2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Sunday, April 19, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The top seeds in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket are led by Michigan, which boasts an impressive 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 all teams, reflecting its strong performance against top competition, including a 21-3 record in Quad 1 games. Duke also earned a number one seed, with a 35-3 overall record and a 17-1 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference. Duke's NET ranking of 2 and bracket score of 97.8, according to our model, demonstrate its consistency and ability to dominate against strong opponents, as evidenced by its 19-3 record in Quad 1 games.
Arizona, which joined Michigan and Duke as a number one seed, compiled a 36-3 overall record, including a 16-2 mark in the Big 12 Conference. Arizona's bracket score of 96.8, according to our model, is supported by its 19-3 record in Quad 1 games and its undefeated record in Quad 2 games. Houston, the fourth number one seed, has a 30-7 overall record and a 14-4 record in the Big 12 Conference, with a bracket score of 91.2, according to our model. While Houston's NET ranking of 6 is lower than the other top seeds, its strong performance in conference play and its 10-7 record in Quad 1 games demonstrate its ability to compete against top-level competition, earning it a spot on the top line alongside Michigan, Duke, and Arizona.
The last four teams projected in the NCAA Tournament field are holding on by a thin margin. NC State is currently sitting at a 74.5 bracket score, according to our model, with a 5-9 record in Quad 1 games and a 10-8 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference. Their NET ranking of 36 is a key factor in their inclusion, but a weak finish to the season could push them out. Tulsa is also on the bubble, with a 73.7 bracket score, according to our model, and a 1-3 record in Quad 1 games. Their strong conference record of 13-5 in the American Athletic Conference is a major factor in their inclusion, but their relatively low NET ranking of 51 makes them vulnerable.
Oklahoma and Auburn are also on the bubble, 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 concern, but their 6-6 record in Quad 2 games helps to balance it out. Auburn's 4-13 record in Quad 1 games is a major liability, but their 7-2 record in Quad 2 games and NET ranking of 37 keep them in the field for now. NC State, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Auburn all have work to do to secure their spots in the tournament, and any further losses could push them out in favor of other teams. Oklahoma and Auburn's 7-11 conference records are also a concern, and they will need to finish strong to avoid being left out.
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, but its 2-7 record in Quad 1 games is a significant concern. To play its way in, New Mexico needs to improve its performance against top-tier opponents and close the gap in its resume. With a 13-7 record in the Mountain West Conference, New Mexico has a solid foundation, but it must demonstrate an ability to compete with the best teams.
UCF, San Diego State, and SMU also have work to do to bolster their tournament chances. UCF has a bracket score of 72.0 according to our model and a NET ranking of 52, but its 5-8 record in Quad 1 games and 9-9 record in the Big 12 Conference leave room for improvement. San Diego State, with a bracket score of 71.9 and a NET ranking of 48, needs to address its 3-8 record in Quad 1 games. SMU, with a bracket score of 71.6 and a NET ranking of 40, must overcome its 4-9 record in Quad 1 games and 8-10 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference. For these teams, winning out and securing strong victories in their remaining games is crucial to closing the resume gaps and enhancing their tournament prospects. New Mexico, UCF, San Diego State, and SMU must focus on improving their performance in Quad 1 games to strengthen their cases for inclusion in the NCAA Tournament field.
The current state of the bracket remains relatively unchanged, with Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Houston holding steady as the top seeds. According to our model, these teams continue to demonstrate the strongest resumes, solidifying their positions as the number one seeds. The bubble remains stable, with no new teams entering or exiting the last four in, indicating a lack of significant movement among the teams on the cusp of the tournament field. The overall field size of 68 teams, comprising 31 auto-bids and 37 at-large bids, will be filled by a mix of consistent performers and teams that have demonstrated an ability to compete against top-level opponents, with the current top seeds being well-positioned to make deep runs in the tournament.
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.