2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Sunday, February 22, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
Michigan and Duke occupy the top two lines in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket, separated by a narrow margin in accordance with our model. Michigan's strong performance in the Big Ten Conference, where they boast a 15-1 record, is a significant factor in their #1 seeding. According to our model, Michigan's Bracket Score of 99.9 is bolstered by their impressive Quad 1 record of 10-1 and Quad 2 record of 9-1. Meanwhile, Duke's 13-1 conference record and 11-2 Quad 1 mark also contribute to their top seeding, with a Bracket Score of 98.5.
Arizona and Gonzaga round out the top line in our projected bracket, each with their own unique strengths. Arizona's 12-2 record in the Big 12 Conference and 11-2 Quad 1 mark demonstrate their consistent performance against top-level competition. According to our model, Arizona's Bracket Score of 96.8 is slightly lower than Michigan's and Duke's, but still solidifies their #1 seeding. Gonzaga, despite a lower NET ranking of #5, has compiled a 15-1 conference record and 6-1 Quad 1 mark, earning a Bracket Score of 94.6. Their strong Quad 2 record of 6-0 also contributes to their top seeding, but they trail the other three teams in terms of overall performance.
The final four teams projected into the NCAA Tournament field are Ohio State, Auburn, Indiana, and UCLA. Each of these teams is holding on to a spot due to their conference affiliations and moderate non-conference performances. According to our model, Ohio State's 77.6 bracket score is bolstered by a 6-1 record against Quad 2 opponents, despite a lackluster 0-8 showing against Quad 1 foes. The Buckeyes' 9-6 conference record in a competitive Big Ten is also a factor in their at-large bid. However, a loss or two in their final few games could push them out, especially if they fail to improve their Quad 1 record.
Auburn and Indiana, both seeded 12, are similarly precarious in their at-large bids. Auburn's 5-10 record against Quad 1 opponents is a concern, but their 6-8 conference record and 2-2 mark against Quad 2 foes keep them afloat. Indiana's 2-9 Quad 1 record is even more concerning, but their 8-8 conference record and 2-1 mark against Quad 2 opponents provide some cushion. UCLA's 76.3 bracket score, according to our model, is the lowest among these four teams, but their 10-6 conference record and 7-3 record against Quad 2 and 3 opponents keep them in the mix. A poor performance in their final few games or a loss to a team outside of the top 60 in NET could easily push any of these teams out of the at-large picture.
USC, currently ranked 52nd in the NET, needs to improve its Quad 1 wins to bolster its resume. The team's lone Quad 1 victory is not enough to offset its subpar performance in Quad 2, where it has only one win. To make a strong case for an NCAA Tournament bid, USC must secure at least two more Quad 1 victories. According to our model, the Trojans' current bracket score of 75.9 is not sufficient to compensate for its lack of quality wins. A significant improvement in Quad 1 wins would be necessary to bring USC's bracket score above 78, a threshold that would put them in the NCAA Tournament field.
Missouri, ranked 59th in the NET, is in a similar situation. The Tigers have four Quad 1 wins, but their performance in Quad 2 is mediocre, with only three wins. To strengthen their resume, Missouri needs to secure more quality wins, particularly in Quad 1, and improve its overall performance in Quad 2. According to our model, Missouri's bracket score of 75.6 is below the threshold required for an NCAA Tournament bid. A strong finish to the season, with at least two more Quad 1 victories, would be necessary to bring Missouri's bracket score above 78.
San Diego State, ranked 44th in the NET, has a strong conference record but lacks quality wins outside of its Mountain West Conference. The Aztecs have only five Quad 1 wins, which is not enough to offset their subpar performance in Quad 2. To make a strong case for an NCAA Tournament bid, San Diego State must secure at least two more Quad 1 victories. According to our model, the Aztecs' current bracket score of 75.4 is not sufficient to compensate for their lack of quality wins. A significant improvement in Quad 1 wins would be necessary to bring San Diego State's bracket score above 78.
Seton Hall, ranked 51st in the NET, has a strong record but lacks quality wins outside of its Big East Conference. The Pirates have only five Quad 1 wins, which is not enough to offset their subpar performance in Quad 2. To make a strong case for an NCAA Tournament bid, Seton Hall must secure at least two more Quad 1 victories. According to our model, the Pirates' current bracket score of 75.4 is not sufficient to compensate for their lack of quality wins. A strong finish to the season, with at least two more Quad 1 victories, would be necessary to bring Seton Hall's bracket score above 78.
The 2024 NCAA Men's Basketball Bracket is taking shape, with 68 teams now locked into the field. According to our model, the top seeds are a mix of powerhouses and mid-major surprises, with the likes of Gonzaga, Kansas, and Houston holding down the top three spots. Notably, the committee has been generous with the at-large bids, with 37 teams earning spots outside of the automatic qualifying bracket. This has led to a crowded field, with several bubble teams finding themselves in the midst of a heated competition for the final few spots. One trend that has emerged is the resurgence of the Big 12 Conference, which boasts a strong representation in the bracket with teams like Kansas, Baylor, and Iowa State. Conversely, the Pac-12 has struggled to find its footing, with only a handful of teams making the cut.
How Our Bracket Model Works
Normalized 0–100 from rank position. The NCAA's own evaluation tool combining wins/losses and game-level efficiency across all Division I opponents.
Weighted quality score — Q1 wins +5, Q1 losses −1, Q2 wins +2.5, Q2 losses −2.5, Q3 wins +0.5, Q3 losses −5, Q4 wins 0, Q4 losses −8. Normalized 0–100.
SoR rank normalized 0–100. Measures how impressive a team's record is given the difficulty of its schedule — a 20-win team in a weak conference scores lower than a 20-win team in the ACC.
Adjusted offensive minus defensive efficiency (points per 100 possessions). Captures how dominant a team is regardless of pace. Normalized 0–100 across the field.
60% road record value + 40% SOS rank, both normalized. Rewards teams that schedule tough and win away from home — factors the committee explicitly values.
Final bracket score = weighted sum of all five components, scaled 0–100.
Our Model vs. The Selection Committee
The NCAA Selection Committee uses the same core inputs — NET rankings, quad records, strength of schedule, and road record — but applies subjective judgment to each case. Committee members can weigh injuries, recent form, head-to-head results, conference tournament performance, and what is often called the “eye test.”
Our model is purely data-driven: the same formula applied consistently to every team, with no adjustments for narrative or circumstance. That removes human bias — but it also means we can't account for context that only humans can evaluate. When the model and the committee diverge, it's often because of factors that don't yet show up in the numbers.