Week 17: The Dial-Up Report
March 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 17. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: Abil Christian (13-16)
Against #105 Utah Valley, #294 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 #313 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 70.9 points against weak competition (5 games).
#2: Denver (15-16)
Against #87 Colorado State, #233 Denver pulled off a big win, 83-81. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed outpacing the projection by 21. Facing #223 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 81.2 total points against strong opponents (6 games); underperformed by 48.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#3: Southern Utah (10-19)
Against #105 Utah Valley, #313 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 #232 Utah Tech, #313 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 (12-18)
Against #101 McNeese, #328 Incarnate Word pulled off a big win, 71-67. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed +18 versus projection. Facing #340 East Texas A&M, #328 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: W Michigan (10-19)
Against #118 Bowling Green, #273 W Michigan pulled off a big win, 88-79. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed 12 points better than projected. Facing #312 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 19.5 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 26.9 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: Gonzaga (28-3)
Against #157 Maryland, #9 Gonzaga pulled off a big win, 100-61. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed outpacing the projection by 36. 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).
#7: West Georgia (14-16)
Against #133 Troy, #306 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 #202 Central Arkansas, #306 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: Albany (11-19)
Against #173 Vermont, #280 Albany pulled off a big win, 75-68. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed +12 versus projection. Facing #185 Columbia, #280 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: UIC (17-14)
Against #83 Illinois State, #124 UIC pulled off a big win, 83-56. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed 31 points better than projected. Facing #348 Arkansas-Pine Bluff, #124 UIC suffered a bad loss, 62-63. Favored by 18, they underperformed by 19 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 109.8 total points against strong opponents (6 games); underperformed by 31.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#10: UT Rio Grande (17-13)
Against #101 McNeese, #178 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 #260 New Orleans, #178 UT Rio Grande suffered a bad loss, 69-85. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 27 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 50.8 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 40.2 points against weak competition (2 games).
#11: Arkansas State (20-11)
Against #118 Bowling Green, #145 Arkansas State pulled off a big win, 91-54. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed beating the line by 34. Facing #221 Old Dominion, #145 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 112.3 points against weak competition (11 games).
#12: Elon (14-16)
Against #148 App State, #194 Elon pulled off a big win, 88-53. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed +38 versus projection. Facing #255 North Carolina A&T, #194 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).
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 (7-22)
Against #51 Santa Clara, #292 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 #312 Northern Illinois, #292 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: Lipscomb (19-12)
Against #159 Marshall, #204 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed outpacing the projection by 17. Facing #202 Central Arkansas, #204 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 194.6 points against weak competition (13 games).
#15: G Washington (16-13)
Against #139 UMBC, #76 G Washington pulled off a big win, 89-52. The model expected a margin of 9, but they performed beating the line by 28. Facing #250 Delaware, #76 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).
#16: UT Martin (21-10)
Against #107 Bradley, #200 UT Martin pulled off a big win, 78-67. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed +27 versus projection. Facing #217 Southern Miss, #200 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).
#17: Yale (22-5)
Against #144 Cornell, #81 Yale pulled off a big win, 102-68. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed 29 points better than projected. Facing #209 Princeton, #81 Yale suffered a bad loss, 60-76. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 95.5 total points against strong opponents (5 games); underperformed by 72.2 points against weak competition (6 games).
#18: Utah State (24-5)
Against #87 Colorado State, #28 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 #229 Weber State, #28 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 201.0 total points against strong opponents (9 games); underperformed by 8.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#19: VCU (22-7)
Against #45 Virginia Tech, #39 VCU pulled off a big win, 86-68. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed beating the line by 21. Facing #252 La Salle, #39 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).
#20: North Dakota (16-16)
Against #97 St. Thomas-Minnesota, #289 North Dakota pulled off a big win, 81-80. The model expected a margin of -12, but they performed +14 versus projection. Facing #212 Idaho, #289 North Dakota suffered a bad loss, 58-90. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 33 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 19.9 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 78.7 points against weak competition (4 games).
#21: Cent Michigan (10-19)
Against #148 App State, #220 Cent Michigan pulled off a big win, 82-66. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed 19 points better than projected. Facing #245 Stony Brook, #220 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).
#22: Marist (18-11)
Against #176 Iona, #113 Marist pulled off a big win, 83-38. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed outpacing the projection by 46. Facing #324 Canisius, #113 Marist struggled to put away Canisius, winning just 88-86. Favored by 12, they underperformed by 10 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 61.3 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 17.5 points against weak competition (2 games).
#23: Dartmouth (11-15)
Against #174 Saint Peter’s, #256 Dartmouth pulled off a big win, 87-61. The model expected a margin of 2, but they performed beating the line by 24. Facing #258 Sacred Heart, #256 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 53.1 points against weak competition (4 games).
#24: Northeastern (6-22)
Against #129 Harvard, #279 Northeastern pulled off a big win, 77-60. The model expected a margin of 2, but they performed +15 versus projection. Facing #309 Holy Cross, #279 Northeastern suffered a bad loss, 59-76. Favored by 7, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 24.7 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 116.3 points against weak competition (7 games).
#25: CSU Northridge (18-12)
Against #152 UC San Diego, #238 CSU Northridge pulled off a big win, 81-64. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed 27 points better than projected. Facing #265 Idaho State, #238 CSU Northridge suffered a bad loss, 50-82. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 37 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 85.3 total points against strong opponents (6 games); underperformed by 160.3 points against weak competition (11 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.
