NIT Bracketology
The NIT Bracketology below is our best current prediction of the final NIT bracket. It is predictive of where things will end up. It is not a reflection of where things currently stand.
We’re running our full model again. Here’s how it works.
If you notice any irregularities or have questions of any sort, please say something in the comments or on twitter: @joestunardi.
- Our model also gives NIT probabilities—who will play in it, how likely they are to win.
- We’re calculating daily NIT Leverages—the NIT importance of each individual game.
- If you want NCAA Tournament Bracketology, our model does that too.
- Regions are ordered as follows: first overall seed; fourth overall seed; second overall seed; third overall seed.
- A single asterisk designates an exempt bid, awarded to the best available teams from certain conferences. A double asterisk designates an automatic bid, awarded to certain conference champions who lose in their conference tournament.
Last Updated: Sunday, Mar. 16 – FINAL
If there are opt-outs announced more than a few minutes after the NCAA Tournament Selection Show, they may not be accounted for in our final bracketology. The sections below the bracket are listed in our model’s selection order, meaning we expect teams to be called in that order (with the sub-.500 teams on those lists possibly excluded).
Boise State Region
| 1. Boise State* |
| Utah Valley** |
| 4. Georgetown* |
| Saint Joseph’s |
| 3. UCF* |
| Georgia Tech |
| 2. Wake Forest* |
| Arkansas State |
UC Irvine Region
| 1. UC Irvine* |
| USC |
| 4. Middle Tennessee* |
| Chattanooga** |
| 3. Bradley* |
| Loyola Chicago |
| 2. San Francisco* |
| Nevada |
SMU Region
| 1. SMU* |
| Oklahoma State |
| 4. LSU* |
| Santa Clara |
| 3. North Texas* |
| TCU |
| 2. George Mason* |
| Penn State |
Nebraska Region
| 1. Nebraska* |
| Northern Colorado** |
| 4. South Carolina* |
| St. Bonaventure |
| 3. Stanford* |
| Oregon State |
| 2. Dayton |
| Colorado |
**
Only Kind of Out
Our NIT Bracketology can only contain 32 teams—the number of teams in the NIT bracket. However, these next teams each have a median team sheet which ranks above our simulations’ median cut line. What this mostly reflects is uncertainty regarding NIT opt-outs. Historically, there have hardly ever been any NIT opt-outs. Maybe one a decade, if that. Last year, they became more common, seemingly mostly due to the transfer portal. So, our model accounts for them, estimating that a few of the teams in this NIT Bracketology may opt out, leaving these next in line to take their place.
- UAB
- Saint Louis
For more on how our NIT Bracketology addresses opt-outs, here’s how our model works. Here are the teams we’re currently holding out of our field:
- Northwestern (said they’re opting out of the Crown, NIT lumped in with that)
- Iowa (fired Fran McCaffery, didn’t name an interim)
- Pitt (announced they’re opting out)
- Kansas State (said they’re opting out of the Crown, NIT lumped in with that)
- Rutgers (announced they’re opting out)
- Minnesota (fired Ben Johnson, didn’t name an interim)
- Florida State (indicated their season is over post-Leonard Hamilton retirement)
- Virginia (dismissed Ron Sanchez, their interim)
- UNLV (fired Kevin Kruger, didn’t name an interim)
First Four Really Out
These are the real First Four Out, per our model.
- Northern Iowa
- Washington
- Notre Dame
- Cal State-Northridge
Next Four Really Out
These are the real Next Four Out, per our model.
- Washington State
- Samford
- Providence
- Furman
A Few More Options
In the event there’s a larger opt-out slew than anticipated or the committee doesn’t invite sub-.500 at-large teams, these teams could conceivably hear their number called:
- George Washington
- Belmont
- Florida Atlantic
- Jacksonville State
- North Alabama
- DePaul
- College of Charleston
- Cornell
NIT Bracketology and the College Basketball Crown
The College Basketball Crown is a new postseason tournament this year, with two guaranteed entrants from each of the Big East, Big Ten, and Big 12. Right now, these are the teams our model expects to receive Crown automatic bids, plus those who have indicated they’ll play in the Crown:
- Indiana
- Ohio State
- West Virginia
- Cincinnati
- Villanova
- Butler
- Utah
- Arizona State
The Crown has been billed as an NIT competitor, and it claims it will have 16 teams. However. It starts 15 full days after Selection Sunday, it starts seven days after the transfer portal opens, and it’s being played in Las Vegas, where attempts at filling arenas have mostly been unsuccessful (see: Pac-12 Tournament, 2023 NIT Final Four, most MTE’s). We don’t expect many teams to choose the Crown over the NIT, but it is a possible source of opt-outs beyond these six teams, something which is reflected in this NIT Bracketology. For more on that, look at the “Only Kind of Out” section above.
NIT Bracketology and Bid Thieves
Sometimes, our NIT Bracketology includes a team who’s also included in our NCAA Tournament Bracketology. What’s happening here is that our model is accounting for the likelihood of Bid Thieves. Our model doesn’t start the NIT Bracketology process by looking at the first team out of the NCAA Tournament. It starts by looking at the likeliest cut line between the NCAA Tournament and the NIT.
NIT Exempt Bids
Exempt bids are determined by conference. On Selection Sunday, the NIT committee will look at kenpom’s twelve top-rated conferences and then, conference by conference, award an exempt bid to the top-rated team who didn’t make the NCAA Tournament. To determine who the top-rated team is, the NIT committee will consult an average of kenpom, BPI, Torvik, WAB, BPI SOR, KPI, and NET—the seven formulas on the NCAA Team Sheets. The ACC and SEC will get two extra exempt bids in what’s believed to be a reward for their refusal to align with Fox Sports and commit two teams to the College Basketball Crown.
This setup sometimes creates a complicated situation for NIT Bracketology where one team is favored to win a conference tournament but that team is also likeliest to receive the conference’s exempt bid. What our NIT Bracketology does in these situations is, conference by conference, look at the likeliest number of teams to wind up in the NIT, and to then fill those slots in with the team or teams likeliest to wind up in the NIT.
NIT Automatic Bids
Automatic bids are awarded to any regular season conference champion who 1) is eligible for NCAA-sponsored postseason play, 2) didn’t win their conference tournament, 3) has an average ranking of 125 or better across those seven systems we listed above, and 4) didn’t already receive an exempt bid. We include these in our NIT Bracketology if they’re 50% likely or likelier, or if the “Only Kind of Out” section is empty. Sometimes, these wind up tied in with exempt bids, but all you should know there is that exempt bids supersede automatic bids, because exempt bids come with seeding and a home game.
NIT Bracketology Update Schedule
This is our final NIT Bracketology of the season. Thanks to all who’ve followed along. If you’re seeing this before the NIT tips off, go check our homepage for the NIT Bracket Challenge. We think it’s fun, and if you’ve read this far, we think you might think it’s fun too.
**
Pitt has opted out :/
https://www.si.com/college/pittsburgh/basketball/pitt-panthers-decline-postseason-opportunities-ends-season
Stinks for Pitt fans. At least there’s probably only one more year of Capel.
Does Colorado really have a chance at either the Crown or the NIT? Guessing a loss today probably rules them out, but I am curious about the likelihood if they can get past West Virginia.
They definitely have a chance at the Crown. It’s hard to see how that tournament is going to get 16 teams, especially given at least some Big East/Big Ten/Big 12 schools definitely prefer the NIT. (We’d guess a majority do, but we only know about a few with any certainty.)
The NIT’s trickier. Their overall résumé is good enough to be in the mix, but 20 losses is a ton of losses for a committee to stomach. They’re all respectable, and the committee did finally invite a team with a losing record last year, but 20 is a big number.
No chance for my Cougs? Figured we would be ahead of Nevada and at least Washington!
Washington beat Washington state by 20
The Pacific sweep really hurt your numbers. Hated to see it, but it’s true.
I like the invite rule change this year to include some regular season conference champs that falter in their conference tournaments, although I am not sure why they picked a ranking of 125 or better as the the dividing line.
My question is how far down the rankings do we think at large NIT bids will go after the exemptions and auto qualified? Will teams ranked in the 80s still likely be left out if they didn’t win their conference in the regular season?
I think I know the answer to this question is “no” but I will ask anyway… The exempt teams, including the top rep from the top 12 conferences, are guaranteed home games and hence top 4 seeds and while I know there are no official seeds beyond 4 in each quadrant any more (a development I detest by the way) is there any advantage given to a top 125 conference reg season champ over a truly selected at large? For example, if an auto bid team by virtue of being top 125 and a truly “picked” at large both win road games in the first round and advance to play one another, will the conference champ team get the home game? My guess is that they would simply select the venue with greater seating capacity, which is part of the travesty of not seeding one thru 8.
Gary! Great to hear from you. Here’s what we think and what we know:
It’s hard to tell how far down the list the committee will have to go to get NIT at-large teams. It could be similar to the pre-transfer portal era, and everyone could just say yes. It could also be more like last year, where they have to make a decent amount of calls. There’s a section under our bracketology called “Only Kind of Out.” That indirectly gives our best guess at how far they’ll have to go in an average scenario. It’s based on a lot of guesswork, though.
To your second question: The committee doesn’t give any priority to automatic bids, but it does seed teams 1–32, although the NIT doesn’t release those seedings publicly. They also ask every team if they’d be willing to host a game. Not everyone says yes, and sometimes there are conflicts with availability. Long story short: If there’s a second or third-round matchup between unseeded teams, the better-seeded team gets the first chance to host. If they can’t or don’t want to, their opponent gets to host.
Hey Joe, I am a bit confused about something. I have watched every game of North Texas basketball as well as many of the games that include teams in here. I have been confused about 1 thing: what is keeping them from that #1 seed? Is it SOS? I am just curious as to why a team ass good as them, who I may add, is better than about 27 of the 68 projected in the NCAA Tournament, isn’t getting a one seed. Also to get that one seed do you think beating UAB in the semis and losing close to Memphis would be enough, or do you think that they would need help? Again I have watched all of their games and if it’s SOS I understand I was just curious. I didn’t know how to send my own comment so I commented on yours. Sorry.
You are all good, Griffon! Our comment software is confusing, haha.
It isn’t SOS, really. UNT has a fine SOS number, and to be honest, SOS doesn’t directly impact NIT seeding all that much. The bigger issue for North Texas is that they don’t have any wins that stand out. With the exception of that UTSA game, they’ve been great about beating the teams they should, but they haven’t beaten many impressive teams, and when they have it’s usually been at home. Winning that Utah State game, for example, would have helped their cause.
I would be curious to see who would take their place if they won the AAC tournament.
Sorry, slow on the responses today. It would most likely be UAB. It’s possible FAU could pass UAB, but it’s not very likely.
If this is the case then why would they not release how they have teams seeded?
Also, if a certain seven metrics are used to determine inclusion for teams then why isn’t the seeding done (after the exempt teams) by those same metrics?
What I am gathering here is if a not publicly seeded at large like Minnesota goes against a 1 seed and wins and the 4 seed also loses to an unknown seed that the committee has some secret seeding and it doesn’t necessarily mean Minnesota was an 8 and the team that beat the 4 seed was a 5th seed as it would conventionally be. If the team that defeated the 1 seed (Minnesota using current projection) then gets first opportunity to host over the team that defeated the 4 seed (George Mason as of this projection) doesn’t that mean that the 1 seed was given a tougher path to Indianapolis than the 4 seed was? If so, that seems a bit counterintuitive.
They need to just seed each region 1 through 8 again… and preferably do that using specific metrics and not opinion. I get adjusting to avoid rematches but it should be more transparent and more merit based.
Teams have to turn around really fast to play the first round games (some start less than 48 hours after the bracket’s announced). So the argument in favor of not seeding the bottom 16 teams is that it reduces travel significantly. 1-seeds can absolutely get a tougher path than 4-seeds. I’d be curious whether coaches would prefer less travel or more balanced paths.
An objective seeding formula is great, and they do seem to operate mostly in line with that. It also, though, could lead to a 20-loss team making the NIT. Any objective formula this year would definitely lead to a Colorado invite, unless it completely ignored strength of schedule (in which case people would get mad about that, too). One of the useful things about our model, in my opinion, is that it shows what an objective formula pumps out, at least for selections and the order in which the seeded teams are seeded.
Transparency would be great, but I get why they do it the way they do it. Even when they’re extremely clear about how the format works and why, very few people take the time to read it. When they assigned matchups based on seedings, people were mad about the travel. If they released the full seed list now, people would be mad about imbalanced paths. The specific people who run the NIT take a lot of shit, most of it unfairly.
Go Irish!
Where is Nebraska?
The NCAA T*urnament, sadly. Wouldn’t wish that on anybody.
I guess I was surprised to see us still in after losing to Ohio State. But we are definitely Crowning now.
Not necessarily! There’s still hope!
https://thebarkingcrow.com/nit-bracketology-how-nebraska-can-avoid-the-crown/
Could you see the Gophers getting an at-large invite to the CBC? If Oregon gets back into the top 30 NET and they win one of their two final games, Minnesota will finish with an impressive 7 Quad 1 wins. That would put them in fairly elite company.
For sure. They’ll almost definitely be invited to the CBC. But if they want to play postseason basketball and they aren’t contractually bound to the CBC (like the auto-bids purportedly are), it’s unclear why anyone would play in the CBC. It’s happening in empty neutral arenas a whole week after the transfer portal opens and more than two weeks after Selection Sunday.
If you’re asking about the CBC as a fallback option in the event they miss the NIT: I think it’s definitely a fallback option. If you’re asking whether they’d choose the CBC over the NIT: I’d question the judgment of anyone who makes that choice.
Hey Joe do you envision the trend of declined bids continuing or do you think last year was hopefully just a fluke?
Great question. We really don’t know. My short answer is that I think the number will be smaller than last year but still the second-largest of all time.
Four factors I’m considering as I try to bake that into our model:
1. Last year, the transfer portal opened the day after Selection Sunday. It’s a week later this year, so 24 of the 32 NIT teams will be eliminated by the time it opens. I could see that helping discourage teams from opting out.
2. We really don’t know how teams will feel about the College Basketball Crown, the first serious competitor to the NIT in a long time. It’s not a good setup for teams—they have to wait more than two weeks after Selection Sunday before playing their first Crown game; fans hardly travel to Las Vegas for conference tournaments and MTE’s—but the Big Ten, Big 12, and Big East schools have relationships with Fox Sports, and maybe Fox Sports has come up with good selling points. There’s also an angle with the Crown’s six automatic bids where rumor says teams who receive those automatic bids and decline the Crown can’t play in the NIT. What we don’t know is what happens if, for example, Villanova declines the Crown. Does Georgetown or Butler get the automatic Crown invite? Are they then barred from the NIT? We could see a scenario where nobody really wants to play in the Crown, but this results in the whole Big Ten, Big 12, and Big East missing the NIT. This is a nightmare scenario for all parties, but nobody’s accused the Crown of being a good idea.
3. Last year’s number was artificially inflated by the situation where only one team from the Pac-12 wanted to play and the Pac-12 had two automatic bids. Oregon State had no reason to expect an NIT invitation. They did technically decline, as did a handful of other sub-.500 Pac-12 programs, but their declining of the bid was different from Memphis’s, Indiana’s, etc. It’s a new kind of declined invitation and shouldn’t be compared 1-to-1 to the historic trend.
4. The Big Ten only allowing 15 teams into its tournament could lead to more declined NIT bids. For example: Penn State was mathematically eliminated from the Big Ten Tournament yesterday. Their season will end this coming Saturday, and they know that. They’re right on the NIT bubble, but will they accept an invitation if it means having to keep their team together for a full week and a half after the season ends? We don’t know, and we could see this increasing the number. (The ACC also isn’t letting everyone into their tournament, but the bottom of the ACC is not NIT bubble material like the bottom of the Big Ten is.)
Sorry for the massive response, but that’s what we’re considering. NIT Stu should have a blogpost up this week with what we know about the Crown and a few more thoughts on opt-outs.
This was great thanks!
If Samford finishes 2nd in Socon tourney, does it have a shot at NIT?
That would probably at least keep them close to the bubble. They’re not that far out of the mix right now. Beating UNCG tomorrow would help Samford a lot.
I know it’s probably a long shot but any chance Wichita St can make it?
I wouldn’t completely count them out, but they’ve probably got a better chance of winning the AAC Tournament.
What are Oregon State’s NIT chances? They need to beat either SF or St Marys to make sure?
I’d guess that winning one of those two would be enough, but it’s close enough that I wouldn’t guarantee it, especially with a potential landmine matchup in their WCC Tournament opener. Finish 2–2 from here and they’re probably in, but it might take three more wins to make them a lock.
Are Washington State’s chances fully cooked?
It’s too early to fully write them off, but they’re a full three seed lines below our projected field right now. They need to move the needle. Thankfully, they’ve got three good opportunities coming up to do exactly that.
Can you confirm or deny that the committee got far enough down the list for Bonaventure to get invited?
ESPN reported it tonight and we haven’t seen anyone deny. We don’t know what the process looked like, so we don’t know when they were called, but they should have known on Saturday that they’d be somewhere around the NIT bubble, which makes a conventional denial sound pretty plausible to us.
Let’s go SMU!
UC Bearcats coach Wes Miller (Miller Lite) will be entering his 4th season this Fall with zero NCAA tourney appearances. And he’s 0-3 against crosstown rival Xavier. UC fans should get used to NIT appearances (or maybe beg Mick Cronin to return to U-Clifton).
UCF needs a home game, hopefully against SFU. I want them to know how much we left them in our dust when we went to the 12.
I’m hoping my Indiana State Sycamores make the NIT as a #1 seed, as opposed to being a play-in team in the NCAA Tournament. I think we could win the whole thing this year and we’d never even have to leave the state of Indiana since the NIT Final 4 is in Indianapolis this year.
Sycamores play like they are capable and yes they could win it all
They are guaranteed a 1 seed
Is Georgia in since Mississippi isn’t taking a bid?
Yes. SEC will still get two automatic bids to the NIT even if Mississippi declines an invite. The official statement was: “Based on principles and procedures, the bid would go to the next eligible SEC team by NET.” The next team by NET here is Georgia.
Ole Miss has said they would opt out/not accept an NIT invite.
Yeah, sad for that fanbase. They haven’t gotten to play in the postseason much lately. Thanks for making sure we knew. We’ll have them out of the bracket in the morning.
NIT changes their policy so that they could allow more Power 5 Teams in and Ole Miss declines. Meanwhile Mid-major auto-bids are ignored. This could blow up in their face.
Now we get 6-12 (17-16) Georgia with 100 Net rating? Awesome. If SEC teams keep declining there will still hope for Missouri at 0-18 in conference!
I would think XAVIER would be in. Yes, a few bad losses, but Look at whom they’ve defeated.
They’ve got great numbers, but the NIT committee hasn’t selected a sub-.500 team as an at-large in the time we’ve been covering the NIT. It’s possible this will be the year it changes, but we’ve said that a lot of times the past few years.
I’m an Oklahoma State alumni and would love to see them play in the NIT. But at 15-17?
Also, why is Loyola (my son’s Alma mater) not being more seriously considered? 22-10 in a solid A-10. Would think they would be in without question. Why?
After today’s win, I’m guessing Loyola will be a lot closer to the field when our model updates in the morning. Overall, though, schedules just really aren’t created equal.
Oklahoma State played ten games against teams in kenpom’s current top 50. Loyola played one. Loyola lost to four teams who are worse than FAU, the worst team that beat OK State. One of Loyola’s wins came against Eureka, who isn’t a Division I team. Two came against teams who are among the ten worst in all of Division I.
I like Loyola a lot and hope they make it, but Oklahoma State’s 15–17 record is more impressive than Loyola’s 22–10 right now, when you account for the schedule. Totally understand that annoying some people, but the gap between the Big 12 and the A-10 is enormous right now, and Loyola’s non-conference schedule turned out to be very weak.
Losing record
But they destroyed your “Cats
They sure did. Five years in a row & counting. UC fans have never recovered from the Bob Huggins false idol worship of the 90s.
Do you expect any teams to opt out? Like UNC did last season.
We don’t really know. It’s pretty rare for that to happen, historically. UNC was the first true opt-out in a really long time. Penny Hardaway said today that he doesn’t want Memphis to play in it, so it’s possible the committee might not invite Memphis, but we haven’t heard anything official on that front, and we haven’t heard anything elsewhere yet either. Hopefully, the backlash to that move by UNC will keep teams in it.
What is the point of the regular season for “Mid-Majors” now that the NCAA has removed all small conference champions the right to play in a post season tournament (that they don’t have to pay for). Is the CBI or CIT doing anything for any of the #1 seeds that will no longer have a chance for a bid to the NIT?
Hope Indiana St makes the NCAA and Appalachian St makes the NIT
I’m not sure if the CIT is back this year or not, and I don’t know whether the CBI or CIT is specifically making an effort to recruit regular season conference champions. I will say, since you asked: There are a lot of things to play for in college sports beyond the national championship (and in college basketball’s case, the NIT). There are rivalries. There’s personal pride. The conference championship itself, over the regular season, is a huge accomplishment in every league, and it remains that even without an NIT bid as a reward. We really liked the 2006–2023 system and are sad to see it go, but I’m unaware of non-power conference teams working any less hard or caring any less without the NIT as an incentive.
For what it’s worth, we’ve started tracking the impact of the format’s change in our daily NIT Bracketology rundown (link below to this morning’s). As of this morning, the five slots that would have gone to automatic bid teams are instead projected to go to Duquesne, San Francisco, VCU, NC State, and Appalachian State. Those teams would not have been in our bracketology this morning in the old format, and all of Bradley, Loyola, and South Florida would be much more on the bubble. The benefits of the change aren’t only flowing to power conference teams.
https://thebarkingcrow.com/nit-bracketology-the-indiana-state-question/
The CBI and CIT are both running post-season tournaments this year and any #1 seeds that lost in the conference tournaments that don’t get NIT invites will be in one tournament or the other. The only problem with those tournaments is there is an entry fee, $27,500 in the CBI and while the CIT technically doesn’t have a fee to enter if you want to host you have to pay $30,000. So because of that you see a lot of schools decline even though by record or performance should be playing in the post-season.
I did not know the CIT was back, but you are correct! The first year after Covid they changed their name to “the basketball classic”, planned on having 32 teams, and only managed to find 23 I believe, willing to play. Looks like 16 teams get in, and it is needed, after what the NIT did to screw over the mid-majors
It just so happens that the year the NCAA/NIT remove conference champions the honor of getting an automatic bid to the NIT, (21) No. 1 seeds lose in a conference tournament this postseason.
In my opinion, this has diluted the NCAA tourney field so much that this will be the worst field in NCAA recent memory.
Do you think the new NIT rules, along with all the bid thieves going into the NCAA field will now improve the NIT tourney field, even with teams like Memphis and Ole Miss (possibly more) declining a bid since the it has become an NCAA or bust mentality within division one schools?
Feel bad for all the mid-major conference winners getting caught up by the NCAA greed – power conference teams in the post season make more money for the NCAA.
E. Kentucky, E. Washington, High Point, UC Irvine, Sam Houston, Quinnipiac, Norfolk St., Toledo, CCSU, – great seasons – you were given the bird by the new NCAA/NIT rules
Indiana St., Princeton, Appalachian St. and Richmond – hope sucess in the “NEW” NIT
Although you have points nobody was watching the smaller schools in the NIT
At some point business decisions are necessary
They tried the other way and it got so bad the the tournament is no longer at MSG
We have really mixed feelings about it. We don’t know if the NIT could have continued without making the pivot, given the pressure from the power conferences and Fox Sports, but there was an elegance to the old system, and we’re sad for those schools you listed. (We don’t begrudge anyone trying to make a buck, but low-major conferences chase TV money by having conference tournaments, and it sometimes hurts their more deserving champions. We respect leagues like the WAC making such an effort to get their best team the automatic bid. Sometimes, conference tournaments are very unfair.)
It does seem people are really excited about this projected field, relative to other years. We’ll see whether any upper bubble teams opt out, but if it ends up around this? It’ll be a very fun first round.