4)
Against #167 App State, #220 Cent Michigan pulled off a big win, 82-66. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed beating the line by 19. Facing #225 Northern Kentucky, #220 Cent Michigan suffered a bad loss, 66-90. Favored by 0, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 19.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 24.1 points against weak competition (1 games).
#4: Mt St Mary’s (1-5)
Against #131 Maryland, #223 Mt St Mary’s battled tough in a 90-95 loss. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed +11 versus projection. Facing #195 Western Michigan, #223 Mt St Mary’s suffered a bad loss, 60-83. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 28 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 11.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 27.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#5: UAB (4-2)
Against #39 High Point, #179 UAB pulled off a big win, 91-74. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed 19 points better than projected. Facing #247 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).
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: UNLV (3-2)
Against #150 Memphis, #101 UNLV pulled off a big win, 92-78. The model expected a margin of -7, but they performed outpacing the projection by 21. Facing #189 UT Martin, #101 UNLV suffered a bad loss, 81-86. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 20.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 16.2 points against weak competition (1 games).
#7: Oklahoma State (6-0)
Against #127 Texas A&M, #77 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).
#8: Indiana (5-0)
Against #99 Marquette, #11 Indiana pulled off a big win, 100-77. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed +29 versus projection. Facing #332 Incarnate Word, #11 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).
#9: Cent Conn St (3-2)
Against #140 Rutgers, #133 Cent Conn St pulled off a big win, 67-54. The model expected a margin of -1, but they performed 14 points better than projected. Facing #221 Quinnipiac, #133 Cent Conn St suffered a bad loss, 49-71. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 14.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 36.4 points against weak competition (2 games).
#10: TCU (3-2)
Against #152 Lamar, #86 TCU pulled off a big win, 78-65. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed outpacing the projection by 9. Facing #192 New Orleans, #86 TCU suffered a bad loss, 74-78. Favored by 19, they underperformed by 23 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 14.7 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 23.3 points against weak competition (1 games).
#11: Yale (5-1)
Against #173 Navy, #67 Yale pulled off a big win, 97-68. The model expected a margin of 14, but they performed beating the line by 15. Facing #263 Green Bay, #67 Yale struggled to put away Green Bay, winning just 73-67. Favored by 22, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.3 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 30.1 points against weak competition (2 games).
#12: UT Martin (4-2)
Against #154 Bradley, #189 UT Martin pulled off a big win, 78-67. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed +27 versus projection. Facing #322 Prairie View A&M, #189 UT Martin struggled to put away Prairie View A&M, winning just 69-68. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 8 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 43.2 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 7.9 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: BYU (4-1)
Against #63 Wisconsin, #4 BYU pulled off a big win, 98-70. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed 28 points better than projected. Facing #241 Delaware, #4 BYU struggled to put away Delaware, winning just 85-68. Favored by 18, they underperformed by 1 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.2 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 1.2 points against weak competition (1 games).
#14: Kentucky (4-2)
Against #160 Valparaiso, #20 Kentucky pulled off a big win, 107-59. The model expected a margin of 19, but they performed outpacing the projection by 29.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 29.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#15: North Dakota (3-5)
Against #71 Creighton, #271 North Dakota battled tough in a 60-75 loss. The model expected a margin of -21, but they performed beating the line by 6. Facing #233 Coastal Carolina, #271 North Dakota suffered a bad loss, 58-75. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 19 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 6.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 18.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#16: Kansas State (5-1)
Against #125 Mississippi State, #73 Kansas State pulled off a big win, 98-77. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed +25 versus projection.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 25.1 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#17: Alabama State (3-4)
Against #179 UAB, #247 Alabama State pulled off a big win, 77-74. The model expected a margin of -15, but they performed 18 points better than projected. Facing #259 Air Force, #247 Alabama State suffered a bad loss, 64-66. Favored by 4, they underperformed by 6 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 18.1 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 6.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#18: West Virginia (5-2)
Against #134 Pittsburgh, #64 West Virginia pulled off a big win, 71-49. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed outpacing the projection by 24. Facing #193 Campbell, #64 West Virginia struggled to put away Campbell, winning just 73-65. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 0 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 23.9 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 0.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#19: Pitt (4-3)
Against #164 Youngstown State, #134 Pitt pulled off a big win, 74-59. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed beating the line by 9. Facing #221 Quinnipiac, #134 Pitt suffered a bad loss, 75-83. Favored by 7, they underperformed by 15 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 8.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 15.2 points against weak competition (1 games).
#20: New Orleans (2-3)
Against #86 TCU, #192 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).
#21: Winthrop (3-3)
Against #47 Arkansas, #109 Winthrop battled tough in a 83-84 loss. The model expected a margin of -11, but they performed 10 points better than projected. Facing #233 Coastal Carolina, #109 Winthrop suffered a bad loss, 66-72. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 15 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.1 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 15.1 points against weak competition (1 games).
#22: Iowa (5-0)
Against #148 Xavier, #12 Iowa pulled off a big win, 81-62. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed outpacing the projection by 22.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 22.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#23: IUPUI (2-6)
Against #123 Eastern Michigan, #317 IUPUI pulled off a big win, 90-83. The model expected a margin of -5, but they performed beating the line by 12. Facing #259 Air Force, #317 IUPUI suffered a bad loss, 85-98. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 15 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.1 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 27.2 points against weak competition (2 games).
#24: Gonzaga (5-0)
Against #71 Creighton, #2 Gonzaga pulled off a big win, 90-63. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed +22 versus projection.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 22.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#25: Fresno State (5-2)
Against #151 UC San Diego, #159 Fresno State battled tough in a 73-78 loss. The model expected a margin of -22, but they performed 17 points better than projected. Facing #243 South Carolina Upstate, #159 Fresno State suffered a bad loss, 66-67. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 9 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.2 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 9.3 points against weak competition (2 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.
