Week 16: The Dial-Up Report
February 23, 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 16. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: Boston U (13-16)
Against #180 Colgate, #209 Boston U pulled off a big win, 85-58. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed 31 points better than projected. Facing #280 Loyola Maryland, #209 Boston U suffered a bad loss, 57-74. Favored by 3, they underperformed by 20 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 31.3 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 43.3 points against weak competition (5 games).
#2: Denver (15-15)
Against #87 Colorado State, #220 Denver pulled off a big win, 83-81. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed outpacing the projection by 21. Facing #219 Cal State Fullerton, #220 Denver suffered a bad loss, 86-105. Favored by 6, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 81.2 total points against strong opponents (6 games); underperformed by 24.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#3: Southern Utah (9-19)
Against #101 Utah Valley, #322 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 #215 Utah Tech, #322 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: Incarnate Word (11-17)
Against #97 McNeese, #333 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, #333 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 76.2 points against weak competition (4 games).
#5: Gonzaga (27-2)
Against #152 Maryland, #9 Gonzaga pulled off a big win, 100-61. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed 36 points better than projected. Facing #251 Portland, #9 Gonzaga suffered a bad loss, 80-87. Favored by 27, they underperformed by 34 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 154.7 total points against strong opponents (10 games); underperformed by 59.0 points against weak competition (3 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: West Georgia (12-16)
Against #144 Troy, #316 West Georgia pulled off a big win, 93-89. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed outpacing the projection by 20. Facing #202 Central Arkansas, #316 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).
#7: UIC (16-13)
Against #84 Illinois State, #123 UIC pulled off a big win, 83-56. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed beating the line by 31. Facing #346 Arkansas-Pine Bluff, #123 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).
#8: Albany (10-18)
Against #168 Vermont, #286 Albany pulled off a big win, 75-68. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed +12 versus projection. Facing #190 Columbia, #286 Albany suffered a bad loss, 65-93. Favored by 4, they underperformed by 32 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 64.8 points against weak competition (3 games).
#9: Abil Christian (13-14)
Against #101 Utah Valley, #291 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 #322 Southern Utah, #291 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 62.3 points against weak competition (4 games).
#10: UT Rio Grande (16-12)
Against #97 McNeese, #166 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 #262 New Orleans, #166 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: Yale (21-4)
Against #143 Cornell, #73 Yale pulled off a big win, 102-68. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed beating the line by 29. Facing #217 Princeton, #73 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 59.2 points against weak competition (5 games).
#12: Arkansas State (18-11)
Against #125 Bowling Green, #148 Arkansas State pulled off a big win, 91-54. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed +34 versus projection. Facing #221 Old Dominion, #148 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 101.9 points against weak competition (10 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: Elon (14-14)
Against #136 App State, #187 Elon pulled off a big win, 88-53. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed 38 points better than projected. Facing #243 North Carolina A&T, #187 Elon suffered a bad loss, 82-102. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 28 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 43.7 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 53.0 points against weak competition (5 games).
#14: Loyola-Chicago (6-22)
Against #46 Santa Clara, #300 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 #304 Northern Illinois, #300 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: Lipscomb (18-11)
Against #159 Marshall, #199 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed beating the line by 17. Facing #202 Central Arkansas, #199 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 164.9 points against weak competition (11 games).
#16: UC San Diego (19-9)
Against #182 Tulane, #149 UC San Diego pulled off a big win, 93-67. The model expected a margin of 10, but they performed +16 versus projection. Facing #219 Cal State Fullerton, #149 UC San Diego suffered a bad loss, 71-88. Favored by 27, they underperformed by 44 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.6 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 206.8 points against weak competition (13 games).
#17: G Washington (15-12)
Against #158 UMBC, #82 G Washington pulled off a big win, 89-52. The model expected a margin of 9, but they performed 28 points better than projected. Facing #237 Delaware, #82 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).
#18: UT Martin (20-9)
Against #107 Bradley, #193 UT Martin pulled off a big win, 78-67. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed outpacing the projection by 27. Facing #228 Southern Miss, #193 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).
#19: CSU Northridge (18-10)
Against #149 UC San Diego, #230 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 #263 Idaho State, #230 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 146.9 points against weak competition (10 games).
#20: Utah State (23-4)
Against #87 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 #233 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 212.8 total points against strong opponents (10 games); underperformed by 8.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#21: UTEP (10-17)
Against #109 North Dakota State, #264 UTEP pulled off a big win, 76-66. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed 18 points better than projected. Facing #240 Missouri State, #264 UTEP suffered a bad loss, 55-79. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 26 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 18.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 34.8 points against weak competition (3 games).
#22: ETSU (21-8)
Against #172 South Alabama, #94 ETSU pulled off a big win, 91-65. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed outpacing the projection by 26. Facing #257 Western Carolina, #94 ETSU suffered a bad loss, 68-72. Favored by 12, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 35.0 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 48.3 points against weak competition (4 games).
#23: North Dakota (16-15)
Against #102 St. Thomas-Minnesota, #277 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 #210 Idaho, #277 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: Cent Michigan (9-18)
Against #136 App State, #235 Cent Michigan pulled off a big win, 82-66. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed +19 versus projection. Facing #236 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 78.5 points against weak competition (5 games).
#25: Winthrop (20-9)
Against #161 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 #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 70.5 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 70.0 points against weak competition (6 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.
