Does Miami (OH) Deserve to Be In the 2026 NCAA Tournament?
Updated March 25, 2026
Updated March 25, 2026
The selection process for the NCAA Tournament often sparks debate, but few cases in recent years have been as unusual as the 2026 Miami (OH) RedHawks. Entering the Mid-American Conference (MAC) tournament, Miami carried a perfect 31–0 record and had become the last unbeaten team in Division I men’s basketball. That remarkable run ended abruptly with an 87–83 loss to Massachusetts in the MAC quarterfinals, leaving the RedHawks at 31–1 and without the conference’s automatic NCAA Tournament bid. Now the committee must decide whether a team with only one loss belongs in the field of 68.
Miami (OH) has authored one of the most surprising seasons in college basketball. The RedHawks finished the regular season 31–0, becoming the first Division I team to complete an unbeaten regular season since Gonzaga in 2021. They also went 18–0 in MAC play and rose into the Associated Press Top 25 during the season.
The team has been one of the most productive offensive groups in the country, ranking near the top of the nation in scoring and shooting efficiency while featuring a balanced lineup with several players averaging double figures. Key contributors such as Brant Byers and Peter Suder have helped fuel a fast-paced offense that eclipses 90 points per game.
Despite that success, the RedHawks’ résumé contains notable flaws. Advanced metrics place them far below typical at-large teams, with rankings around No. 54 in NET and outside the top 90 in KenPom's overall efficiency ratings. Those numbers reflect a schedule that did them few favors, especially outside conference play. Miami had no Quad 1 victories and just a small number of Quad 2 wins, leaving the selection committee with limited evidence of how the team stacks up against high-level competition.
Their lone defeat came in the MAC tournament, when eighth-seeded Massachusetts erased a late deficit and stunned the RedHawks 87–83. The loss ended Miami’s undefeated run and removed the easiest path to March Madness: the MAC's automatic bid. Now their fate rests with the selection committee, which must decide whether 31 wins outweigh a résumé that lacks marquee victories. Let's look at the case for and against Miami and make our decision as to whether or not they should be in the tournament.
The strongest argument for Miami (OH) is simple: teams that win 31 of 32 games usually belong in the NCAA Tournament. Finishing the regular season undefeated is an extremely rare accomplishment. Only a handful of teams since the expansion of the tournament field in 1985 have achieved it, including programs like UNLV, Saint Joseph’s, Wichita State, Kentucky, and Gonzaga.
Winning that many games, regardless of conference strength, shows consistency over several months. The RedHawks did exactly what the selection process often encourages: they beat nearly every team placed in front of them. While the MAC does not compare with major conferences in overall depth, going 18–0 in league play still requires surviving road environments and avoiding letdowns.
Another point in Miami’s favor is historical precedent. No team that completed an undefeated regular season has ever been excluded from the NCAA Tournament. Leaving out a 31–1 team would break from decades of precedent and risk sending the message that win-loss results matter less than computer rankings, or whether or not you belong to a power conference.
Bubble strength plays a major role in every Selection Sunday debate. In many years, several power-conference teams enter the discussion with 18–13 or 19–12 records but with stronger schedules than teams from smaller leagues. The committee must decide how much weight to place on those schedules compared with overall success.
If the final bubble includes teams with 15 or more losses, Miami’s résumé becomes easier to justify. A 31–1 record stands in sharp contrast to teams that may sit near .500 on the year. While metrics like NET and KenPom matter, the committee has historically rewarded teams that accumulate wins.
Some bracket projections before the MAC tournament had Miami around an 11-seed, indicating that analysts already believed the RedHawks were inside the field. If the bubble remains thin, their case becomes stronger. And with a near-.500 Auburn team, who needed overtime to beat Bethune-Cookman in their season opener, being seen as good enough to make the field, it would be hard to see the RedHawks missing out.
Critics of Miami’s résumé point directly to the schedule. The RedHawks’ nonconference strength of schedule ranked near the bottom of Division I, and they did not face a ranked opponent during the season. That absence of high-quality games leaves evaluators with little evidence that the team can compete with top-tier opponents.
Advanced metrics also reflect that weakness. Despite the 31–0 regular season, Miami ranked outside the top 50 in NET and even lower in ratings from trusted sources such as KenPom and Torvik. For comparison, many power-conference bubble teams sit significantly higher in those rankings despite having more losses.
The lack of Quad 1 victories may be the most damaging element. Those games are considered the clearest indicators of tournament-level quality, and Miami simply did not have the opportunity to add them. In fairness, emails have been released where Miami very clearly tried to schedule those games, but the cowardly teams from power conferences denied them. The question is whether they should be punished for the cowardice of other schools.
Historically, mid-major conferences like the MAC rarely receive more than one NCAA Tournament bid. The conference’s automatic qualifier usually represents the league, while other teams are left out unless they have exceptional résumés.
The MAC has not regularly produced multiple bids, and the selection committee often leans toward teams from stronger conferences when résumés are close. That tendency could work against Miami if power-conference teams with stronger schedules land on the bubble.
There is also the optics of Miami’s conference tournament exit. Losing to an eighth-seeded team in the first game of the tournament raises doubts about how strong the RedHawks truly are. Critics argue that a legitimate at-large team should not fall to the bottom half of its league bracket. But we also saw Duke nearly lose in the 1 vs 8 game of their conference tournament, so who knows.
The decision ultimately comes down to what the NCAA Tournament selection committee values most. If strength of schedule and advanced metrics carry the most weight, Miami (OH) looks like a fringe candidate. Their low rankings in advanced metrics and lack of Quad 1 wins would place them behind several power-conference teams with stronger résumés.
However, ignoring a 31–1 record would be difficult to justify. Winning 31 games in Division I basketball, regardless of conference, is an achievement few teams reach. Miami dominated its league, completed an undefeated regular season, and lost only once, in a close conference tournament game.
I would also be concerned with denying Miami (OH) ruining the entire appeal of this tournament. While the conferences with the money have major sports networks to recite their talking points in an attempt to consolidate wealth and power, the entire fun of March Madness is seeing smaller schools upset traditional powers. Denying them one more chance to do that feels like injustice at best and outright corruption at worst.
For that reason, the RedHawks deserve inclusion in the 2026 NCAA Tournament field. Their seed may land in the double digits due to strength of schedule concerns, but leaving them out entirely would contradict the idea that results on the court matter. A team that wins nearly every game it plays should have the chance to prove itself in March, simple as.
Jay Sanin is the GM and Head of Sports at ATS.io. He has been writing about sports gambling since 2013, handicapping tens of thousands of sporting events. He plays sides and totals aggressively across most sports and is more selective in player prop markets. He does his own modeling across most sports, and his family is jealous of how much time he spends on his precious spreadsheets.
Affiliate Disclosure
ATS.io uses affiliate links. If you sign up through a link on this page, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. Rankings are based on hands-on testing and published criteria, and affiliate relationships do not determine placement.
