Week 18: The Dial-Up Report
March 10, 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 18. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: Abil Christian (13-18)
Against #110 Utah Valley, #302 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 #317 Southern Utah, #302 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 (15-17)
Against #91 Colorado State, #236 Denver pulled off a big win, 83-81. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed outpacing the projection by 21. Facing #216 Cal State Fullerton, #236 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: Incarnate Word (12-19)
Against #100 McNeese, #329 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 #341 East Texas A&M, #329 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).
#4: W Michigan (10-21)
Against #119 Bowling Green, #269 W Michigan pulled off a big win, 88-79. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed +12 versus projection. Facing #325 Northern Illinois, #269 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).
#5: Gonzaga (28-3)
Against #159 Maryland, #8 Gonzaga pulled off a big win, 100-61. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed 36 points better than projected. Facing #239 Portland, #8 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 (15-17)
Against #135 Troy, #308 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, #308 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: Albany (11-21)
Against #164 Vermont, #278 Albany pulled off a big win, 75-68. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed beating the line by 12. Facing #188 Columbia, #278 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).
#8: Yale (23-5)
Against #139 Cornell, #78 Yale pulled off a big win, 102-68. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed +29 versus projection. Facing #224 Princeton, #78 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 56.3 points against weak competition (5 games).
#9: UIC (19-15)
Against #89 Illinois State, #120 UIC pulled off a big win, 83-56. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed 31 points better than projected. Facing #343 Arkansas-Pine Bluff, #120 UIC suffered a bad loss, 62-63. Favored by 18, they underperformed by 19 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 119.7 total points against strong opponents (7 games); underperformed by 31.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#10: UT Rio Grande (18-13)
Against #100 McNeese, #174 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 #259 New Orleans, #174 UT Rio Grande suffered a bad loss, 69-85. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 27 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 37.7 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 40.2 points against weak competition (2 games).
#11: Elon (14-18)
Against #152 App State, #209 Elon pulled off a big win, 88-53. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed beating the line by 38. Facing #266 North Carolina A&T, #209 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).
#12: Lipscomb (19-13)
Against #160 Marshall, #225 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed +17 versus projection. Facing #202 Central Arkansas, #225 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 252.5 points against weak competition (16 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: Arkansas State (20-12)
Against #119 Bowling Green, #150 Arkansas State pulled off a big win, 91-54. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed 34 points better than projected. Facing #226 Old Dominion, #150 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 118.4 points against weak competition (12 games).
#14: Loyola-Chicago (8-23)
Against #51 Santa Clara, #283 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 #325 Northern Illinois, #283 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: Le Moyne (15-17)
Against #97 Xavier, #250 Le Moyne battled tough in a 69-74 loss. The model expected a margin of -22, but they performed beating the line by 17. Facing #314 Stonehill, #250 Le Moyne suffered a bad loss, 71-81. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 18 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 42.6 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 17.7 points against weak competition (1 games).
#16: Drake (14-20)
Against #55 Belmont, #196 Drake pulled off a big win, 100-79. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed +29 versus projection. Facing #293 Evansville, #196 Drake struggled to put away Evansville, winning just 66-65. Favored by 18, they underperformed by 18 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 41.8 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 74.1 points against weak competition (7 games).
#17: UT Martin (22-11)
Against #106 Bradley, #219 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 #217 Southern Miss, #219 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 48.6 points against weak competition (5 games).
#18: Utah State (25-6)
Against #91 Colorado State, #35 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 #237 Weber State, #35 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: G Washington (17-14)
Against #118 UMBC, #81 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 #261 Delaware, #81 G Washington suffered a bad loss, 58-70. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 17 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 111.3 total points against strong opponents (8 games); underperformed by 16.8 points against weak competition (1 games).
#20: Boston U (17-16)
Against #181 Colgate, #195 Boston U pulled off a big win, 85-58. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed +31 versus projection. Facing #291 Loyola Maryland, #195 Boston U suffered a bad loss, 57-74. Favored by 3, they underperformed by 20 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 45.1 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 45.0 points against weak competition (6 games).
#21: Cent Michigan (10-21)
Against #152 App State, #235 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 #251 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 96.8 points against weak competition (6 games).
#22: North Dakota (18-17)
Against #96 St. Thomas-Minnesota, #280 North Dakota pulled off a big win, 81-80. The model expected a margin of -12, but they performed outpacing the projection by 14. Facing #206 Idaho, #280 North Dakota suffered a bad loss, 58-90. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 33 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 30.2 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 78.7 points against weak competition (4 games).
#23: CSU Northridge (19-13)
Against #151 UC San Diego, #242 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 #273 Idaho State, #242 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 197.6 points against weak competition (13 games).
#24: Northeastern (7-24)
Against #132 Harvard, #276 Northeastern pulled off a big win, 77-60. The model expected a margin of 2, but they performed +15 versus projection. Facing #304 Holy Cross, #276 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: Cincinnati (17-14)
Against #31 BYU, #54 Cincinnati pulled off a big win, 90-68. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed 26 points better than projected. Facing #199 Eastern Michigan, #54 Cincinnati suffered a bad loss, 56-64. Favored by 13, they underperformed by 21 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 147.2 total points against strong opponents (9 games); underperformed by 24.9 points against weak competition (2 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.
