Breaking down the NCAA Division I Men’s and Women’s Basketball Committees’ selection criteria
Inside the NCAA selection process: How metrics and rankings shape the tournament fields
March Madness isn’t just about buzzer-beaters and Cinderella stories. It’s also about the meticulous process the Division I Men’s and Women’s Basketball Committees undergo to determine which teams make the NCAA tournaments.
Understanding these criteria can shed light on why certain teams receive at-large bids and how selections are made. Here’s a breakdown of how the committees make their decisions for both men’s and women’s basketball.
Key metrics used in NCAA selection process
NCAA Evaluation Tool rankings
The NET rankings measure team performance based on efficiency, opponent quality and game location. This is the NCAA’s primary sorting tool for evaluating teams.
The NET is designed to be most optimal in March, not in early December. It is first released in December each year due to demand from the NCAA membership, media and fans. There are going to be more outliers early in the season because of the limited data available, more than what you might see in other metrics that use preseason data as a starting point for rankings. The NET does not use any data from prior seasons or any preseason rankings or inputs.
Quadrant wins and losses
NET rankings play a role in helping the Division I Men’s and Women’s Basketball Committees evaluate teams, but they are not the sole factor in determining who makes the tournament. Instead, the committees use the NET rankings as a guide to sort teams into four quadrants, with different quadrant ranges for men’s and women’s basketball that were determined by using sport-specific home, away and neutral game results. While many games fall within the same quadrants, it’s important to remember that games within the same quadrants aren’t necessarily created equal. That’s why committee members take a deeper dive than simply examining won-lost records within each quadrant.
Men’s quadrant system
- Quadrant 1: Home (1-30), Neutral (1-50), Away (1-75).
- Quadrant 2: Home (31-75), Neutral (51-100), Away (76-135).
- Quadrant 3: Home (76-160), Neutral (101-200), Away (136-240).
- Quadrant 4: Home (161-353), Neutral (201-353), Away (241-353).
Women’s quadrant system
- Quadrant 1: Home (1-25), Neutral (1-35), Away (1-45).
- Quadrant 2: Home (26-55), Neutral (36-65), Away (46-80).
- Quadrant 3: Home (56-90), Neutral (66-105), Away (81-130).
- Quadrant 4: Home (91+), Neutral (106+), Away (131+).
Results-based metrics (men’s basketball)
These metrics evaluate a team’s resume and overall performance:
- Wins Against Bubble — This metric was first used by the committee in 2024-25. Wins Against Bubble calculates the expected winning percentage for an average bubble team in each game of a team’s schedule and then subtracts that total from the team’s actual number of wins. For example, if an average bubble team was expected to win 19 games against Team A’s schedule, but Team A won 20, it would have a +1.0 WAB rating. It’s the amount of wins you have minus the amount of wins an average bubble team would expect to have versus your schedule.
- KPI — The Kevin Pauga Index metric ranks team resumes by assigning a value to each game played. The best win possible is worth about +1.0, the worst loss about ‑1.0 and a virtual tie at zero. Adjustments are made to each game’s value based on location of the game, opponent quality and percentage of total points scored. Game values are added together and divided by games played to determine a team’s KPI ranking. By ranking games, a team’s schedule can be sorted from best win to worst loss, and a team’s KPI can be broken out into categories (home games, conference games, etc.). All games (including those against non-Division I schools) are quantified, and each team begins each season at zero.
- Strength of record — Strength of record answers the question “How difficult was it to achieve a team’s won-lost record?” The metric calculates the probability that a typical No. 25 team in the country would have the same record or better against that schedule. The probability of winning each game for that typical No. 25 team is according to the current BPI estimates. The harder it is to have a given won-lost record (i.e., the smaller the probability the 25th best team in the country could have that record), the better a team’s strength of record.
Predictive-based metrics (men’s basketball)
These metrics assess the quality of teams beyond wins and losses:
- KenPom — The Ken Pomeroy ranking is a predictive rating meant to show how strong a team would be if it played tonight, independent of injuries or emotional factors. It is a mathematical formula based on offensive efficiency (points scored per 100 offensive possessions) and defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 defensive possessions).
- Torvik — Another metric that started being used by the committee in 2024-25, the Torvik ranking is a mathematical formula based on offensive efficiency (points scored per 100 offensive possessions) and defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 defensive possessions). Torvik uses a game script that omits data after the game mathematically becomes decided. All games played in the previous 40 days count 100%, then degrade 1% per day until they’re 80 days old, after which games count 60%.
- BPI — The Basketball Power Index is a measure of team strength and not team accomplishment. Each team’s BPI tells how many points better or worse per game it is than an average Division I team. There are two pieces to BPI: a preseason rating and results of games as they are played. As more games are played, the preseason component holds less and less weight until it becomes almost nonexistent. For each game, BPI takes into account points, possessions, opponent strength, game site, distance each team had to travel, team rest and whether the game is played at a high altitude.
Women’s Basketball Committee’s use of metrics
The committee uses a variety of information when evaluating teams for selection, seeding and bracketing. Two of the data points available to the committee are the NCAA Evaluation Tool and Wins Above Bubble.
- NET helps measure a team’s overall performance and strength throughout the season.
- WAB helps evaluate a team’s accomplishments by comparing its results to those expected of a typical postseason-caliber team.
While both metrics provide valuable insight, they are only two of the 11 criteria used by the committee. No single metric determines a team’s selection, seed or placement in the bracket.
Both committees consider a team’s complete body of work, including both quantitative data and factors that statistics cannot fully capture, such as injuries to key players, coaching absences, scheduling challenges, and other unique circumstances that may impact performance.
Ultimately, committee members use a combination of data, game observation, discussion and professional judgment to make decisions. NET and WAB help inform those decisions, but they are part of a broader evaluation process designed to provide the most complete assessment of each team.
Women’s NCAA tournament selection criteria (alphabetical order)
The Division I Women’s Basketball Committee team selection criteria and priorities include the following, listed alphabetically, as it is up to each committee member to decide priority order:
- Bad losses.
- Common opponents.
- Competitive in losses.
- Early performance versus late performance.
- Head-to-head results.
- NET ranking (see above).
- Observable component.
- Overall record.
- Significant wins.
- Strength of schedule.
- Wins Above Bubble ranking
Final thoughts: What this means for Selection Sunday
The NCAA Division I Men’s and Women’s Basketball Committees use both data-driven analysis and subjective judgment to build the brackets. Understanding the NET rankings, quadrant system and selection process gives fans and teams a better idea of what to expect.
Stay updated on March Madness:
