2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Thursday, April 9, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The current #1 seeds in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket are Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Houston. Michigan earned the top line with a 36-3 overall record and a 19-1 mark in the Big Ten Conference, boasting a NET ranking of #1 and a bracket score of 99.2 according to our model. Duke, with a 35-3 overall record and a 17-1 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference, secured a #1 seed with a NET ranking of #2 and a bracket score of 97.8 according to our model. Both Michigan and Duke have impressive quad 1 records, with Michigan going 21-3 and Duke going 19-3. Arizona, with a 36-3 overall record and a 16-2 mark in the Big 12 Conference, also earned a #1 seed, backed by a NET ranking of #3 and a bracket score of 96.8 according to our model.
Houston, despite having a lower overall record at 30-7, secured a #1 seed with a strong conference record of 14-4 in the Big 12 Conference and a NET ranking of #6. According to our model, Houston's bracket score is 91.2, which is lower than the other three #1 seeds. However, Houston's quad 2 record of 10-0 is perfect, and their quad 1 record of 10-7, although not as strong as Michigan, Duke, or Arizona, is still respectable. What separates these teams is their performance in quad 1 games, with Michigan and Duke having a significant edge over Arizona and Houston. Michigan's dominance in the Big Ten Conference and Duke's strong performance in the Atlantic Coast Conference have set them apart from Arizona and Houston, who have also had impressive seasons in the Big 12 Conference.
The last four teams projected in the NCAA Tournament field are holding on to their spots by a slim margin. NC State is currently sitting at a 74.5 bracket score, according to our model, with a 20-14 overall record and a 10-8 mark in the Atlantic Coast Conference. Their NET ranking of 36 and 5-9 record in Quad 1 games are key factors in their inclusion. However, a weak finish to the season could jeopardize their position. Tulsa, with a 73.7 bracket score, according to our model, has a strong 30-8 overall record, but a 1-3 mark in Quad 1 games and a NET ranking of 51 make them vulnerable to being pushed out. Oklahoma and Auburn are also on shaky ground, with Oklahoma's 6-10 record in Quad 1 games and Auburn's 4-13 mark in the same category weighing heavily against them.
Oklahoma's 73.5 bracket score, according to our model, and 7-11 conference record make them a candidate to be bumped from the field. Their 6-10 record in Quad 1 games is a significant concern, and a poor finish to the season could seal their fate. Auburn, with a 73.2 bracket score, according to our model, has a similar problem, with a 7-11 conference record and a 4-13 mark in Quad 1 games. NC State and Tulsa are not much safer, with NC State's 5-9 record in Quad 1 games and Tulsa's weak Quad 1 performance leaving them open to being replaced by other teams. As the season concludes, these four teams will need to finish strong to secure their spots in the NCAA Tournament field. Oklahoma and Auburn, in particular, need to improve their resumes to avoid being pushed out by other teams.
The first four teams out of the NCAA Tournament field are facing an uphill battle to secure a spot in the bracket. New Mexico has a NET ranking of 46 and a bracket score of 72.3, according to our model. To play their way in, New Mexico needs to improve its performance in Quad 1 games, where they currently hold a 2-7 record. They also need to close the gap in their conference record, which stands at 13-7. UCF is in a similar situation, with a NET ranking of 52 and a bracket score of 72.0, according to our model. UCF must address its .500 conference record, posting a 9-9 mark in the Big 12 Conference, and work on enhancing its overall resume.
San Diego State and SMU are also on the outside looking in. San Diego State has a NET ranking of 48 and a bracket score of 71.9, according to our model, while SMU has a NET ranking of 40 and a bracket score of 71.6, according to our model. San Diego State needs to build on its 14-6 conference record and improve its Quad 1 performance, where they are currently 3-8. SMU, on the other hand, must work on its conference record, which stands at 8-10, and close the gap in its Quad 1 and Quad 2 records, where they are 4-9 and 5-5, respectively. New Mexico, UCF, San Diego State, and SMU all have work to do to bolster their resumes and move into the tournament field.
The current state of the bracket remains relatively stable, with Michigan, Duke, 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 seeds. Notable trends include the emergence of NC State and Auburn as the last four teams in, displacing UCF and Texas from the bubble. The field size of 68 teams, comprising 31 auto-bids and 37 at-large bids, is set, and the competition for the remaining spots will likely intensify as the season progresses. Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Houston continue to set the pace, and their performance will be closely watched as the bracket takes shape.
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.