Classification Trends
April 14, 2015
Every year, just as winter tournaments are concluding, MHSAA staff are already pointing to the following school year, including finalizing and publishing the classifications and divisions for MHSAA tournaments for the next school year.
For 2015-16, there are 754 member schools classified, an increase of five over 2014-15.
The sports with the largest increase in school sponsorship are girls soccer (+11), girls competitive cheer (+8), wrestling (+7) and boys bowling (+6); while the sports with the greatest decline in school sponsorship are girls softball (-8), girls skiing (-6) and boys skiing (-5).
The enrollment range between largest and smallest school is at historical lows in Classes B and C and near historical lows in Class D. The enrollment range in Class A increased for the third consecutive year; it’s now 259 more students than five years ago, but 718 fewer students than 10 years ago.
These statistics undermine arguments by some who opine that the enrollment ranges are too large and that more classifications and divisions for MHSAA tournaments are needed today.
Even in Class A, which is the only classification for which the enrollment range has been increasing in very recent years, it’s the schools in the mid-range of Class A that are most successful. For example, in this year’s Class A Boys Basketball Tournament, the average rank of the 16 Class A Regional finalists was 85th of 185 Class A schools in the tournament. And the four teams in the Class A Semifinals at MSU ranked 72nd, 75th, 94th and 171st in enrollment among the 185 schools in Class A basketball.
No, Class A schools get little sympathy from those of us who crunch the numbers and manage the tournaments. Even though the enrollment of the largest Class D school keeps declining, it is the very smallest of our member schools which must actually climb the largest mountains to MHSAA titles.
A Can-Do Response
January 5, 2015
Michigan has a tradition of some of the nation’s most lenient out-of-season coaching rules, especially in the summer; and yet, the few rules we have are sometimes blamed for driving students to non-school programs.
Nevertheless, there is some validity to the criticism. It is observably true that non-school programs seem to fill every void in the interscholastic calendar. The day after high school seasons end, many non-school programs begin. The day a school coach can no longer work with more than three or four students, a non-school coach begins to do so.
The challenge is to balance the negative effects of an “arms war” in high school sports against driving students toward non-school programs. It’s the balance of too few vs. too many rules out of season.
The out-of-the-box compromise for this dilemma could be to not regulate the off season as much as to conduct school-sponsored off-season programs in a healthier way than they normally occur, i.e., to move schools back in control of and in the center of the non-school season. To not merely regulate what schools and coaches can’t do, but actually run the programs they can do and want to do.
Of course, this would require more of what schools have less of – resources. School administrators who may be in agreement that schools should operate off-season programs to keep kids attached to in-season programs still balk because they lack resources. At a time when resources are being cut for basic support of in-season programs, how could they justify spending more for out-of-season outreach?
Ultimately, in discovering the sweet spot for out-of-season interaction between school coaches with student-athletes, we need to give at least as much attention to providing more opportunity for what they can do together as for what they can’t do.