2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Thursday, April 2, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The current top seeds in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket are Duke, Michigan, Arizona, and Houston. Duke earned the top spot with a 35-3 overall record and a 17-1 mark in the Atlantic Coast Conference. According to our model, Duke's bracket score of 99.6 is the highest among the four teams. Their impressive quad 1 record of 17-2 and undefeated quad 2 record of 6-0 also contributed to their number one ranking. Michigan, with a 34-3 overall record and a 19-1 conference record, is close behind with a bracket score of 99.0. Their quad 1 record of 17-3 and undefeated quad 2 record of 5-0 demonstrate their strength against top-level competition.
Arizona and Houston round out the number one seeds, with Arizona boasting a 36-2 overall record and a 16-2 conference record. According to our model, Arizona's bracket score of 98.5 is slightly higher than Houston's 93.3. Arizona's quad 1 record of 16-2 and undefeated quad 2 record of 8-0 are notable, while Houston's quad 1 record of 10-6 is less impressive. However, Houston's conference record of 14-4 and undefeated quad 2 record of 9-0 demonstrate their ability to perform well against strong opponents. Duke, Michigan, Arizona, and Houston have all demonstrated the qualities necessary to be considered top seeds, with strong overall and conference records, as well as impressive quad 1 and quad 2 records. According to our model, these teams have separated themselves from the rest of the field, earning their positions as number one seeds.
The last four teams projected to make the NCAA Tournament field are New Mexico, UCF, Tulsa, and Texas. According to our model, these teams are holding on to their spots with bracket scores ranging from 74.5 to 75.4. New Mexico is currently sitting at a 75.4 bracket score, thanks in part to its 13-7 conference record in the Mountain West Conference. However, its 2-7 quad 1 record is a concern, and a loss in its next game could drop its NET ranking from 46 and push it out of the field. UCF, on the other hand, has a slightly lower bracket score of 74.6, but its 5-8 quad 1 record is more impressive than New Mexico's, and its 9-9 conference record in the Big 12 Conference is respectable.
Tulsa and Texas are also on shaky ground, with bracket scores of 74.6 and 74.5, respectively. Tulsa's 0-1 quad 1 record is a major concern, but its 13-5 conference record in the American Athletic Conference has helped to offset this weakness. Texas, meanwhile, has a 6-9 quad 1 record, which is the best among these four teams, but its 9-9 conference record in the Southeastern Conference is less impressive. According to our model, these teams are all vulnerable to being pushed out of the field, and their NET rankings of 52, 51, 52, and 42, respectively, could drop with a loss. As the season comes to a close, these teams will need to win their remaining games to feel secure in their tournament bids, and even then, there are no guarantees.
The first four teams out of the NCAA Tournament field are facing an uphill battle to secure a spot in the bracket. Oklahoma needs to improve its conference record, currently sitting at 7-11, and bolster its Quad 1 performance, with a 4-10 mark. According to our model, Oklahoma's bracket score of 74.3 indicates that the team requires a significant surge to close the gap. With a NET ranking of #48, Oklahoma must focus on enhancing its resume with quality wins.
SMU and San Diego State are also on the outside looking in, with bracket scores of 73.8, according to our model. SMU's 8-10 conference record and 4-9 Quad 1 mark are areas of concern, while San Diego State's 14-6 conference record is a positive, but its 3-8 Quad 1 performance is a significant gap that needs to be addressed. Auburn, with a bracket score of 73.3, according to our model, faces similar challenges, including a 4-13 Quad 1 record and a 7-11 conference mark. For these teams to play their way into the tournament, they must demonstrate improvement in their respective conferences and against top-tier opponents, ultimately enhancing their NET rankings and closing the resume gaps that currently separate them from the field.
The current state of the bracket remains relatively unchanged, with Duke, Michigan, Arizona, and Houston maintaining their positions as the top seeds. According to our model, these teams have consistently demonstrated the highest bracket scores, solidifying their grip on the number one spots. Tulsa has emerged as a new addition to the bubble, securing a spot among the last four teams in, while SMU has fallen out of consideration. The overall field size remains at 68 teams, with 31 auto-bids and 37 at-large bids available. The stability at the top of the bracket is a notable trend, as the same four teams have held the number one seeds for an extended period, indicating a high level of consistency and performance among these programs. According to our model, the current bracket scores reflect a clear separation between the top teams and the rest of the field, with the top seeds continuing to outpace their competitors.
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.