Week 5: 2026’s Biggest Bullies
December 8, 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 5. Bully scores reflect the combination of overperformance against weak opponents and underperformance against quality competition.
#1: South Dakota St (5-5)
#153 South Dakota St was projected to beat #343 Georgia State by 10. They cruised to a 105-58 victory, 38 points better than projected. Against #71 Utah Valley, South Dakota St lost 75-52. They were projected to lose by 4.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 37.5 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 50.7 points against quality competition (5 games).
#2: Utah Valley (6-3)
Against #287 Samford, #71 Utah Valley rolled to a 44-point win, 89-45. The model had them winning by 4; the actual margin was 44, outpacing the projection by 40. Facing #93 Boise State, Utah Valley came up short, losing 101-77 after being projected to lose by 4.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 40.2 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 30.8 points against quality competition (5 games).
#3: Lindenwood (5-4)
#242 Lindenwood faced #332 Northern Illinois as 3-point favorites and won handily 99-64, 32 points above the spread. Lindenwood fell to #35 Saint Louis 109-66, missing the 13-point projection by 30.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 31.9 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 41.5 points against quality competition (3 games).
#4: Penn State (8-1)
Expected to win by 6 over #300 New Haven, #86 Penn State coasted to a 87-43 win—beating the line by 38. The model had Penn State winning by 4 against #51 Providence. Instead, they lost 77-65.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 58.9 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 15.8 points against quality competition (1 games).
#5: Drake (6-4)
#106 Drake cruised to a 108-57 victory against #358 Western Illinois. Favored by 22, the 51-point margin was +29 versus projection. Against #41 LSU, Drake lost 71-62. They were projected to win by 12.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.6 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 44.8 points against quality competition (3 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: NC State (6-3)
The model gave #34 NC State a 1-point edge over #316 UNC Greensboro. They rolled to a 46-point win, 110-64, finishing 45 beyond the expected margin. Facing #31 Seton Hall, NC State came up short, losing 85-74 after being projected to win by 6.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 80.9 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 17.5 points against quality competition (6 games).
#7: Valparaiso (6-3)
#145 Valparaiso handled #234 Western Michigan, winning 84-55. That 29-point margin was a 27-point swing from the projection. Valparaiso fell to #20 Kentucky 107-59, missing the 19-point projection by 29.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 27.3 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 29.4 points against quality competition (2 games).
#8: Dartmouth (3-4)
Facing #252 Saint Peter’s, #228 Dartmouth took care of business, winning 87-61. With a projected spread of 2, the result was 24 points past expectations. The model had Dartmouth winning by 0 against #97 Marist. Instead, they lost 75-56.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 24.4 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 33.9 points against quality competition (2 games).
#9: Illinois State (8-2)
#75 Illinois State was projected to beat #233 Coastal Carolina by 11. They cruised to a 94-42 victory, 41 points better than projected. Against #48 USC, Illinois State lost 87-67. They were projected to lose by 2.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 64.1 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 18.4 points against quality competition (2 games).
#10: Gonzaga (9-1)
Against #346 Southern Utah, #2 Gonzaga rolled to a 72-point win, 122-50. The model had them winning by 27; the actual margin was 72, outpacing the projection by 45. Facing #1 Michigan, Gonzaga came up short, losing 101-61 after being projected to lose by 1.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 102.3 total points against weak opponents (3 games); underperformed by 46.8 points against quality competition (7 games).
#11: Radford (4-7)
#236 Radford faced #356 Saint Francis as 6-point favorites and won handily 89-56, 26 points above the spread. Radford fell to #126 Wright State 92-59, missing the 0-point projection by 33.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 26.5 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 69.4 points against quality competition (5 games).
#12: Tenn Tech (4-6)
Expected to win by 2 over #282 West Georgia, #283 Tenn Tech took care of business, winning 87-59—beating the line by 26. The model had Tenn Tech losing by 25 against #20 Kentucky. Instead, they lost 104-54.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 26.1 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 52.7 points against quality competition (4 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: St Peter’s (4-4)
#252 St Peter’s won comfortably 71-43 against #342 Niagara. Favored by 2, the 28-point margin was +26 versus projection. Against #31 Seton Hall, St Peter’s lost 77-50. They were projected to lose by 0.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 25.5 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 26.8 points against quality competition (2 games).
#14: Marquette (5-5)
The model gave #101 Marquette a 16-point edge over #340 Little Rock. They rolled to a 40-point win, 89-49, finishing 24 beyond the expected margin. Facing #28 Indiana, Marquette came up short, losing 100-77 after being projected to win by 6.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 24.0 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 86.2 points against quality competition (6 games).
#15: Drexel (4-6)
#224 Drexel handled #325 NJIT, winning 75-43. That 32-point margin was a 21-point swing from the projection. Drexel fell to #57 Syracuse 80-50, missing the 2-point projection by 28.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 21.4 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 66.7 points against quality competition (4 games).
#16: Kennesaw State (7-2)
Facing #343 Georgia State, #173 Kennesaw State took care of business, winning 92-69. With a projected spread of 6, the result was 17 points past expectations. The model had Kennesaw State winning by 2 against #85 South Florida. Instead, they lost 108-89.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.2 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 20.6 points against quality competition (1 games).
#17: Wyoming (7-2)
#104 Wyoming was projected to beat #290 Denver by 4. They cruised to a 101-59 victory, 38 points better than projected. Against #122 Sam Houston, Wyoming lost 78-70. They were projected to lose by 2.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 71.9 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 5.6 points against quality competition (3 games).
#18: Hampton (5-5)
Against #315 Loyola Maryland, #222 Hampton pulled away for a 93-71 win. The model had them winning by 4; the actual margin was 22, outpacing the projection by 18. Facing #14 Virginia, Hampton came up short, losing 91-53 after being projected to lose by 8.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 18.2 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 38.9 points against quality competition (2 games).
#19: Texas State (6-5)
#246 Texas State faced #249 Abilene Christian as 1-point favorites and came away with a 63-49 win, 13 points above the spread. Texas State fell to #87 Bowling Green 83-48, missing the 2-point projection by 37.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 13.0 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 47.2 points against quality competition (2 games).
#20: Old Dominion (3-7)
Expected to win by 3 over #334 Morgan State, #221 Old Dominion coasted to a 88-56 win—beating the line by 29. The model had Old Dominion losing by 10 against #70 George Washington. Instead, they lost 96-73.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 29.0 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 43.6 points against quality competition (6 games).
#21: Kansas State (5-4)
#120 Kansas State won comfortably 93-64 against #316 UNC Greensboro. Favored by 3, the 29-point margin was +26 versus projection. Against #87 Bowling Green, Kansas State lost 82-66. They were projected to win by 9.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 25.7 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 72.8 points against quality competition (7 games).
#22: American (7-4)
The model gave #223 American a 1-point edge over #291 Longwood. They pulled away for a 92-66 win, finishing 25 beyond the expected margin. Facing #70 George Washington, American came up short, losing 107-67 after being projected to lose by 3.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 24.8 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 54.3 points against quality competition (5 games).
#23: Wake Forest (7-3)
#39 Wake Forest handled #251 Campbell, winning 99-51. That 48-point margin was a 38-point swing from the projection. Wake Forest fell to #69 Oklahoma 86-68, missing the 1-point projection by 19.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 62.7 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 19.1 points against quality competition (5 games).
#24: CSU Northridge (4-5)
Facing #285 Cal State Bakersfield, #318 CSU Northridge took care of business, winning 87-66. With a projected spread of 9, the result was 12 points past expectations. The model had CSU Northridge winning by 5 against #161 Idaho State. Instead, they lost 82-50.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 11.7 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 115.9 points against quality competition (5 games).
#25: DePaul (6-3)
#137 DePaul was projected to beat #362 Gardner-Webb by 7. They cruised to a 93-62 victory, 24 points better than projected. Against #115 Buffalo, DePaul lost 66-53. They were projected to win by 12.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 39.0 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 45.6 points against quality competition (3 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.
