2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Thursday, March 5, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The current #1 seeds in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket have earned their top-line positions through a combination of impressive records and strong performances against top-tier opponents. Duke leads the way with a 27-2 overall record and a 16-1 mark in the Atlantic Coast Conference, which has propelled them to a #1 NET ranking and a bracket score of 99.1 according to our model. Their 14-2 record in Quad 1 games is a key factor in their high ranking, demonstrating their ability to perform under pressure against the best teams. In contrast, Michigan boasts a 27-2 overall record and a 17-1 mark in the Big Ten Conference, with a #2 NET ranking and a bracket score of 98.2 according to our model. Their 11-1 record in Quad 1 games is equally impressive, and their 10-1 mark in Quad 2 games showcases their depth and consistency.
Aizona and Florida have also secured #1 seeds, with Arizona's 28-2 overall record and 15-2 mark in the Big 12 Conference contributing to their #3 NET ranking and a bracket score of 96.8 according to our model. Their 14-2 record in Quad 1 games is matched by Duke, and their 5-0 mark in Quad 2 games is a testament to their strength. Florida, with a 24-6 overall record and a 15-2 mark in the Southeastern Conference, has a #4 NET ranking and a bracket score of 92.6 according to our model. While their 11-5 record in Quad 1 games is not as strong as the other three teams, their 4-1 mark in Quad 2 games and overall conference performance have earned them a top seed. Duke, Michigan, Arizona, and Florida have all demonstrated the qualities necessary to be considered among the best teams in the country, with their respective records and performances against top opponents setting them apart.
The last four teams projected in the NCAA Tournament field are holding on to their spots by thin margins. New Mexico and UCF are tied according to our model with a bracket score of 76.5, despite having different profiles. New Mexico has a strong conference record at 13-6, but struggles in Quad 1 games with a 2-5 record. UCF, on the other hand, has a more balanced quad record, going 5-5 in Quad 1 and 5-3 in Quad 2. Both teams will need to avoid bad losses to maintain their position.
SMU and Missouri are also on the bubble, with bracket scores of 75.8 and 75.6, respectively, according to our model. SMU has a slightly better NET ranking at 37, but a weaker conference record at 8-9. Missouri has a worse NET ranking at 59, but a stronger conference record at 10-7. Both teams have struggled in Quad 1 games, with SMU going 4-8 and Missouri going 5-6. A bad loss or a failure to win out could push either team out of the field, as their quad records and NET rankings are not strong enough to withstand significant setbacks. New Mexico, UCF, SMU, and Missouri will all be closely watched as the season concludes, as their tournament fates hang in the balance.
The first four teams out of the NCAA Tournament field are facing an uphill battle to secure a spot in the bracket. Indiana needs to improve its Quad 1 record, currently standing at 2-11, to bolster its resume. With a NET ranking of #40 and a bracket score of 74.9 according to our model, Indiana must close the gap in its conference record, which currently sits at 9-10. To play its way in, Indiana should focus on securing wins against top-tier opponents to raise its Quad 1 win total.
Tulsa, Seton Hall, and Auburn also have work to do to strengthen their tournament chances. Tulsa, with a NET ranking of #50 and a bracket score of 74.8 according to our model, must address its lack of Quad 1 wins, currently at 0-1. Seton Hall, with a NET ranking of #52 and a bracket score of 74.3 according to our model, needs to improve its overall conference record, which stands at 10-9. Auburn, with a NET ranking of #39 and a bracket score of 74.1 according to our model, should focus on enhancing its Quad 2 record, currently at 2-2, to complement its 5-11 Quad 1 record. For these teams, closing resume gaps and accumulating quality wins will be crucial in their pursuit of a tournament bid. Auburn, Tulsa, and Seton Hall must be strategic in their remaining games to make a strong case for inclusion in the NCAA Tournament field.
The current state of the bracket reflects a shift in power among the top seeds, with Duke, Michigan, and Arizona maintaining their positions and Florida replacing UConn as the fourth number one seed. According to our model, these teams have established themselves as the strongest contenders, with bracket scores indicating a clear separation from the rest of the field. Notable trends include the emergence of New Mexico, UCF, and SMU as the last four teams in, while UCLA, Ohio State, and TCU have fallen out of consideration for at-large bids. The field of 68 teams, comprising 31 auto-bids and 37 at-large selections, is taking shape, with the top seeds solidifying their positions and the bubble teams jockeying for position in the final stretch of the season.
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.