2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Sunday, April 19, 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. According to our model, Michigan's bracket score of 99.2 is the highest among the four top seeds. Their impressive quad 1 record of 21-3 and undefeated quad 2 record of 7-0 also contributed to their #1 NET ranking. Duke, on the other hand, boasts a 35-3 overall record and a 17-1 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference, with a quad 1 record of 19-3 and a bracket score of 97.8 according to our model.
Arizona and Houston round out the #1 seeds, with Arizona's 36-3 overall record and 16-2 mark in the Big 12 Conference earning them a bracket score of 96.8 according to our model. Their quad 1 record of 19-3 and undefeated quad 2 record of 7-0 are notable, and their #3 NET ranking is a testament to their strength. Houston, with a 30-7 overall record and a 14-4 record in the Big 12 Conference, has a lower NET ranking of #6, but their bracket score of 91.2 according to our model still secures them a #1 seed. Michigan, Duke, and Arizona's dominance in their respective conferences and strong quad 1 records set them apart, while Houston's ability to navigate a tough conference schedule and emerge with a strong record earns them a top seed. Duke's and Arizona's strong overall records and quad 1 performances make them close competitors to Michigan for the top overall seed.
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 10-8 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference and 5-9 mark in Quad 1 games are key factors in their placement. NC State's NET ranking of 36 also helps their case, but their vulnerability lies in their inability to consistently perform well against top opponents. Tulsa is also in a precarious position, with a 73.7 bracket score according to our model. Their 1-3 record in Quad 1 games is a concern, but their 13-5 record in the American Athletic Conference and NET ranking of 51 keep them in the mix.
The other two teams, Oklahoma and Auburn, are also at risk of being pushed out of the tournament field. Oklahoma's 73.5 bracket score according to our model is buoyed by their 6-10 record in Quad 1 games, but their 7-11 mark in the Southeastern Conference is a weakness. Auburn's 73.2 bracket score according to our model is the lowest among these four teams, and their 4-13 record in Quad 1 games is a significant concern. However, their 7-11 record in the Southeastern Conference and NET ranking of 37 keep them in consideration. NC State, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Auburn all need to be careful, as any slip-ups by these teams could lead to them being replaced in the tournament field. Tulsa's 5-4 record in Quad 2 games and Oklahoma's 6-6 mark in the same category are also factors that could impact their tournament chances.
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. UCF is in a similar situation, with a NET ranking of 52 and a bracket score of 72.0 according to our model. UCF's 5-8 record in Quad 1 games is a notable weakness, and it needs to demonstrate an ability to compete with stronger teams.
San Diego State and SMU also find themselves 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, but its 3-8 record in Quad 1 games is a major obstacle. To get back in the mix, San Diego State needs to show it can win against better competition. SMU, with a NET ranking of 40 and a bracket score of 71.6 according to our model, has a slightly more favorable resume, but its 4-9 record in Quad 1 games and 5-5 mark in Quad 2 games indicate a need for more consistency. New Mexico, UCF, San Diego State, and SMU all need to address their respective weaknesses and compile more impressive resumes to have a chance at cracking the tournament field.
The current state of the bracket remains relatively stable, with Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Houston holding onto their number one seeds. According to our model, these teams have maintained a strong grip on the top spots, with no significant changes to the overall landscape. The bubble has also remained unchanged, with no new teams entering the fray and none dropping out, indicating a sense of consistency among the teams on the cusp of the tournament field. With 31 auto-bids and 37 at-large spots available in the 68-team field, the competition for those remaining spots will continue to be fierce, and according to our model, the current top seeds are 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.