← Back to Dashboard
How We Calculate Everything
A complete breakdown of the math behind our tournament projections, seedings, and bracketology.
1 Quad System
Every game a team plays gets classified into one of four quality tiers based on where the game was played and the opponent's NET ranking. This is the exact system the NCAA Selection Committee uses.
| Home | Neutral | Away |
|---|
| Quad 1 | vs NET 1–30 | vs NET 1–50 | vs NET 1–75 |
| Quad 2 | vs NET 31–75 | vs NET 51–100 | vs NET 76–135 |
| Quad 3 | vs NET 76–160 | vs NET 101–200 | vs NET 136–240 |
| Quad 4 | vs NET 161+ | vs NET 201+ | vs NET 241+ |
Location matters. A road win at NET #50 is a Quad 1 victory. That same opponent at home is only Quad 2.
2 Strength of Schedule
Our SOS is computed directly from each team's full-season schedule — every game, every opponent. It blends two independent signals into a single composite score:
| Signal | Weight | What It Measures |
|---|
| Avg Opponent NET | 65% | Mean final-season NET rank of every opponent played. Uses each opponent’s end-of-year NET (not their ranking at game time) so the schedule is evaluated by how strong opponents turned out to be. |
| Avg Opponent Win% | 35% | Mean winning percentage of all opponents. A team that faced .700 opponents had it harder than one facing .500 opponents — even at similar NET averages. |
Lower composite = harder schedule. Teams are ranked 1–365 by this score and assigned tier labels:
| Tier | Rank Range | Meaning |
|---|
| Brutal | 1–25 | The toughest schedules in D1. Dominated by Power 6 conference teams in leagues that cannibalize each other. |
| Tough | 26–75 | Above-average difficulty. Mix of mid-tier Power 6 and top mid-major teams. |
| Standard | 76–200 | Average. The broad middle of D1 scheduling. |
| Soft | 201–365 | Below-average. Mostly low-major conferences with few ranked opponents. |
Non-D1 opponents (D2/D3/NAIA) are assigned a proxy NET of 350. Teams without full schedule data fall back to a quad-tier estimation using the midpoint NET of each quad (Q1 ≈ 30, Q2 ≈ 90, Q3 ≈ 170, Q4 ≈ 280).
3 Composite Power Rating
This blends four major ranking systems into a single number, then adjusts for resume quality. It powers tournament chance (not seeding — that's separate).
Base Blend
The weighting adapts when data sources are missing:
| Scenario | NET | KenPom | Barttorvik | Sagarin |
|---|
| All available | 30% | 30% | 25% | 15% |
| No Barttorvik | 35% | 35% | — | 30% |
| No KenPom | 35% | — | 30% | 35% |
| NET + Sagarin only | 55% | — | — | 45% |
Resume Adjustments
Five factors shift the composite up or down:
- Quad record — Q1 wins (+1.0 each), Q2 wins (+0.5), Q2 losses (−0.3), Q3 losses (−2.5), Q4 losses (−6.0)
- Strength of schedule — Top-30 SOS teams get a boost; soft schedules get penalized (capped at ±5 points)
- Conference tier — Power 6 (+3), bridge conferences (+1), everyone else (−2)
- Streak — Win streaks boost with diminishing returns (√n scaling); L1 is neutral; multi-game losing streaks penalize proportionally
- AP ranking — Top 25 teams get a small +2 boost
Simulator effect: When you pick W/L outcomes for upcoming games, those shift the composite. Beating a strong opponent on the road moves the needle more than beating a weak team at home. The adjustment scales with opponent quality and game location.
4 Committee Seed Score
This is a completely separate calculation from the composite power rating. It models how the NCAA Selection Committee actually evaluates teams for seeding, based on committee member public statements and historical bracket analysis (2018–2025).
Six weighted factors, each producing a score where lower = better seed:
| Factor | Weight | What It Measures |
|---|
| SOS-Adjusted NET |
35% |
NET ranking amplified or dampened by schedule strength. Hard schedule makes NET more trustworthy; soft schedule suggests inflation. Adjustment capped at ±15%. |
| Quad Quality Index |
25% |
Game-by-game resume score. Q1 wins have diminishing returns (the 1st Q1 win is worth more than the 15th). Q3 losses cost −5, Q4 losses cost −10. |
| Q1 Win Power |
15% |
Uses Bayesian regression to prevent small-sample flukes. A team that's 2-0 in Q1 isn't truly 100% Q1 quality — we add 6 pseudo-games at 50% to keep it honest. Also rewards volume. |
| Strength of Schedule |
10% |
Raw SOS rank. Harder schedule = better seed. |
| Conference Tier |
10% |
Historical bias: Power 6 teams seed 3–5 spots higher than mid-majors with identical profiles. |
| Eye Test |
5% |
AP Poll ranking + win percentage as a proxy for national perception. |
Key design choice: Tournament chance and projected seed are calculated independently. A team can have a high chance of making the tournament (strong composite) but a mediocre seed (weak resume metrics), or vice versa. This matches how the real committee operates — getting in and getting a good seed are different questions.
5 Tournament Chance
Every team has two possible paths to the tournament. We calculate both and take the higher one.
Path A — At-Large Quality
All 365 Division I teams are ranked by composite power rating. A sigmoid function converts rank into probability:
chance = 99 / (1 + e0.1 × (rank − midpoint))
The midpoint is set dynamically to the overall rank of the last at-large team to make the 68-team field. Teams well above the cutoff approach 99%. Teams right at the cutoff land near 50%. Below the cutoff, probability drops sharply.
Path B — Conference Tournament Win
For each conference's best team, we estimate their probability of winning their conference tournament:
- Conference size: Fewer teams = easier path. Base chance starts at 65% minus 2.5% per team (floored at 15%).
- Dominance gap: If the #1 team is significantly better than #2 in their conference, win probability increases (up to +15%).
This is why a dominant mid-major champion can show 60%+ even if their at-large resume is borderline — they're very likely to win their conference tournament and lock up the auto-bid.
Status Thresholds
6 Building the Field of 68
The tournament field is constructed in five steps:
- Auto-bids: The best team from each conference (by composite power rating) earns an automatic bid. With 31 D-I conferences, that's 31 auto-bids.
- At-large: The next 37 best teams who aren't already auto-bids fill the remaining spots. 31 + 37 = 68.
- Seed scoring: All 68 field teams are scored using the committee seed score formula and sorted.
- First Four: The worst 4 at-large teams play in two play-in games at the #11 seed. The worst 4 auto-bids play in two play-in games at the #16 seed. That's 8 teams in 4 games.
- Main draw seeding: The remaining 60 teams fill the bracket:
- Positions 1–40 → seeds 1–10 (four per line)
- Positions 41–42 → seed 11 (two direct placements)
- Positions 43–58 → seeds 12–15 (four per line)
- Positions 59–60 → seed 16 (two direct placements)
7 S-Curve Regional Placement
The NCAA Selection Committee uses a "snake" pattern to distribute teams across four regions so that no single region is dramatically stronger than another.
1 →
East
South
Midwest
West
2 ←
West
Midwest
South
East
3 →
East
South
Midwest
West
4 ←
West
Midwest
South
East
...
pattern continues through seed 16
This ensures the overall #1 team faces the weakest #2 seed in their region, while the #4 overall faces the strongest #2 seed. Regions stay balanced.
Play-In Game Placement
Each of the four play-in games is assigned to a region using the tail positions of the S-curve:
- Seed 11 play-in games go to Midwest and West
- Seed 16 play-in games go to South and East
Every region hosts exactly one play-in game. Both teams in a play-in share the same seed and region — the winner advances into that bracket slot.
8 Bubble Buckets
We surface four groups of four teams each to give a clear picture of the bubble:
| Group | Who They Are |
|---|
| Last Four Byes | The 4 at-large teams just above the First Four cut. They made the field without having to play in. |
| Last Four In | The 4 at-large teams in the First Four play-in games at the #11 seed. They're in, but barely. |
| First Four Out | The best 4 teams that just missed the field entirely. |
| Next Four Out | The next 4 closest misses after that. |
Simulator impact: Every calculation on this page responds to the game simulator. Pick a win or loss for an upcoming game, and the composite, seed score, tournament chance, and bracket placement all update in real time.
9 Bracketverse Rating
The Bracketverse Rating is our single composite number for every Division I team. It blends three independent systems into one percentile-normalized score from 1 to 99, where higher is better.
Why build our own? NET tells you efficiency. KenPom tells you tempo-adjusted strength. The AP Poll tells you perception. None of them capture the full picture alone. The Bracketverse Rating combines algorithmic power, committee-style resume evaluation, and recent trajectory into a single number — designed to answer the question: "How good is this team, right now, by every measure that matters?"
The Three Components
| Component | Weight | Source |
|---|
| Power Rank |
50%* |
Composite blend of NET, KenPom, Barttorvik, and Sagarin (Section 3), adjusted for quad record, SOS, conference, streak, and AP ranking. Captures how strong a team is. |
| Seed Score |
30%* |
Committee-style 6-factor resume model (Section 4). Captures how the selection committee would evaluate a team: SOS-adjusted NET, quad quality, Q1 win power, schedule strength, conference tier, eye test. |
| Trajectory |
20%* |
Win/loss streaks, AP Poll movement, and ranked status. Captures which direction a team is heading. A team on a 10-game win streak is trending differently than one that just lost 3 in a row — even if their season numbers look similar. |
*Early in the season (before streak data is available), the weights automatically shift to 60% Power Rank / 40% Seed Score. Once trajectory data lands, the full 50/30/20 blend activates. No manual adjustment needed — the system adapts. The full 50/30/20 blend is currently active.
How It Works
- Rank all 365 teams independently on each component. Power rank #1 is the best effComp score; seed score #1 is the strongest committee resume; trajectory #1 has the hottest recent form.
- Convert ranks to percentiles (0.0 to 1.0 scale) so each component contributes proportionally regardless of its native scale.
- Weighted average the three percentiles using the weights above.
- Re-rank the blended scores across all 365 teams and assign final percentiles: #1 → 99, #365 → 1.
Worked Example: Duke (W11 streak)
Component 1 — Power Rank: effComp rank = #3 of 365 → percentile = 0.995
Component 2 — Seed Score: seedScore rank = #3 of 365 → percentile = 0.995
Component 3 — Trajectory: W11 streak → √(11−1) × 4 = +12.6 pts, plus AP #4 bonus ((26−4)×0.3 = +6.6 pts) = 19.2 → trajectory rank #1 → percentile ≈ 1.00
Full blend = 0.50 × 0.995 + 0.30 × 0.995 + 0.20 × 1.00 = 0.996
Final rank: #2 of 365 → Bracketverse Rating = 99
Symmetric diminishing returns. Both wins and losses use the same formula: √(streak−1) × 4. W11 → +12.6, W4 → +6.9, W2 → +4.0, W1 → 0. L1 → 0, L2 → −4.0, L5 → −8.0, L8 → −10.6. Single-game results (W1, L1) are noise and receive zero weight on both sides.
Partial-data safe. Teams without trajectory data receive a neutral median score (0.5 percentile) so they are neither boosted nor penalized during incremental data rollouts.
Win-loss floor. Teams with a losing record (<.500) receive a rating penalty scaled to how far below .500 they are. This ensures that a 13-19 team cannot rank in the Top 25 regardless of schedule difficulty.
What Makes It Different
- It's not just one ranking system. NET, KenPom, Barttorvik, and Sagarin all contribute to the power rank component. No single system dominates.
- Resume matters independently. The seed score component evaluates your actual games — who you beat, who you lost to, where you played — the same way the selection committee does.
- Trajectory is weighted separately. A team peaking at the right time gets credit for it. A team collapsing down the stretch gets penalized — even if their season stats still look strong.
- Simulator-aware where it matters. The canonical Bracketverse Rating and Bracketverse Top 25 are computed independently of simulator picks — they reflect the actual season record. The Path to NCAAT simulator uses the same underlying formulas but with hypothetical outcomes layered on, so projected seeds and tournament chances respond to your picks without affecting the published rankings.
2025-26 Final. The Bracketverse Rating shown on this site reflects the completed 2025-26 season. Rankings are locked and will not change until the 2026-27 season tips off.
10 Bracketverse Top 25
Our own weekly-style ranking of Division I teams, powered entirely by the Bracketverse Rating. No voter bias, no ballot stuffing, no regional favoritism. Pure data.
How Teams Are Selected
- Eligibility: A team must have played at least 10 games. This prevents early-season noise from a team with a 3-0 record against weak opponents appearing in the Top 25.
- Sort by Bracketverse Rating (highest first). The top 25 form the official ranking.
- Tiebreakers (when two teams share the same integer rating):
- First: higher win percentage
- Second: tougher strength of schedule (lower SOS rank)
- Others Receiving Votes: teams ranked 26–35 are listed separately, just like the AP Poll’s tail section.
Tier Labels
Each team gets a tier label based on their Bracketverse Rating value:
| Tier | Rating Range | What It Means |
|---|
| Elite | 97–99 | Championship-caliber teams. Dominant across all metrics — power, resume, and trajectory. |
| Strong | 93–96 | Clear tournament teams with strong resumes. Likely seeded 3–6 in bracketology. |
| Solid | 88–92 | Tournament-quality teams with some resume gaps. Typically seeded 7–11. |
| Bubble | Below 88 | On the bubble or just outside. Need wins down the stretch to secure a bid. |
What Makes This Different From AP / NET / KenPom
- No voters. The AP Poll reflects the opinions of 62 media members. Ours reflects data.
- Not single-source. NET is one system. KenPom is one system. Bracketverse blends four ranking systems plus a 6-factor committee resume model.
- Trajectory-aware. When streak and movement data are active, teams trending up get credit and teams fading get penalized — even before their season stats fully reflect the shift.
- Simulator-independent. The published Bracketverse Top 25 reflects the actual season record and will not shift based on hypothetical simulator picks. The game simulator’s projected seeds and tournament chances are computed separately.
No Conference Quotas
There are no rules like “must include at least one team from every power conference.” If 8 of the top 10 are from the SEC, that’s what the data says. We let the numbers speak.
2025-26 Final. The Bracketverse Top 25 shown on this site is the final ranking for the completed 2025-26 season. It will not change until the 2026-27 season tips off and new data begins flowing.