2026 Bracket Picks Year in Review
The 2026 NCAA Tournament delivered a mix of dominant runs, key upsets, and a few defining moments that shaped how bracket pools were won.
From a bracket-strategy perspective, it was another data point in how the modern tournament is evolving, with power-conference depth, fewer early-round upsets, and multiple viable championship paths.
Here are some of the biggest takeaways from this year’s tournament:
- Michigan wins the title: A Big Ten team captured its first national championship since 2000. The Wolverines dominated the field, outscoring opponents by 114 points over six games.
- Duke falls short of the Final Four: The overall No. 1 seed was knocked out in the Elite Eight after a Connecticut comeback and buzzer-beater.
- Big Ten dominates the bracket: The conference made up half of the Elite Eight. Michigan, Purdue, Illinois, and Iowa all made deep runs, with Illinois and Iowa meeting in the South Regional.
- Limited early-round chaos: There were no upsets by a No. 13 seed or lower. No. 12 High Point over Wisconsin was the biggest first-round upset.
- Power conference gap continues to grow: For the second straight year, transfer rules and NIL appear to have concentrated talent at the top, leading to fewer true Cinderella runs.
As for our bracket picks, they were most heavily focused on Arizona as champion, with Michigan featured more in alternate builds and mid-sized Best Brackets. We were also lower than the public on Connecticut, who rated outside our Top 8 entering the tournament.
We’ll review subscriber survey responses to get a clearer picture of performance, especially for those who played alternate brackets with Michigan as the winner or had prize-clinching lineups heading into the Final Four.
Here’s what went right, what went wrong, and a full review of our 2026 bracket performance.
Golf One And Done Picks 2026
Get an edge in your One And Done contest with our customized picks and tools.
Reminder: If you used the NCAA Bracket Picks product this year, please complete our subscriber survey, so we can collect real-world data on how our brackets performed.
PoolGenius 2026 Bracket Performance Summary
Our pre-tournament data had the top three No. 1 seeds as a tier of their own. Duke was the most popular, providing value on the other two in Arizona and Michigan. The fourth region, the South, had three of our top seven teams overall, in Florida, Houston, and Illinois, providing a key region where it was more wide open.
We had Arizona rated narrowly above both Duke and Michigan at the start of the tournament, coming off their Big 12 tournament win. Because of Duke’s higher popularity, they were the least common title pick among the top three.
Our South regions in brackets had a variety of outcomes. Florida was a common pick, though we had deep runs by teams like Illinois, Houston, and Vanderbilt as well, depending on the bracket and size.
We did not have Connecticut advancing past the Elite Eight, but often had them to that point. They were outside our Top 8 entering the tournament after losses to both Marquette and by 20 to St. John’s in the Big East tournament.
How This Played Out Across Bracket Types
Here’s how that dynamic generally impacted our optimized brackets in 2026:
- In pools that use the traditional scoring system (1-2-4-8-16-32), our Best Brackets had Arizona as champion in small to medium pools, with the final brackets typically having Florida. Michigan and Duke were common Final Four picks.
- Michigan as champion was our Best Bracket champion at medium sizes, but the finalist was Houston in those brackets. Michigan was also champ on an alternate bracket at each pool size, but was often paired with a team from the South, ranging from Houston to Florida to Illinois to Vanderbilt depending on pool size.
- Florida was champion at some larger sizes in Best Brackets, something that changed based on market movement toward the Gators compared to our initial brackets on Monday.
- Brackets for other types of pools with non-standard scoring also had a majority of Arizona as champion, with Michigan also appearing on some Best Brackets, and lots of alternates.
- Our brackets outperformed the public average across all six rounds, so that more of them were likely still in contention entering the Final Four, though the upside of the highest scoring brackets was likely muted by Florida’s early loss for some brackets, and by Connecticut’s run, which a small percentage of the public did have.
Performance Update (with Survey Results)
This section was created on April 23, 2026 to reflect the survey results of our subscribers.
With several weeks of survey results now calculated, here’s how the numbers shaped up for 2026.
Overall, our results ended up almost identical to the year before. Subscribers won a prize in each pool 27% of the time, versus an expectation of 11% based on pool size and payout information. That 2.4x is in line with, but slightly lower than, our average yearly Bracket Picks performance since 2017.
Arizona was the most common champion pick. It’s a testament to how the bracket picks did overall, though, that subscribers still reported above-average results compared to the average pool participant, because just like last year, some of the alternate brackets performed well, with Michigan as champion, coupled with good results through the early rounds.
Those who submitted three entries performed the best in 2026, with 48% winning a prize, compared to an expected 14%. That comes out to a 3.4x edge. Those who submitted only one entry still outperformed the public, but the edge was lower, at 1.7 times and a 12% rate of winning a prize.
Michigan was featured as a Best Brackets champion in some mid-sized brackets, and as one of the top two alternates at most other sizes.
The performance was strongest in pools of between 31 and 250 entries. This was the range where Michigan did show up on some brackets as the Best Bracket champion, and also a range where they were likely to be featured as an alternate, in pool sizes where people are more likely to play multiple entries. The performance was lowest at the largest pool sizes this year, which makes sense as our brackets not having Connecticut on deep runs to the title game likely kept entries from hitting the high-ceiling outcomes needed in the largest of pools.
The bracket performances were also relatively higher in standard scoring rules pools (winning 2.4 times more often) and other pools with round-based scoring only (winning 3.0 times more often). Meanwhile, there was little edge (1.6x) in seed-based scoring formats, where the lack of early upsets (only one double-digit seed in the Sweet 16) can sink the chances there.
What a Winning Bracket Looked Like in 2026
Based on how this year’s NCAA Tournament played out, our subscribers likely saw brackets that were well-positioned heading into the Final Four but faltered in the final rounds.
Based on public picking trends, the typical bracket had between one and two (1.4) Final Four teams correct in 2026. Our average across all bracket types was slightly higher, at 1.8, and for the Best Brackets in standard scoring, it was 2.0, driven largely by having Michigan and Arizona in most Best Brackets.
Standard Scoring Bracket Winners
To get an idea of which brackets won pools this year, we looked at the top 10 scoring entries in a pool with about 400 entries, using standard 1-2-4-8-16-32 scoring. Here’s what we observed:
- All the top 10 brackets had No. 1 Michigan winning the national title (about 17% of the pool did).
- Ten total entries across the pool had all four Final Four teams correct (though not necessarily the order of results once there).
- Four of the entries had the final correct, Michigan over Connecticut, or about 1% of the pool.
- No. 9 Iowa and No. 6 Tennessee, both reaching the Elite Eight, were the two deepest runs by lower seeds, but they were not vital to cashing. The winner, in fact, had Florida advancing over Iowa and had Miami of Ohio knocking Tennessee out in the first round.
Because Connecticut was a relatively less popular runner-up pick out of the left side of the bracket, you did not have to have them in a pool of nearly 400 entries to finish in the Top 10 scores. Having either them or Illinois in the Final Four, with Michigan as champion, was enough.
PoolGenius 2026 Bracket Performance Detail
Here is how our bracket picks compared to the public for the 2026 tournament in each round:
| Bracket Type | Correct R1 Picks | Correct R2 Picks | Correct Sweet 16 Picks | Correct Elite 8 Picks | Correct Finalists | Correct Champs | Max Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PG "Best Brackets" For 1-2-4-8-16-32 Scoring | 25.4 | 11.0 | 5.47 | 2.04 | 0.31 | 0.17 | 96.3 |
| PG "Best Brackets" For All Scoring Rules | 25.5 | 10.9 | 5.17 | 1.99 | 0.29 | 0.15 | 93.3 |
| All PG Brackets For 1-2-4-8-16-32 Scoring | 25.3 | 11.3 | 4.92 | 1.81 | 0.39 | 0.20 | 94.6 |
| All PG Brackets For All Scoring Rules | 25.3 | 11.0 | 4.74 | 1.77 | 0.38 | 0.20 | 93.2 |
| The General Public | 24.2 | 9.9 | 3.68 | 1.39 | 0.36 | 0.15 | 80.5 |
We continued our general trend of outperforming the public across all our brackets, though the margins were smaller, as the key results did not go the way most entries would have wanted in the Final Four.
For the second year in a row, our most common champion pick lost in a No. 1 seed vs. No. 1 seed showdown in the Final Four, though this time in far less painful fashion than a year earlier.
Up until the Final Four, our picks outpaced the public by a solid margin. Our Best Brackets for standard scoring outscored the public average by almost 24 points, or nearly as much as the title game is worth.
That gap closed with the Arizona loss and Connecticut’s advancement. Overall, our brackets had a little more Michigan as the champion than the public did.
Let’s look deeper at what went right and wrong in 2026.
What Worked and Didn’t in Our 2026 Brackets
Generally, a successful bracket-picking strategy (especially for larger bracket pools) requires making some calculated bets against the public.
The logic for determining which teams we “bet on” in our customized brackets for subscribers is driven in part by each team’s tournament rating, which often includes an adjustment to its full-season power rating based on factors like lineup changes and injuries.
In retrospect, we had some hits and misses with our rating adjustments this year, as happens every year. Unfortunately, our key adjustments (and moves toward the market as the week went on) generally were not helpful in 2026.
(As a quick reminder, we provided subscribers with all our adjusted tournament predictive ratings in our NCAA Bracket Picks product. We also provided a detailed writeup containing our thoughts on the 2026 bracket and associated pick strategy.)
Because our algorithms customize bracket picks based on a pool’s size and scoring system (e.g., upset bonuses will adjust recommended picks to include more upsets), our subscribers’ optimized brackets can differ quite a bit from pool to pool. Nevertheless, some common themes likely impacted 2026 results for the majority of our subscribers.
1) Michigan’s Late Conference Play Slide Fooled Us
We had Michigan as the third-best team, narrowly behind Arizona and Duke by about a point, entering the tournament. But that slight move was enough to tip the scales on how frequently we backed the Wolverines.
Michigan was the most dominant team in November and December and, at its peak, had the best “A” game of any team in the country during the season. But they slid in the latter half of the year, and were not playing great in the Big Ten tournament, narrowly surviving against Wisconsin and losing to Purdue.
Arizona was the more consistent team when they had their full lineup available, but Michigan had the higher upside. That same upside came back once they moved into the NCAA Tournament, and by the time the Final Four actually rolled around, Michigan looked like the best team in the nation again, as they had earlier in the year.
2) The Downgrade on Duke Worked Out (Kind Of)
Duke was the most popular title pick with the public, and because we downgraded them closer to both Arizona and Michigan, due to injury concerns, they showed up far less frequently in our brackets than the public pick rate, and were not the title pick on any of our Best Brackets in round-based non-upset scoring.
We did have them, though, advancing to the Final Four with most brackets, and in the final on at least some.
Duke never really reached the heights they had before the injuries to Patrick Ngongba and Caleb Foster, even though both returned by the Sweet 16. They did, however, have a big lead on Connecticut before they blew it late, losing for the second year in a row in a painful fashion.
On the one hand, the miracle shot by Braylon Mullins of Connecticut to beat Duke knocked out the biggest liability in our brackets overall, as the most popular pick to win it all would have been a net negative.
On the other hand, Connecticut did not appear in our actual brackets past that point (while Duke did), so we lost opportunity points to a small but vital segment of brackets as they also advanced to the title game.
3) Our Overall Read of the Tournament Outlook Was Pretty Accurate
For the second year in a row, we saw separation between the top teams and the rest. The Michigan vs. Arizona decision was ultimately costly, but the tournament played out as another dominated by the top teams, with a few more notable runs than last year.
We also did not see many middle-seeded teams that looked notably underseeded. As a result, we had the top seeds in deep runs, with the identity sometimes differing on which No. 1 seeds or highly ranked No. 2 or No. 3 seeds advanced.
We did see the South as the highest-leverage region, with the most realistic contenders to reach the Final Four. In the end, it was No. 3 Illinois here, as Florida got upset early.
But for the Braylon Mullins’ shot, though, our read on the top three teams would have correctly put them all in the Final Four in many brackets.
There were also not many early upsets, for the second year in a row.
4) We Generally Fared Well in the Second Round and Sweet 16 Matchups
While our brackets had different individual picks in some of the No. 4 vs. No. 5 matchups, we generally fared well overall through the Second Round and Sweet 16 Results.
The one big exception in the Second Round was in the upper half of the South Region. No. 4 Nebraska over No. 5 Vanderbilt was a result where we frequently had the other side. And No. 1 Florida advanced deeply in a fair number of brackets.
But we had No. 5 St. John’s at a high rate over No. 4 Kansas, and had both No. 4 seeds in Arkansas and Alabama advancing more often than others from those quadrants, on average.
Even when we lost other games, for the most part, they did not affect anything beyond that round. Gonzaga and Virginia’s losses were examples of this.
As a result, we gained more than 9 points over the public in a standard scoring pool across these two rounds.
5) Post-Tournament Injury News Didn’t Break Our Way
There were several notable injury situations known coming into the tournament. Things like Texas Tech losing J.T. Toppin, BYU losing Richie Saunders, and North Carolina being without Caleb Wilson were known and reflected in the ratings, and none of those teams reached the second weekend or cost our brackets anything notable.
But there were others that were either new injuries or where the news broke poorly for us.
UCLA
We evaluated UCLA as a dangerous No. 7 seed, but one where Tyler Bilodeau being part of the optimal lineup was key. He was expected to return for the first weekend, but ultimately never did. If we had rated UCLA lower, it would have perhaps impacted more Connecticut runs.
Iowa State
And then there was Iowa State. The Cyclones’ loss of Justin Jefferson was a big factor for the No. 2 seed in the Midwest, and ultimately they bowed out to No. 6 Tennessee in the Sweet 16. If we had known that injury would occur, it would have lowered the Iowa State rating and bumped up Michigan’s odds of advancing (though, ultimately, they looked dominant anyway).
Duke
Even the Duke injury news could have burned us after the tournament began. Caleb Foster returned to play in the Sweet 16, somewhat unexpectedly given the timeline of his injury, and was a key factor in their comeback win against St. John’s. That could have made fading Duke into a much worse proposition.
Wrapping It Up
Playing in bracket contests is very risky business, especially when one or two game results don’t go your way and spell doom for your bracket. We saw that play out with Arizona, who we evaluated as the No. 1 seed with the fewest questions, and slightly ahead of both Duke and Michigan on Selection Sunday.
Outcomes like the following could have swung brackets quite a bit if they had gone differently:
- Iowa hitting a corner three to beat No. 1 Florida.
- Nebraska beating Vanderbilt after Tyler Tanner’s heave went halfway down and spun out.
- No. 2 Connecticut beating No. 1 Duke on a turnover-to-final shot sequence.
Over the long term, picks that strike the best balance between risk and contrarian value, given your pool’s characteristics, will generate the best returns.
But even then, there are typically some very close calls to make for key picks like your NCAA champion, and the results of those close calls can spell the difference between winning and losing.
How Michigan Fit the Pre-Tournament Profile
The 2026 NCAA champion ended up being one of the best teams over the course of the full season, but one who, just three weeks earlier, narrowly survived twice against Ohio State and Wisconsin, then lost a game to Purdue. They trailed by double digits for a large portion of the second half.
Our best guess is that the Michigan win will yield some positive outcomes for subscribers, but the final number might depend on factors like how many played the alternate brackets and whether any entries in your particular pool had a Michigan over Connecticut final.
Why a Portfolio Approach Still Matters
This year again illustrates why we suggest playing a portfolio of brackets across different pool sizes and scoring systems. The smartest picks for differently sized pools are rarely the same, and if you cast a broader net, you’re more likely to catch a win in at least one pool. We also do not want to tell any of you individually NOT to pick Arizona when our read was that they were the single-best option and not too popular based on what we thought on Selection Sunday. Picking Michigan was a reasonable counter to any Arizona brackets.
Thanks, and We Hope to See You Back!
If you were an NCAA Bracket Picks subscriber in 2026, we appreciate your business. Our commitment to you is that we will continue to improve our research and strategies every year to deliver winning long-term results.
In these types of pools, we expect the performance of our recommended picks to vary widely from year to year and from subscriber to subscriber within a single year. We know it can be frustrating if you go multiple years without winning a pool, but that is the nature of this beast.
Since we started collecting the data in 2015 across thousands of real-world bracket pools, our subscribers have won prizes more than three times as often as expected. We’re proud of that performance, which shows that trusting the process eventually pays off.
Have a great summer, and we hope to see you back for March Madness 2027!
Reminder: If you used the NCAA Bracket Picks product this year, please complete our subscriber survey if one is available to you, so we can collect real-world data on how our brackets performed.
P.S. If you want to read some of our past yearly bracket picks recaps, you can check them out at the links below: