Week 12: The Dial-Up Report
January 26, 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 12. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: West Georgia (10-10)
Against #108 Troy, #324 West Georgia pulled off a big win, 93-89. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed 20 points better than projected. Facing #223 Central Arkansas, #324 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 22.3 points against weak competition (1 games).
#2: Stetson (7-14)
Against #181 Lipscomb, #339 Stetson pulled off a big win, 91-83. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed outpacing the projection by 27. Facing #223 Central Arkansas, #339 Stetson suffered a bad loss, 73-93. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 21 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 40.5 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 21.1 points against weak competition (1 games).
#3: Abil Christian (10-9)
Against #130 Utah Valley, #287 Abil Christian pulled off a big win, 85-68. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed beating the line by 27. Facing #331 Southern Utah, #287 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 45.1 points against weak competition (2 games).
#4: Southern Utah (7-14)
Against #130 Utah Valley, #331 Southern Utah pulled off a big win, 84-70. The model expected a margin of -14, but they performed +28 versus projection. Facing #214 UT Rio Grande Valley, #331 Southern Utah suffered a bad loss, 72-95. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 27.6 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 53.8 points against weak competition (4 games).
#5: Tennessee St (13-7)
Against #119 UNLV, #246 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 #334 Alabama A&M, #246 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 51.4 points against weak competition (2 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: Incarnate Word (9-11)
Against #92 McNeese, #323 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 #329 East Texas A&M, #323 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 55.9 points against weak competition (3 games).
#7: Yale (15-3)
Against #179 Cornell, #61 Yale pulled off a big win, 102-68. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed beating the line by 29. Facing #186 Princeton, #61 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 57.2 points against weak competition (4 games).
#8: Denver (9-13)
Against #87 Colorado State, #275 Denver pulled off a big win, 83-81. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed +21 versus projection. Facing #222 Cal State Fullerton, #275 Denver suffered a bad loss, 86-105. Favored by 6, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 46.7 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 24.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#9: UT Martin (15-5)
Against #133 Bradley, #202 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 #233 Southern Miss, #202 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).
#10: Utah State (16-3)
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 #196 Fresno State, #28 Utah State struggled to put away Fresno State, winning just 72-63. Favored by 21, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 119.6 total points against strong opponents (5 games); underperformed by 20.7 points against weak competition (2 games).
#11: UT Rio Grande (9-11)
Against #92 McNeese, #214 UT Rio Grande pulled off a big win, 79-76. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed beating the line by 19. Facing #269 New Orleans, #214 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).
#12: Bradley (14-8)
Against #150 Drake, #133 Bradley pulled off a big win, 93-66. The model expected a margin of -5, but they performed +32 versus projection. Facing #202 UT Martin, #133 Bradley suffered a bad loss, 67-78. Favored by 16, they underperformed by 27 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 51.1 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 43.5 points against weak competition (6 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: Marist (13-7)
Against #176 Iona, #100 Marist pulled off a big win, 83-38. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed 46 points better than projected. Facing #192 Saint Peter’s, #100 Marist suffered a bad loss, 59-69. Favored by 2, they underperformed by 12 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 61.3 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 12.0 points against weak competition (1 games).
#14: UIC (11-10)
Against #133 Bradley, #165 UIC pulled off a big win, 85-70. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed outpacing the projection by 25. Facing #347 Arkansas-Pine Bluff, #165 UIC suffered a bad loss, 62-63. Favored by 18, they underperformed by 19 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 83.2 total points against strong opponents (5 games); underperformed by 31.3 points against weak competition (2 games).
#15: Loyola-Chicago (5-16)
Against #60 Santa Clara, #300 Loyola-Chicago pulled off a big win, 80-78. The model expected a margin of -3, but they performed beating the line by 5. Facing #303 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).
#16: Winthrop (15-8)
Against #134 Mercer, #182 Winthrop pulled off a big win, 105-69. The model expected a margin of 7, but they performed +29 versus projection. Facing #215 Coastal Carolina, #182 Winthrop suffered a bad loss, 66-72. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 15 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 63.9 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 63.5 points against weak competition (6 games).
#17: Delaware (5-14)
Against #156 Kennesaw State, #260 Delaware pulled off a big win, 67-52. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed 19 points better than projected. Facing #208 Missouri State, #260 Delaware suffered a bad loss, 43-61. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 19 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 35.4 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 28.2 points against weak competition (2 games).
#18: Albany (7-14)
Against #157 Vermont, #285 Albany pulled off a big win, 75-68. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed outpacing the projection by 12. Facing #185 Fordham, #285 Albany suffered a bad loss, 68-88. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 21 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 12.5 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 36.7 points against weak competition (2 games).
#19: Lipscomb (14-7)
Against #137 Marshall, #181 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed beating the line by 17. Facing #339 Stetson, #181 Lipscomb suffered a bad loss, 83-91. Favored by 19, they underperformed by 27 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 16.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 83.6 points against weak competition (6 games).
#20: Morgan State (7-13)
Against #172 Drexel, #359 Morgan State battled tough in a 66-71 loss. The model expected a margin of -11, but they performed +6 versus projection. Facing #306 Maryland Eastern Shore, #359 Morgan State suffered a bad loss, 49-66. Favored by 7, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 6.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 24.2 points against weak competition (1 games).
#21: Cent Michigan (5-15)
Against #166 App State, #292 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 #253 Stony Brook, #292 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 63.7 points against weak competition (4 games).
#22: Wyoming (12-8)
Against #119 UNLV, #105 Wyoming pulled off a big win, 98-66. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed outpacing the projection by 40. Facing #196 Fresno State, #105 Wyoming suffered a bad loss, 60-63. Favored by 4, they underperformed by 7 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 90.6 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 6.8 points against weak competition (1 games).
#23: North Dakota (12-12)
Against #183 South Dakota State, #272 North Dakota pulled off a big win, 90-87. The model expected a margin of -11, but they performed beating the line by 14. Facing #201 Idaho, #272 North Dakota suffered a bad loss, 58-90. Favored by 1, they underperformed by 33 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 29.5 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 58.5 points against weak competition (3 games).
#24: UNLV (10-9)
Against #118 Memphis, #119 UNLV pulled off a big win, 92-78. The model expected a margin of -7, but they performed +21 versus projection. Facing #202 UT Martin, #119 UNLV suffered a bad loss, 81-86. Favored by 11, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 64.1 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 39.4 points against weak competition (3 games).
#25: Utah Valley (15-6)
Against #183 South Dakota State, #130 Utah Valley pulled off a big win, 75-52. The model expected a margin of 4, but they performed 19 points better than projected. Facing #331 Southern Utah, #130 Utah Valley suffered a bad loss, 70-84. Favored by 14, they underperformed by 28 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 38.5 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 81.2 points against weak competition (5 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.
