2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Sunday, February 22, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The current #1 seeds in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket are Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Gonzaga. Michigan has earned the top line with a 25-2 overall record and a 15-1 mark in the Big Ten Conference, boasting a NET ranking of #1. According to our model, Michigan's bracket score of 99.6 is the highest among the four top seeds, thanks in part to its impressive 9-1 record in Quad 1 games and 10-1 record in Quad 2 games. Duke, on the other hand, has compiled a 25-2 overall record and a 13-1 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference, with a NET ranking of #2 and a bracket score of 99.0. Duke's 13-2 record in Quad 1 games is the best among the four #1 seeds.
Arizona and Gonzaga round out the top seeds, with Arizona boasting a 25-2 overall record and a 12-2 mark in the Big 12 Conference, along with a NET ranking of #3 and a bracket score of 97.2. Arizona's 11-2 record in Quad 1 games and 5-0 record in Quad 2 games have contributed to its high seeding. Gonzaga, meanwhile, has a 27-2 overall record and a 15-1 record in the West Coast Conference, with a NET ranking of #5 and a bracket score of 94.5. According to our model, Gonzaga's strong conference record and 6-1 mark in Quad 1 games have secured its position as a #1 seed, despite a slightly lower NET ranking than the other three top seeds. The differences in quad records and NET rankings separate these teams, but all four have demonstrated the strength and consistency required to earn a #1 seed.
The last four teams projected in the NCAA Tournament field are Texas, Auburn, Indiana, and UCLA. According to our model, Texas is holding on to the 11 seed with a bracket score of 77.7, despite a mediocre 5-7 record in Quad 1 games. Their 8-6 conference record and NET ranking of 39 are sufficient to keep them in the field for now. However, a poor finish to the season could push them out, particularly if they struggle in their remaining conference games. Auburn, on the other hand, is barely clinging to a 12 seed with a bracket score of 77.4, thanks in part to a strong NET ranking of 32. Their 5-10 record in Quad 1 games is a concern, but their 2-2 mark in Quad 2 games helps to balance out their resume.
Indiana and UCLA are also on shaky ground, with bracket scores of 77.3 and 76.9, respectively, according to our model. Indiana's 2-10 record in Quad 1 games is a major liability, but their 8-8 conference record and NET ranking of 36 are enough to keep them in the field as a 12 seed. UCLA's 3-7 record in Quad 1 games is also a concern, but their 10-6 conference record and 4-2 mark in Quad 2 games help to offset their weaknesses. If any of these teams stumble down the stretch, they could find themselves on the outside looking in, particularly if they suffer losses to weaker conference opponents. As the season winds down, each of these teams will need to perform well to maintain their position in the bracket.
The first four teams on the outside looking in at the NCAA Tournament field have work to do to bolster their resumes. TCU, with a NET ranking of 47, needs to improve its Quad 1 record, currently sitting at 4-7. According to our model, the Horned Frogs have a bracket score of 75.5, which is not sufficient for an at-large bid at this point. To close the gap, TCU must capitalize on its remaining conference games, aiming to improve its 7-7 record in the Big 12 Conference. Missouri, with a similar bracket score of 75.3, also has a Quad 1 record that requires improvement, currently at 4-5. The Tigers' NET ranking of 60 is a concern, and they need to demonstrate consistency in their remaining games to make a push for the tournament.
San Diego State and USC are also on the cusp, but their resumes have distinct gaps. The Aztecs, with a NET ranking of 44, have struggled in Quad 1 games, going 1-5. According to our model, their bracket score of 75.1 is a reflection of this weakness. To play their way in, San Diego State must find a way to compete with top-tier opponents. USC, meanwhile, has a Quad 1 record of 2-6, which is a significant concern. The Trojans' bracket score of 75.0, according to our model, indicates that they need to perform well in their remaining conference games to offset their lackluster performance against top opponents. With a NET ranking of 58, USC must demonstrate an ability to compete with the best teams in the Big Ten Conference to have any hope of securing an at-large bid.
The current state of the bracket remains relatively stable, with Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Gonzaga retaining their positions as the top seeds. According to our model, these four teams have consistently demonstrated the highest bracket scores, solidifying their grip on the number one seeds. Texas has emerged as a new addition to the bubble, claiming one of the last four spots in the field, while Ohio State has fallen out of consideration. The overall field size remains at 68 teams, with 31 automatic bids and 37 at-large berths available. As the season continues to unfold, the consistency of the top seeds will be tested, and teams on the bubble will need to perform well to maintain their position in the bracket, according to our model.
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.