2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Thursday, April 16, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The current top seeds in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket are Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Houston. Michigan earned the top spot with a 36-3 overall record and a 19-1 mark in the Big Ten Conference. According to our model, Michigan's bracket score of 99.2 is the highest among the four teams, and their NET ranking of 1 further solidifies their position. Michigan's impressive quad 1 record of 21-3 and undefeated quad 2 record of 7-0 demonstrate their ability to perform well against tough competition. Duke, on the other hand, boasts a 35-3 overall record and a 17-1 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference, with a NET ranking of 2 and a bracket score of 97.8.
Arizona and Houston round out the top seeds, with Arizona's 36-3 overall record and 16-2 conference record earning them a bracket score of 96.8 according to our model. Arizona's quad 1 record of 19-3 and quad 2 record of 7-0 are notable, and their NET ranking of 3 is a testament to their strength. Houston, with a 30-7 overall record and a 14-4 conference record, has a bracket score of 91.2. While Houston's quad 1 record of 10-7 is not as impressive as the other three teams, their undefeated quad 2 record of 10-0 and NET ranking of 6 demonstrate their ability to compete against top-tier opponents. Michigan, Duke, and Arizona's dominance in their respective conferences and strong performances against quad 1 opponents set them apart from Houston, but all four teams have earned their top seeds and are poised to make deep runs in the tournament.
The last four teams projected in the NCAA Tournament field are holding on to their spots by thin margins. NC State is currently sitting at a 74.5 bracket score according to our model, which is the highest among these four teams. Their 5-9 record in Quad 1 games is a concern, but their 10-8 conference record and NET ranking of 36 have helped to offset those struggles. NC State's ability to stay in the field will depend on their ability to avoid bad losses and hope that other teams on the bubble do not surpass them. Tulsa is also clinging to a spot, with a bracket score of 73.7 according to our model. Their strong conference record of 13-5 has been a major factor in their inclusion, but their limited opportunities in Quad 1 games, where they are 1-3, make them vulnerable to being passed by other teams.
Tulsa and NC State are joined by Oklahoma and Auburn as the last four teams in the field. Oklahoma's 6-10 record in Quad 1 games is a major concern, but their bracket score of 73.5 according to our model keeps them ahead of Auburn, which has a score of 73.2. Auburn's 4-13 record in Quad 1 games is a significant liability, and their NET ranking of 37 is only slightly better than Oklahoma's ranking of 47. Tulsa's NET ranking of 51 is the lowest among these four teams, which puts them at risk of being bumped from the field if other teams can improve their resumes. As the season concludes, these teams will need to avoid bad losses and hope that their current profiles are enough to keep them in the tournament field. Oklahoma and Auburn, as the lowest seeded teams among this group, are particularly at risk of being pushed out by other teams on the bubble.
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 26-10 overall record, but its 2-7 mark in Quad 1 games is a significant concern. According to our model, New Mexico's bracket score of 72.3 indicates that the team needs to improve its performance against top-tier opponents. With a NET ranking of 46, New Mexico must close the gap in its resume by securing more wins against Quad 1 teams. UCF, on the other hand, boasts a 5-8 record in Quad 1 games, but its 9-9 conference record and NET ranking of 52 leave it on the outside looking in. UCF's bracket score of 72.0, according to our model, suggests that the team needs to strengthen its overall profile.
San Diego State and SMU are also on the bubble, with San Diego State's 3-8 record in Quad 1 games and SMU's 4-9 mark in similar contests weighing heavily on their tournament hopes. San Diego State's bracket score of 71.9, according to our model, indicates that the team needs to address its Quad 1 shortcomings, while SMU's score of 71.6 suggests that the team must improve its overall record, particularly in conference play, where it finished 8-10. New Mexico, UCF, San Diego State, and SMU all have work to do to play their way into the tournament field, and will need to focus on shoring up their respective weaknesses to boost their chances of securing a spot in the bracket.
The current state of the bracket remains largely unchanged, with Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Houston holding steady as the number one seeds. According to our model, these teams continue to demonstrate the strongest bracket scores, solidifying their positions atop the field. The bubble has seen no significant movement, with no new teams entering or dropping out of contention for the final spots in the 68-team field. With 31 auto-bids and 37 at-large berths available, the competition for those remaining spots will only intensify as the season progresses, but for now, the top contenders are firmly entrenched in their positions, with no clear challengers emerging to disrupt the status quo.
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.