Week 13: The Dial-Up Report
February 2, 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 13. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: W Michigan (8-13)
Against #166 Eastern Michigan, #273 W Michigan pulled off a big win, 79-62. The model expected a margin of -1, but they performed 18 points better than projected. Facing #290 Northern Illinois, #273 W Michigan suffered a bad loss, 65-85. Favored by 7, they underperformed by 27 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 26.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#2: Abil Christian (10-11)
Against #114 Utah Valley, #294 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 #326 Southern Utah, #294 Abil Christian suffered a bad loss, 52-74. Favored by 4, they underperformed by 26 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 26.6 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 62.3 points against weak competition (4 games).
#3: Southern Utah (8-15)
Against #114 Utah Valley, #326 Southern Utah pulled off a big win, 84-70. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed beating the line by 28. Facing #202 UT Rio Grande Valley, #326 Southern Utah suffered a bad loss, 72-95. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 27.6 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 53.8 points against weak competition (4 games).
#4: ETSU (16-7)
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 #295 Western Carolina, #88 ETSU suffered a bad loss, 68-72. Favored by 12, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 26.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 48.3 points against weak competition (4 games).
#5: Cent Michigan (7-15)
Against #166 Eastern Michigan, #264 Cent Michigan pulled off a big win, 100-65. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed 32 points better than projected. Facing #241 Stony Brook, #264 Cent Michigan suffered a bad loss, 55-78. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 32 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 59.4 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 87.8 points against weak competition (5 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 (14-7)
Against #137 UNLV, #240 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 #316 Alabama A&M, #240 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: Yale (16-4)
Against #163 Cornell, #65 Yale pulled off a big win, 102-68. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed beating the line by 29. Facing #185 Princeton, #65 Yale suffered a bad loss, 60-76. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 87.5 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 57.2 points against weak competition (4 games).
#8: Denver (10-14)
Against #104 Colorado State, #270 Denver pulled off a big win, 83-81. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed +21 versus projection. Facing #226 Cal State Fullerton, #270 Denver suffered a bad loss, 86-105. Favored by 6, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 46.7 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 24.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#9: UT Martin (17-5)
Against #122 Bradley, #168 UT Martin pulled off a big win, 78-67. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed 27 points better than projected. Facing #233 Southern Miss, #168 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).
#10: UT Rio Grande (11-11)
Against #94 McNeese, #202 UT Rio Grande pulled off a big win, 79-76. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed outpacing the projection by 19. Facing #257 New Orleans, #202 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).
#11: Incarnate Word (9-13)
Against #94 McNeese, #331 Incarnate Word pulled off a big win, 71-67. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed beating the line by 18. Facing #337 East Texas A&M, #331 Incarnate Word suffered a bad loss, 58-80. Favored by 7, they underperformed by 29 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 81.1 points against weak competition (5 games).
#12: West Georgia (10-12)
Against #139 Troy, #321 West Georgia pulled off a big win, 93-89. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed +20 versus projection. Facing #213 Central Arkansas, #321 West Georgia suffered a bad loss, 65-86. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 22 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 19.9 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 27.2 points against weak competition (2 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: Winthrop (16-8)
Against #130 Mercer, #173 Winthrop pulled off a big win, 105-69. The model expected a margin of 7, but they performed 29 points better than projected. Facing #215 Coastal Carolina, #173 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).
#14: UIC (13-10)
Against #122 Bradley, #158 UIC pulled off a big win, 85-70. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed outpacing the projection by 25. Facing #345 Arkansas-Pine Bluff, #158 UIC suffered a bad loss, 62-63. Favored by 18, they underperformed by 19 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 83.2 total points against strong opponents (5 games); underperformed by 31.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#15: Loyola-Chicago (5-18)
Against #49 Santa Clara, #301 Loyola-Chicago pulled off a big win, 80-78. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed beating the line by 5. Facing #290 Northern Illinois, #301 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).
#16: CSU Northridge (13-10)
Against #151 UC San Diego, #248 CSU Northridge pulled off a big win, 81-64. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed +27 versus projection. Facing #220 Idaho State, #248 CSU Northridge suffered a bad loss, 50-82. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 37 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 62.6 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 130.1 points against weak competition (8 games).
#17: Delaware (6-15)
Against #136 Kennesaw State, #251 Delaware pulled off a big win, 67-52. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed 19 points better than projected. Facing #211 Missouri State, #251 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).
#18: Utah State (18-3)
Against #104 Colorado State, #27 Utah State pulled off a big win, 100-58. The model expected a margin of -1, but they performed outpacing the projection by 43. Facing #217 Weber State, #27 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 137.0 total points against strong opponents (6 games); underperformed by 8.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#19: Marist (15-7)
Against #179 Iona, #95 Marist pulled off a big win, 83-38. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed beating the line by 46. Facing #188 Saint Peter’s, #95 Marist suffered a bad loss, 59-69. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 61.3 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 21.8 points against weak competition (2 games).
#20: Morgan State (9-13)
Against #178 Drexel, #359 Morgan State battled tough in a 66-71 loss. The model expected a margin of -11, but they performed +6 versus projection. Facing #314 Maryland Eastern Shore, #359 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).
#21: North Dakota (13-12)
Against #177 South Dakota State, #269 North Dakota pulled off a big win, 90-87. The model expected a margin of -11, but they performed 14 points better than projected. Facing #195 Idaho, #269 North Dakota suffered a bad loss, 58-90. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 33 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 43.0 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 58.5 points against weak competition (3 games).
#22: Lipscomb (15-8)
Against #134 Marshall, #187 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed outpacing the projection by 17. Facing #339 Stetson, #187 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 105.2 points against weak competition (8 games).
#23: Utah Valley (16-6)
Against #177 South Dakota State, #114 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 #326 Southern Utah, #114 Utah Valley suffered a bad loss, 70-84. Favored by 14, they underperformed by 28 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 38.5 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 64.5 points against weak competition (4 games).
#24: Xavier (12-10)
Against #50 West Virginia, #97 Xavier pulled off a big win, 78-68. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed +20 versus projection. Facing #236 Le Moyne, #97 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 34.4 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 17.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#25: Appalachian St (15-9)
Against #139 Troy, #147 Appalachian St pulled off a big win, 66-44. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed 25 points better than projected. Facing #264 Central Michigan, #147 Appalachian St suffered a bad loss, 66-82. Favored by 3, they underperformed by 19 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 38.8 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 75.6 points against weak competition (8 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.
