Week 4: The Dial-Up Report
December 1, 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 4. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: E Washington (1-6)
Against #101 UCLA, #277 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 #276 Central Arkansas, #277 E Washington suffered a bad loss, 65-92. Favored by 6, they underperformed by 33 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 19.2 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 32.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#2: TCU (5-2)
Against #25 Florida, #48 TCU pulled off a big win, 84-80. The model expected a margin of -18, but they performed outpacing the projection by 22. Facing #193 New Orleans, #48 TCU suffered a bad loss, 74-78. Favored by 19, they underperformed by 23 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 47.9 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 23.3 points against weak competition (1 games).
#3: SIUE (5-3)
Against #161 Drake, #194 SIUE pulled off a big win, 61-59. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed beating the line by 16. Facing #288 Air Force, #194 SIUE suffered a bad loss, 63-77. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 23 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 22.6 points against weak competition (1 games).
#4: Xavier (5-3)
Against #43 West Virginia, #128 Xavier pulled off a big win, 78-68. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed +20 versus projection. Facing #213 Le Moyne, #128 Xavier struggled to put away Le Moyne, winning just 74-69. Favored by 22, they underperformed by 17 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 20.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 17.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#5: Michigan (7-0)
Against #4 Gonzaga, #2 Michigan pulled off a big win, 101-61. The model expected a margin of 1, but they performed 39 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 112.2 total points against strong opponents (3 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: UAB (6-2)
Against #51 High Point, #122 UAB pulled off a big win, 91-74. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed outpacing the projection by 19. Facing #222 Alabama State, #122 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).
#7: UT Martin (5-2)
Against #145 Bradley, #177 UT Martin pulled off a big win, 78-67. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed beating the line by 27. Facing #205 Southern Miss, #177 UT Martin suffered a bad loss, 60-70. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 18 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 43.2 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 26.4 points against weak competition (2 games).
#8: Winthrop (4-4)
Against #162 Mercer, #117 Winthrop pulled off a big win, 105-69. The model expected a margin of 7, but they performed +29 versus projection. Facing #246 Coastal Carolina, #117 Winthrop suffered a bad loss, 66-72. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 15 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 38.3 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 15.1 points against weak competition (1 games).
#9: Auburn (6-2)
Against #24 St. John’s, #38 Auburn pulled off a big win, 85-74. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed 11 points better than projected. Facing #257 Bethune-Cookman, #38 Auburn struggled to put away Bethune-Cookman, winning just 95-90. Favored by 28, they underperformed by 23 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 11.1 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 22.6 points against weak competition (1 games).
#10: E Michigan (5-3)
Against #104 Cincinnati, #129 E Michigan pulled off a big win, 64-56. The model expected a margin of -13, but they performed outpacing the projection by 21. Facing #295 IU Indianapolis, #129 E Michigan suffered a bad loss, 83-90. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 21.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 11.7 points against weak competition (1 games).
#11: Texas A&M (6-2)
Against #102 Florida State, #64 Texas A&M pulled off a big win, 95-59. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed beating the line by 30. Facing #362 Mississippi Valley State, #64 Texas A&M struggled to put away Mississippi Valley State, winning just 120-84. Favored by 38, they underperformed by 2 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 30.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 1.6 points against weak competition (1 games).
#12: UMass (4-3)
Against #139 Central Connecticut, #180 UMass pulled off a big win, 84-77. The model expected a margin of -5, but they performed +12 versus projection. Facing #234 Green Bay, #180 UMass suffered a bad loss, 75-79. Favored by 14, they underperformed by 18 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 18.1 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: Bethune-Cookman (2-6)
Against #38 Auburn, #257 Bethune-Cookman battled tough in a 90-95 loss. The model expected a margin of -28, but they performed 23 points better than projected. Facing #249 Stony Brook, #257 Bethune-Cookman suffered a bad loss, 54-61. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.5 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 16.2 points against weak competition (1 games).
#14: Lipscomb (4-4)
Against #159 Marshall, #199 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed outpacing the projection by 17. Facing #208 UNC Asheville, #199 Lipscomb suffered a bad loss, 64-69. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 13 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 16.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 13.3 points against weak competition (1 games).
#15: BYU (6-1)
Against #59 Wisconsin, #8 BYU pulled off a big win, 98-70. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed beating the line by 28. Facing #184 Delaware, #8 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).
#16: Loyola Mary (7-2)
Against #153 Troy, #127 Loyola Mary pulled off a big win, 74-63. The model expected a margin of -7, but they performed +18 versus projection. Facing #249 Stony Brook, #127 Loyola Mary suffered a bad loss, 68-71. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 11.6 points against weak competition (1 games).
#17: Kentucky (5-2)
Against #165 Valparaiso, #7 Kentucky pulled off a big win, 107-59. The model expected a margin of 19, but they performed 29 points better than projected.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 29.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#18: Yale (7-1)
Against #36 Akron, #54 Yale pulled off a big win, 97-94. The model expected a margin of -11, but they performed outpacing the projection by 14. Facing #234 Green Bay, #54 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 14.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 30.1 points against weak competition (2 games).
#19: Nevada (5-3)
Against #89 San Francisco, #142 Nevada pulled off a big win, 81-65. The model expected a margin of -12, but they performed beating the line by 28.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.2 total points against strong opponents (1 games).
#20: Army (3-6)
Against #166 St. Thomas-Minnesota, #335 Army battled tough in a 76-83 loss. The model expected a margin of -13, but they performed +6 versus projection. Facing #245 East Texas A&M, #335 Army suffered a bad loss, 67-84. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 22 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 6.3 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 21.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#21: Cent Conn St (5-2)
Against #120 Rutgers, #139 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 #197 Quinnipiac, #139 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 27.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#22: Mt St Mary’s (2-6)
Against #176 Maryland, #268 Mt St Mary’s battled tough in a 90-95 loss. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed outpacing the projection by 11. Facing #254 Western Michigan, #268 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 31.2 points against weak competition (2 games).
#23: Indiana (7-0)
Against #92 Marquette, #16 Indiana pulled off a big win, 100-77. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed beating the line by 29. Facing #330 Incarnate Word, #16 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 43.7 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 4.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#24: CSU Northridge (3-4)
Against #153 Troy, #344 CSU Northridge pulled off a big win, 94-85. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed +12 versus projection. Facing #220 Idaho, #344 CSU Northridge suffered a bad loss, 64-78. Favored by 10, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.1 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 26.9 points against weak competition (2 games).
#25: North Dakota (3-6)
Against #95 Creighton, #302 North Dakota battled tough in a 60-75 loss. The model expected a margin of -21, but they performed 6 points better than projected. Facing #246 Coastal Carolina, #302 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).
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.
