2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Sunday, March 1, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The current #1 seeds in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket are Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and UConn. Michigan earned the top line with a 27-2 overall record and a 17-1 mark in the Big Ten Conference, boasting a NET ranking of #2 and a bracket score of 98.7 according to our model. Their impressive quad 1 record of 11-1 and quad 2 record of 10-1 demonstrate their ability to perform well against top competition. Duke, on the other hand, holds the #1 NET ranking and a bracket score of 98.4 according to our model, with a 12-2 quad 1 record and an undefeated 6-0 quad 2 record.
Arizona and UConn round out the #1 seeds, with Arizona boasting a 27-2 overall record and a 14-2 mark in the Big 12 Conference, along with a NET ranking of #3 and a bracket score of 96.8 according to our model. Their 13-2 quad 1 record is particularly notable, showcasing their strength against top-tier opponents. UConn, with a 27-3 overall record and a 17-2 mark in the Big East Conference, has a NET ranking of #9 and a bracket score of 93.0 according to our model, with an 8-2 quad 1 record and an undefeated 9-0 quad 2 record. What separates these teams is their consistent performance against high-level competition, with Duke's undefeated quad 2 record and Michigan's strong quad 1 record standing out as key factors in their #1 seed status. Arizona's impressive quad 1 record and UConn's dominance in their conference also contribute to their top-line positions.
The last four teams projected in the NCAA Tournament field are holding on to their spots by a thin margin. UCLA is currently sitting at a 11 seed with a bracket score of 76.4, according to our model. Their 3-8 record in Quad 1 games is a concern, but their 6-2 record in Quad 2 games and 11-7 conference record have helped to offset this. Ohio State, with a bracket score of 76.3, is also barely in the field, and their 1-10 record in Quad 1 games is a major liability. However, their strong 6-1 record in Quad 2 games and 9-8 conference record have kept them in the running.
TCU and Missouri are also on the bubble, with bracket scores of 76.2 and 76.0, respectively, according to our model. TCU's 4-6 record in Quad 1 games is somewhat mitigated by their 5-2 record in Quad 2 games, and their 9-7 conference record has helped to solidify their position. Missouri, on the other hand, has a more balanced resume, with a 5-5 record in Quad 1 games and a 5-4 record in Quad 2 games, and their 10-6 conference record is one of the stronger marks among these four teams. Ohio State's poor Quad 1 record makes them the most vulnerable to being pushed out, and a strong finish by any of these teams could be enough to bump them from the field. UCLA's weak Quad 1 record also leaves them at risk, and TCU and Missouri will need to avoid any further losses to feel secure in their positions.
The first four teams out of the NCAA Tournament field face significant challenges in their bids to secure a spot in the bracket. Indiana needs to bolster its resume, particularly in Quad 1 games, where it currently holds a 2-10 record. With a NET ranking of 38 and a bracket score of 75.8 according to our model, Indiana must focus on improving its performance against top-tier opponents. A strong finish in the Big Ten Conference, where it currently sits at 8-9, is crucial for the Hoosiers to close the gap and become a more viable candidate for the tournament.
South Florida, San Diego State, and Auburn also require notable improvements to their resumes. South Florida, with a NET ranking of 51 and a bracket score of 74.9 according to our model, needs to demonstrate its ability to compete against stronger opponents, as its Quad 1 record stands at 2-2. San Diego State, holding a NET ranking of 44 and a bracket score of 74.8 according to our model, must address its 2-6 Quad 1 record to become a more attractive candidate. Auburn, with a NET ranking of 39 and a bracket score of 74.4 according to our model, has a more substantial gap to close in its Quad 1 record, currently at 5-11, and must also improve its 6-10 conference record to be considered for a tournament spot.
The current state of the bracket reflects a shift in power dynamics, with UConn replacing Gonzaga as a number one seed, joining Michigan, Duke, and Arizona at the top. According to our model, these four teams have established themselves as the most consistent performers, with Michigan and Duke holding steady from the previous rankings. Notable trends include the emergence of new bubble teams, with UCLA, TCU, and Missouri now among the last four in, while Texas, Auburn, and Indiana have fallen out of consideration. The field of 68 teams, comprising 31 auto-bids and 37 at-large berths, is taking shape, with the top seeds solidifying their positions and the bubble teams jockeying for position in the remaining spots. According to our model, the current bracket scores indicate a high degree of competitiveness among the top seeds, with minimal separation between the number one and number two seeds in each region.
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.