2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Sunday, March 8, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The current #1 seeds in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket are Duke, Michigan, Arizona, and Florida. According to our model, Duke has the highest bracket score at 99.1, earning them the top spot. Their impressive 29-2 overall record and 17-1 conference record are major factors in their #1 seed. Duke's NET ranking of #1 and quad 1 record of 15-2 also demonstrate their strength. Michigan, with a bracket score of 98.6, is close behind, boasting a 28-2 overall record and 18-1 conference record. Their NET ranking of #2 and undefeated quad 2 record of 8-0 further solidify their position as a #1 seed.
Arizona and Florida round out the #1 seeds, with bracket scores of 97.0 and 92.9, respectively, according to our model. Arizona's 29-2 overall record and 16-2 conference record are comparable to Duke's, and their quad 1 record of 15-2 is also impressive. Florida, while having a slightly lower overall record of 25-6, has a strong conference record of 16-2 and a respectable quad 1 record of 11-5. The main difference between these teams is their performance in quad 1 games, with Duke and Arizona having more wins in these top-tier matchups. Michigan's performance in quad 2 games, on the other hand, has been flawless, which sets them apart from Florida. Duke, Michigan, Arizona, and Florida have all earned their #1 seeds through a combination of their overall records, conference performance, and quad records.
The last four teams projected in the NCAA Tournament field are holding on by a thin margin, with Texas currently sitting at an 11 seed according to our model, with a bracket score of 75.0. Texas has a 9-9 conference record and a 6-9 mark in quad 1 games, which is a concern, but their overall record of 18-13 and NET ranking of 41 are keeping them in the field. UCF is also an 11 seed, with a bracket score of 74.8, and has a similar conference record of 9-9, but has fared slightly better in quad 2 games, going 5-3. New Mexico and South Florida are both 12 seeds, with bracket scores of 74.7, and have more impressive conference records, with New Mexico going 13-7 and South Florida going 14-3.
These teams are all vulnerable to being pushed out of the field, and a loss or two in their remaining games could drop them below the cut line. Texas's poor quad 1 record is a major concern, and if they were to lose another game, their NET ranking of 41 could take a hit. UCF's quad 1 record is not much better, at 5-6, and they need to win out to feel secure. New Mexico's quad 1 record of 2-6 is a major red flag, and according to our model, they are barely holding on with a bracket score of 74.7. South Florida has a strong conference record, but their quad 1 record of 2-2 is limited, and they need to avoid any bad losses to stay in the field. According to our model, all of these teams are at risk of being replaced by other bubble teams, and their positions in the bracket are far from secure.
The first four teams on the outside looking in are Missouri, SMU, Indiana, and Auburn. According to our model, these teams have bracket scores of 74.7, 74.6, 74.5, and 73.2, respectively. Missouri, with a 10-8 conference record, needs to improve its Quad 1 performance, currently at 5-8, to bolster its resume. SMU, meanwhile, must address its Quad 1 struggles, having gone 4-8 in such games, and work on closing the gap in its conference record, which stands at 8-10. Indiana's primary concern is its Quad 1 record, where it has managed only three wins in 11 attempts, and its conference record of 9-11 also leaves something to be desired.
Auburn, with a NET ranking of 39, has a slightly lower bracket score than the other three teams, according to our model. To play its way into the tournament, Auburn must focus on improving its overall conference record, currently at 7-11, and work on its Quad 1 performance, where it has gone 4-12. Missouri, SMU, and Indiana all have slightly better bracket scores, but each has its own set of resume gaps to close. Missouri needs to build on its 10-8 conference record, while SMU must work on its Quad 2 record, where it has gone 4-4. Indiana, with a NET ranking of 37, needs to make up ground in its Quad 1 and conference records to have a chance at making the tournament.
The current state of the bracket remains relatively stable, with Duke, Michigan, Arizona, and Florida maintaining their positions as the top seeds. According to our model, these teams continue to demonstrate the strongest resumes, with a combination of impressive win-loss records and challenging schedules. Notable trends include the emergence of Texas and South Florida as new additions to the bubble, replacing SMU and Missouri, which have fallen out of consideration. The field size of 68 teams, comprised of 31 auto-bids and 37 at-large selections, remains unchanged, and according to our model, the overall strength of the top seeds has resulted in a relatively low level of fluctuation in the bracket, with the top teams solidifying their positions and the bubble teams jockeying for position in the lower at-large seeds.
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.