2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Sunday, April 19, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The top line of our projected NCAA Tournament bracket is occupied by four dominant teams, each with a strong case for a number one seed. Michigan has earned the top spot according to our model, with a bracket score of 99.2, thanks to their impressive 36-3 overall record and 19-1 mark in the Big Ten Conference. Their NET ranking of 1 is a testament to their strength, and their quad records, including a 21-3 mark in quad 1 games and a 7-0 record in quad 2 games, demonstrate their ability to perform against tough competition. Duke, with a bracket score of 97.8, is close behind, boasting a 35-3 overall record and a 17-1 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference. Their NET ranking of 2 and quad records of 19-3 in quad 1 games and 6-0 in quad 2 games make a strong case for their number one seed.
Arizona and Houston round out the top line, with bracket scores of 96.8 and 91.2, respectively, according to our model. Arizona's 36-3 overall record and 16-2 mark in the Big 12 Conference, combined with their NET ranking of 3 and quad records of 19-3 in quad 1 games and 7-0 in quad 2 games, make them a formidable opponent. Houston, despite a slightly lower bracket score, has still managed to secure a number one seed with their 30-7 overall record and 14-4 mark in the Big 12 Conference. Their NET ranking of 6 and quad records of 10-7 in quad 1 games and 10-0 in quad 2 games demonstrate their ability to compete against strong teams, even if their performance is not quite as consistent as the other three top seeds. Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Houston have all demonstrated the strength and consistency required to earn a number one seed, and according to our model, they are the top teams in the field.
The last four teams projected to be in the NCAA Tournament field are holding on by a thin margin, with each having notable vulnerabilities in their resumes. NC State is currently sitting at a 74.5 bracket score according to our model, buoyed by a 10-8 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference and a 5-9 mark in Quad 1 games. However, their NET ranking of 36 and 6-4 record in Quad 2 games are not overly impressive, leaving them susceptible to being pushed out by other bubble teams. Tulsa is also on shaky ground, with a 73.7 bracket score and a NET ranking of 51, despite a strong 13-5 record in the American Athletic Conference. Their lack of Quad 1 wins, with only a 1-3 record, is a significant concern.
Oklahoma and Auburn are also clinging to their tournament spots, with bracket scores of 73.5 and 73.2, respectively, according to our model. Oklahoma's 6-10 record in Quad 1 games is a notable weakness, although they do have a respectable 6-6 mark in Quad 2 games. Auburn, meanwhile, has a poor 4-13 record in Quad 1 games, but has managed to go 7-2 in Quad 2 games, which has helped to keep them afloat. NC State, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Auburn all need to be careful, as any further losses or a strong finish by other bubble teams could easily push them out of the tournament field. NC State and Tulsa are currently projected as 11 seeds, while Oklahoma and Auburn are projected as 12 seeds, highlighting the precarious nature of their positions.
The first four teams out of the NCAA Tournament field are New Mexico, UCF, San Diego State, and SMU. According to our model, these teams have bracket scores of 72.3, 72.0, 71.9, and 71.6, respectively. New Mexico, with a 26-10 overall record and 13-7 conference mark, needs to improve its Quad 1 record, currently standing at 2-7. A stronger performance in these top-tier games would help close the resume gap and bolster their NET ranking of 46. UCF, meanwhile, boasts a 5-8 Quad 1 record, but its 9-9 conference record and NET ranking of 52 leave room for improvement.
San Diego State and SMU face similar challenges. San Diego State, with a 22-11 overall record and 14-6 conference mark, has a Quad 1 record of 3-8, which needs to be addressed. Its NET ranking of 48 is respectable, but the team must demonstrate its ability to compete against top opponents. SMU, with a 20-14 overall record and 8-10 conference mark, has a Quad 1 record of 4-9, and its NET ranking of 40, while strong, is not sufficient to overcome its resume gaps. According to our model, these teams must focus on strengthening their resumes, particularly in Quad 1 games, to play their way into the NCAA Tournament field. New Mexico, UCF, San Diego State, and SMU will need to capitalize on any remaining opportunities to enhance their profiles and improve their chances of selection.
The current state of the bracket remains relatively unchanged, with Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Houston maintaining their positions as the number one seeds. According to our model, these teams continue to demonstrate the strongest bracket scores, solidifying their grip on the top spots. The bubble remains stable, with no new teams entering or exiting the last four in, indicating a lack of significant movement among the fringe teams. The overall field size of 68 teams, comprising 31 auto-bids and 37 at-large bids, remains unchanged, suggesting that the current landscape of college basketball is experiencing a period of stability, with the top teams consistently performing at a high level and the middle tier teams struggling to make a significant impact on the bracket.
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.