Week 14: The Dial-Up Report
February 9, 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 14. Scores reflect the combination of overperformance against strong opponents and underperformance against weak ones.
#1: W Michigan (8-15)
Against #166 Eastern Michigan, #287 W Michigan pulled off a big win, 79-62. The model expected a margin of -1, but they performed 18 points better than projected. Facing #286 Northern Illinois, #287 W Michigan suffered a bad loss, 65-85. Favored by 7, they underperformed by 27 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 17.7 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 26.9 points against weak competition (1 games).
#2: Abil Christian (10-13)
Against #105 Utah Valley, #301 Abil Christian pulled off a big win, 85-68. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed outpacing the projection by 27. Facing #327 Southern Utah, #301 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 62.3 points against weak competition (4 games).
#3: Southern Utah (8-16)
Against #105 Utah Valley, #327 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 #187 UT Rio Grande Valley, #327 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).
#4: ETSU (18-7)
Against #168 South Alabama, #92 ETSU pulled off a big win, 91-65. The model expected a margin of -0, but they performed +26 versus projection. Facing #296 Western Carolina, #92 ETSU suffered a bad loss, 68-72. Favored by 12, they underperformed by 16 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 26.4 total points against strong opponents (1 games); underperformed by 48.3 points against weak competition (4 games).
#5: Denver (12-14)
Against #110 Colorado State, #247 Denver pulled off a big win, 83-81. The model expected a margin of -19, but they performed 21 points better than projected. Facing #221 Cal State Fullerton, #247 Denver suffered a bad loss, 86-105. Favored by 6, they underperformed by 24 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 65.4 total points against strong opponents (5 games); underperformed by 24.5 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: Cent Michigan (7-17)
Against #166 Eastern Michigan, #261 Cent Michigan pulled off a big win, 100-65. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed outpacing the projection by 32. Facing #231 Stony Brook, #261 Cent Michigan suffered a bad loss, 55-78. Favored by 9, they underperformed by 32 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 59.4 total points against strong opponents (3 games); underperformed by 87.8 points against weak competition (5 games).
#7: Gonzaga (23-2)
Against #167 Maryland, #8 Gonzaga pulled off a big win, 100-61. The model expected a margin of 3, but they performed beating the line by 36. Facing #230 Portland, #8 Gonzaga suffered a bad loss, 80-87. Favored by 27, they underperformed by 34 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 128.6 total points against strong opponents (8 games); underperformed by 59.0 points against weak competition (3 games).
#8: UT Martin (19-6)
Against #124 Bradley, #172 UT Martin pulled off a big win, 78-67. The model expected a margin of -16, but they performed +27 versus projection. Facing #224 Southern Miss, #172 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).
#9: Albany (8-17)
Against #170 Vermont, #300 Albany pulled off a big win, 75-68. The model expected a margin of -6, but they performed 12 points better than projected. Facing #184 Columbia, #300 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).
#10: UT Rio Grande (13-11)
Against #98 McNeese, #187 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 #272 New Orleans, #187 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: Incarnate Word (10-14)
Against #98 McNeese, #332 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 #330 East Texas A&M, #332 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 81.1 points against weak competition (5 games).
#12: Yale (17-4)
Against #144 Cornell, #65 Yale pulled off a big win, 102-68. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed +29 versus projection. Facing #188 Princeton, #65 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).
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: West Georgia (11-13)
Against #122 Troy, #318 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 #201 Central Arkansas, #318 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 27.2 points against weak competition (2 games).
#14: Winthrop (18-8)
Against #151 Mercer, #180 Winthrop pulled off a big win, 105-69. The model expected a margin of 7, but they performed outpacing the projection by 29. Facing #218 Coastal Carolina, #180 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 60.0 points against weak competition (5 games).
#15: Arkansas State (15-10)
Against #125 Bowling Green, #169 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 #244 Old Dominion, #169 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 89.7 points against weak competition (9 games).
#16: UIC (13-12)
Against #124 Bradley, #162 UIC pulled off a big win, 85-70. The model expected a margin of -10, but they performed +25 versus projection. Facing #342 Arkansas-Pine Bluff, #162 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).
#17: Loyola-Chicago (6-19)
Against #48 Santa Clara, #293 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 #286 Northern Illinois, #293 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).
#18: Dartmouth (10-11)
Against #179 Saint Peter’s, #232 Dartmouth pulled off a big win, 87-61. The model expected a margin of 2, but they performed outpacing the projection by 24. Facing #262 Sacred Heart, #232 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 48.1 points against weak competition (3 games).
#19: Tennessee St (16-8)
Against #137 UNLV, #234 Tennessee St pulled off a big win, 63-60. The model expected a margin of -8, but they performed beating the line by 12. Facing #331 Alabama A&M, #234 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 60.7 points against weak competition (3 games).
#20: Oakland (14-11)
Against #182 Robert Morris, #157 Oakland pulled off a big win, 96-73. The model expected a margin of -4, but they performed +26 versus projection. Facing #311 IU Indianapolis, #157 Oakland suffered a bad loss, 85-103. Favored by 10, they underperformed by 28 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 32.9 total points against strong opponents (2 games); underperformed by 30.1 points against weak competition (2 games).
#21: Lipscomb (15-10)
Against #142 Marshall, #207 Lipscomb pulled off a big win, 90-67. The model expected a margin of 6, but they performed 17 points better than projected. Facing #201 Central Arkansas, #207 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 133.2 points against weak competition (9 games).
#22: Utah State (20-3)
Against #110 Colorado State, #26 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 #236 Weber State, #26 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 156.6 total points against strong opponents (7 games); underperformed by 8.5 points against weak competition (1 games).
#23: CSU Northridge (15-10)
Against #155 UC San Diego, #248 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 #251 Idaho State, #248 CSU Northridge suffered a bad loss, 50-82. Favored by 5, they underperformed by 37 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 62.6 total points against strong opponents (4 games); underperformed by 136.4 points against weak competition (9 games).
#24: Illinois (20-4)
Against #68 Missouri, #9 Illinois pulled off a big win, 91-48. The model expected a margin of 5, but they performed +38 versus projection. Facing #187 UT Rio Grande Valley, #9 Illinois struggled to put away UT Rio Grande Valley, winning just 87-73. Favored by 24, they underperformed by 10 points.
Dial-Up Metrics: Exceeded projections by 159.0 total points against strong opponents (8 games); underperformed by 9.8 points against weak competition (1 games).
#25: North Dakota (14-13)
Against #103 St. Thomas-Minnesota, #282 North Dakota pulled off a big win, 81-80. The model expected a margin of -12, but they performed 14 points better than projected. Facing #208 Idaho, #282 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).
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.
