We are one week out from Selection Sunday and the 2026 NCAA Tournament field being announced. With the regular season coming to an end, we are entering Champ Week. We will be tracking all of the Champ Week progress on our Conference Tournament Tracker. You can also check out my latest Bracket Projections which will be updated through Selection Sunday on our Bracketology Page. Today, I took a deep dive into the bracket and provided some rationale for why I have teams on certain seed lines in my projections and where the hardest decisions came.
1 seeds: Duke, Michigan, Arizona, Florida
The top three seeds are slam dunk easy choices as they all end the regular season with 29-2 records. Michigan has the best results-based metrics and has the most combined Quad 1 + Quad 2 wins of any team (22). Meanwhile Duke has the best predictive metrics and has a head-to-head win over Michigan on a neutral court. Duke and Arizona both have 15 Quad 1 wins, the most of any team. What separates Duke for the #1 overall team is the amount of high-end wins they have. The Blue Devils have 8 wins against the NET Top 20 while Arizona and Michigan each have 6. I chose Florida over UConn for the last #1 seed (despite UConn’s head-to-head win over Florida in December) for three reasons. First – Florida ranks better in 5 of the 6 team sheet metrics. Second, Florida has double-digit Quad 1 wins (11) to UConn’s 7. Third, while both teams have a Quad 2 loss, UConn also has a Quad 3 loss (to Creighton) on their resume. Points in UConn’s favor the Committee may consider are the head-to-head win and two wins far better than Florida’s best two wins (UConn beat Florida and Illinois, Florida beat Vandy and Alabama).
2 seeds: UConn, Houston, Michigan St, Iowa St
Michigan State and Nebraska have the most Quad 1 wins of any team not on the 1-seed line (9). UConn and Houston both have 7 Quad 1 wins. Houston has the most Quad 2 wins of any team in the country (11) giving them 18 wins combined between Quads 1 and 2, the most of anyone but the top 3 seeds in the entire bracket. However, Houston’s best wins are over Texas Tech, Arkansas, and BYU which give teams like UConn and Michigan State better top-end wins. Overall, Houston ranks ahead of Michigan State in all six metrics so it’s hard to see the Spartans being above the Cougars on the overall seed list. The Committee had UConn ahead of Houston in their reveal two weeks ago due to better top-end wins but the question will be if UConn’s bad losses have dropped their profile enough for Houston to pass them and get the #2 seed in the South Region where the regional final is in Houston.
Four teams were in consideration for the last spot on the 2-seed line: Iowa St, Illinois, Purdue, and Nebraska. The Cornhuskers started the year 20-0 then went 6-5 in their last 11 games but are 9-5 against Quad 1. The other three teams all have .500 records against Quad 1 opponents. Nebraska has much better results-based metrics while the other three excel in predictive metrics. The Committee had Iowa St as a 1-seed two weeks ago with Illinois and Purdue on the 2 line and Nebraska as a 3-seed. I could easily see Nebraska landing here but I ultimately went with Iowa St, who has the most combined Quad 1 + Quad 2 wins of the bunch and who the Committee had ahead in their initial rankings.
3 seeds: Illinois, Purdue, Nebraska, Kansas
Three Big Ten teams land here who were all in consideration for the #2 seed line. They split their head-to-head meetings. The final spot on the 3-seed line was a tough choice between Gonzaga, Texas Tech, Alabama, and Kansas. Gonzaga is the only team of the group with a winning record against Quad 1 (6-2) while the other three are all .500). Gonzaga has a Quad 3 loss while the other three have a Quad 2 loss. Texas Tech has the most high-end victories with 4 wins over Top 10 teams (Duke, Arizona, Houston, and Iowa St). However, three of those wins came before star forward JT Toppin was lost for the season with an ACL injury. Since his injury, Texas Tech is 3-2 and did beat Iowa State but also lost to TCU and BYU. Outside of Texas Tech, Kansas has the most elite wins of the group with home victories over Arizona, Houston, and Iowa St. Kansas’ best win away from home was a neutral site victory over Tennessee. Alabama has the best metrics of the group, has a neutral site win over Illinois, and has the #1 strength of schedule in the nation (Kansas is #2). The Committee has traditionally rewarded teams that play the most difficult schedules. I gave Kansas the slight edge over the Tide because I’m not sure how the Committee chooses to view Alabama’s games played with Charles Bediako (who was later ruled ineligible).
4 seeds: Alabama, Gonzaga, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt
The three teams that did not land on the 3-seed line fall easily in as 4-seeds. The final spot came down to either Virginia or Vanderbilt. Virginia had better results-based metrics while Vanderbilt was better in the predictive metrics. Virginia is 27-4 overall against a slightly easier schedule while Vanderbilt is 24-7. Both teams have 15 combined wins against Quads 1 + 2 with 8 true road wins. Virginia is 6-3 against Quad 1 while Vandy is 8-6. Ultimately, I picked Vanderbilt due to better victories. Virginia’s best wins were over Louisville, Ohio St, and NC State and they only have 2 wins against teams solidly in the field who are not on the bubble. Vandy beat Alabama, St Mary’s, Tennessee, Georgia, and Kentucky who are all solidly in the field.
5 seeds: Virginia, Wisconsin, Arkansas, North Carolina
After narrowly missing out on a 4-seed, Virginia falls here as the top 5-seed. The Hoos are 6-3 against Quad 1 with 15 combined Quad 1 + 2 wins, the most of any team left in the field. Behind them is Wisconsin and Arkansas who have 13 Quad 1 + 2 wins. Wisconsin has 8 Quad 1 wins, the most of any team outside the top four seed lines. The Badgers also have one of the best slates of top-end wins in the nation with road victories at Michigan, Illinois, and Purdue. Wisconsin has the win profile to be considered in the top four seed lines, but ranks 22nd or below in all 6 metrics which makes for a hard hill to climb to get into the top 16 seeds. Arkansas and North Carolina both have 6 Quad 1 wins but have losing records against that group, which drop them further down the bracket. North Carolina has won 5 of 7 since Caleb Wilson was lost for the season with an injury, including wins over tournament teams Louisville and Clemson. Virginia and Arkansas also have wins over Louisville.
6 seeds: St. John’s, Tennessee, Louisville, BYU
Louisville and BYU have the most Quad 1 wins (7) of any remaining teams while St. John’s and BYU have the most combined Quad 1 + 2 wins (13). Tennessee and Louisville rank in the Top 16 in all three predictive metric categories. St. John’s is the top seed in the Big East tournament and has an impressive win over UConn. Tennessee has the most Top 20 victories (4) of any team remaining in the field along with great predictive metrics. The Vols land here because they are just 5-9 against Quad 1. BYU is a tough team to gauge because the Cougars have gone just 2-4 since losing Richie Saunders for the season. Their losses to UCF, WVU and Cincinnati were 3 of their 4 worst defeats. However, the 2 wins were home victories over Iowa St and Texas Tech – their two best wins of the season. This looks like a BYU team that could get bounced by an 11 seed or upset a 3-seed to get to the Sweet 16.
7 seeds: St. Mary’s, Georgia, Miami (FL), Kentucky
St. Mary’s not only secured their spot in the field but put themselves into the top half of the bracket with their win over Gonzaga. The Gaels can’t hurt themselves in the WCC Tournament with rubber matches against Santa Clara (and potentially Gonzaga) looming. They rank in the Top 26 of all 6 team sheet metrics. Georgia has the most Quad 1 wins (6) and the most Quad 1 + 2 wins (12) of any team remaining in the field. The final two spots on the 7-seed line will be an interesting case in where the Committee’s preferences lie. I considered Miami, Kentucky, and Villanova for this spot. St. Louis and Utah St had been under consideration at earlier points in the season but their recent losses dropped them into the 8/9 range. Miami and Kentucky both have 5 Quad 1 wins, though Miami is 5-5 while Kentucky is 5-10. The Wildcats resume is dragged down by an overall losing record (10-12) against Quads 1 + 2 but they do have the best strength of schedule of the group. Villanova has the fewest Quad 1 wins (2) and no elite wins – their best is over Wisconsin on a neutral court. Despite having the best results-based metrics of this group, Villanova was my odd team out as I think the Committee will lean towards Kentucky’s two Top 20 wins (plus a sweep of #21 Tennessee) plus Miami’s .500 record against Quad 1.
8 seeds: Villanova, Clemson, UCLA, TCU
These teams all have 10 or 11 wins with .500 or better records against Quads 1 and 2 combined. Villanova has great results-based metrics but is just 2-6 against Quad 1 and their best win is over Wisconsin. Clemson’s 4 Quad 2 losses drag down their resume but a 5-5 record against Quad 1 certainly looks good when almost everyone below them has a losing record against the top quadrant. UCLA and TCU both have 3 Top 20 wins, which is more than any remaining team. The top-end wins negate TCU’s losses to a Quad 3 and Quad 4 opponent.
9 seeds: Iowa, St. Louis, Utah St, UCF
All four of these teams end the regular season with a Quad 3 loss. Iowa rates strongly in the predictive metrics, including the NET, but are just 4-9 against Quad 1 which drops them down to the 9-seed line. St. Louis and Utah State led the A-10 and Mountain West for most of the season but stumbled a little down the stretch. Neither have a “signature” win over a Top 20 opponent but they have solid metrics and should still be in the field if they don’t win their conference tournament titles. UCF has signature wins over Kansas and Texas Tech but has 3 Quad 2 losses and a Quad 3 loss.
10 seeds: Miami (OH), Missouri, Texas A&M, Ohio State
Miami (OH) completed an amazing regular season, finishing 31-0 with an overtime win over in-state rival Ohio to cap it off. The Red Hawks have played one of the easiest schedules in the nation and have just 2 Quad 2 wins and did not play a single Quad 1 opponent. Nevertheless, they have a winning record against the top two quadrants and no bad losses which is more than the teams below them in the bubble picture can say. Even with a loss in the MAC Tournament, Miami should get in to the Big Dance. Missouri and Texas A&M have similar profiles – both are 5-6 against Quad 1 and .500 against Quad 2 (Missouri is 5-5, A&M is 4-4). Missouri is slightly ahead due to their wins over Florida and Vanderbilt while A&M’s best win is over Kentucky. The last spot above the bubble goes to Ohio State who, despite a 3-10 Quad 1 record, has 9 Quad 1 + 2 victories, more than most of the bubble teams. The Buckeyes also have very good predictive metrics (in the Top 30 in all three).
The Bubble (in alphabetical order for last 6 spots): Auburn, Cincinnati, Indiana, NC State, New Mexico, Oklahoma, San Diego State, Santa Clara, SMU, Stanford, South Florida, Texas, VCU, Virginia Tech
Fourteen teams for the last six spots in the field. South Florida is the top seed in the American Athletic Conference tournament so they would only be under bubble consideration if they don’t win their tournament. All 13 of these teams have losing records against Quad 1. Texas has the most Quad 1 wins (6) followed by NC State and Stanford (who both have 5). Texas and Auburn are the only teams with multiple wins against Top 20 teams. Against Quads 1+2 combined, the only teams at or above .500 are: Santa Clara (7-6), Stanford (9-8), and NC State (11-11). NC State’s 11 Quad 1 + 2 wins are the most of the bubble group, followed by Stanford and Oklahoma with 9. While Stanford has good wins, the Cardinal also have 3 losses in Quad 3. South Florida (3) and New Mexico (2) are the only other teams with more than 1 loss in the bottom two quadrants. NC State, Santa Clara, VCU, New Mexico, South Florida, and Stanford are the only teams that are .500 or better on the road. South Florida is the only team with a Strength of Schedule outside the Top 100 while Indiana, Stanford, SMU, and Virginia Tech all played non-conference schedules outside the Top 150. NC State and Santa Clara are the only teams with a Quad 4 loss.
From a metrics standpoint, teams with the best profiles are SMU, NC State, Santa Clara, and Auburn. Those four teams have all six of their team sheet metrics ranked in the Top 50. VCU, Stanford and Virginia Tech have good results-based metrics but poorer predictive metrics. On the flip side, Texas, Indiana, and Oklahoma are being carried by their predictive metrics. New Mexico and South Florida have the worst metric profiles. Interestingly, a lot of bubble teams have played each other this year. If a decision is tight for the Committee, it will be interesting to see how heavily they will weight head-to-head victories. For instance, New Mexico has not beaten any teams in the field but have wins at VCU, over Santa Clara by 27 at home, plus a split with San Diego State.
Auburn is a very interesting case. The Tigers have good metrics but may simply have too many losses. They finished the regular season 16-15 overall and no team has ever made the Tournament that close to .500. They played the 3rd toughest schedule in the country and 15th hardest non-conference schedule but are 4-12 against Quad 1 and just 10-15 against the top three quadrants. Auburn has a road win at Florida and a neutral court win over St John’s plus 4 victories over teams in the field. But at the end of the day, finishing just 1 game above .500 may be too hard for the Committee to swallow to put the Tigers in the field.
11 seeds: Texas, NC State
Texas has some of the best predictive metrics of any team on the bubble and also one of the toughest strengths of schedule. They have two Top 20 wins and a very good road win at Alabama. What drags Texas’ profile down is their 1-3 record against Quad 2. With just a 3-1 mark against Quad 3, the Longhorns are 10-13 against the top three quadrants. I think ultimately their good wins (6 Quad 1 wins, 4 Quad 1 road wins, 5 wins vs teams in the field) will carry them to a spot in the field but it will be close. NC State’s 11-11 mark against the top 2 quadrants, winning record on the road, and overall good metric profile should be enough to put them in for now. The Wolfpack have road wins over Clemson and SMU. The question mark here is that their best win (over North Carolina) came after Caleb Wilson was out for the season so the Committee may discount that win. NC State has the most games against fellow bubble teams with wins over SMU, VCU, and Virginia Tech while losing to Auburn, Texas, and Stanford.
Last Four IN: SMU, Santa Clara, VCU, Indiana
SMU is 4-8 against Quad 1 and 4-4 against Quad 2. Last year, WVU and Ohio State were among the First Four Out and both had 4 Quad 2 losses. SMU does (barely) have a winning record against Quads 1-3 (13-12) and beat UNC before Wilson’s injury. The Mustangs have 3 wins against the field and a victory over fellow bubble team Virginia Tech. Santa Clara fares very well in the metrics and has a Top 20 win over St Mary’s (they’ll get a rubber match against the Gaels in the WCC semifinals). Santa Clara has a dreadful Quad 4 loss to Loyola but beyond that has no losses outside the Top 70. They have done enough in a weak bubble to find their way to Dayton for the First Four. VCU has 2 Quad 1 wins but none of them against a team guaranteed to be in the field (AAC leader South Florida and Dayton). VCU’s strengths are their resume metrics and the fact that they haven’t lost a game outside the Top 90. Given their 15-7 record against the top three quadrants and no losses beyond Quad 2, the Rams should be hovering just above the cut line.
My decision for the last spot in the field went to Indiana. Despite a non-conference schedule in the 200s, they had a Top 30 overall schedule and no losses outside of Quad 2. The Hoosiers are just 3-11 vs Quad 1 and 6-13 against the top two quadrants, but have a good win over Purdue, a road win at UCLA, and good predictive metrics. Indiana’s 3 wins against teams in the field is enough to put them just barely in.
First Four OUT: Auburn, Stanford, New Mexico, Virginia Tech
Auburn was my first team below the cut line. The Tigers have the best metric profile on the bubble and top-end wins at Florida and against Arkansas. They lost to both Mississippi teams (their only losses outside the field and bubble). Auburn has wins over fellow bubblers NC State and Texas. Ultimately, Auburn’s 16-15 overall record was just too much to get past, including a 10-15 mark against the top three quadrants. Stanford and New Mexico both have winning records against the top 3 quadrants (by one game). Stanford has 3 wins against the field but 7 losses outside the field while New Mexico’s bet wins are over bubblers VCU, Santa Clara & San Diego State and the Lobos have 5 losses to teams outside the bubble picture. Virginia Tech lost to SMU, VCU, and Stanford but do have wins over Virginia and Clemson as well as no losses outside the Top 70.
Next 4 Out: San Diego State, Cincinnati, Oklahoma, South Florida
All of these teams have a Wins Above Bubble metric of 55 or lower, meaning they likely need to stack wins over the next week. All three have some impressive predictive metrics and Cincinnati has two Top 20 wins.
A Lot of Work to Do this Week: California, Cincinnati, Boise St, Florida St, Oklahoma St, Seton Hall, USC
Oklahoma St and USC both have 9 victories in Quads 1+2, followed by Boise St and Florida St with 8. Most of these teams have poor metrics and too many bad losses to be inconsideration right now and need to stack impressive runs over the next week in their conference tournaments to garner consideration.
