Week 15: The Dial-Up Report
February 16, 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 15. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: Abil Christian (12-13)
Against #114 Utah Valley, #289 Abil Christian pulled off a big win, 85-68. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed 27 points better than projected. Facing #324 Southern Utah, #289 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).
#2: ETSU (19-8)
Against #171 South Alabama, #99 ETSU pulled off a big win, 91-65. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed outpacing the projection by 26. Facing #274 Western Carolina, #99 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).
#3: Southern Utah (9-17)
Against #114 Utah Valley, #324 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 #216 Utah Tech, #324 Southern Utah suffered a bad loss, 66-80. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 15 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 27.6 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 30.2 points against weak competition (3 games).
#4: Denver (13-15)
Against #97 Colorado State, #233 Denver pulled off a big win, 83-81. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed +21 versus projection. Facing #228 Cal State Fullerton, #233 Denver suffered a bad loss, 86-105. Favored by 6, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 65.4 total points against strong opponents (5 games); underperformed by 24.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#5: Yale (20-4)
Against #131 Cornell, #68 Yale pulled off a big win, 102-68. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed 29 points better than projected. Facing #213 Princeton, #68 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 71.4 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: Gonzaga (25-2)
Against #166 Maryland, #7 Gonzaga pulled off a big win, 100-61. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed outpacing the projection by 36. Facing #243 Portland, #7 Gonzaga suffered a bad loss, 80-87. Favored by 27, they underperformed by 34 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 143.3 total points against strong opponents (9 games); underperformed by 59.0 points against weak competition (3 games).
#7: West Georgia (12-14)
Against #136 Troy, #319 West Georgia pulled off a big win, 93-89. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed beating the line by 20. Facing #201 Central Arkansas, #319 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 45.5 points against weak competition (3 games).
#8: Incarnate Word (10-16)
Against #94 McNeese, #335 Incarnate Word pulled off a big win, 71-67. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed +18 versus projection. Facing #338 East Texas A&M, #335 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 51.4 points against weak competition (3 games).
#9: UIC (15-12)
Against #79 Illinois State, #137 UIC pulled off a big win, 83-56. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed 31 points better than projected. Facing #341 Arkansas-Pine Bluff, #137 UIC suffered a bad loss, 62-63. Favored by 18, they underperformed by 19 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 92.9 total points against strong opponents (5 games); underperformed by 31.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#10: UT Rio Grande (14-12)
Against #94 McNeese, #176 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 #273 New Orleans, #176 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: Winthrop (19-8)
Against #148 Mercer, #173 Winthrop pulled off a big win, 105-69. The model expected a margin of 7, but they performed beating the line by 29. Facing #212 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).
#12: Arkansas State (16-11)
Against #112 Bowling Green, #157 Arkansas State pulled off a big win, 91-54. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed +34 versus projection. Facing #227 Old Dominion, #157 Arkansas State suffered a bad loss, 71-75. Favored by 14, they underperformed by 18 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 45.0 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 89.7 points against weak competition (9 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: Loyola-Chicago (6-20)
Against #50 Santa Clara, #301 Loyola-Chicago pulled off a big win, 80-78. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed 5 points better than projected. Facing #311 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).
#14: Dartmouth (10-13)
Against #181 Saint Peter’s, #250 Dartmouth pulled off a big win, 87-61. The model expected a margin of 2, but they performed outpacing the projection by 24. Facing #258 Sacred Heart, #250 Dartmouth suffered a bad loss, 63-85. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 47.6 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 32.1 points against weak competition (2 games).
#15: Lipscomb (16-11)
Against #152 Marshall, #205 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed beating the line by 17. Facing #201 Central Arkansas, #205 Lipscomb suffered a bad loss, 78-86. Favored by 20, they underperformed by 28 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 16.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 147.3 points against weak competition (10 games).
#16: G Washington (15-11)
Against #170 UMBC, #78 G Washington pulled off a big win, 89-52. The model expected a margin of 9, but they performed +28 versus projection. Facing #236 Delaware, #78 G Washington suffered a bad loss, 58-70. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 17 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 86.9 total points against strong opponents (6 games); underperformed by 16.8 points against weak competition (1 games).
#17: UT Martin (20-7)
Against #111 Bradley, #183 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 #231 Southern Miss, #183 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 28.9 points against weak competition (3 games).
#18: Cent Michigan (8-17)
Against #144 App State, #235 Cent Michigan pulled off a big win, 82-66. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed outpacing the projection by 19. Facing #244 Stony Brook, #235 Cent Michigan suffered a bad loss, 55-78. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 32 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 27.2 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 87.8 points against weak competition (5 games).
#19: CSU Northridge (16-10)
Against #154 UC San Diego, #232 CSU Northridge pulled off a big win, 81-64. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed beating the line by 27. Facing #272 Idaho State, #232 CSU Northridge suffered a bad loss, 50-82. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 37 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 80.0 total points against strong opponents (5 games); underperformed by 136.4 points against weak competition (9 games).
#20: Utah State (22-3)
Against #97 Colorado State, #24 Utah State pulled off a big win, 100-58. The model expected a margin of -1, but they performed +43 versus projection. Facing #248 Weber State, #24 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 181.0 total points against strong opponents (8 games); underperformed by 8.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#21: Oakland (14-13)
Against #155 Robert Morris, #179 Oakland pulled off a big win, 96-73. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed 26 points better than projected. Facing #309 IU Indianapolis, #179 Oakland suffered a bad loss, 85-103. Favored by 10, they underperformed by 28 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 32.9 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 41.5 points against weak competition (3 games).
#22: VCU (20-6)
Against #56 Virginia Tech, #40 VCU pulled off a big win, 86-68. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed outpacing the projection by 21. Facing #259 La Salle, #40 VCU struggled to put away La Salle, winning just 77-68. Favored by 19, they underperformed by 10 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 39.7 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 9.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#23: North Dakota (15-14)
Against #100 St. Thomas-Minnesota, #284 North Dakota pulled off a big win, 81-80. The model expected a margin of -12, but they performed beating the line by 14. Facing #203 Idaho, #284 North Dakota suffered a bad loss, 58-90. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 33 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 29.3 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 78.7 points against weak competition (4 games).
#24: UNC Wilmington (22-4)
Against #95 Navy, #96 UNC Wilmington pulled off a big win, 87-57. The model expected a margin of 10, but they performed +20 versus projection. Facing #204 Howard, #96 UNC Wilmington suffered a bad loss, 66-67. Favored by 16, they underperformed by 17 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 20.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 67.6 points against weak competition (8 games).
#25: Drexel (13-13)
Against #174 Monmouth, #202 Drexel pulled off a big win, 73-51. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed 18 points better than projected. Facing #222 Campbell, #202 Drexel suffered a bad loss, 60-81. Favored by 3, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 18.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 72.9 points against weak competition (7 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.
