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 Map for Getting Lost
April 21, 2014
“It’s just another step in the wrong direction.”
That’s the brief response I’ve been giving to the frequent questions I’m receiving from people wanting to hear my opinion about unionizing college athletes.
When I’m pressed to elaborate, I provide these antecedents:
- Establishing the “athletic scholarship” – allowing athlete performance or potential to replace financial need as the basis for grants in aid.
- Removing intercollegiate coaches from the requirement that they be tenure track faculty members of the university.
- Removing the budget for the intercollegiate athletic department from the overall budget of the university.
- Splitting NCAA governance into divisions so that the more educationally-based programs of the smaller colleges could no longer keep the larger, educational-lost intercollegiate programs in check.
Certainly it has been the escalating and then exploding revenues of broadcast media that helped to ignite, or inflame the impact of, these developments over the past 50+ years.
Treating intercollegiate athletes as employees is a natural but still misguided next step on this road in the wrong direction. It provides a map to where interscholastic sports must not go.