2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Sunday, March 15, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The current top seeds in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket are Duke, Michigan, Arizona, and Houston. According to our model, these teams have earned the top line with impressive records and strong performances against top competition. Duke, with a 32-2 overall record and a 17-1 mark in the Atlantic Coast Conference, boasts a NET ranking of 1 and a bracket score of 99.5. Michigan, meanwhile, has compiled a 31-2 record and a 19-1 mark in the Big Ten Conference, with a NET ranking of 2 and a bracket score of 98.5. Arizona, with a 32-2 record and a 16-2 mark in the Big 12 Conference, has a NET ranking of 3 and a bracket score of 97.7. Houston, with a 28-6 record and a 14-4 mark in the Big 12 Conference, has a NET ranking of 5 and a bracket score of 92.4.
These teams have separated themselves from the rest of the field with their strong quad records. Duke is 17-2 against Quad 1 opponents and 6-0 against Quad 2 opponents, while Michigan is 16-2 against Quad 1 opponents and 6-0 against Quad 2 opponents. Arizona has also performed well against top competition, with a 16-2 record against Quad 1 opponents and an 8-0 mark against Quad 2 opponents. Houston, meanwhile, has a 10-6 record against Quad 1 opponents and a 9-0 mark against Quad 2 opponents. According to our model, these teams' impressive resumes and strong performances against top competition have earned them the top seeds in the bracket, with Duke and Michigan narrowly edging out Arizona and Houston. Duke's strong NET ranking and bracket score of 99.5 make a compelling case for the top overall seed, while Michigan's impressive conference record and bracket score of 98.5 make it a close second.
The last four teams projected in the NCAA Tournament field are UCF, SMU, New Mexico, and Texas. UCF is holding on to a spot with a 74.4 bracket score, according to our model, thanks to a respectable 6-7 record in Quad 1 games and a 9-9 conference record in the Big 12. SMU is right behind with a 74.3 bracket score, according to our model, and its NET ranking of 39 is the highest among these four teams. However, SMU's 4-9 record in Quad 1 games is a concern, and its 8-10 conference record in the Atlantic Coast Conference is not particularly impressive.
New Mexico and Texas are also on shaky ground, with bracket scores of 74.2 and 73.9, respectively, according to our model. New Mexico's 2-7 record in Quad 1 games is a major liability, but its 13-7 conference record in the Mountain West Conference and 6-1 record in Quad 2 games have helped to offset that. Texas, on the other hand, has a 6-9 record in Quad 1 games, but its 1-4 record in Quad 2 games is a problem. UCF, SMU, New Mexico, and Texas all need to be careful, as a loss or two could drop them out of the field. UCF and SMU are currently projected as 11 seeds, while New Mexico and Texas are projected as 12 seeds, but those seed lines could change quickly if any of these teams stumble.
The first four teams on the outside looking in are Tulsa, Indiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma. According to our model, these teams have bracket scores of 73.9, 73.6, 73.5, and 72.9, respectively. Tulsa needs to address its lack of Quad 1 wins, currently sitting at 0-1, in order to bolster its resume. With a NET ranking of 50, the team must focus on improving its performance against top-tier opponents to close the gap. Indiana, on the other hand, has struggled with a 3-11 record in Quad 1 games, which has hindered its chances of making the tournament.
To play their way in, Missouri and Oklahoma must also focus on shoring up their resumes. Missouri has a NET ranking of 60 and a 5-7 record in Quad 1 games, which is a more respectable mark than the other three teams. However, the team's 5-5 record in Quad 2 games leaves room for improvement. Oklahoma, with a NET ranking of 54, has a 4-10 record in Quad 1 games and a 6-5 record in Quad 2 games. According to our model, these teams' bracket scores indicate they are on the cusp of making the tournament, but they must demonstrate significant improvement in their remaining games to close the gap. Tulsa, Indiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma all have work to do to address their respective weaknesses and strengthen their tournament profiles.
The current state of the bracket reflects a shift in power with Houston replacing Florida as a number one seed, joining Duke, Michigan, and Arizona at the top. According to our model, these four teams have established themselves as the most consistent and dominant forces in the field, with bracket scores that reflect their strong performances. Texas has emerged as a new addition to the bubble, securing a spot among the last four teams in, while Tulsa has fallen out of consideration. The overall field of 68 teams, comprising 31 automatic qualifiers and 37 at-large bids, presents a competitive landscape with limited opportunities for teams on the cusp to break through, as evidenced by the narrow margin separating the newly included Texas from the ousted Tulsa.
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.