Week 6: The Dial-Up Report
December 15, 2025Some 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 6. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: Tennessee St (6-4)
Against #150 UNLV, #254 Tennessee St pulled off a big win, 63-60. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed 12 points better than projected. Facing #324 Alabama A&M, #254 Tennessee St suffered a bad loss, 53-80. Favored by 14, they underperformed by 42 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 11.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 41.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#2: Denver (5-7)
Against #48 Colorado State, #306 Denver pulled off a big win, 83-81. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed outpacing the projection by 21. Facing #250 Cal State Fullerton, #306 Denver suffered a bad loss, 86-105. Favored by 6, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 30.2 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 24.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#3: TCU (6-3)
Against #24 Florida, #47 TCU pulled off a big win, 84-80. The model expected a margin of -18, but they performed beating the line by 22. Facing #260 New Orleans, #47 TCU suffered a bad loss, 74-78. Favored by 19, they underperformed by 23 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 63.1 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 23.3 points against weak competition (1 games).
#4: ETSU (8-3)
Against #178 South Alabama, #98 ETSU pulled off a big win, 91-65. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed +26 versus projection. Facing #228 Presbyterian, #98 ETSU suffered a bad loss, 64-68. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 26.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 12.0 points against weak competition (1 games).
#5: Xavier (8-3)
Against #38 West Virginia, #92 Xavier pulled off a big win, 78-68. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed 20 points better than projected. Facing #194 Le Moyne, #92 Xavier struggled to put away Le Moyne, winning just 74-69. Favored by 22, they underperformed by 17 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 20.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 17.4 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: Nevada (8-3)
Against #107 San Francisco, #115 Nevada pulled off a big win, 81-65. The model expected a margin of -12, but they performed outpacing the projection by 28. Facing #191 UC Davis, #115 Nevada suffered a bad loss, 71-75. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 15 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 64.1 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 15.2 points against weak competition (1 games).
#7: UT Martin (8-3)
Against #114 Bradley, #213 UT Martin pulled off a big win, 78-67. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed beating the line by 27. Facing #210 Southern Miss, #213 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 26.4 points against weak competition (2 games).
#8: UAB (7-4)
Against #90 High Point, #146 UAB pulled off a big win, 91-74. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed +19 versus projection. Facing #236 Alabama State, #146 UAB suffered a bad loss, 74-77. Favored by 15, they underperformed by 18 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 32.5 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 36.2 points against weak competition (2 games).
#9: SIUE (7-4)
Against #122 Drake, #211 SIUE pulled off a big win, 61-59. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed 16 points better than projected. Facing #309 Air Force, #211 SIUE suffered a bad loss, 63-77. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 23 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 36.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#10: E Michigan (6-5)
Against #106 Cincinnati, #158 E Michigan pulled off a big win, 64-56. The model expected a margin of -13, but they performed outpacing the projection by 21. Facing #323 IU Indianapolis, #158 E Michigan suffered a bad loss, 83-90. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 21.0 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 11.7 points against weak competition (1 games).
#11: Yale (11-1)
Against #155 Quinnipiac, #49 Yale pulled off a big win, 97-60. The model expected a margin of 8, but they performed beating the line by 29. Facing #245 Green Bay, #49 Yale struggled to put away Green Bay, winning just 73-67. Favored by 22, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 43.0 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 33.1 points against weak competition (3 games).
#12: UMass (8-3)
Against #145 Florida State, #132 UMass pulled off a big win, 103-95. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed +16 versus projection. Facing #245 Green Bay, #132 UMass suffered a bad loss, 75-79. Favored by 14, they underperformed by 18 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.1 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 18.1 points against weak competition (1 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: Indiana (8-3)
Against #109 Penn State, #21 Indiana pulled off a big win, 113-72. The model expected a margin of 1, but they performed 40 points better than projected. Facing #325 Incarnate Word, #21 Indiana struggled to put away Incarnate Word, winning just 69-61. Favored by 12, they underperformed by 4 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 83.3 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 4.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#14: Michigan (10-0)
Against #3 Gonzaga, #1 Michigan pulled off a big win, 101-61. The model expected a margin of 1, but they performed outpacing the projection by 39.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 192.6 total points against strong opponents (6 games).
#15: UNLV (4-6)
Against #118 Memphis, #150 UNLV pulled off a big win, 92-78. The model expected a margin of -7, but they performed beating the line by 21. Facing #213 UT Martin, #150 UNLV suffered a bad loss, 81-86. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 37.5 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 39.4 points against weak competition (3 games).
#16: Indiana State (7-4)
Against #172 Louisiana Tech, #174 Indiana State pulled off a big win, 60-51. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed +13 versus projection. Facing #196 Charlotte, #174 Indiana State suffered a bad loss, 76-92. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 21 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 38.0 points against weak competition (2 games).
#17: Kent State (9-2)
Against #74 UNC Wilmington, #153 Kent State pulled off a big win, 86-77. The model expected a margin of -2, but they performed 11 points better than projected. Facing #229 Portland, #153 Kent State suffered a bad loss, 78-88. Favored by 12, they underperformed by 22 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 18.9 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 22.2 points against weak competition (1 games).
#18: Utah Valley (8-3)
Against #137 South Dakota State, #84 Utah Valley pulled off a big win, 75-52. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed outpacing the projection by 19. Facing #197 Fresno State, #84 Utah Valley suffered a bad loss, 74-75. Favored by 16, they underperformed by 17 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 27.8 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 16.7 points against weak competition (1 games).
#19: Bethune-Cookman (3-7)
Against #43 Auburn, #232 Bethune-Cookman battled tough in a 90-95 loss. The model expected a margin of -28, but they performed beating the line by 23. Facing #214 Stony Brook, #232 Bethune-Cookman suffered a bad loss, 54-61. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 28.5 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 16.2 points against weak competition (1 games).
#20: Northeastern (4-5)
Against #175 Central Connecticut, #188 Northeastern pulled off a big win, 73-56. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed +21 versus projection. Facing #277 Holy Cross, #188 Northeastern suffered a bad loss, 59-76. Favored by 7, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 31.4 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 28.4 points against weak competition (2 games).
#21: Lipscomb (6-4)
Against #141 Marshall, #185 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed 17 points better than projected. Facing #237 UNC Asheville, #185 Lipscomb suffered a bad loss, 64-69. Favored by 8, they underperformed by 13 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 16.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 26.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#22: Incarnate Word (5-5)
Against #60 McNeese, #325 Incarnate Word pulled off a big win, 71-67. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed outpacing the projection by 18. Facing #260 New Orleans, #325 Incarnate Word suffered a bad loss, 83-84. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 11.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#23: New Mexico St (6-3)
Against #156 UC Irvine, #139 New Mexico St pulled off a big win, 57-45. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed beating the line by 20. Facing #253 Abilene Christian, #139 New Mexico St suffered a bad loss, 69-77. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 10 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 38.3 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 10.4 points against weak competition (1 games).
#24: Loyola Mary (7-3)
Against #181 Troy, #142 Loyola Mary pulled off a big win, 74-63. The model expected a margin of -7, but they performed +18 versus projection. Facing #214 Stony Brook, #142 Loyola Mary suffered a bad loss, 68-71. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 11.6 points against weak competition (1 games).
#25: Liberty (6-3)
Against #111 Florida Atlantic, #116 Liberty pulled off a big win, 88-68. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed 16 points better than projected. Facing #193 Towson, #116 Liberty suffered a bad loss, 69-72. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 14 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 15.8 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 13.6 points against weak competition (1 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.
