INDIANAPOLIS — The NCAA took a 10-year break from inviting media to participate in mock NCAA Tournament selection exercises because, by the mid-2010s, the operation had run its course.
But in 2026, the way the bracket is built and how the teams are selected is markedly different than a decade ago. So it was our pleasure to drop into Indy on Thursday and participate in constructing our own mock bracket for the modern age. Over the past eight years, the NCAA’s procedures and guidelines for selecting, seeding and bracketing the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments have sharply evolved.
The RPI is long since dead (hallelujah), replaced by the NET. Other metrics — like KenPom.com, BartTorvik.com, Strength of Record and Wins Above Bubble — have officially been implemented into the process, bringing more concise analytics to the conversation and making for a smarter approach with more empirical data to assist the committees in fielding their 68-team tournaments.
On Thursday, when you pushed open a large swinging door to a huge conference room just off a main atrium of the NCAA headquarters, you were greeted by an epic command center.
Massive projector screens adorned one wall, looming large above tables where conference representatives sat as observers of the entire process. The screens showed the latest updates of who was officially “in” the field of 68 and also included teams “under consideration.”
Every seat on the 12-person selection committee that would be represented by various athletic directors and conference commissioners was proxied by members of the media. On the CBS side, Clark Kellogg and Adam Zucker played the role of committee chair Keith Gill. Matt Norlander acted as vice chair Martin Newton. David Cobb was Manhattan AD Irma Garcia.
NCAA pausing talks on NCAA Tournament expansion as president reaffirms support enlarging field in future
Matt Norlander
Other media members from other companies — Jason Benetti, Jeff Borzello, Joe Lunardi, Andy Katz, Seth Davis, Evan Miyakawa, Jeff Goodman and more — also participated in the exercise. It was extremely informative and a lot of fun, the type of experience that so many college basketball fans would love to not only watch, but also participate in. So, we wanted to bring you, the reader, into the room as well.
Every seat had four big monitors and a personal computer for voting. The balloting to seed teams was ranked-choice. The collegial atmosphere was palpable, and in order to be heard, all participants were encouraged to freely share their thoughts over the microphones housed at each work station. The debates would begin. Against the back wall were two huge projector screens that also had team sheets and other data as we built out the bracket.
At the request of mock committee members, NCAA representatives could — in a moment’s notice — pull up a side-by-side comparison of two or more teams to facilitate dissection and discussion.
Along the other wall sat a beverage station stocked with juices, soft drinks and, most importantly, coffee. With very little natural light reaching the room, it was easy to lose track of time and to become overloaded by the crush of screens showing reams of data.
What’s it like to sit at the table, sift through the data and debate about the teams and seeds? We’ve got firsthand accounts and takeaways. Keep in mind, the field was almost entirely built under the premise that the season was over as of Wednesday, Feb. 18. The final bracket can be seen at the bottom of the story.
Matt Norlander
Big debate over fourth No. 1 seed: Houston or ISU?
The mock committee engaged in a spirited debate over whether Houston or Iowa State should be the fourth No. 1 seed. Ultimately, the Cougars got the nod but only after a close vote during the “scrubbing” process, which entailed a thorough side-by-side comparison.
A key discussion point during the comparison was Iowa State’s 70-67 home victory over the Cougars on Monday. Among participants, a divergence of opinion emerged over the significance of a head-to-head win. In what circumstances, if any, would it matter? How much does the location of the game matter? Were they close enough in selection metrics that head-to-head should serve as a tiebreaker?
In the end, the mock committee voted in a tight decision to keep Houston as the fourth No. 1 seed. The Cougars have an edge — albeit a narrow one — in résumé metrics. With an average ranking of 3.3 in predictive metrics compared to Iowa State’s 6.7 mark, Houston had just enough juice to avoid a demotion to the No. 2 line. These are the type of nuanced seed line debates that happen every Selection Sunday — David Cobb
Miami University: the most debated, controversial résumé
The RedHawks are 26-0. On Thursday, we evaluated them as though they were a one-loss team that fell in the MAC championship game by one point to the No. 2 seed in that tournament, Akron.
The NCAA pre-determined that Miami would be one of the last four teams (though we COULD have voted them out of Dayton and into the main bracket had there been more time), but nevertheless, the RedHawks were in with some room to spare. There was a LOT of discussion about their awful strength of schedule, the absence of any Quad 1 results on Miami’s dossier and how to handle a team that was pulling off an amazing season but didn’t have a win over a top-100 opponent.
Miami was given an 11-seed and shipped to Dayton. (As a one-loss team, I think the case is there for a 10.)
Regardless, my biggest takeaway on Miami U: I am confident that there is NO chance it will be left out of the tournament if it is undefeated at the end of the regular season. A two-loss Miami team that doesn’t win the auto bid is where the committee will truly be pushed. And in my reading, I think the committee is praying that the RedHawks take it out of their hands by winning the auto bid at the MAC Tournament. — Matt Norlander
How to handle JT Toppin’s injury
On the merits of what it accomplished during a 19-7 start, Texas Tech would almost assuredly have landed around the No. 4 seed line had it not been revealed Wednesday that JT Toppin suffered a torn ACL in Tuesday night’s loss at Arizona State.
But getting the mock committee on the same page on how to handle a season-ending injury to such a pivotal player proved challenging. The Red Raiders landed as a No. 6 seed in the final mock selection bracket — but only after fairly strong pushback.
The pushback centered around the fact that — at this point — we have not seen the Red Raiders play without Toppin. Thus, docking Texas Tech could be considered unfair since it hasn’t had a chance to prove what it can be without him. While everyone in the room clearly understood that Toppin is one of the country’s best players and that the Red Raiders could struggle without him, there was a sentiment among some that it would be unfair to “punish” Texas Tech prematurely.
This is a scenario that could come into play for the committee if a key player suffered an injury in the final game of a conference tournament. There would be no before/after comparison to make. In Toppin’s case, there will be a before/after comparison since the Red Raiders will play at least six more games before Selection Sunday.
But if the real selection committee handles Toppin’s injury like the mock selection committee did, Texas Tech will not see its name as a top 16 overall seed in the bracket preview on Saturday. — Cobb
The most important metric to pay attention to: WAB
I won’t go long here — read Cobb’s primer on Wins Above Bubble here — but it was brought up multiple times on Thursday just how key WAB is when it comes to inclusion into the field. It doesn’t always win out, but WAB and the similarly structured Strength of Record are fair evaluation tools that don’t put mid-majors at a disadvantage.
And they’ll be leaned on more than Quad 1 and Quad 2 records, or nonconference strength of schedule, things like that. We know it can feel like an information overload, but whereas predictive metrics can slightly tilt the scales with seeding, WAB should prove pivotal for at-large teams vying to get those final four, five, six bids.
Also noticeable: NET ranking remains a useful tool for the NCAA in assigning outcomes into quadrants and in formulating WAB “scores.” But it was striking just how little any team’s NET ranking was referenced or discussed during the mock exercise. It’s presence and influence just is not as significant as the general public think. — Norlander, Cobb
Getty Images
Saint Louis in St. Louis? Geography can get tricky
In the final mock selection bracket, Saint Louis landed as a No. 7 seed playing in St. Louis. That would be a welcome scenario for the Billikens, who could sleep in their own beds the night before an NCAA Tournament game. But why would that be allowed? It is permitted because the Billikens are not the host institution for the 1st/2nd round games in St. Louis. Nor are the games in St. Louis being played at their home arena.
Iowa State, which landed in Saint Louis’ pod as the No. 2 seed, would surely be displeased to be placed at a “home-court disadvantage” for a potential second round game against the Billikens. But location protection for the top 16 overall seeds is only a principle that covers first round games.
From the NCAA’s principles: “the committee shall not place teams seeded on the first four lines at a potential ‘home-crowd disadvantage’ in the first round.”
In an unlikely hypothetical scenario, if Saint Louis ended up as a No. 13-16 seed, it would not be allowed to play in Saint Louis against a No. 1-4 seed in the first round. But as a No. 7 seed, it would be allowed. — Cobb
How more marquee matchups in college basketball will impact NCAA Tournament bracketing process, seeding
David Cobb
The challenge and joy of weaving a bracket
We only spent maybe 30 minutes building the actual bracket, slotting the teams into their first-weekend sites and regions. The 1-4 seeds get geographic preference in order of where they fall on the overall seed line, with the top seeds obviously having first pick. (Of note: The NCAA revealed that Michigan has communicated that it prefers Philadelphia over Buffalo as a first round site if it is the No. 1 overall seed. Only the No. 1 overall gets its choice for sites in the first and second weekends; other schools in contention for the top spot have also sent their choices to the NCAA.)
We had to account for travel, avoiding early rematches from intra-conference opponents and even first-round rematches with non-con opponents that met in November or December. The NCAA has built in protections and catches to prevent any of its long lists of guidelines and protocols from being violated.
Watching the bracket come to life by filling in all the cells was a lot of fun. A few teams got flipped from one place to another. We had some quick but fun debates on which teams made the most sense in which cities. I can only imagine what the real committee dives into when they’ve got a couple of hours to hash it out on the morning of Selection Sunday. I wish this could be recorded on video and shown after the fact, so fans get a true sense of all the protections in place that go into putting teams into all four regions. — Norlander
Kudos to NCAA for getting the message out
Every Selection Sunday, the selection committee takes varying amounts of heat for its decisions regarding a couple of teams. Sometimes it’s a top seed, sometimes it’s geographic placement, but typically it’s the inclusion or exclusion of a school or two in the First Four. We saw it last year with UNC being the final team in despite just one Quad 1 win.
In an effort to increase the information flow and better arm the media with the perspective on the process, the NCAA deserves a lot of credit for choosing to do this mock tournament section and bracketing exercise with us. It doesn’t have to. Dan Gavitt (the top boss of the men’s tournament), Dave Worlock (communications director) and JoAnn Scott (vice president, men’s basketball) are at the forefront of a large team that cares so much about the health, legitimacy and pride of the NCAA Tournament. We are so appreciate of the initiative to help media, coaches, administrators and fans more knowledgable about what building the NCAA tourney truly entails.
It sounds like this mock exercise is on the menu to return for at least the next few years, as more media members will get the invite and the education on the process will continue. That will make for a smarter community in college basketball to critique the committee but also more clearly understand just how heavy (and enjoyable) the task is.
Will we still complain? Of course! Here’s what we landed on by Thursday night. I’ve still got some problems with this bracket — and I’m partly responsible for it looking like this! But please, direct all your gripes to Clark Kellogg. — Norlander
Matt Norlander
