Week 16: 2026’s Biggest Bullies
February 23, 2026College Basketball’s Top Bullies: Week 16
In college basketball, efficiency rankings can be misleading due to teams’ varying performances against different opponents. This weekly feature highlights teams whose metrics are skewed by their performance against overmatched opponents.
This week, we focus on three teams whose numbers are artificially inflated by crushing weaker competition. Let’s examine the data:
1. Drake
- Outperformed expectations by +28.6 points total versus weaker competition
- Underperformed by -344.4 points total versus stronger competition
Drake’s dominance over weaker opponents has artificially inflated its stats, making it essential to monitor how the team performs against top-notch opponents.
2. Texas Southern
- Outperformed expectations by +43.9 points total versus weaker competition
- Underperformed by -126.8 points total versus stronger competition
Texas Southern struggles with translating its success over weaker teams into consistent performances against quality competition, raising questions about its overall strength.
3. Cent Michigan
- Outperformed expectations by +62.9 points total versus weaker competition
- Underperformed by -136.7 points total versus stronger competition
Cent Michigan’s efficiency rankings may be inflated due to its lopsided victories over weaker opponents, but the team struggles to maintain this success against quality competition to get a more accurate picture of its true abilities.
These three teams stand out as the biggest “bullies” in Division I basketball this week, with their metrics heavily influenced by their performance versus inferior opponents.
Figure 1: Top 10 teams with the highest bully scores in Week 16. Bully scores reflect the combination of overperformance against weak opponents and underperformance against quality competition.
#1: Drake (12-17)
#198 Drake was projected to beat #363 Western Illinois by 22. They cruised to a 108-57 victory, 29 points better than projected. Against #107 Bradley, Drake lost 93-66. They were projected to win by 5.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.6 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 344.4 points against quality competition (19 games).
#2: Texas Southern (10-16)
Against #327 Alabama State, #337 Texas Southern rolled to a 32-point win, 96-64. The model had them winning by 0; the actual margin was 32, outpacing the projection by 32. Facing #9 Gonzaga, Texas Southern came up short, losing 98-43 after being projected to lose by 27.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 43.9 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 126.8 points against quality competition (6 games).
#3: Cent Michigan (9-18)
#235 Cent Michigan faced #192 Eastern Michigan as 3-point favorites and won handily 100-65, 32 points above the spread. Cent Michigan fell to #20 Saint Louis 107-65, missing the 6-point projection by 36.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 62.9 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 136.7 points against quality competition (13 games).
#4: Penn State (11-17)
Expected to win by 6 over #310 New Haven, #156 Penn State coasted to a 87-43 win—beating the line by 38. The model had Penn State losing by 1 against #38 Indiana. Instead, they lost 113-72.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 58.9 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 240.0 points against quality competition (21 games).
#5: NC State (19-8)
#19 NC State cruised to a 110-64 victory against #314 UNC Greensboro. Favored by 1, the 46-point margin was +45 versus projection. Against #11 Louisville, NC State lost 118-77. They were projected to lose by 9.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 107.7 total points against weak opponents (3 games); underperformed by 74.2 points against quality competition (23 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: Wyoming (15-12)
The model gave #110 Wyoming a 4-point edge over #220 Denver. They rolled to a 42-point win, 101-59, finishing 38 beyond the expected margin. Facing #24 Utah State, Wyoming came up short, losing 94-62 after being projected to lose by 15.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 71.9 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 43.7 points against quality competition (17 games).
#7: Wake Forest (14-13)
#60 Wake Forest handled #222 Campbell, winning 99-51. That 48-point margin was a 38-point swing from the projection. Wake Forest fell to #17 Vanderbilt 98-67, missing the 2-point projection by 33.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 91.5 total points against weak opponents (3 games); underperformed by 159.5 points against quality competition (20 games).
#8: Tenn Tech (13-16)
Facing #316 West Georgia, #312 Tenn Tech took care of business, winning 87-59. With a projected spread of 2, the result was 26 points past expectations. The model had Tenn Tech losing by 25 against #32 Kentucky. Instead, they lost 104-54.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 65.2 total points against weak opponents (3 games); underperformed by 50.2 points against quality competition (3 games).
#9: Jacksonville (10-19)
#324 Jacksonville was projected to beat #316 West Georgia by 10. They cruised to a 75-43 victory, 22 points better than projected. Against #181 Florida International, Jacksonville lost 88-65. They were projected to win by 5.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 22.5 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 142.5 points against quality competition (9 games).
#10: High Point (26-4)
Against #342 Bryant, #71 High Point rolled to a 46-point win, 93-47. The model had them winning by 2; the actual margin was 46, outpacing the projection by 44. Facing #173 Winthrop, High Point came up short, losing 92-75 after being projected to win by 9.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 152.6 total points against weak opponents (6 games); underperformed by 75.5 points against quality competition (6 games).
#11: S Carolina St (7-19)
#360 S Carolina St faced #347 North Carolina Central as 1-point favorites and came away with a 85-72 win, 12 points above the spread. S Carolina St fell to #11 Louisville 104-45, missing the 15-point projection by 44.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.2 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 178.0 points against quality competition (7 games).
#12: Jackson State (9-18)
Expected to win by 6 over #350 Florida A&M, #361 Jackson State took care of business, winning 80-60—beating the line by 14. The model had Jackson State losing by 9 against #52 TCU. Instead, they lost 115-64.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 13.7 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 211.3 points against quality competition (9 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: Marquette (9-18)
#93 Marquette cruised to a 89-49 victory against #313 Little Rock. Favored by 16, the 40-point margin was +24 versus projection. Against #38 Indiana, Marquette lost 100-77. They were projected to win by 6.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 24.0 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 301.0 points against quality competition (23 games).
#14: Pitt (10-17)
The model gave #100 Pitt a 14-point edge over #343 Binghamton. They rolled to a 40-point win, 103-63, finishing 26 beyond the expected margin. Facing #11 Louisville, Pitt came up short, losing 100-59 after being projected to lose by 4.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 51.5 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 249.9 points against quality competition (23 games).
#15: TCU (17-10)
#52 TCU handled #361 Jackson State, winning 115-64. That 51-point margin was a 42-point swing from the projection. TCU fell to #85 Colorado 87-61, missing the 0-point projection by 26.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 103.6 total points against weak opponents (3 games); underperformed by 37.7 points against quality competition (19 games).
#16: Baylor (14-13)
Facing #356 Alcorn State, #64 Baylor coasted to a 113-56 win. With a projected spread of 20, the result was 37 points past expectations. The model had Baylor winning by 6 against #115 Kansas State. Instead, they lost 90-74.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 85.8 total points against weak opponents (3 games); underperformed by 154.6 points against quality competition (21 games).
#17: Queens University (17-12)
#211 Queens University was projected to beat #364 Gardner-Webb by 5. They cruised to a 107-74 victory, 28 points better than projected. Against #60 Wake Forest, Queens University lost 111-73. They were projected to lose by 9.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 105.5 total points against weak opponents (5 games); underperformed by 116.2 points against quality competition (8 games).
#18: Cornell (12-12)
Against #323 Bucknell, #143 Cornell pulled away for a 101-72 win. The model had them winning by 6; the actual margin was 29, outpacing the projection by 23. Facing #73 Yale, Cornell came up short, losing 102-68 after being projected to lose by 5.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 79.8 total points against weak opponents (4 games); underperformed by 153.4 points against quality competition (10 games).
#19: UC Riverside (9-20)
#306 UC Riverside faced #335 Cal State Bakersfield as 6-point favorites and controlled the game en route to a 93-65 victory, 22 points above the spread. UC Riverside fell to #113 Hawai’i 88-45, missing the 4-point projection by 47.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 21.9 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 144.4 points against quality competition (11 games).
#20: Presbyterian (14-15)
Expected to win by 1 over #364 Gardner-Webb, #268 Presbyterian coasted to a 92-55 win—beating the line by 36. The model had Presbyterian losing by 19 against #41 UCLA. Instead, they lost 86-46.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 53.4 total points against weak opponents (2 games); underperformed by 57.8 points against quality competition (7 games).
#21: Northwestern (11-16)
#79 Northwestern cruised to a 110-63 victory against #293 Cleveland State. Favored by 4, the 47-point margin was +43 versus projection. Against #5 Illinois, Northwestern lost 84-44. They were projected to lose by 6.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 80.7 total points against weak opponents (3 games); underperformed by 179.0 points against quality competition (23 games).
#22: Norfolk State (14-14)
The model gave #290 Norfolk State a 1-point edge over #360 South Carolina State. They secured a 19-point victory, 90-71, finishing 18 beyond the expected margin. Facing #170 Howard, Norfolk State came up short, losing 88-60 after being projected to win by 9.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.7 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 100.4 points against quality competition (6 games).
#23: Columbia (15-10)
#190 Columbia handled #214 Fairfield, winning 106-77. That 29-point margin was a 29-point swing from the projection. Columbia fell to #129 Harvard 79-54, missing the 3-point projection by 22.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.5 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 50.1 points against quality competition (9 games).
#24: St John’s (22-5)
Facing #323 Bucknell, #14 St John’s coasted to a 97-49 win. With a projected spread of 18, the result was 30 points past expectations. The model had St John’s winning by 14 against #54 Providence. Instead, they lost 77-71.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 30.4 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 92.0 points against quality competition (25 games).
#25: Tulane (17-10)
#182 Tulane was projected to beat #347 UTSA by 5. They cruised to a 85-52 victory, 28 points better than projected. Against #56 South Florida, Tulane lost 97-83. They were projected to win by 3.
Bully Metrics: Exceeded projections by 27.7 total points against weak opponents (1 games); underperformed by 89.9 points against quality competition (15 games).
Bully Teams: A Cautionary Tale
In college basketball, efficiency numbers often paint a rosy picture of a team’s prowess. However, for certain teams like Drake and Texas Southern, their stats may not tell the entire story. These squads consistently dominate inferior opponents, leaving fans and bettors alike wondering if they’re truly the cream of the crop.
The Pattern
Drake and Texas Southern exhibit a peculiar pattern: they excel versus weaker competition but struggle versus stronger competition. Their efficiency metrics are inflated by their ability to blow out lesser teams, making them appear more formidable than they actually are. When pitted against strong teams like Cent Michigan that can match their intensity and athleticism, these bullies often falter.
Actionable Advice
When dealing with bully teams, it’s essential to separate the wheat from the chaff:
- Safe Bets Against Weak Teams: These squads are indeed formidable versus weaker competition. They consistently cover large spreads, making them a safe bet for those looking for a guarantee.
- Fade Against Stronger Competition: However, when facing quality teams that can punch back, it’s crucial to exercise caution. Bully teams’ inflated metrics often lead to overvaluation as favorites, making them less reliable picks.
To navigate this phenomenon, consider the following strategies:
- Monitor Efficiency Metrics: Keep a close eye on these teams’ efficiency numbers versus weaker competition and stronger competition. While their stats may be impressive versus inferior opponents, it’s essential to remember that they might not translate to quality teams.
- Watch for Red Flags: If Drake consistently fails versus stronger competition despite their inflated metrics, it may be time to reassess our confidence in them.
- Adjust Your Expectations: When backing a bully team as a favorite, temper your expectations. They might not deliver the same level of dominance they exhibit versus weaker teams.
By understanding the behavior of these bully teams and adjusting our approach accordingly, we can make more informed decisions when it comes to college basketball betting. Remember, it’s essential to separate the real contenders from those who are merely exploiting inferior competition.
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.
