The NCAA unveils its men’s basketball tournament bracket on March 16, and between now and the CBS selection show, analysts and fans will spend hours crunching the numbers that determine the seed order.
Much of those debates center on a team’s results, but conference affiliation and recency bias make their way into the conversation, too. The selection committee may use generalities during discussions, but it relies on metrics — not recent form — to rank teams through the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET). Beginning with the 2018-19 season, NET replaced RPI as the core mechanism in evaluating men’s basketball (NET has been used in the selection process for women’s basketball since the 2020-21 season). Whereas RPI stacked the field based on a team’s winning percentage, its opponents’ winning percentages and its opponents’ opponents’ winning percentages, the NET features a more comprehensive analysis.
GO DEEPER
Bubble Watch: Who can make plans for March, and who still has work to do?
Among the key factors in establishing a team’s NET include game results and location, win/loss quality, strength of schedule and offensive/defensive efficiency. The game date and order does not figure into the NET, meaning a November win or loss matters as much as a mid-February victory or a late-season slump.
Built by data experts with consultation from coaches and committee members, the NET uses a quadrant system when weighing game outcomes. The breakdown is as follows:
- Quad 1: Home game vs. team ranked 1-30, Neutral-court game vs. Nos. 1-50, Away game vs. Nos. 1-75
- Quad 2: Home vs. 31-75, Neutral vs. 51-100, Away vs. 76-135
- Quad 3: Home vs. 76-160, Neutral vs. 101-200, Away vs. 135-240
- Quad 4: Home vs. 161-353, Neutral vs. 201-353, Away vs. 241-353
The lower the overall NET, the better. Currently, the top two NET teams (Auburn and Duke) also lead the AP and coaches polls. From there it diverges, with Alabama No. 3 in the human polls while Houston ranks third in the NET.
Committee members are not beholden to use NET ranking as the sole criterion in stacking teams. Instead, they identify specific statistics within the NET — such as Quad 1 wins and Quad 3 or 4 defeats — in making comparisons for the tournament field. Plus, there’s the subjective eye test.
As March approaches, let’s look at what patterns have surfaced with the NET over the last three tournaments.
Past patterns
Compare the last four at-large qualifiers from the three most recent NCAA Tournament against the first four teams left out, and a few trends emerge. Only four of the 12 Last Four In teams lost at least two games in Quad 3 or 4, and they usually made up for those demerits in other areas.
In 2022, Wyoming was 3-2 in Quad 3 but was a combined 11-6 in Quad 1 and 2 games. Over the three-year period, Rutgers’ 2022 squad was the only Last Four In or First Four Out team to lose three Quad 3 or Quad 4 games, but it was 6-6 in Quad 1.
The first four teams left out in 2022 had significant resume blemishes that left them behind Wyoming and Rutgers. Dayton lost three Quad 4 games and went 3-2 in Quad 1 games. Despite a NET of 39, Oklahoma had a 4-12 Quad 1 record and was 18-15 overall. SMU, which was 23-8, lost as many Quad 3 and Quad 4 games (two) as it won against Quad 1. Texas A&M was 4-10 in Quad 1 games.
Of the 24 teams that landed in the Last Four In/First Four Out categories over that three-year period, any squad with at least nine Quad 1 losses did not qualify for the tournament — like North Carolina in 2023. The Tar Heels had a NET of 46, were 13-0 in Quad 3 and 4 games and were 6-4 in Quad 2 games, but they were 1-9 in Quad 1.
Coincidentally, the 12 teams that just missed the NCAA Tournament in those three years ended up with a better average NET ranking (46.3) than the 12 who qualified (48.2). However, the 12 teams that made it in averaged nearly one more Quad 1 victory and one fewer Quad 1 loss than the 12 that missed it.
GO DEEPER
2025 NCAA Tournament Bracket Watch: Texas Tech and Arizona soar while Oregon fades
What to watch
Now, let’s look at three games scheduled for Saturday.
1. In Chapel Hill, Pittsburgh (14-8 overall, 5-6 ACC, No. 47 NET ranking) goes for a season sweep of North Carolina (13-10, 6-5, No. 45 NET) in a game with big consequences for the ACC’s bubble. For Pittsburgh, it’s a road game, which makes it a Quad 1 opportunity; it’s Quad 2 for North Carolina. The Panthers are 1-5 in Quad 1 games and just took a Quad 3 loss at home against Virginia (NET 112). With two Quad 1 games and two Quad 4 games remaining, Pittsburgh’s chances of impressing the selection committee are dwindling.
North Carolina sits in a similar position as in 2023. The Tar Heels are 1-9 in Quad 1 and only have a few opportunities left for a signature win. In addition, North Carolina faces struggling rivals NC State and Virginia at home, two dangerous Quad 3 games. A win does very little for the Tar Heels, while a loss could be devastating.
2. Indiana (NET 63) has a similar Quad 1 record to North Carolina (2-9) but a much different path forward. The Hoosiers have six more Quad 1 games remaining, starting with Michigan (NET 17) on Saturday. Despite a 5-7 league record and the potential for a losing season in the Big Ten, the Hoosiers still can make a strong case for an NCAA bid because of their tough schedule. The Wolverines sit a half-game behind Purdue in the Big Ten standings, and traveling to Bloomington provides them with a Quad 1 opportunity. A win almost certainly stamps Michigan’s return to the NCAA Tournament after a two-year absence.
3. The NET carries implications for more teams than those on the bubble. In the SEC, Texas A&M (NET 13) and Missouri (NET 18) battle in Columbia. Both teams must be on guard for the committee’s unpredictable slotting for the No. 3 and No. 4 seeds.
Of the 48 top-four seeds from the last three tournaments, all but six had a NET of 20 or better. But while the average NET rankings for each seed make sense (14.75 for three, 15.75 for four), the committee has slotted teams inconsistently. Three No. 3 seeds had a single-digit NET, but three had a NET in the 20s. It’s even more erratic with the No. 4 seeds, which include four single-digit NETs and three higher than 25, including two in the 30s.
However, the committee adheres closely to NET in determining the top two seeds in each region. Last year’s Marquette posted the weakest NET (14) of any team to receive a top-two seed over the last three seasons, but the Golden Eagles won nine Quad 1 games. That bodes well for both the winner and loser of Saturday’s SEC showdown between Auburn (NET 1) and Florida (NET 5).
(Photo of Oumar Ballo: Michael Reaves / Getty Images)
