Week 5: The Dial-Up Report
December 8, 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 5. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: TCU (6-3)
Against #22 Florida, #53 TCU pulled off a big win, 84-80. The model expected a margin of -18, but they performed 22 points better than projected. Facing #227 New Orleans, #53 TCU suffered a bad loss, 74-78. Favored by 19, they underperformed by 23 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 63.1 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 23.3 points against weak competition (1 games).
#2: Xavier (7-3)
Against #50 West Virginia, #110 Xavier pulled off a big win, 78-68. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed outpacing the projection by 20. Facing #196 Le Moyne, #110 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).
#3: Michigan (8-0)
Against #2 Gonzaga, #1 Michigan pulled off a big win, 101-61. The model expected a margin of 1, but they performed beating the line by 39.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 145.0 total points against strong opponents (4 games).
#4: UT Martin (7-2)
Against #114 Bradley, #178 UT Martin pulled off a big win, 78-67. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed +27 versus projection. Facing #195 Southern Miss, #178 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).
#5: UAB (7-3)
Against #64 High Point, #135 UAB pulled off a big win, 91-74. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed 19 points better than projected. Facing #244 Alabama State, #135 UAB suffered a bad loss, 74-77. Favored by 15, they underperformed by 18 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 32.5 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 36.2 points against weak competition (2 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: SIUE (6-4)
Against #106 Drake, #212 SIUE pulled off a big win, 61-59. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed outpacing the projection by 16. Facing #307 Air Force, #212 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 36.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#7: Auburn (7-3)
Against #23 St. John’s, #45 Auburn pulled off a big win, 85-74. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed beating the line by 11. Facing #230 Bethune-Cookman, #45 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).
#8: Yale (10-1)
Against #155 Quinnipiac, #54 Yale pulled off a big win, 97-60. The model expected a margin of 8, but they performed +29 versus projection. Facing #262 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 43.0 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 34.5 points against weak competition (3 games).
#9: E Michigan (6-4)
Against #95 Cincinnati, #136 E Michigan pulled off a big win, 64-56. The model expected a margin of -13, but they performed 21 points better than projected. Facing #317 IU Indianapolis, #136 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).
#10: Georgia (8-1)
Against #138 Florida State, #8 Georgia pulled off a big win, 107-73. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed outpacing the projection by 31. Facing #200 Georgia Tech, #8 Georgia struggled to put away Georgia Tech, winning just 92-87. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 0 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 31.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 0.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#11: Utah Valley (6-3)
Against #153 South Dakota State, #71 Utah Valley pulled off a big win, 75-52. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed beating the line by 19. Facing #193 Fresno State, #71 Utah Valley suffered a bad loss, 74-75. Favored by 16, they underperformed by 17 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 27.8 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 16.7 points against weak competition (1 games).
#12: Bethune-Cookman (3-6)
Against #45 Auburn, #230 Bethune-Cookman battled tough in a 90-95 loss. The model expected a margin of -28, but they performed +23 versus projection. Facing #256 Stony Brook, #230 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).
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: UNLV (4-5)
Against #100 Memphis, #131 UNLV pulled off a big win, 92-78. The model expected a margin of -7, but they performed 21 points better than projected. Facing #205 Montana, #131 UNLV suffered a bad loss, 93-102. Favored by 3, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 37.5 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 11.7 points against weak competition (1 games).
#14: Lipscomb (6-4)
Against #169 Marshall, #182 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed outpacing the projection by 17. Facing #199 UNC Asheville, #182 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 26.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#15: New Mexico St (6-2)
Against #165 UC Irvine, #125 New Mexico St pulled off a big win, 57-45. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed beating the line by 20. Facing #249 Abilene Christian, #125 New Mexico St suffered a bad loss, 69-77. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 10 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 38.3 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 10.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#16: ETSU (8-2)
Against #172 South Alabama, #88 ETSU pulled off a big win, 91-65. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed +26 versus projection. Facing #229 Presbyterian, #88 ETSU suffered a bad loss, 64-68. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 35.0 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 12.0 points against weak competition (1 games).
#17: Kentucky (5-4)
Against #145 Valparaiso, #20 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: Liberty (6-2)
Against #127 Florida Atlantic, #67 Liberty pulled off a big win, 88-68. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed outpacing the projection by 16. Facing #194 Towson, #67 Liberty suffered a bad loss, 69-72. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 14 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 13.6 points against weak competition (1 games).
#19: E Washington (2-7)
Against #63 UCLA, #258 E Washington battled tough in a 74-80 loss. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed beating the line by 13. Facing #241 Central Arkansas, #258 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 39.2 points against weak competition (2 games).
#20: Army (4-7)
Against #160 St. Thomas-Minnesota, #324 Army battled tough in a 76-83 loss. The model expected a margin of -13, but they performed +6 versus projection. Facing #247 East Texas A&M, #324 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: Iona (7-3)
Against #80 Hofstra, #132 Iona pulled off a big win, 81-73. The model expected a margin of 1, but they performed 7 points better than projected. Facing #262 Green Bay, #132 Iona suffered a bad loss, 75-80. Favored by 15, they underperformed by 20 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 7.3 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 20.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#22: Rutgers (5-5)
Against #131 UNLV, #158 Rutgers pulled off a big win, 80-65. The model expected a margin of 2, but they performed outpacing the projection by 13. Facing #192 Central Connecticut, #158 Rutgers suffered a bad loss, 54-67. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 14 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 14.0 points against weak competition (1 games).
#23: Cent Conn St (5-4)
Against #158 Rutgers, #192 Cent Conn St pulled off a big win, 67-54. The model expected a margin of -1, but they performed beating the line by 14. Facing #188 Northeastern, #192 Cent Conn St suffered a bad loss, 56-73. Favored by 4, they underperformed by 21 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 14.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 24.6 points against weak competition (2 games).
#24: Indiana (7-2)
Against #101 Marquette, #28 Indiana pulled off a big win, 100-77. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed +29 versus projection. Facing #322 Incarnate Word, #28 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).
#25: Nebraska (9-0)
Against #109 Creighton, #38 Nebraska pulled off a big win, 71-50. The model expected a margin of -5, but they performed 26 points better than projected. Facing #235 South Carolina Upstate, #38 Nebraska struggled to put away South Carolina Upstate, winning just 72-63. Favored by 23, they underperformed by 14 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 47.0 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 20.6 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.
