Week 3: 2026’s Biggest Bullies
November 25, 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 3. Bully scores reflect the combination of overperformance against weak opponents and underperformance against quality competition.
#1: Texas State (6-2)
#183 Texas State was projected to beat #230 Abilene Christian by 1. They won 63-49, 13 points better than projected. Against #111 Bowling Green, Texas State lost 83-48. They were projected to win by 2.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 13.0 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 37.0 points against quality competition (1 games).
#2: Illinois State (4-2)
Against #235 Coastal Carolina, #98 Illinois State rolled to a 52-point win, 94-42. The model had them winning by 11; the actual margin was 52, outpacing the projection by 41. Facing #71 USC, Illinois State came up short, losing 87-67 after being projected to lose by 2.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 40.9 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 18.4 points against quality competition (2 games).
#3: South Dakota St (4-2)
#58 South Dakota St faced #329 Georgia State as 10-point favorites and won handily 105-58, 38 points above the spread. South Dakota St fell to #85 Northern Iowa 65-58, missing the 2-point projection by 5.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 37.5 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 9.6 points against quality competition (2 games).
#4: Wisconsin (4-1)
Expected to win by 16 over #194 Campbell, #63 Wisconsin coasted to a 96-64 win—beating the line by 16. The model had Wisconsin winning by 0 against #5 BYU. Instead, they lost 98-70.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.2 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 28.2 points against quality competition (1 games).
#5: TCU (3-2)
#84 TCU cruised to a 104-63 victory against #359 Saint Francis. Favored by 10, the 41-point margin was +31 versus projection. Against #175 New Orleans, TCU lost 78-74. They were projected to win by 19.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 61.2 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 23.3 points against quality competition (2 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: Drexel (3-4)
The model gave #229 Drexel a 11-point edge over #287 NJIT. They rolled to a 32-point win, 75-43, finishing 21 beyond the expected margin. Facing #33 Syracuse, Drexel came up short, losing 80-50 after being projected to lose by 2.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 21.4 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 61.6 points against quality competition (3 games).
#7: North Texas (4-2)
#117 North Texas handled #304 Northwestern State, winning 80-53. That 27-point margin was a 14-point swing from the projection. North Texas fell to #6 Saint Mary’s 80-49, missing the 4-point projection by 27.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 14.3 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 26.6 points against quality competition (1 games).
#8: NC State (4-1)
Facing #326 UNC Greensboro, #13 NC State coasted to a 110-64 win. With a projected spread of 1, the result was 45 points past expectations. To their credit, NC State met expectations against stronger #156 UAB, suggesting they may simply be that good rather than inflating numbers against weak competition.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 80.9 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 0.0 points against quality competition (2 games).
#9: C. Carolina (4-3)
#235 C. Carolina was projected to beat #313 Western Illinois by 0. They won comfortably 84-64, 20 points better than projected. Against #98 Illinois State, C. Carolina lost 94-42. They were projected to lose by 11.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 19.5 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 40.9 points against quality competition (2 games).
#10: Wright State (3-3)
#136 Wright State defeated #274 Radford 92-59 on a neutral court on November 15. Facing #154 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).
#11: Gonzaga (6-0)
#2 Gonzaga faced #357 Southern Utah as 27-point favorites and won handily 122-50, 45 points above the spread. Favored by 20 over #88 Arizona State, Gonzaga won by just 12, 77-65.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 73.2 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 7.6 points against quality competition (3 games).
#12: Marquette (4-3)
Expected to win by 16 over #315 Little Rock, #95 Marquette coasted to a 89-49 win—beating the line by 24. The model had Marquette winning by 6 against #10 Indiana. Instead, they lost 100-77.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 24.0 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 45.2 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: Miami (5-1)
#27 Miami cruised to a 97-41 victory against #363 Delaware State. Favored by 8, the 56-point margin was +48 versus projection. To their credit, Miami met expectations against stronger #18 Florida, suggesting they may simply be that good rather than inflating numbers against weak competition.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 116.6 total points against weak opponents (3 games); underperformed by 0.0 points against quality competition (2 games).
#14: Old Dominion (3-4)
The model gave #234 Old Dominion a 3-point edge over #337 Morgan State. They rolled to a 32-point win, 88-56, finishing 29 beyond the expected margin. Facing #54 George Washington, Old Dominion came up short, losing 96-73 after being projected to lose by 10.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 29.0 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 29.5 points against quality competition (3 games).
#15: Yale (6-1)
#62 Yale handled #219 Quinnipiac, winning 97-60. That 37-point margin was a 29-point swing from the projection. Yale fell to #121 Rhode Island 86-77, missing the 10-point projection by 19.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.9 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 19.0 points against quality competition (2 games).
#16: Texas A&M (4-2)
Facing #322 Manhattan, #122 Texas A&M coasted to a 109-68 win. With a projected spread of 15, the result was 26 points past expectations. The model had Texas A&M winning by 10 against #77 Oklahoma State. Instead, they lost 87-63.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 56.2 total points against weak opponents (3 games); underperformed by 56.4 points against quality competition (3 games).
#17: Minnesota (4-2)
#119 Minnesota was projected to beat #332 Alcorn State by 10. They cruised to a 95-50 victory, 35 points better than projected. Against #45 Missouri, Minnesota lost 83-60. They were projected to lose by 8.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 53.3 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 21.3 points against quality competition (2 games).
#18: High Point (6-1)
Against #302 Furman, #37 High Point pulled away for a 97-71 win. The model had them winning by 5; the actual margin was 26, outpacing the projection by 21. Facing #156 UAB, High Point came up short, losing 91-74 after being projected to win by 2.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 52.4 total points against weak opponents (3 games); underperformed by 19.2 points against quality competition (1 games).
#19: Wyoming (5-1)
#123 Wyoming faced #292 Portland as 4-point favorites and won handily 93-56, 33 points above the spread. Wyoming fell to #166 Sam Houston 78-70, missing the 2-point projection by 6.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 33.4 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 5.6 points against quality competition (2 games).
#20: Nevada (4-2)
Expected to win by 2 over #282 Louisiana Tech, #163 Nevada took care of business, winning 77-50—beating the line by 25. The model had Nevada winning by 11 against #129 UC Davis. Instead, they lost 75-71.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 24.6 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 43.8 points against quality competition (4 games).
#21: Miss St (3-3)
#139 Miss St won comfortably 86-62 against #293 North Alabama. Favored by 6, the 24-point margin was +18 versus projection. Against #74 Kansas State, Miss St lost 98-77. They were projected to win by 4.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.6 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 34.7 points against quality competition (2 games).
#22: Charleston (4-4)
The model gave #182 Charleston a 5-point edge over #351 South Carolina State. They pulled away for a 88-61 win, finishing 22 beyond the expected margin. Facing #91 Florida Atlantic, Charleston came up short, losing 94-77 after being 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).
#23: Pitt (4-3)
#131 Pitt handled #278 Bucknell, winning 84-50. That 34-point margin was a 25-point swing from the projection. Pitt fell to #65 West Virginia 71-49, missing the 2-point projection by 24.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 25.1 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 38.6 points against quality competition (4 games).
#24: Akron (5-2)
Facing #262 Princeton, #48 Akron coasted to a 104-69 win. With a projected spread of 6, the result was 29 points past expectations. The model had Akron losing by 7 against #8 Purdue. Instead, they lost 97-79.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.6 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 11.2 points against quality competition (2 games).
#25: Chattanooga (3-3)
#214 Chattanooga was projected to beat #293 North Alabama by 4. They won 71-57, 10 points better than projected. Against #96 UNLV, Chattanooga lost 101-69. They were projected to win by 2.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 10.3 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 47.5 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.
Actionable Advice
- Safe Bets vs Weak Teams: These teams are “flat-track bullies”—they don’t let up. They are often safe bets to cover large spreads against inferior competition because they play hard for 40 minutes regardless of the score.
- Fade vs Strong Teams: Be extremely careful backing these teams against quality opponents. Their efficiency metrics are artificially inflated by their bully behavior, often leading to them being overvalued favorites against teams that can actually punch back.
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.
