Same Enrollment, Different Talent Pools: Is WIAA Basketball Fair to Small, Isolated Schools?
Private, charter and Montessori programs make up 18% of Wisconsin's Division 4 and 5 basketball brackets and have won 48% of the state titles since 2011. Enrollment, the number WIAA uses to sort schools, does not measure how many players a school can draw from.
BBMI Sports | Boys and girls basketball, Divisions 4 and 5 | State tournaments 2011 through 2026 (no 2020 tournament) | Rules as of October 22, 2026
Bars show each group's share of all bracket entries, state tournament spots and titles in the boys and girls D4 and D5 tournaments. Ratios compare results per bracket entry with other public programs (Exhibit 2). Source: WIAA brackets and state archives [1, 2].
Picture two Wisconsin high schools with about 200 students each. The first is the only high school in a rural town of 2,000 people or fewer, far from any city. Its basketball players are the kids who grew up there. The second is a citywide program in Milwaukee, and more than 2 million people live within about 60 miles of its gym.
WIAA puts both schools in the same small-school division, because enrollment is the only thing it measures when it first sorts schools. This article asks whether that gives the athletes at the first school a fair competitive landscape.
The tournament record suggests it does not. From 2011 through 2026, private, charter and Montessori programs made up 18% of the Division 4 and 5 tournament field. They filled 40% of the state tournament spots and won 48% of the titles. Per tournament entry, they reached state about 3 times as often as other public schools and won the title about 4 times as often.
How WIAA sorts schools today
Every WIAA basketball program is placed in one of five divisions by enrollment [3]:
- Division 1: 1,200 students or more
- Division 2: 600 to 1,200
- Divisions 3 and 4: the schools between Division 2 and Division 5, split evenly
- Division 5: the smallest 128 schools that sponsor basketball
Co-op teams combine their schools' enrollments. A school can ask to play up a division, and new WIAA members play up for their first two years [3].
The count does not ask where the students come from. A rural public district, a private school, a public charter school and a citywide Montessori program are placed by the same number. The rural district draws mostly from families inside its own boundary lines, although public open enrollment lets some students cross them [11]. The others are not tied to any attendance area.
Since 2024-25, WIAA has also moved programs up a division after repeated deep postseason runs. That rule, the Performance Factor, is covered in detail below [4, 5].
Who wins Wisconsin's small-school titles
We counted every program in every boys and girls D4 and D5 bracket from 2011 through 2026. That is 15 tournaments in each of four categories: 6,527 program-season entries, 240 state tournament spots and 60 titles [1, 2].
We grouped private, public charter and public Montessori programs together because none of them is limited to students from a fixed attendance area. Illinois calls these schools "nonboundaried," and this article uses the same term [25]. Every other public program is in the comparison group. Some of those schools take open-enrollment students, so the comparison group is not purely local. That would tend to shrink the measured gap, not widen it.
| Category | Share of bracket entries | Share of state tournament spots | Share of state titles |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boys D4 | 19.1% (281 of 1,471) | 45.0% (27 of 60) | 80.0% (12 of 15) |
| Boys D5 | 18.9% (351 of 1,859) | 46.7% (28 of 60) | 40.0% (6 of 15) |
| Girls D4 | 18.3% (257 of 1,407) | 33.3% (20 of 60) | 20.0% (3 of 15) |
| Girls D5 | 16.8% (300 of 1,790) | 33.3% (20 of 60) | 53.3% (8 of 15) |
| All four | 18.2% (1,189 of 6,527) | 39.6% (95 of 240) | 48.3% (29 of 60) |
An entry is one program in one season's bracket. Each share is the nonboundaried count divided by the total for that column: all bracket entries, the four state teams per division each year, or the champions. If school type made no difference, all three columns would sit near 18%. Fourteen entries from a co-op of one public and one private school count in the field but in neither group.
Titles vary by category. In boys D4 they won 12 of 15, including five straight by Dominican from 2012 through 2016 and Milwaukee Juneau's 2026 title. In girls D4, other public programs won 12 of 15.
Each square is one state champion. Columns are tournament years; there was no 2020 tournament. Won = titles won by nonboundaried programs out of 15. Full list of champions, runners-up and semifinalists in Appendix F.
| Outcome | Nonboundaried | Other public | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reached state | 8.0 per 100 (95 of 1,189) | 2.7 per 100 (145 of 5,324) | 2.9x |
| Won the title | 2.4 per 100 (29 of 1,189) | 0.58 per 100 (31 of 5,324) | 4.2x |
| Won the title, out of that group's state trips | 31% (29 of 95) | 21% (31 of 145) | 1.4x |
Rate per 100 entries = outcomes divided by entries, times 100. Ratio = nonboundaried rate divided by other public rate; 1.0x means equal results. Treating each entry as independent, the 95% range for the ratio is 2.3x to 3.8x for reaching state and 2.5x to 6.9x for winning the title. These intervals do not account for repeated programs or dependence between tournaments.
Most of the title gap comes from getting to state. Once there, the two groups were closer. Nonboundaried teams won the title on 29 of their 95 state trips (31%) and fell short on the other 66 (69%). Other public teams won on 31 of their 145 trips (21%) and fell short on 114 (79%). Together, that split the 60 titles 29 (48%) to nonboundaried programs and 31 (52%) to other public programs.
A state trip is one of the four state tournament spots in a division in a given year. Won = state champion on that trip.
School type does not explain every result. Coaching, facilities, a strong class and the bracket all matter, and many nonboundaried schools are small-town programs. The record shows a persistent gap in results per tournament entry, which is a reason to measure access to players rather than assume that equal enrollment means equal opportunity.
The Performance Factor counts only the postseason
The Performance Factor gives each program points for its deepest postseason finish each season [4].
| Deepest postseason finish | Points |
|---|---|
| Lost before the final eight | 0 |
| Reached the sectional final (final eight) | 1 |
| Reached the state semifinals (final four) | 2 |
| State runner-up | 3 |
| State champion | 4 |
A program with 6 or more points over the last three seasons in its division moves up one division. It can move only one division per year, and it moves back down when its three-year total falls below six. Schools can appeal. WIAA members approved the rule 265-115 at the 2023 Annual Meeting, and it first affected placements in 2024-25 [4, 5, 8].
The idea is reasonable: teams that keep going deep in the tournament should face bigger schools. In practice the rule has four gaps.
1. A dominant regular season is worth zero points
A team can go unbeaten, win its conference by five games and beat most opponents by 30. If it then loses in a regional or sectional semifinal, it earns zero points that season. The regular season affects seeding, but none of it counts toward promotion [4].
2. Moving a strong program can take longer than a high school career
To see how fast the rule responds, we ran a stress test. Imagine a 128-team bracket and a program that wins 80% of its tournament games, every year, against any opponent. That team wins the state title about 21% of the time, roughly 27 times as often as an average team in the field. It would be the favorite every season.
Rows are each-game win chance. Bars show median seasons until promotion on a 0 to 25 season scale; the 712-season bar for an average team runs off the scale.
| Each-game win chance | Title chance per season | Chance of promotion within 3 seasons | Median seasons until promotion |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50% (average tournament team) | 0.8% | 0.1% | 712 |
| 70% | 8% | 6% | 21 |
| 80% | 21% | 24% | 7 |
| 90% | 48% | 63% | 3 |
Each-game win chance = the probability the program wins any single tournament game, held constant across seasons. Median seasons until promotion = the number of seasons by which the program has a 50% chance of having reached six points. These are exact calculations from the point rules, not simulations. The model leaves out byes, changing opponents and graduation, so it is a stress test of the rule, not a forecast for any school. Full math in Appendix C.
In this model, a program that wins 80% of its tournament games is the favorite every year, yet its median wait for promotion is seven seasons. A player's whole high school career is four seasons. Even at 90%, about one time in three the program is still in its original division after three seasons. These figures describe how the rule behaves under the stated assumptions; they are not estimates of how long real Wisconsin programs wait.
3. Several strong programs can share the top without any of them moving
Points are counted school by school. When several strong programs play in the same division, they split the deep runs, and each can stay under six points while the group keeps winning.
The simplest version: three programs each win the title once every three years and lose early in the other two. Each has four points in every three-year window, indefinitely. Together they win every title, and the rule never moves any of them. Real brackets are messier, and three semifinal trips do add up to six points, so the pattern only holds when the strong programs knock each other out before the final eight. This example is hypothetical.
Every title goes to one of the three, and the cycle repeats. Each program's three-year total stays at 4 points, under the 6-point trigger, so none is promoted. Table C4 in Appendix C has the same example under Step 3.
Boys D5 from 2023 through 2026 shows a related pattern. Four private programs that are still assigned to D5 (Newman Catholic, Columbus Catholic, Abundant Life Christian and Sheboygan Lutheran), out of roughly 125 programs in each year's D5 bracket, supplied 6 of the 16 state tournament spots and 2 of the 4 titles. None has reached the six-point trigger. In WIAA's latest published totals, which cover the 2024, 2025 and 2026 tournaments, Columbus Catholic has four points, Abundant Life Christian and Sheboygan Lutheran have five each, and Newman Catholic's 2023 title has already aged out of the window [1, 46]. That is concentrated success staying below the threshold. It does not show that these programs eliminated one another early or could avoid promotion indefinitely, and nothing suggests they coordinated anything.
Gold = one of the four private programs named above; gray = any other program. C champion, R runner-up, S semifinalist. Source: Appendix F.
4. The rule moves home-grown programs for the same finishes
The Performance Factor never asks where a team's players came from. Two runner-up finishes move a small-town public program up a division, the same as they would move a school that draws from a metro area.
That is what has happened. Of the programs in our D4 and D5 state tournament data that the rule has promoted since 2024-25, seven are small-town public programs: Brillion, Mineral Point and Bonduel boys, and Laconia, Albany/Monticello, Cuba City and Oostburg girls. Four are nonboundaried: Kenosha St. Joseph, Aquinas and Milwaukee Academy of Science boys, and McDonell Catholic girls [6, 7, 8]. For 2026-27, WIAA granted appeals that kept Mineral Point boys and Cuba City girls in their enrollment divisions, so the committee is already correcting some promotions case by case [8].
† Appeal granted for 2026-27: kept in its enrollment division. Sources [6, 7, 8].
A coach who builds a youth program and develops the kids already in the district can be moved up after two strong seasons. When that class graduates, the program stays up until its three-year total falls below six. The rule cannot tell that program apart from one that assembles a roster from across a city.
Two seasons in, the gap has not closed
In the 2025 and 2026 tournaments, nonboundaried programs reached state at 3.1 times the other public rate, compared with 2.9 times from 2011 through 2024. They won 4 of the 8 D4 and D5 titles. Two seasons are too few to judge the rule, but so far it has not narrowed the gap.
Reach-state ratio = nonboundaried state trips per entry divided by the other public rate. Each square is one 2025 or 2026 champion (boys D4, boys D5, girls D4, girls D5 for each year). Details in Table A2.
The math enrollment leaves out
Milwaukee Juneau is the high school athletic program of MacDowell Montessori, a Milwaukee Public Schools program that has taken students from across the city since the 1970s [12, 13, 14]. WIAA lists its 2026-27 enrollment at 234. Juneau won the 2026 boys D4 title with a junior who ranks among the top 30 recruits in the national class of 2027 and has committed to a Division I program [15]. Milwaukee Academy of Science, a public charter school, had two seniors on its 2020 boys team who went on to Division I scholarships [16, 17]. Both are public schools small enough for D4.
How often does a small community produce a Division I player on its own? The NCAA estimates that 1.1% of the 540,704 boys who played high school basketball in 2024-25 play in Division I, which is about 5,900 players [18]. Spread over 340 million Americans, that is one Division I player for every 57,000 residents [19]. College and high school careers both last about four years, so at any moment about the same number of future Division I players are in high school.
The isolated school in our example sits in a town of 2,000 people or fewer, and its 200 students come from the town and the farms and townships around it. For that school, the talent pool is simply its own students: about 100 boys. Nationally, about 1 in 1,450 high school boys is a future Division I player [18, 20]. For the city and the region, the pool is measured in residents. Here is what each pool should be expected to hold at a given moment.
At least one: 7%
At least two: 0.2%
At least one: over 99.9%
At least two: over 99.9%
At least one: over 99.9%
At least two: over 99.9%
Each dot is one future Division I men's player expected in high school within that pool at one time. The isolated school's 0.07 is drawn as a 7% slice of one dot.
| Talent pool | Size of pool | Expected future D1 players in high school | Chance of at least one | Chance of at least two |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolated rural school's own students (illustrative) | 200 students (about 100 boys) | 0.07 | 7% | 0.2% (about 2 in 1,000) |
| City of Milwaukee | 577,222 residents | 10 | Over 99.9% | Over 99.9% |
| Eight Wisconsin counties within about 60 miles of Milwaukee | 2,132,987 residents | 37 | Over 99.9% | Over 99.9% |
Expected players = boys enrolled divided by 1,450 for the isolated school, and residents divided by 57,000 for the city and region. Both rates come from the same national count of Division I players. The chances use the Poisson distribution, the standard model for counting rare, independent events. The eight counties are Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, Kenosha, Washington, Ozaukee, Walworth and Jefferson, with 2020 Census counts [21, 22]. The rate is a national average and includes international players on Division I rosters, so Wisconsin's true rate could be higher or lower. Halving or doubling it moves the isolated school's chance of two players to 0.06% or 0.9%, which does not change the comparison. These are model estimates for a single point in time, not observed counts. Rosters overlap from one season to the next, so the chances do not convert into a waiting time between occurrences. The figures are for boys; the same logic applies to girls with a different rate. Appendix B has the full calculation.
In any given season, the isolated school has about a 2-in-1,000 chance that two future Division I players are among its own students. A small Milwaukee school faces a different question. The model estimates that about 37 future Division I players are in high school within roughly 60 miles at any given time, and the school needs two of them, about 5% of that estimated supply.
That is the difference WIAA's enrollment count cannot see. On paper both schools are "200 students." The first depends on a roughly 2-in-1,000 chance among its own students. The second only has to attract a small share of a large regional supply. None of this requires recruiting, which WIAA prohibits [10]. Open enrollment, citywide programs, school choice and private admissions are all legal ways for families to choose a school, and families who care about basketball can choose the strongest program.
How Wisconsin can fix it
WIAA already has a starting point. In April 2026 its Classification Committee reviewed a "Radius Plan/Geographic Modifier" model that adjusts point totals for geography and student access, and it plans to survey member schools before changing anything [9]. The proposal below builds on that idea with rules other states already use. It treats every school the same way, whatever its label. What changes a school's placement is where its students come from and how its team performs over full seasons.
Appendix G summarizes how the other 49 states classify basketball. Several already weight students by where they come from, count the origins of the actual roster, or promote programs on several seasons of results.
Step 1. Count where students live
- Every school has a home area. For a public school it is the school's assigned attendance area: the whole district, or the school's zone in a district with several high schools. A private school, charter school or citywide program picks the public school attendance area in its county that best matches where its students live. That is Georgia's rule [23].
- For basketball classification, a student who lives in the home area counts once. A student who lives outside it counts three times. Georgia uses the same 3.0 weight for students from outside a school's attendance zone [23], and South Carolina applies a 3.0 multiplier in its 2026-28 classification [24].
- A program that has not won a sectional semifinal in the past three seasons can ask to be placed by its actual enrollment instead. Illinois uses the same test for its waivers, so the rule does not push weak programs into bigger divisions [25].
The rule is the same for a rural public school taking open-enrollment students from the next district, a Catholic school drawing from several parish towns and a citywide Montessori program. A school that mostly serves its own area barely moves. A school that draws widely is counted like the larger school its reach makes it.
Step 2. Do not promote home-grown programs for winning
- If at least 80% of a program's varsity players live in the school's home area, the program is placed by its Step 1 enrollment alone, however many games it wins.
- Ohio works on the same principle. A varsity player who lives in his school's own attendance zone adds nothing to the school's count no matter how good the team is, while a player from outside who has not been in the school system since 7th grade adds seven [26].
- Alaska starts from access, too. Its classification policy first moves boarding schools and schools within 25 miles of Anchorage, Fairbanks, Wasilla or Soldotna up one class, then uses results, transfers and out-of-boundary enrollment to decide whether they stay [27].
This is the fix for the coach who wins with local kids. The program still moves up if its enrollment grows, but not because it won.
The 80% line has a weakness. A 12-player roster with ten local players and two outside stars would still pass, and in basketball two players can decide a season. Living in the home area is also not the same as coming up through the school's own youth program, since a family can move into the district in 10th grade. WIAA could tighten the test by applying it to the players who log the most minutes, or by adding a continuous-enrollment check like the 7th-grade standard Ohio uses for players from outside a school's zone [26].
Step 3. For everyone else, count the whole season over five years
- Keep WIAA's postseason points (0 to 4).
- Add 1 point for each season a program finishes the regular season in its division's top eight in a published, schedule-adjusted rating. California's Southern Section already sets its basketball playoff divisions with a computer rating, and Connecticut ranks boys basketball teams partly by power points earned from beating teams with good records [32, 33].
- Promote a program at 8 points in a rolling five-season window. Alaska looks at five years of win percentages, Rhode Island's alignment formula weights six years of regular-season league results at 65%, Missouri counts six years of tournament results with recent seasons weighted more, and North Dakota will use six years of tournament points starting in 2027-28 [27, 28, 29, 30].
| Program | Current rule: promoted within 5 seasons | Current rule: median wait | Step 3: promoted within 5 seasons | Step 3: median wait |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average tournament team (50%) | 0.3% | 712 seasons | 0.1% | Over 1,000 seasons |
| Wins 70% of tournament games | 13% | 21 seasons | 52% | 5 seasons |
| Wins 80% | 41% | 7 seasons | 82% | 4 seasons |
| Wins 90% | 83% | 3 seasons | 98% | 3 seasons |
| Three programs splitting titles (example above) | Never | Never | 100% | All three by season 4 |
Assumes programs that win 70% or more of their tournament games finish in the regular-season top eight every year and the average team never does. Step 3 applies only to programs that are not exempt under Step 2. Appendix C has the calculation.
In the same model, Step 3 cuts the median wait for an 80% program from seven seasons to four, promotes all three title-splitting programs by season 4 and still leaves average teams alone. Because Step 2 exempts home-grown programs, the faster trigger falls on programs that draw players from outside their own area.
What it looks like for two schools of 200
Bars share one scale from 0 to 500 students. Roster dots are the 12 varsity players.
| School A: isolated rural district | School B: citywide program in a large city | |
|---|---|---|
| Students who live in the home area | 192 | 50 |
| Students from outside the home area | 8 (open enrollment) | 150 |
| Counted enrollment (Step 1) | 192 + 8 × 3 = 216 | 50 + 150 × 3 = 500 |
| Varsity players from the home area | 12 of 12 | 3 of 12 |
| Performance promotion (Steps 2 and 3) | Exempt: placed by enrollment only | Applies: full-season points over five years |
Invented numbers for illustration. They do not describe any real school.
School A plays where its size says it should. School B is counted like a school of 500, two and a half times its enrollment, and if it keeps winning, Step 3 can move it up again.
Why not just separate public and private schools?
Alabama and New Jersey run separate public and nonpublic championships, Tennessee splits public schools (Division I) from independent schools (Division II), and Louisiana separates Select and Non-Select schools [31, 34, 35, 47]. Separation is simple, but it sorts schools by category rather than by where their students come from. Milwaukee Juneau and Milwaukee Academy of Science are public schools and would stay in the same bracket as isolated public districts, while a small-town Catholic school that serves only its own town would be sent away. Counting where students live addresses the access problem directly.
Test it before adopting it
WIAA can check any version of this proposal against its own history. Replay past seasons using only the information available before each one, then compare the current rule and the proposal on how often games were lopsided, how often a program dominated without being moved, and how stable placements were. Do it separately for boys and girls and for D4 and D5. Publish the inputs each year and let schools correct errors. The 3.0 weight, the 80% roster line and the 8-point threshold are starting values to test, not settled numbers.
Do the current rules give small schools a fair shot?
The evidence suggests they do not yet. Enrollment counts students without asking where they come from. The Performance Factor can respond slowly, ignores the regular season, can miss success spread across several programs and cannot tell a home-grown team from one drawn from a metro area. Over 15 tournaments, nonboundaried programs reached state about 3 times as often per entry and won about 4 times as often, and the first two Performance Factor seasons have not changed that.
The fix does not require a new philosophy, only better measurement: count where students live, leave home-grown programs alone, and judge everyone else on full seasons over five years. Related approaches already operate in other states, and WIAA's own committee has a geographic model on the table and a member survey coming. Testing these rules against Wisconsin's own results is the next step.
Appendix A. Data, definitions and exact calculations
Sample. 15 completed tournaments per category, 2011 through 2026; the 2020 tournament was canceled. Four categories give 60 division-seasons, 240 state tournament spots and 60 titles. Full WIAA brackets supply 6,527 program-season entries. Each program counts once per season entered, and each co-op counts as one entry. All 240 state teams were matched to an entry in that year's bracket, and all 60 champions were checked against WIAA's championship lists [1, 2].
Groups. Nonboundaried = private schools plus public charter and public Montessori programs, with a school that fits more than one label counted once. Public charter and Montessori schools remain public schools legally; the grouping reflects how they enroll students. Other public = every remaining public program. The La Farge/Youth Initiative co-op (14 entries, no state appearances) combines a public and a private school and is left in neither group. School types were confirmed with WIAA directory and classification records and school and government sources [12, 13, 17, 36-45].
Table A1. Counts and ratios by category
| Category | Entries (nonboundaried / other public / mixed) | State spots (NB / other) | Titles (NB / other) | Reach-state ratio | Title ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys D4 | 281 / 1,190 / 0 | 27 / 33 | 12 / 3 | 3.46x | 16.94x |
| Boys D5 | 351 / 1,501 / 7 | 28 / 32 | 6 / 9 | 3.74x | 2.85x |
| Girls D4 | 257 / 1,150 / 0 | 20 / 40 | 3 / 12 | 2.24x | 1.12x |
| Girls D5 | 300 / 1,483 / 7 | 20 / 40 | 8 / 7 | 2.47x | 5.65x |
| All four | 1,189 / 5,324 / 14 | 95 / 145 | 29 / 31 | 2.93x | 4.19x |
Ratios are defined as in Exhibit 2. Single-category title ratios rest on small counts (3 to 12 titles) and can move a lot with one result.
Exact pooled calculations.
The title ratio equals the reach-state ratio times the at-state ratio (2.934 × 1.428 = 4.189).
Uncertainty. On the log scale, the standard errors are 0.128 for the reach-state ratio and 0.256 for the title ratio, which give 95% ranges of 2.28x to 3.77x and 2.53x to 6.92x. These treat entries as independent. They do not account for programs that appear repeatedly, such as Dominican during its five straight titles, or for dependence between tournaments.
Table A2. Before and after the Performance Factor
| Tournaments | Entries (NB / other / mixed) | State spots (NB / other) | Titles (NB / other) | Reach-state ratio | Title ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011-2024 (no 2020) | 1,032 / 4,612 / 10 | 82 / 126 | 25 / 27 | 2.91x | 4.14x |
| 2025-2026 | 157 / 712 / 4 | 13 / 19 | 4 / 4 | 3.10x | 4.54x |
Descriptive only. Two seasons, and promotions that change who plays in each division, rule out a causal conclusion about the policy.
Table A3. Sensitivity: private schools only
| Category | Entries (private / public / mixed) | Private state spots | Private titles | Reach-state ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys D4 | 260 / 1,211 / 0 | 25 of 60 | 11 of 15 | 3.33x |
| Boys D5 | 341 / 1,511 / 7 | 28 of 60 | 6 of 15 | 3.88x |
| Girls D4 | 248 / 1,159 / 0 | 19 of 60 | 3 of 15 | 2.17x |
| Girls D5 | 294 / 1,489 / 7 | 19 of 60 | 8 of 15 | 2.35x |
Here public charter and Montessori programs are moved into the public group. The gap is about the same size, so the main result does not depend on how those schools are classified.
Under the private-only definition, private programs won 25 of 52 titles before the Performance Factor (48.1%) and 3 of 8 after (37.5%). Their reach-state ratio was 2.87x before (79 of 993 entries against 129 of 4,651) and 2.88x after (12 of 150 against 20 of 719). Milwaukee Juneau's 2026 boys D4 title is the difference between 3 of 8 and the 4 of 8 reported for the nonboundaried group.
Appendix B. Talent-pool calculation
Rate. The NCAA estimates that 1.1% of the 540,704 boys who played high school basketball in 2024-25 play in Division I, about 5,948 players [18]. The U.S. population on July 1, 2024 was 340,110,988 [19].
Stock assumption. A Division I career and a high school career each last about four years, so the number of future Division I players now in high school is about equal to the number now on Division I rosters. Redshirts, transfers and extra years of eligibility make this approximate.
Isolated school. The example school's pool is its own enrollment: 200 students, about 102 boys if 51% of high school students are boys. Using the enrolled students directly avoids converting a town's population into a student count; a rural district usually covers far more people than the town it is named for, because it includes surrounding townships. Grades 9-12 enrolled 16.95 million students in fall 2021 (15.44 million public, 1.52 million private) [20], so the national rate per high school boy is 5,948 / (16.95 million × 0.51), about 1 in 1,454.
Formula. Expected players λ = boys / 1,454 for the isolated school, and residents / 57,181 for the city and region. For rare, independent events the count follows a Poisson distribution:
Table B1. Talent-pool results
| Pool | Size | λ | P(at least one) | P(at least two) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolated rural school (illustrative) | 102 boys | 0.070 | 6.8% | 0.235% |
| City of Milwaukee [21] | 577,222 residents | 10.09 | Over 99.99% | 99.95% |
| Eight-county region [22] | 2,132,987 residents | 37.30 | Over 99.99% | Over 99.99% |
Eight-county region, 2020 Census: Milwaukee 939,489; Waukesha 406,978; Racine 197,727; Kenosha 169,151; Washington 136,761; Walworth 106,478; Ozaukee 91,503; Jefferson 84,900.
Cross-check. The exact binomial chance of two or more future Division I players among 102 boys at 1 in 1,454 is 0.233%, matching the Poisson figure.
Sensitivity. Halving the rate gives the isolated school a 0.060% chance of two players; doubling it gives 0.90%. The eight-county region's estimate (37.3) is about 530 times the isolated school's (0.070), and that ratio does not depend on the rate.
Limits. The national rate includes international players and assumes talent is spread evenly; real rates vary with coaching, club access and family networks. The calculation says whether such players exist within reach of a school, not whether any one school enrolls them. All figures are model estimates at a single point in time; because rosters overlap across seasons, they are not waiting times between occurrences.
Appendix C. Performance Factor math
Setup. A 128-team bracket with no byes, so a title takes seven wins and reaching the final eight takes four. The program wins each game independently with constant probability p and starts with zero points.
Table C1. Points per season
| Points | Probability | Value at p = 0.80 |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 − p^4 | 0.5904 |
| 1 | p^4 × (1 − p) | 0.0819 |
| 2 | p^5 × (1 − p) | 0.0655 |
| 3 | p^6 × (1 − p) | 0.0524 |
| 4 | p^7 | 0.2097 |
Bar heights are the probabilities in Table C1 at p = 0.80.
Current rule. Promotion happens in the first season in which the last three seasons' points total 6 or more. Track the previous two seasons' points (a, b) with a + b < 6. Each season draws new points c; the program is promoted if a + b + c ≥ 6 and otherwise moves to state (b, c). Starting from (0, 0), this Markov chain gives the exact chance of promotion by any season.
Table C2. Current rule
| p | Title per season | Promoted by season 3 | Promoted by season 5 | Median seasons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.50 | 0.78% | 0.15% | 0.35% | 712 |
| 0.70 | 8.24% | 6.21% | 12.73% | 21 |
| 0.80 | 20.97% | 23.51% | 41.05% | 7 |
| 0.90 | 47.83% | 62.97% | 83.30% | 3 |
At p = 0.80 the title chance is 0.8^7 = 0.2097, which is 26.8 times the 1/128 = 0.0078 chance of an average team.
Step 3. Season points = postseason points + 1 for a regular-season top-eight finish; promotion at 8 or more points over the last five seasons. The same chain, tracking four seasons of history.
Table C3. Step 3
| p and regular-season assumption | Promoted by season 3 | Promoted by season 5 | Median seasons |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.50, never top eight | 0.02% | 0.09% | 1,798 |
| 0.60, top eight half the time | 0.97% | 7.07% | 29 |
| 0.70, top eight every year | 9.83% | 51.97% | 5 |
| 0.80, top eight every year | 31.03% | 82.49% | 4 |
| 0.90, top eight every year | 70.23% | 98.47% | 3 |
Table C4. Three programs splitting titles
| Program | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Current rule: every three-year total | Step 3: first promoted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Title (4) | Early exit (0) | Early exit (0) | 4, never promoted | Season 4 |
| B | Early exit (0) | Title (4) | Early exit (0) | 4, never promoted | Season 4 |
| C | Early exit (0) | Early exit (0) | Title (4) | 4, never promoted | Season 4 |
The cycle repeats. Step 3 column assumes all three finish in the regular-season top eight every year; without those points, the five-season window alone promotes them in seasons 4, 5 and 6.
Limit on the pattern. All four state places in one season are worth 4 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 11 points, or 33 over three seasons. Keeping every program at five points or fewer would take at least seven programs to absorb those 33, so a small group cannot fill the final four every year without someone being promoted. Splitting works when strong programs meet before the final eight.
Appendix D. The proposed rule, in full
- Home area. A public school's assigned attendance area: its district, or its own zone in a district with several high schools. A private, charter or citywide program designates the public school attendance area in its county that best matches where its students live, as in Georgia [23].
- Counted enrollment. Home-area students + 3 × students from outside the home area. Co-ops add their members' counted enrollments. Schools report student residence as of a fixed date each fall, and WIAA audits a sample.
- Division cut points. Unchanged (Division 1 at 1,200 and up, Division 2 at 600 to 1,200, Divisions 3 and 4 split evenly, Division 5 the smallest 128), applied to counted enrollment.
- Waiver. A program with no sectional semifinal win in the last three seasons may be placed by actual enrollment, as in Illinois [25].
- Home-grown exemption. If at least 80% of the varsity tournament roster lives in the home area, the program is not subject to performance promotion. Known limitation: a roster with a few outside stars can still pass. Options to test include applying the line to the top minutes-played players and requiring continuous enrollment since 7th grade.
- Performance points. Postseason points as today (0 to 4), plus 1 point for a regular-season finish in the division's top eight in a published, schedule-adjusted rating that caps margin of victory so no one gains by running up scores. Promotion of one division at 8 or more points over five seasons; return when the total falls below 8. Boys and girls are scored separately.
- Roster alternative. WIAA could apply Step 1 to the varsity roster instead of the whole school, as Ohio does, which measures the basketball team directly but needs roster residence data every season [26].
- Testing. Replay past seasons with only pre-season information; tune the 3.0 weight, the 80% roster line and the 8-point threshold on earlier seasons, then check them on later seasons held back for that purpose. Compare lopsided games, unexpected dominance, placement stability and travel, separately for boys and girls and for each division.
Appendix E. Entries by year
Each cell is nonboundaried / other public / mixed. Each program counts once per season, and each co-op is one entry. There was no 2020 tournament [1, 2].
| Year | Boys D4 | Boys D5 | Girls D4 | Girls D5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 20 / 82 / 0 | 22 / 98 / 0 | 18 / 78 / 0 | 20 / 96 / 0 |
| 2012 | 20 / 77 / 0 | 25 / 103 / 0 | 18 / 76 / 0 | 23 / 100 / 0 |
| 2013 | 21 / 77 / 0 | 26 / 102 / 0 | 18 / 75 / 0 | 23 / 101 / 0 |
| 2014 | 19 / 80 / 0 | 25 / 102 / 0 | 19 / 80 / 0 | 21 / 97 / 0 |
| 2015 | 20 / 77 / 0 | 23 / 103 / 0 | 19 / 76 / 0 | 21 / 100 / 0 |
| 2016 | 19 / 79 / 0 | 25 / 103 / 0 | 19 / 79 / 0 | 21 / 101 / 0 |
| 2017 | 22 / 76 / 0 | 23 / 105 / 0 | 19 / 76 / 0 | 21 / 101 / 0 |
| 2018 | 20 / 79 / 0 | 24 / 104 / 0 | 17 / 78 / 0 | 21 / 102 / 0 |
| 2019 | 20 / 79 / 0 | 24 / 102 / 1 | 17 / 75 / 0 | 21 / 103 / 1 |
| 2021 | 10 / 79 / 0 | 17 / 73 / 1 | 11 / 75 / 0 | 11 / 77 / 1 |
| 2022 | 20 / 81 / 0 | 23 / 101 / 1 | 18 / 78 / 0 | 19 / 102 / 1 |
| 2023 | 16 / 84 / 0 | 25 / 99 / 1 | 13 / 80 / 0 | 19 / 101 / 1 |
| 2024 | 18 / 79 / 0 | 23 / 103 / 1 | 15 / 74 / 0 | 20 / 104 / 1 |
| 2025 | 17 / 82 / 0 | 22 / 102 / 1 | 16 / 78 / 0 | 19 / 99 / 1 |
| 2026 | 19 / 79 / 0 | 24 / 101 / 1 | 20 / 72 / 0 | 20 / 99 / 1 |
| Total | 281 / 1,190 / 0 | 351 / 1,501 / 7 | 257 / 1,150 / 0 | 300 / 1,483 / 7 |
Smaller 2021 fields reflect that season's modified tournament.
Appendix F. State tournament teams by year
(P) private; (C) public charter; (M) public Montessori. Unmarked schools are other public programs. There was no 2020 tournament [1, 2].
Boys Division 4
| Year | Champion | Runner-up | Other semifinalists |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Marathon | Grantsburg | Blair-Taylor Oostburg |
| 2012 | Dominican (P) | Cuba City | Colfax Lourdes Academy (P) |
| 2013 | Dominican (P) | Auburndale | Amherst Cuba City |
| 2014 | Dominican (P) | Blair-Taylor | Brillion Unity |
| 2015 | Dominican (P) | Mineral Point | Auburndale Regis (P) |
| 2016 | Dominican (P) | Cameron | Amherst Aquinas (P) |
| 2017 | Destiny (P) | Darlington | Cameron Roncalli (P) |
| 2018 | Roncalli (P) | Marathon | Clear Lake Pardeeville |
| 2019 | New Glarus | Lourdes Academy (P) | Osseo-Fairchild Roncalli (P) |
| 2021 | Lourdes Academy (P) | The Prairie School (P) | Edgar Luther (P) |
| 2022 | Roncalli (P) | Milwaukee Academy of Science (C) | Cameron Marshall |
| 2023 | Luther (P) | Kenosha St. Joseph Catholic (P) | St. Mary Catholic (P) Whitehall |
| 2024 | Mineral Point | Kenosha St. Joseph Catholic (P) | Aquinas (P) Marathon |
| 2025 | Aquinas (P) | Bonduel | Mineral Point The Prairie School (P) |
| 2026 | Milwaukee Juneau (M) | Cambridge | Bonduel Regis (P) |
Boys Division 5
| Year | Champion | Runner-up | Other semifinalists |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Randolph | Clayton | Green Bay N.E.W. Lutheran (P) Wauzeka-Steuben |
| 2012 | Sheboygan Lutheran (P) | Racine Lutheran (P) | Drummond McDonell Catholic (P) |
| 2013 | Randolph | Green Bay N.E.W. Lutheran (P) | Drummond Elmwood |
| 2014 | Thorp | Green Bay N.E.W. Lutheran (P) | Cochrane-Fountain City Sheboygan Lutheran (P) |
| 2015 | Young Coggs (P) | Hillsboro | Green Bay N.E.W. Lutheran (P) Washburn |
| 2016 | McDonell Catholic (P) | Catholic Central (P) | Barneveld Green Bay N.E.W. Lutheran (P) |
| 2017 | Barneveld | Shullsburg | Columbus Catholic (P) McDonell Catholic (P) |
| 2018 | Bangor | McDonell Catholic (P) | Deerfield Green Bay N.E.W. Lutheran (P) |
| 2019 | Sheboygan Lutheran (P) | Columbus Catholic (P) | Bangor McDonell Catholic (P) |
| 2021 | Hustisford | McDonell Catholic (P) | Green Bay N.E.W. Lutheran/Providence (P) Wauzeka-Steuben |
| 2022 | Randolph | Bangor | Gibraltar Hurley |
| 2023 | Newman Catholic (P) | McDonell Catholic (P) | Fall River Royall |
| 2024 | Columbus Catholic (P) | Abundant Life Christian (P) | Almond-Bancroft Solon Springs |
| 2025 | Cochrane-Fountain City | Sheboygan Lutheran (P) | Abundant Life Christian (P) Turtle Lake |
| 2026 | Reedsville | Southwestern | Prentice Sheboygan Lutheran (P) |
Girls Division 4
| Year | Champion | Runner-up | Other semifinalists |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Regis (P) | Algoma | Oostburg Westby |
| 2012 | Neillsville | Lourdes Academy (P) | Howards Grove Regis (P) |
| 2013 | Algoma | Colfax | Cuba City The Prairie School (P) |
| 2014 | Cuba City | Algoma | Regis (P) St. Mary's Springs (P) |
| 2015 | Cuba City | Fall Creek | Marathon St. Mary's Springs (P) |
| 2016 | Mineral Point | Kenosha St. Joseph Catholic (P) | Marathon Regis (P) |
| 2017 | Howards Grove | Aquinas (P) | Durand-Arkansaw Shiocton |
| 2018 | Aquinas (P) | Melrose-Mindoro | Crandon Manitowoc Lutheran (P) |
| 2019 | Aquinas (P) | Melrose-Mindoro | Colby Milwaukee Academy of Science (C) |
| 2021 | Mishicot | Mineral Point | Bangor Fall Creek |
| 2022 | Mineral Point | Laconia | Neillsville Westfield |
| 2023 | Laconia | Aquinas (P) | Colfax Mishicot |
| 2024 | Laconia | Cuba City | McDonell Catholic (P) The Prairie School (P) |
| 2025 | Cuba City | St. Mary Catholic (P) | Durand-Arkansaw The Prairie School (P) |
| 2026 | Neillsville | Albany/Monticello | Lomira St. Mary Catholic (P) |
Girls Division 5
| Year | Champion | Runner-up | Other semifinalists |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Newman Catholic (P) | River Ridge | Black Hawk Prentice |
| 2012 | Heritage Christian (P) | Owen-Withee | Newman Catholic (P) Seneca |
| 2013 | Assumption (P) | Barneveld | Newman Catholic (P) South Shore |
| 2014 | Barneveld | Assumption (P) | Heritage Christian (P) Owen-Withee |
| 2015 | Barneveld | Assumption (P) | Fall River South Shore |
| 2016 | Assumption (P) | Barneveld | Clayton Fall River |
| 2017 | Loyal | Milwaukee Academy of Science (C) | Bangor Clayton |
| 2018 | Bangor | Black Hawk | Clayton Newman Catholic (P) |
| 2019 | Black Hawk | Clayton | Fall River Newman Catholic (P) |
| 2021 | Assumption (P) | Three Lakes | Black Hawk McDonell Catholic (P) |
| 2022 | Randolph | Assumption (P) | Highland McDonell Catholic (P) |
| 2023 | McDonell Catholic (P) | Blair-Taylor | Albany Wabeno/Laona |
| 2024 | Albany/Monticello | Lena | Argyle/Pecatonica Clear Lake |
| 2025 | Assumption (P) | Barneveld | Lourdes Academy (P) Owen-Withee |
| 2026 | Pacelli (P) | Eleva-Strum | Barneveld Fall River |
Gold names mark nonboundaried programs.
Appendix G. What the other 49 states do
Summarized from each association's rules or announcements as of October 22, 2026. Linked state names open the source. The comparison describes how each system works, not whether it has produced fairer results.
Each tile is one state, placed by its approximate position on the map. States are colored by the main mechanism listed in Table G1; several use more than one, and Mississippi, Utah and North Dakota are shown by changes that take effect from 2027 or 2027-28. Details and sources in Table G2.
Table G1. Main approaches, grouped
| Approach | States | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Weight students by where they come from, or adjust schools without boundaries | Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina; Mississippi from 2027 | Access beyond a school's own attendance area |
| Count where the actual roster came from | Ohio | Whether varsity players live in the school's area or came up through its system |
| Promote programs for sustained success | Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota (from 2027-28), Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island; Utah from 2027 | Results over several seasons, in some states including the regular season |
| Adjust for socioeconomic need | Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington | Student poverty or stability |
| Separate championships by school category | Alabama, New Jersey and Tennessee (public and private or independent); Louisiana (Select and Non-Select) | School category |
| Enrollment only, with opt-ups or petitions, or private schools mostly in other associations | Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming | Enrollment |
| Single-class or section-run tournaments | California, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky | Varies by section or league |
Each state is listed under its main mechanism; several use more than one. Wisconsin's system is enrollment plus a success promotion that counts only the postseason. Kansas has a pending proposal that would add a success, location and economic factor for private schools. Table G2 gives details and a source for every state.
Table G2. State by state
| State | Basketball classification approach |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Separate public and private postseason classes for 2026-28: six public and two private in basketball. They replace the former 1.35 private-school multiplier and competitive balance factor. Regular-season games can still mix public and private schools. (AHSAA announcement as reported by the Cullman Tribune, March 14, 2026, and Franklin Free Press, January 23, 2026.) |
| Alaska | All statewide boarding schools and all schools within 25 miles of Anchorage, Fairbanks, Wasilla and Soldotna are moved up one class from the previous cycle. A two-step review then decides final placement: five-year win percentages against higher and same-class teams and eight years of state tournament results, followed by out-of-season play, transfers and out-of-boundary enrollment. |
| Arizona | Enrollment sets the base for 2026-28. Sport-specific conference placement and reclassification petitions allow a school's assignment to be reviewed. No uniform basketball multiplier. |
| Arkansas | A Competitive Equity rule can move a nonpublic program up a classification by sport, and current basketball assignments reflect both enrollment and Competitive Equity moves. |
| California | Rules vary by CIF section. The Southern Section places basketball teams into playoff divisions after the regular season using a computer rating (Colley Royalty Rankings) that accounts for schedule strength with a capped margin of victory (2025-26). |
| Colorado | A 1.5 enrollment multiplier applies to covered nonpublic schools under CHSAA Bylaw 1500.22, with a performance-based waiver route for bracketed sports (2025-26 bylaws, reproduced in March 2026 legislative testimony). |
| Connecticut | Boys basketball divisions combine 66% of enrollment with two years of power points, where a school earns a point for each win by every opponent it beat, weighted by league tier. Schools of choice also receive tournament success points (2025-26 regulations). |
| Delaware | One state basketball bracket per sex, with no enrollment divisions. |
| Florida | Enrollment classes plus a separate Rural basketball championship for 2026-28. No uniform private-school multiplier. |
| Georgia | Every student who attends from outside the school's assigned attendance zone counts as 3.0 students for classification, with listed exemptions. Nonpublic and charter schools may select a public school attendance zone in their county that best reflects their student population (Bylaw 4.00, 2026-28 cycle). |
| Hawaii | Division I and Division II state championships fed by member leagues. No statewide catchment or school-type adjustment found in the tournament materials. |
| Idaho | Enrollment classes with a petition process for an alternate placement on competitive grounds (2026-28 cycle). |
| Illinois | A 1.65 multiplier applies to the enrollment of every nonboundaried school. A basketball program can receive a waiver unless it won a sectional semifinal in the previous three-year cycle. A separate success formula can move programs up (2025-26). |
| Indiana | A tournament success rule can promote a program above its enrollment class, sport by sport (2026-27 bylaws). |
| Iowa | Boys basketball classes are set by enrollment. Iowa's socioeconomic adjustment applies to football, not basketball. |
| Kansas | Enrollment classes. A proposed private-school multiplier combining five-year championships, location and economic factors is listed in the 2026-27 handbook as pending approval. |
| Kentucky | A single-class state tournament (the Sweet Sixteen), so there are no small-school divisions to rebalance. |
| Louisiana | Separate Select and Non-Select basketball championships, using the association's own definitions rather than a simple public/private label (2025-26). |
| Maine | Enrollment classes under a new S through D structure (2025-26). No automatic private-school multiplier found. |
| Maryland | The public-school association classifies by enrollment. Many independent schools compete in other associations. |
| Massachusetts | Enrollment is adjusted by a Competitive Equity Modifier reflecting student stability and high needs, and a separate factor moves private schools up one division, with an appeal process (2025-27 cycle). |
| Michigan | Enrollment divisions with an option to play up (2026-27). No automatic school-type multiplier found. |
| Minnesota | Classification enrollment deducts 40% of the school's educational-benefit student count from its grades 9-12 enrollment, with appeals and opt-ups (2025-27). |
| Mississippi | Announced in 2026 a private-school multiplier for its 2027-29 reclassification. |
| Missouri | Nonpublic programs earn Championship Factor points from district and state results over six years, by sport and sex. June 2026 changes weight recent seasons more (a state title is worth 10, 7, 5, 4, 3 and 1 point over six years) and remove the former two-class cap: 5-10 points moves a program up one class, 11-17 two classes, and so on. |
| Montana | Enrollment classes (2025-26). No separate school-type or performance adjustment found. |
| Nebraska | Boys and girls basketball classes by enrollment, with voluntary moves up (2026-27). |
| Nevada | Sport-by-sport realignment with separate boys and girls basketball rubrics. |
| New Hampshire | Enrollment divisions with classification petitions (2025-26). |
| New Jersey | Separate basketball championships for Public Groups 1-4 and Nonpublic A and B. |
| New Mexico | A 1.3 enrollment multiplier applies to private and covered boarding schools, with exceptions (2026-28). |
| New York | NYSPHSAA reviews "Schools Without Boundaries" through sectional classification criteria and an appeal process (October 2025). Other Catholic and independent associations also operate in the state. |
| North Carolina | Eight classes by average daily membership (2025-29). Charter schools can compete in the NCHSAA; many independent schools belong to a separate association. |
| North Dakota | Basketball promotion based on six years of tournament points: 19 points moves a team up one division, a promoted team stays at least two years, and teams move at most one division per year. Approved June 2026, first used for 2027-28. |
| Ohio | Competitive Balance adds to enrollment based on each sport's roster. Players who live in the school's attendance zone (public) or came through a designated feeder school since 7th grade (private) add 0; players in the school system since 7th grade add 1; all others add 7 in basketball. In place since 2017-18, with the current factors set in 2019. |
| Oklahoma | A competitive balance rule (Rule 14) can reclassify nonpublic schools based on program success (2025-26 basketball manual). |
| Oregon | Classification uses adjusted average daily membership, with review and requests to play in another class (2026-27). |
| Pennsylvania | Competitive Balance reclassification considers both tournament success and transfers, on top of enrollment classes. |
| Rhode Island | Basketball alignment is built mostly from results. Article 14 of the RIIL Rules & Regulations weights six years of regular-season league results at 65%, factored enrollment at 15%, the last two years of league results at 10% and recent tournament success at 10%. |
| South Carolina | Schools are assigned by an enrollment count that includes a 3.0 multiplier, reported as applying to out-of-zone students (2026-28). A proposal would lower it to 2.0 for 2028-30. |
| South Dakota | Enrollment classes. The association has studied a success factor but has not adopted one (March 2026). |
| Tennessee | Separate tournament divisions: Division I is made up of all member public schools and Division II of all member independent schools (2026-27 bylaws, Article I, Section 3). Enrollment sets basketball classes within each. |
| Texas | The UIL serves public schools and open-enrollment charters by enrollment (2026-28). Most private schools compete in TAPPS or other associations. |
| Utah | A Composite Realignment Index combining enrollment, socioeconomic information and performance was approved August 21, 2026 for the 2027-29 cycle. |
| Vermont | Enrollment divisions, with classification requests and review for exceptional circumstances. |
| Virginia | The VHSL aligns public schools and approved non-boarding nonpublic schools by enrollment (2025-27). VISAA serves independent schools. |
| Washington | Classification enrollment is adjusted for socioeconomic factors, with opt-ups and provisions that let some small programs move down (2025-26). |
| West Virginia | Basketball classes by enrollment bands (2025-26 handbook). An earlier model that used location and economics is no longer in use. |
| Wyoming | Enrollment groups (largest 16, next 16, next 18, the rest) with voluntary moves up (2026-28). |
Appendix H. Sources
[1] WIAA, Boys Basketball State Archive. State semifinal and final results 2011-2026, division brackets and champions lists.
[2] WIAA, Girls Basketball State Archives. Same window. A 2026 D4 semifinal listing was checked against the official 2026 tournament recap (WIAA news).
[3] WIAA, Basketball Tournament Procedure 2026-27. Division enrollment rules, co-ops, playing up and new members.
[4] WIAA, Performance Factor. Point schedule, three-year six-point threshold, one-division limit and return rule.
[5] WIAA, Performance Factor to Impact 2024-25 Tournament Series Placements. 265-115 approval at the 2023 Annual Meeting; first applied to 2024-25.
[6] WIAA, Performance Factor Results in Winter Sports Divisional Movement. April 15, 2024. Basketball promotions for 2024-25.
[7] WIAA, Winter Performance Factor Results in 2025-26 Divisional Movement. Basketball promotions for 2025-26.
[8] WIAA Bulletin, May 2026, page 8. Basketball promotions, appeals and downward moves for 2026-27.
[9] WIAA, Classification Committee Reviews Competitive Balance Criteria. April 21, 2026. Radius Plan/Geographic Modifier review; no changes recommended for 2026-27; member survey planned.
[10] WIAA, Eligibility Q&A: Coaching Contact. Recruitment and undue influence rules.
[11] Wisconsin DPI, 2026-27 public school open enrollment announcement. January 27, 2026.
[12] WIAA School Directory, Milwaukee Juneau. Public, Milwaukee Public district, 2026-27 enrollment 234.
[13] MacDowell Montessori School, Athletics. MacDowell students compete as the Juneau Pioneers; grades K3-12.
[14] National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector, 50 Years of Public Montessori in Milwaukee. April 2024. MacDowell as the first citywide Montessori program, with busing from anywhere in the city.
[15] TMJ4, Milwaukee Juneau basketball heads to first state tournament. March 18, 2026. Junior ranked No. 28 nationally in the class of 2027, committed to a Division I program.
[16] Milwaukee Academy of Science, Playing College Basketball in a Pandemic. October 30, 2020. Two senior Division I scholarship recipients.
[17] Milwaukee Academy of Science, Process & Application. Public, tuition-free, nonselective charter school.
[18] NCAA, Estimated Probability of Competing in College Athletics. 2024-25 data, updated March 2026: 540,704 high school boys basketball players; 1.1% to Division I.
[19] U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population, NST-EST2024-POP (copy hosted by Hawaii DBEDT). United States: 332,099,760 (2021); 340,110,988 (2024).
[20] NCES, Fast Facts: Enrollment Trends. Fall 2021 grades 9-12: 15,436,000 public; 1,516,000 private.
[21] U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts: Milwaukee city, Wisconsin. 2020 Census: 577,222.
[22] U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, 2020 Census county populations: Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, Kenosha, Washington, Ozaukee, Walworth, Jefferson.
[23] Georgia High School Association, Bylaw 4.00. Out-of-zone students counted as 3.0; nonpublic and charter schools select a reference attendance zone.
[24] South Carolina High School League, 2026-2028 classifications memo. January 20, 2026. Enrollment counts include the 3.0 multiplier.
[25] Illinois High School Association, Winter Multiplier Waivers 2025-26. 1.65 multiplier for nonboundaried schools; waiver unavailable after a sectional semifinal win.
[26] Ohio High School Athletic Association, Competitive Balance bylaw language. Roster tiers and the basketball factor of 7.
[27] Alaska School Activities Association, Classification Policy. Geographic and boarding-school screen and two-step review.
[28] Rhode Island Interscholastic League, Rules & Regulations, Article 14. Classification and alignment criteria.
[29] Missouri State High School Activities Association, June 2026 Championship Factor update. June 22, 2026.
[30] North Dakota High School Activities Association, Basketball Classification Procedure. Approved June 2026 for 2027-28.
[31] Cullman Tribune, AHSAA basketball classifications, March 14, 2026, and Franklin Free Press, AHSAA reclassification, January 23, 2026. Separate public and private postseason classes for 2026-28.
[32] Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, Boys Basketball Information Packet 2025-26. Division formula and power points.
[33] CIF Southern Section, Basketball 2025-2026. Playoff divisions set by computer rating.
[34] New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association, Basketball. Public and Nonpublic championship groups.
[35] Louisiana High School Athletic Association, Boys Basketball. Select and Non-Select championships.
[36] WIAA, historical Rural/Urban Plan table (2017). School-type cross-check; a past proposal, not a current rule.
[37] WIAA, school classification codes (2017). School ownership cross-check.
[38] Juneau Pioneers Athletics. Juneau as MacDowell's high school athletic program within Milwaukee Public Schools.
[39] City of Milwaukee, CEO Leadership Academy name change. Charter operation from 2011-12 and later Milwaukee Collegiate Academy name.
[40] Wisconsin DPI, Milwaukee Parental Choice Program results, fall 2012. Wisconsin College Preparatory Academy as a private choice school in 2012-13.
[41] Carmen Schools, Carmen Middle/High School Northwest. Charter school.
[42] Lake Country Classical Academy, About. Charter school.
[43] The Lincoln Academy, About. Charter school.
[44] City of Milwaukee, Revenue Anticipation Notes official statement, 2012. Wisconsin Career Academy as a public charter.
[45] Wisconsin charter school historical records. Milwaukee Career and Technical Education as a charter.
[46] WIAA, Points Report: Spring 2025-26 Competitive Balance Report. Data as of June 22, 2026; Performance Factor points for 2023-24 through 2025-26.
[47] Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 2026-27 Bylaws. Article I, Section 3: Division I public schools, Division II independent schools.
Related research
Final 2026 Cy Young Runs-Saved Board: Cam Schlittler and Jacob Misiorowski Finish First
The regular season is complete. Cam Schlittler finishes first in BBMI's American League runs-saved model at 64.7 runs saved, 7.9 ahead of Parker Messick; Jacob Misiorowski leads the National League at 61.2, 5.0 ahead of Yoshinobu Yamamoto. These are BBMI's final model rankings, not a forecast of the writers' vote.
Cam Schlittler 64.7 AL · Jacob Misiorowski 61.2 NL · final regular seasonOct 12 · 3 minAwards · MVPFinal 2026 MVP Value Board: Yordan Alvarez and Pete Crow-Armstrong Finish First
The regular season is complete. Yordan Alvarez finishes first in BBMI's American League value model at 71.1 value runs, 4.2 ahead of Bobby Witt Jr.; Pete Crow-Armstrong leads the National League at 105.1, 37.6 ahead of Shohei Ohtani. These are BBMI's final model rankings, not a forecast of the writers' vote.
Yordan Alvarez 71.1 AL · Pete Crow-Armstrong 105.1 NL · final regular seasonOct 12 · 3 minNCAAF · Power RankingsBBMI NCAAF Power Rankings, Week 3: Georgia Takes No. 1, Texas Lands the First Punch, and Oregon Already Has a Problem
The BBMI Top 25 after three weeks, with every move measured against the September 8 board. Georgia is No. 1 at +37.1, Notre Dame is the model's title favorite at 20%, Texas has beaten the team that started September on top, and Oregon has fallen seven spots after Stillwater.
Georgia +37.1 · Notre Dame 20% title · Utah ▲10 · Oregon ▼7Sep 21 · 12 minSee it live
The live model behind this piece — the same numbers the article is built on.