Week 11: The Dial-Up Report
January 19, 2026Some 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 11. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: Stetson (7-12)
Against #179 Lipscomb, #347 Stetson pulled off a big win, 91-83. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed 27 points better than projected. Facing #233 Central Arkansas, #347 Stetson suffered a bad loss, 73-93. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 21 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 26.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 21.1 points against weak competition (1 games).
#2: Abil Christian (10-9)
Against #104 Utah Valley, #282 Abil Christian pulled off a big win, 85-68. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed outpacing the projection by 27. Facing #335 Southern Utah, #282 Abil Christian suffered a bad loss, 52-74. Favored by 4, they underperformed by 26 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 37.0 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 45.1 points against weak competition (2 games).
#3: Gonzaga (19-1)
Against #144 Maryland, #3 Gonzaga pulled off a big win, 100-61. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed beating the line by 36. Facing #268 San Diego, #3 Gonzaga struggled to put away San Diego, winning just 99-93. Favored by 30, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 128.6 total points against strong opponents (8 games); underperformed by 23.7 points against weak competition (1 games).
#4: Denver (9-11)
Against #103 Colorado State, #264 Denver pulled off a big win, 83-81. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed +21 versus projection. Facing #240 Cal State Fullerton, #264 Denver suffered a bad loss, 86-105. Favored by 6, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 40.0 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 24.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#5: Marist (12-5)
Against #166 Iona, #70 Marist pulled off a big win, 83-38. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed 46 points better than projected. Facing #191 Saint Peter’s, #70 Marist suffered a bad loss, 59-69. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 51.5 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 12.0 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: Tennessee St (12-6)
Against #134 UNLV, #236 Tennessee St pulled off a big win, 63-60. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed outpacing the projection by 12. Facing #326 Alabama A&M, #236 Tennessee St suffered a bad loss, 53-80. Favored by 14, they underperformed by 42 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 11.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 51.4 points against weak competition (2 games).
#7: Bradley (13-7)
Against #171 Drake, #121 Bradley pulled off a big win, 93-66. The model expected a margin of -5, but they performed beating the line by 32. Facing #184 UT Martin, #121 Bradley suffered a bad loss, 67-78. Favored by 16, they underperformed by 27 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 51.1 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 40.6 points against weak competition (4 games).
#8: UT Martin (15-4)
Against #121 Bradley, #184 UT Martin pulled off a big win, 78-67. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed +27 versus projection. Facing #221 Southern Miss, #184 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).
#9: UT Rio Grande (7-11)
Against #100 McNeese, #218 UT Rio Grande pulled off a big win, 79-76. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed 19 points better than projected. Facing #262 New Orleans, #218 UT Rio Grande suffered a bad loss, 69-85. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 27 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 41.9 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 40.2 points against weak competition (2 games).
#10: Yale (13-3)
Against #165 Quinnipiac, #68 Yale pulled off a big win, 97-60. The model expected a margin of 8, but they performed outpacing the projection by 29. Facing #190 Princeton, #68 Yale suffered a bad loss, 60-76. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 58.2 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 57.2 points against weak competition (4 games).
#11: Winthrop (13-8)
Against #132 Mercer, #175 Winthrop pulled off a big win, 105-69. The model expected a margin of 7, but they performed beating the line by 29. Facing #227 Coastal Carolina, #175 Winthrop suffered a bad loss, 66-72. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 15 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 63.9 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 60.0 points against weak competition (5 games).
#12: Illinois State (13-6)
Against #121 Bradley, #65 Illinois State pulled off a big win, 88-62. The model expected a margin of -5, but they performed +31 versus projection. Facing #266 Long Beach State, #65 Illinois State struggled to put away Long Beach State, winning just 82-80. Favored by 12, they underperformed by 10 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 73.3 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 24.6 points against weak competition (3 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: Utah State (15-2)
Against #103 Colorado State, #21 Utah State pulled off a big win, 100-58. The model expected a margin of -1, but they performed 43 points better than projected. Facing #203 Weber State, #21 Utah State struggled to put away Weber State, winning just 83-73. Favored by 18, they underperformed by 8 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 119.6 total points against strong opponents (5 games); underperformed by 8.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#14: Loyola-Chicago (5-14)
Against #66 Santa Clara, #299 Loyola-Chicago pulled off a big win, 80-78. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed outpacing the projection by 5. Facing #312 Northern Illinois, #299 Loyola-Chicago suffered a bad loss, 59-76. Favored by 19, they underperformed by 36 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 5.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 107.1 points against weak competition (4 games).
#15: Delaware (5-13)
Against #157 Kennesaw State, #250 Delaware pulled off a big win, 67-52. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed beating the line by 19. Facing #238 Missouri State, #250 Delaware suffered a bad loss, 43-61. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 19 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 35.4 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 28.2 points against weak competition (2 games).
#16: Incarnate Word (9-9)
Against #100 McNeese, #293 Incarnate Word pulled off a big win, 71-67. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed +18 versus projection. Facing #218 UT Rio Grande Valley, #293 Incarnate Word suffered a bad loss, 67-80. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 15 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 26.8 points against weak competition (2 games).
#17: Lipscomb (12-7)
Against #160 Marshall, #179 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed 17 points better than projected. Facing #347 Stetson, #179 Lipscomb suffered a bad loss, 83-91. Favored by 19, they underperformed by 27 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 16.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 69.9 points against weak competition (5 games).
#18: Morgan State (5-13)
Against #176 Drexel, #360 Morgan State battled tough in a 66-71 loss. The model expected a margin of -11, but they performed outpacing the projection by 6. Facing #309 Maryland Eastern Shore, #360 Morgan State suffered a bad loss, 49-66. Favored by 7, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 6.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 24.2 points against weak competition (1 games).
#19: Cent Michigan (5-13)
Against #164 Kent State, #292 Cent Michigan pulled off a big win, 87-85. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed beating the line by 8. Facing #272 Stony Brook, #292 Cent Michigan suffered a bad loss, 55-78. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 32 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 8.3 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 44.0 points against weak competition (2 games).
#20: UIC (9-10)
Against #171 Drake, #197 UIC pulled off a big win, 74-67. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed +22 versus projection. Facing #349 Arkansas-Pine Bluff, #197 UIC suffered a bad loss, 62-63. Favored by 18, they underperformed by 19 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 58.3 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 31.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#21: CSU Northridge (11-9)
Against #122 UC San Diego, #259 CSU Northridge pulled off a big win, 84-79. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed 15 points better than projected. Facing #209 Idaho State, #259 CSU Northridge suffered a bad loss, 50-82. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 37 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 26.8 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 130.1 points against weak competition (8 games).
#22: Illinois (15-3)
Against #76 Missouri, #12 Illinois pulled off a big win, 91-48. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed outpacing the projection by 38. Facing #218 UT Rio Grande Valley, #12 Illinois struggled to put away UT Rio Grande Valley, winning just 87-73. Favored by 24, they underperformed by 10 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 98.2 total points against strong opponents (5 games); underperformed by 9.8 points against weak competition (1 games).
#23: North Dakota (10-12)
Against #173 South Dakota State, #285 North Dakota pulled off a big win, 90-87. The model expected a margin of -11, but they performed beating the line by 14. Facing #192 Idaho, #285 North Dakota suffered a bad loss, 58-90. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 33 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 29.5 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 58.5 points against weak competition (3 games).
#24: Liberty (15-3)
Against #77 Florida Atlantic, #91 Liberty pulled off a big win, 88-68. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed +16 versus projection. Facing #206 Towson, #91 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 26.8 points against weak competition (2 games).
#25: UNLV (9-8)
Against #105 Memphis, #134 UNLV pulled off a big win, 92-78. The model expected a margin of -7, but they performed 21 points better than projected. Facing #184 UT Martin, #134 UNLV suffered a bad loss, 81-86. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 47.8 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 39.4 points against weak competition (3 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.
