March has arrived in Kansas City, and the 2026 Phillips 66 Big 12 Men’s Basketball Tournament might be the deepest, most competitive conference tournament in the country this year. With four teams ranked inside the AP Top 10 — Arizona (No. 2), Iowa State (No. 6), Houston (No. 7), and Texas Tech (No. 10) — and a half-dozen more capable of making a deep run, every game in this bracket matters. The last four Big 12 tournament champions were either a No. 1 or No. 2 seed, but with this much talent concentrated in the top half of the draw, history doesn’t guarantee anything.
Here’s your complete preview of the 2026 Phillips 66 Big 12 Tournament, including score predictions for every round, upset alerts, bracket projections, and a projected champion.
BET MARCH MADNESS AT MYBOOKIE!
The Big Picture: The Title Contenders
Arizona (1 seed) topped the Big 12 regular season and enters with the most well-rounded profile in the field. Their Offensive Efficiency (1.177) trails only Iowa State in the conference, but what truly separates the Wildcats is their elite defense — a 0.928 DE that is second-best in the entire field only to Houston. Arizona plays at a fast pace (73.6 possessions per game) and has the lowest three-point rate in the tournament at 26.9%, meaning they attack the basket relentlessly. The Wildcats’ two conference losses came against Kansas and Texas Tech, which means those two teams have already shown they can slow Arizona down. But on a neutral floor in Kansas City, Arizona is the most complete team in the field.
Houston (2 seed) is built like a wrecking ball. Their defensive efficiency (0.925) is the best in the entire field — better even than Arizona — and they combine it with strong offensive production (1.151 OE). Houston plays the slowest pace of any contender (67.4 possessions per game), which is a deliberate, suffocating style. They have a 41.6% three-point rate, giving them outside shooting to complement their interior dominance. Kelvin Sampson’s Cougars are the team with the best claim to the “best defense wins championships” narrative.
Iowa State (5 seed) — despite the seemingly low seed — is ranked No. 6 nationally and has the highest offensive efficiency in the tournament (1.170). The Cyclones play at a controlled pace (69.8) and have a balanced three-point rate of 38.7%. Their defensive efficiency (0.943) is third-best in the field. They drew the No. 5 seed due to a tougher schedule and some close losses, but Iowa State is a legitimate championship contender.
Kansas (3 seed) is carried by Darryn Peterson, one of the most explosive individual players in the country. Peterson can take over tournament games in ways that pure efficiency metrics don’t fully capture. Kansas plays a deliberate pace (70.3) and has a 35.7% three-point rate, suggesting a balanced but not three-happy offense. Their 0.978 DE is respectable. The Jayhawks tend to be a team that gets better as tournaments progress — and Peterson is an X-factor who can make or break entire bracket runs.
Texas Tech (4 seed) is the most intriguing team in the field. Their OE of 1.164 is third overall, and they shoot a remarkable 47.9% of field goal attempts from three — the highest rate in the tournament. Texas Tech literally beat Arizona in the regular season, giving them the proof of concept that they can knock off the top seed. The concern? Their DE of 1.032 suggests they surrender points at a worrying rate, which could catch up with them in a multi-game tournament setting.
Team Stats at a Glance
| Team | Seed | OE | DE | Pace | 3PT Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | 1 | 1.177 | 0.928 | 73.6 | 26.9% |
| Houston | 2 | 1.151 | 0.925 | 67.4 | 41.6% |
| Kansas | 3 | 1.075 | 0.978 | 70.3 | 35.7% |
| Texas Tech | 4 | 1.164 | 1.032 | 70.0 | 47.9% |
| Iowa State | 5 | 1.170 | 0.943 | 69.8 | 38.7% |
| TCU | 6 | 1.080 | 0.990 | 72.3 | 36.9% |
| West Virginia | 7 | 1.053 | 0.975 | 66.3 | 42.9% |
| UCF | 8 | 1.131 | 1.085 | 72.7 | 34.5% |
| Cincinnati | 9 | 1.038 | 0.951 | 71.0 | 43.9% |
| BYU | 10 | 1.153 | 1.035 | 73.2 | 40.2% |
| Colorado | 11 | 1.107 | 1.091 | 72.2 | 34.9% |
| Arizona State | 12 | 1.069 | 1.069 | 72.6 | 38.3% |
| Baylor | 13 | 1.126 | 1.084 | 71.6 | 39.2% |
| Oklahoma State | 14 | 1.090 | 1.068 | 77.2 | 36.5% |
| Kansas State | 15 | 1.050 | 1.068 | 75.2 | 41.1% |
| Utah | 16 | 1.058 | 1.114 | 70.5 | 37.8% |
OE = Offensive Efficiency | DE = Defensive Efficiency | Pace = possessions per game | 3PT Rate = percentage of field goal attempts that are 3-pointers
First Round Predictions — Tuesday, March 10
Game 1: No. 12 Arizona State vs. No. 13 Baylor — 11:30 a.m. CT (ESPN+)
This is the best first-round game in the field. Baylor (1.126 OE, 1.084 DE) has significantly better offensive efficiency than Arizona State (1.069 OE, 1.069 DE), and the Bears have a more balanced defensive profile. Arizona State’s DE of 1.069 means they give up points freely, and Baylor’s offense is good enough to exploit that. Baylor’s 39.2% three-point rate allows spacing while their superior offensive efficiency should carry the day.
Upset Alert: Baylor is actually the better team statistically despite being the lower seed — this is a bracket placement quirk more than a true mismatch.
Prediction: Baylor 74, Arizona State 67
Game 2: No. 9 Cincinnati vs. No. 16 Utah — 3 p.m. CT (ESPN+)
Cincinnati (1.038 OE, 0.951 DE) is one of the most fascinating teams in this tournament. Their offense is the weakest among all 16 teams, but their defense (0.951 DE) is one of the best — third overall in the field. They’re a grind-and-defend team that gives up very few points. Utah (1.058 OE, 1.114 DE) has the worst defensive efficiency in the tournament by a significant margin, which makes this a favorable matchup for Cincinnati. The Bearcats need multiple wins to reach the NCAA Tournament bubble, and this should be the easiest game they get.
Prediction: Cincinnati 62, Utah 54
Game 3: No. 10 BYU vs. No. 15 Kansas State — 6 p.m. CT (ESPN+)
BYU enters this tournament with significant injury concerns after Richie Saunders tore his ACL in February. However, the Cougars still have A.J. Dybantsa, who is one of the top freshmen in the country — a player capable of single-handedly carrying a team through a tournament. BYU’s 1.153 OE is genuinely elite (fourth-best in the field), and despite a defensive slide (1.035 DE) without Saunders, their offensive firepower should be enough against Kansas State (1.050 OE, 1.068 DE), who struggles on both ends. BYU plays fast (73.2 pace) and Dybantsa thrives in open-floor situations.
Prediction: BYU 78, Kansas State 67
Game 4: No. 11 Colorado vs. No. 14 Oklahoma State — 8:30 p.m. CT (ESPN+)
Colorado (1.107 OE, 1.091 DE) edges Oklahoma State (1.090 OE, 1.068 DE) in offensive efficiency, while Oklahoma State has a slightly better defensive number. What stands out is Oklahoma State’s pace — a blistering 77.2 possessions per game, the fastest in the tournament. In a fast-paced shootout, Colorado’s marginally better offense should win out. Both teams have defensive issues, making this the most likely high-scoring game of the first round.
Prediction: Colorado 82, Oklahoma State 79
Second Round Predictions — Wednesday, March 11
Game 5: No. 5 Iowa State vs. Baylor — 11:30 a.m. CT
Iowa State is a legitimate Top 10 team playing a No. 5 seed due to the Big 12’s brutal schedule. Against Baylor (1.126 OE), the Cyclones’ superb defense (0.943 DE) should be the difference. Iowa State is simply more efficient on both ends — their 1.170 OE vs. Baylor’s 1.126, and their 0.943 DE vs. Baylor’s 1.084 — the gaps are significant. The Cyclones should handle business without too much drama, but Baylor won’t go quietly.
Prediction: Iowa State 75, Baylor 65
Game 6: No. 8 UCF vs. Cincinnati — 2 p.m. CT
UCF has solid offensive efficiency (1.131) but their defense is the second worst in the tournament (1.085 DE), making them vulnerable to any team that can score. Cincinnati’s defensive identity (0.951 DE) will slow UCF down, but the Bearcats’ anemic offense (1.038 OE) might not score enough to pull away. This is a clash of styles — UCF’s offense vs. Cincinnati’s defense. UCF’s offensive advantage should be the deciding factor.
Upset Alert: Cincinnati over UCF — the Bearcats’ superior defense can hold UCF’s offense below their season average and grind out a low-scoring win.
Prediction: Cincinnati 61, UCF 58
Game 7: No. 7 West Virginia vs. BYU — 6 p.m. CT
West Virginia (1.053 OE, 0.975 DE) is a team that relies heavily on defense and low-tempo basketball (66.3 pace — slowest in the entire tournament). BYU (1.153 OE, 1.035 DE) plays at one of the faster paces in the field (73.2) and has much better offensive efficiency. The matchup is a battle of WVU’s defense against BYU’s Dybantsa-led offense. WVU will try to slow the game to a crawl, but Dybantsa’s individual brilliance can generate buckets even in difficult half-court environments.
Prediction: BYU 68, West Virginia 60
Game 8: No. 6 TCU vs. Colorado — 8:30 p.m. CT
TCU (1.080 OE, 0.990 DE) is the more well-rounded team here, with a defensive efficiency just under break-even. Colorado’s defensive issues (1.091 DE) are a real concern against an efficient TCU offense. TCU plays at a comfortable 72.3 pace and has a balanced 36.9% three-point rate. This should be a comfortable TCU victory.
Prediction: TCU 73, Colorado 63
Quarterfinals — Thursday, March 12
Game 9: No. 4 Texas Tech vs. Iowa State — 11:30 a.m. CT
This is the most interesting quarterfinal matchup. Texas Tech (1.164 OE, 1.032 DE, 47.9% 3PT rate) proved they can beat anyone in the conference — including Arizona. They’re an offensive powerhouse. But Iowa State’s defense (0.943 DE) is built to handle high-powered offenses, and the Cyclones’ own offense (1.170 OE) is similarly elite. This game comes down to whether Texas Tech’s three-point shooting (nearly half of all their attempts) runs hot or cold. When it runs cold, their defense isn’t good enough to compensate. Iowa State is the pick, but by a slim margin.
Upset Alert: Texas Tech over Iowa State if the threes are falling — this is the single most likely big upset of the quarterfinals.
Prediction: Iowa State 71, Texas Tech 68
Game 10: No. 1 Arizona vs. Cincinnati — 2 p.m. CT
Arizona faces the tournament’s most defensive-minded team, but Cincinnati’s offense (1.038 OE) simply isn’t capable of keeping pace with the Wildcats’ balanced attack. Arizona’s 26.9% three-point rate means they attack the rim constantly — Cincinnati’s defense is good but not built to stop elite interior scoring. Arizona should pull away in the second half as Cincinnati’s offense runs out of answers.
Prediction: Arizona 76, Cincinnati 58
Game 11: No. 2 Houston vs. BYU — 6 p.m. CT
If BYU reaches the quarterfinals, it’s because Dybantsa has been playing at an elite level. But Houston’s defense (0.925 DE — best in the tournament) is a different animal entirely. The Cougars’ slow, methodical pace (67.4) will be jarring for a BYU team that wants to run (73.2 pace). Houston will control tempo, limit transition opportunities, and grind BYU into submission. Dybantsa is electric, but tournament-tested Houston defense wins this one.
Prediction: Houston 64, BYU 55
Game 12: No. 3 Kansas vs. TCU — 8:30 p.m. CT
Darryn Peterson is the reason Kansas can go deep in this tournament. Kansas (1.075 OE, 0.978 DE) doesn’t have the efficiency numbers of the top two seeds, but Peterson’s ability to create in late-game situations separates the Jayhawks from the pack. TCU (1.080 OE, 0.990 DE) is actually comparable to Kansas on both ends, making this closer than the seeding suggests. Peterson’s star quality is the tiebreaker.
Prediction: Kansas 70, TCU 65
Semifinals — Friday, March 13
Game 13: Iowa State vs. Arizona — 6 p.m. CT
The marquee semifinal. Arizona’s best statistical attribute — elite defense and interior offense — runs directly into Iowa State’s best attribute — elite defense and interior offense. The Wildcats’ 1.177 OE edges Iowa State’s 1.170 OE, and Arizona’s 0.928 DE edges Iowa State’s 0.943 DE. The Wildcats are marginally better on both ends and have the faster pace (73.6 vs. 69.8), which suits their style. But Iowa State is not outmatched here — this is a genuine toss-up that will likely come down to a few possessions at the end.
Arizona won the regular-season head-to-head, and on a neutral floor, that edge holds.
Prediction: Arizona 68, Iowa State 63
Game 14: Houston vs. Kansas — 8:30 p.m. CT
This is the semifinal the Big 12 has been building toward all season. Houston’s elite defense (0.925 DE) vs. Darryn Peterson’s ability to create shots against any defense. The Cougars will slow this game to a crawl — their 67.4 pace against Kansas’s 70.3 — and try to eliminate Kansas’s transition opportunities. Peterson is the kind of player who can overcome a defensive scheme with pure individual brilliance, and the Jayhawks have shown they can beat elite teams all season.
Houston’s defensive efficiency edge is significant, but this game will be closer than most expect. Kansas steals the semifinal in a tight one.
Upset Alert: Kansas over Houston
Prediction: Kansas 66, Houston 62
Championship Game — Saturday, March 14 (5 p.m. CT)
Arizona vs. Kansas
The Big 12 Championship final we might have drawn up at the start of the season. Arizona is the more efficient team on both ends — their 1.177 OE vs. Kansas’s 1.075 OE is a significant gap, and their 0.928 DE vs. Kansas’s 0.978 DE gives them another edge. Arizona plays faster, attacks the rim more, and doesn’t rely on three-point shooting that can go cold in big moments.
The counterargument: Kansas beat Arizona during the regular season. Darryn Peterson has been building toward a signature moment. And in a championship game, individual star power can neutralize efficiency advantages.
But Arizona’s combination of elite offense and elite defense — the best pairing of both in the tournament — is the profile of a champion. The Wildcats win the Big 12 Tournament for the first time since joining the conference, but only after surviving a genuine scare from Darryn Peterson and the Jayhawks.
🏆 Prediction: Arizona 73, Kansas 66 — Arizona wins the 2026 Phillips 66 Big 12 Tournament
Upset Watch Summary
The upset scenarios to watch throughout the week: Baylor over Arizona State is more of a bracket correction than a true upset, given the Bears’ superior efficiency numbers. The biggest potential chaos agent is Texas Tech, whose explosive three-point offense (47.9% of all shot attempts from three) can beat anyone when hot — keep a close eye on their quarterfinal against Iowa State. BYU’s Dybantsa presents another wildcard, as a transcendent individual performance could carry the Cougars past West Virginia and potentially deeper. And in the semifinals, Kansas over Houston is the most significant true upset pick — Peterson is the X-factor who can topple the Cougars’ suffocating defense.
Final Bracket Projection
Champion: Arizona
Runner-Up: Kansas
Semifinalists: Iowa State, Houston
Quarterfinalists: Texas Tech, Cincinnati, BYU, TCU
Best Upset Pick: Kansas over Houston (Semifinal)
Dark Horse: BYU — A.J. Dybantsa can go for 30+ any night
Bubble Watch: Cincinnati (needs multiple wins to lock up an NCAA Tournament bid)