New rules muddy WIAA playoff balance

Competitive balance is a topic oft-discussed in sports circles, regardless of level of play Finding a way to wrangle in perceived imbalances seems to be something that most involved in some fashion with these sports, especially the fans, want. “Parity” and “balance” are often cited as goals to strive towards, that leagues should be designed so that each team has the same chance to claim the championship as any other, or as least as close as possible.

The WIAA has recently been eyeing a rebalance of their high school tournaments. Following the recommendations of a committee created specifically for the purposes of finding better ways to produce competitive balance, they have introduced new rules to decide which division each program will be placed in for the playoff tournaments.

Under the current system, schools are assigned to divisions based solely on their enrollment number. Under the new rules, which are set to take effect as early as the 2024-25 school year, not only will a school’s enrollment be a factor in what division they are assigned to, but the team’s past tournament successes will also play a part as well. A team’s baseline will be based on their enrollment and additional “points” will be awarded for tournament performances over the prior three years that will potentially bump the team up a division.

On the surface, this seems like a decent attempt at finding some sort of balance. Many complaints levied at the current system lie along the lines of certain smaller schools holding an advantage over others due to open enrollment or, in the case of private schools, being able to pick and choose students, potentially even recruiting them, without being restricted to the physical bounds of their district. Critics point to the fact that, while their enrollments may be similar to those of smaller schools, the talent often does not match because of these perceived advantages.

It is these complaints that these new rules seem to be trying to address. However, I question whether or not this change will have the desired effect, or whether it is even necessary in the first place.

While the new system is trying to even the playing field for schools, there seems to be a few gaps in the logic for doing so. First, let us examine the aspect of whether or not being moved up a division can be seen as a positive or a negative for teams. On the surface, this looks like it might be equivalent to what happens in many professional soccer leagues, where teams are promoted or demoted based on performance. But I feel that there is a significant difference between the two systems. When a soccer club is promoted, it is generally taken with some pride from the fans, even with the knowledge that they will be facing much tougher competition in the future. But will high school athletes hold that same pride while at the same time being asked to play against larger schools? I could be wrong, but it seems unlikely I feel most athletes would rather have a better chance at a state championship in a lower division than feel the “pride” of losing early in the playoffs of a higher one. That certainly seems to be the case now, where it is largely lamented when a borderline school gets bumped up a division due to an increase in enrollment. It feels backwards to, instead of rewarding success, use it as a potential detriment to a team’s future, especially for high school teams that typically see a lot of turnover.

Which leads into another problem I see, which is that this new system seems to somewhat ignore the fact that there can be very little correlation between a school’s success from one season to the next. Because graduating seniors leave the team every year, the make-up of varsity squads often changes drastically from season to season. The balance the WIAA is seeking may not be obtained, because the athletes that brought on the past successes may no longer be on the team. It would be like promoting the Brewers’ AAA team to the MLB, but after all its best prospects had been moved up to play in Milwaukee. Now they no longer have the talent to compete at the Major League level, but the remaining players are forced to try to play there regardless. How does that make any sense?

Additionally, since this all revolves around the idea of “fairness,” how is it fair to the athletes who have to try to live up to the talents of their predecessors? Suddenly their playoff journey could become more difficult for no reason other than they happen to go to the same school as some other kids that won a state championship three years ago. Why are they denied the same opportunity to build their own legacy as those that came before them? In my opinion, that is more inherently unfair than even the previous system.

This is all because these new rules seem more geared towards preventing dynasties than actually considering how it will affect individual classes of athletes. Can high school programs be run like a professional sports team trying to build continued success over the course of a decade? Sure. But for many high school athletes, they likely get just one, maybe two cracks at the state championship. And is trying to prevent these so-called dynasty programs worth the cost of those kids’ opportunities?

To me, it’s not. High school athletics is, first and foremost, about the athletes and their experiences. It is, or at least should be, less about the adults that are overseeing them.

There is more to explore on this topic, as the WIAA seemed to at least somewhat acknowledge the loopholes in their system and, because of it, also introduced an additional appeals process to division placement that I haven’t even touched on yet. Plus there is the question of what the idea of “balance” even means in the realm of sports, which by its very nature is completely unfair. But given that I have used my allotted space, these will have to wait until next week. Tune in then for part two!

A C ertain Point of

V iew

Nathaniel U nderwood Reporter