The tournament simulations are based off the most recent TWISTR Ratings and game data from past years' state tournaments. They are built by running 10,000 simulations of a Monte Carlo model, and should not necessarily be considered tournament probabilities. The percentages shown in the table below reflect the percentage of simulations in which a given team won a game in the prescribed round. Teams are organized in order of their placement on the bracket, with the caveat that until the semi-state draw is known, the semi-state simulations reflect a random draw among the four teams.
| 2023-24 IHSAA STATE TOURNAMENT SIMULATIONS | SECTIONAL | REGIONAL | SEMI-STATE | STATE | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OVR | CLASS | TEAM | SECT | RATING | QF | SF | SECT | REG | SF | SEMI | STATE | |
| 1 | 1 | Fishers | 8 | +40.94 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 75.1 | |
| 7 | 7 | Ben Davis | 11 | +33.99 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 24.9 | |
| OVR | CLASS | TEAM | SECT | RATING | QF | SF | SECT | REG | SF | SEMI | STATE | |
| 33 | 3 | South Bend St. Joseph | 19 | +21.33 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 42.2 | |
| 29 | 2 | Scottsburg | 30 | +23.33 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 57.8 | |
| OVR | CLASS | TEAM | SECT | RATING | QF | SF | SECT | REG | SF | SEMI | STATE | |
| 34 | 3 | Wapahani | 40 | +21.33 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 17.6 | |
| 9 | 1 | Brownstown Central | 46 | +31.06 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 82.4 | |
| OVR | CLASS | TEAM | SECT | RATING | QF | SF | SECT | REG | SF | SEMI | STATE | |
| 156 | 9 | Fort Wayne Canterbury | 53 | +5.90 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 15.0 | |
| 59 | 2 | Bethesda Christian | 58 | +16.72 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 85.0 | |