NCAA Tournament Selection – 2026 Case Study

Miami (OH) is in the midst of a magical season. The RedHawks are currently (3/5/2026) 30-0 and poised to return to the NCAA Tournament for the first time since 2007. Miami (OH) had 15 consecutive seasons with a losing record before a solid 25-9 campaign last year, but they’ve leveled up even more in Coach Travis Steele’s fourth season.

With a record as good as Miami (OH)’s is, one would normally think them to be a shoe-in to the NCAA Tournament, but things aren’t this straightforward. Let’s first consider their chances at getting the automatic bid. Although undefeated, the Red Hawks aren’t a super strong team according to the metrics. They are 88th right now in KenPom, 53rd in NET, and 83rd in Torvik. They aren’t the strongest team in the MAC, either. Akron sits at 63rd in KenPom (69th in Torvik) and would be favored in a neutral-site matchup. In fact, Torvik has Akron as the MAC tournament favorites, with Miami (OH) projected to win their conference tourney only 30.6% of the time. There are more than a few teams that Miami (OH) can reasonably lose to in the MAC.

Ok, so what? Even if Miami (OH) loses in the conference tournament, they will still have a great record (30-something and 1) and will get an at-large bid. Right?

This is where things get interesting. Recently former coach Bruce Pearl said that Miami (OH) shouldn’t get an at-large spot in this scenario, causing a ruckus in which the administration and coach at Miami (OH) responded with indignity.

Here’s the interesting thing, however. Both sides have a good point. What Miami (OH) has done is truly impressive, yet at the same time theirs good reason to doubt they could’ve qualified for an at-large spot had they been in a power conference and played a tougher schedule. What we want to do is to examine the RedHawks’ tournament resume as the committee will and explain more about this process.

It is our conjecture that the NCAA Tournament committee has a challenging job and is overly criticized. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong. But consider what they are tasked with. They are asked to rank a number of different basketball teams playing in different conferences and oftentimes wildly different schedules. It is tough enough to try and compare the 6th-best team in the Big 12 with the 6th-best team in the Big 10, now try comparing a top team from the MAC to average teams in the SEC or how MWC teams stack up against A10 teams.

In order to guide the committee, the room has team sheets which show a team’s numbers and its wins and losses based on things which can be compared, that is quadrants. If Team A is 5-4 in Q1 games and Team B is 3-6 in Q1 games, the committee can easily judge that, in terms of Q1 record alone, Team A is preferrable. Now it may be that Team B has done better at avoiding bad losses, has a better overall strength and schedule and computer ratings, etc. that wind up seeding Team B better than Team A, but this process helps the committee make some sense of the numbers. Here are a list of important things the committee considers:

• Wins and overall record against quadrants
• Computer efficiency metrics (i.e. KenPom, NET)
• Resume metrics (i.e. WAB)
• Strength of Schedule

Let’s bring in Bracket Matrix to get a consensus look at where things stand today. The consensus thinks Miami (OH) is in the tournament (they are given the MAC auto-bid at this point by many systems), albeit as an 11-seed. Should Miami (OH) lose to Akron in the MAC finals, how much this would change their status remains to be seen, but they’d likely be a quintessential bubble team.

To see why this is, put yourself in the committee’s shoes. Instead of romanticizing the dream season of the mid-major, look at things objectively. In this scenario, Miami (OH) would be 33-1. Sure, this is impressive. But they also currently have the 344th best SOS according to Warren Nolan. Digging into their resume a bit more, you’d see these marks by quadrant:

Team	Q1-A Record	Q1 Record	Q2 Record	Q3 Record	Q4 Record
Miami (OH)	0-0	0-0	1-0	10-0	16-0

The first thing we’d notice is the goose egg in terms of all Q1 games, followed by the sole Q2 win. Miami (OH) has gone 3-0 in non-D1 games, which don’t really count at all, meaning their overall 30-0 record is really 27-0…still impressive but you get what’s happening. This initial strong element of the resume has started getting chipped away.

Looking at a few computer metrics, here is how Miami (OH) looks

• 53 in NET
• 88 in KenPom
• 30 in WAB

The efficiency metrics aren’t great, but helpful to Miami (OH) is the WAB number. This metric shows the RedHawks as having the caliber of resume of a typical 8 seed.

Let’s compare this to a similarly-placed team in Bracket Matrix, TCU. The Horned Frogs’ team sheet looks something like this:

Team	Q1-A Record	Q1 Record	Q2 Record	Q3 Record	Q4 Record
TCU	3-5	5-7	5-1	3-1	7-1

• 42 in NET
• 45 in KenPom
• 36 in WAB

Looking at these two resumes, which one looks more impressive? This what Miami (OH) is up against. Yes, the 30-0 (or 33-1 potentially) looks great, but once you look at what is presented on the team sheets, it stacks up poorly against teams that have a number of quality wins.

Having said that, TCU going 10-2 in Q3/Q4 should be pulling the Horned Frogs down, and it is. TCU is currently projected to be the lowest 10-seed, i.e. just barely avoiding the First Four play-in. But it is better to have a few “hiccup” games against Q3/Q4 opponents if you win enough Q1 games than it is to go unbeaten against Q3/Q4 teams while not playing (or winning) many Q1/Q2 games.

Another factor helping TCU here is SOS, which sits at 46. This is the same thing for other non-Miami (OH) bubble teams. Ohio State has the 23rd-ranked SOS. Santa Clara’s is 87th. VCU’s is 101st. New Mexico’s is 93rd. Even the other mid-majors on the bubble have way-better SOS than Miami (OH).

What’s really holding Miami (OH) in the at-large picture at all is its WAB and the fact it has avoided bad losses (nearly every game it played, would it have lost, would be a “bad loss”).

Pearl’s Comments and the response

Bruce Pearl’s comments were not taken well, with Miami (OH)’s administration mentioning that Pearl is saying as such to promote Auburn, where his son is the head coach. Auburn was on the bubble but has lost 7 of its last 9 to fall to 16-14 on the year. The Tigers still have an outside shot of making the Big Dance if they can rack up a few wins in the SEC Tournament, but despite having the 3rd-best overall SOS, they’ve lost too many games at the moment to be in the field.

But let’s consider his point. He’s saying that Miami (OH) has benefitted from an incredibly easy schedule, and that were they to play in a power conference, they’d likely be out of the tournament. To explore this, we compared the team with the closest WAB to Miami (OH), Georgia (29), who is conveniently another SEC team.

Georgia’s gone 21-9 this year, but has won 7 Q1 games while only losing 1 Q3 game (and 0 Q4 losses). They’ve racked up impressive wins against Alabama, Cincinnati, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kentucky. We can’t say that Miami (OH) has done this. Maybe they could have, but we can’t say they did. That’s why Georgia’s WAB ranking feels truly “earned” and the committee will likely have them in the 7-8 seed range.

To Miami (OH)’s point, sure the MAC is easier than the SEC, but they’re undefeated, something that many bubble teams can’t say when looking at just Q3/Q4 results. New Mexico has two Q3 losses. TCU lost to lowly New Orleans at home (Q4) earlier in the year. Santa Clara has a Q4 loss as well. Some of the other teams on the bubble (Ohio St., Indiana, VCU) have taken care of games against Q3/Q4 opponents but have paltry records in Q1/Q2. What’s really the difference between going 1-8 in Q1 games versus going 0-0?

What people tend to ignore is that the committee functions in a certain way, namely they function by being able to compare each team against those around it. After a rough draft seed list is created, they go through the “scrubbing” process which is effectively taking two similar teams and using a fine-tooth comb to separate their resumes. The better team moves up a spot and is compared to the team above it. The worse team moves down and is compared to the team below it. Do this for a few iterations, and you’ve made a consensus decision on how the S-curve should be 1-68.

Because of this process, what the committee wants to see is that teams are easier to compare. It is easier to compare teams with similar(ish) Q1 contests, SOS marks, etc. than it is to compare a Miami (OH) and a TCU. The committee is trying to weight wins and losses, and this gets tougher to do when a team’s opponents played are skewed to the low-end of the quadrant scale.

To combat this, the NCAA has consistently signaled the importance of strength of schedule. Teams with poor SOS marks get dinged, and not just on the bubble. Iowa State fell a few spots on the S-curve (and missed a chance at a 1-seed) a couple years back because of its poor non-con SOS. They don’t want to be told they have to parse one team’s results against competitive teams against that of another’s games against non-competitive ones.

WAB, Hypothetic Results, and Scheduling

Running concurrent to this is the recent inclusion of Wins Above Bubble (WAB), which allows a team to play a weak schedule yet still build a resume as long as they have a very good record (i.e. undefeated or 1 loss). This is what Miami (OH) has done in 2026.

The metric is saying that Miami (OH)’s 30-0 record is equally as impressive as Georgia’s 21-9 record against a far harder schedule. What Bruce Pearl is saying is that Miami (OH) would still struggle to achieve something the likes of which Georgia has done against Georgia’s schedule. And what we’re saying is that both are right.

Had Miami (OH) played Georgia’s schedule, a computer metric like KenPom would project the RedHawks to have a 15-15 record. Even if we gave hypothetical Miami (OH) a few more wins playing that schedule, 17-13 isn’t likely getting a team in (that’s about 62nd in WAB).

The better response for Miami (OH) than to insult Pearl would be to point out that most teams couldn’t finish 30-0 against the RedHawks’ schedule. If Georgia had played the schedule Miami (OH) did, computers would project them to be at 28-2 or 29-1…only 21% of the time would we think they could run the table. Yes, they’d be favored in every game. But eventually someone would trip them up, they’d have an off-night, etc. With five total games on the schedule in which they’d be favored to win less than 90% of the time, it isn’t unlikely they’d drop one along the way.

Now the committee doesn’t really consider hypothetical results as such, that’s what WAB is attempting to control, but it does show how the argument becomes circular.

The other element within this is scheduling. A harder schedule for Miami (OH) would have allowed us to see how they would have done against opponents closer to the quality of Georgia’s (or TCU’s or Ohio State’s). Now Miami (OH) couldn’t schedule better within its conference. The MAC is the 17th-best conference per KenPom, truly a mid-major league. The MAC schedule has provided Miami (OH) with a number of Q3/Q4 games and its only Q2 contest (Akron). I believe the committee would be sympathetic to the RedHawks if them being in a weaker league was the only reason for their poor SOS numbers. Where Miami (OH) has been hurt, however, is in the weakness of its non-conference schedule.

The RedHawks have the 364th ranked non-con SOS, having played three non-D1 teams as well as a slew of other low-majors. Playing 8 teams outside of the top 300 in KenPom in your non-con while also playing a mediocre conference slate is a recipe for a disastrous SOS metric. For most teams at the non-power conference level, this matters not since they aren’t trying to get an at-large bid. But for Miami (OH), it might become a nightmare.

Miami (OH)’s coach tried to justify this. As ESPN reported:

Coach Travis Steele recently told ESPN that high-major squads have refused to schedule the RedHawks due to the potential for an upset.

This has become the typical sentiment from mid-major coaches and supporters of these teams. But it isn’t based on much evidence. Looking at the rest of the MAC and using KenPom numbers, Miami (OH) had the worst non-con schedule by far. Its average non-con opponent (excluding non-D1 teams) had a rating of -9.91. The average non-con opponent of all the other MAC teams was -1.97. This is a difference of about 5.6 points per game easier for Miami (OH) than others in their league faced.

Obviously they could have scheduled harder. But even the claim that high-major teams refused to schedule Miami (OH) is far-fetched. Fellow MAC school Eastern Michigan faced four power conference foes in the non-con. The Eagles played at Pitt, Louisville, Cincy, and Butler. These were all Q1/Q2 games. Other teams in the MAC were also able to schedule power conference opponents.

The more obvious solution here is that Miami (OH) didn’t expect to be 30-0 on March 5, and they just weren’t concerned with building an at-large resume when they scheduled last off-season. They were hoping to play well during the regular season to get a good seed in the conference tournament and hopefully get a bid through automatic qualification. Which is fine, a majority of the conferences are one-bid leagues. But don’t pretend your abysmal SOS is the fault of other programs.

Projecting Miami (OH) in the Field

Wrapping this up, what do we think about Miami (OH)’s chances? We’ve been all over the map in this analysis, but this is kind of everything the committee will be considering (well, besides the hypothetical scenarios). Obviously Miami (OH) can take care of things by winning its conference tournament. But what if they don’t?

Let’s say Miami (OH) wins its final regular season game (at home against Ohio). This is actually a key game, as it will allow the RedHawks to have 1 loss at most following the conference tournament. I don’t think Miami (OH) gets in if they lose the regular season finale and in the MAC tournament.

If they finish the regular season 31-0 and lose in the conference tournament, preferably in the championship game to Akron (Q2 opponent), this is where things get interesting. Their WAB would drop a bit (likely to around 38-40), which by itself would get them in the field but not by much. Combined with weak efficiency metrics, no Q1 wins or even games played, and of course that SOS, it is going to be close.

Either way, if Miami (OH) finishes at these records here are the chances I give them:

• (34-0) – 100%. 10-seed estimate.
• (33-1) – 60%. 11-seed First Four.
• (32-1) – 30%. Out but if in 11-seed.
• (31-1) – 25%. Out but if in 11-seed.
• (32-2) – 0%. A 2-loss team with that bad SOS won’t get in.

Bid thieves in leagues like the A10, MWC, and WCC (as well as any power league) are also lurking which would change this calculus. At the moment, Torvik projects Miami (OH) in the field 67% of the time, with them earning an at-large bid 49.6% of the time, a true coin flip.