Class in Session: A History in Classification
July 24, 2017
By Rob Kaminski
MHSAA benchmarks editor
This is the first part in a series on MHSAA tournament classification, past and present, that will be published over the next two weeks. This series originally ran in this spring's edition of MHSAA benchmarks.
Conversation and discussion at the March 2017 MHSAA Representative Council Meeting leaned heavily toward the subject of 8-Player Football and how to properly balance its tournament with the growing number of schools sponsoring the sport.
While the proposal to split the tournament into two divisions beginning with the 2017 school year was adopted, the MHSAA then faced questions such as when to set the divisions, how to determine qualifiers and where to host the championship games.
The topic continues to create a buzz in Class D schools across both peninsulas, and likely will do into the start of school this fall.
Likewise, the lone holdouts still conducting tournaments by class – MHSAA Boys and Girls Basketball and Girls Volleyball – took center stage at the May Council discussion, and following the 2017-18 school year, class is out for good. Both genders of basketball, and girls volleyball, will move to divisional formats thereafter.
There is much to be decided to be sure; but as those in education are well aware, history is the best teacher.
Fortunately for the sports in flux and for all sports under the governance of the MHSAA, the Association more or less wrote the book on the subject of sport classification. Following is a history lesson, with a little advanced division thrown in.
Class structure
Credited with being the first state with multiple tournament classifications, Michigan’s attention to trends and shifts in philosophy aimed at fair play and equal tournament opportunity can be traced from 80 years ago to the present.
In the earliest years of the MHSAA, there were four classifications for elections and tournaments – Classes A, B, C and D. Classes C and D had far more schools than Classes A and B. For example, 80 years ago (1937), there were only 58 schools in Class A, 94 schools in Class B, 297 schools in Class C and 253 schools in Class D.
Gradually through the years, as Michigan’s major cities spawned suburbs, there was a shift in the other direction to the point 30 years ago (1987) when school size became more balanced: 173 Class A schools, 178 Class B schools, 179 Class C schools and 182 Class D schools.
Up until 1987, the MHSAA published the dividing line between each classification, after which schools submitted their enrollments. Then, for 1988 and thereafter, the MHSAA adopted the plan of gathering all enrollments first and then placing 25 percent of the schools in each of four classes. This completed the equalization of the number of schools in each class for elections.
However, the change for 1988 did nothing to equalize the number of teams actually entered by each class in each sport. And unlike the early years of the Association when there were many more Class C and D teams than A and B teams, there were more Class A and B teams than C and D teams entering MHSAA tournaments decades later.
Moreover, the difference in number of teams entered in the different classifications for a sport continued to increase as many small schools, the fastest growing portion of the MHSAA's membership, sponsor only a few sports, or they sponsor no sports at all but enter into cooperative programs with other schools.
Because of these differences, Class A or B schools sometimes had to win twice as many games as Class C or D schools to reach the MHSAA Finals in a sport. At times, the larger classifications had District Tournaments, even rat-tail games, and/or a Quarterfinal game, and the smaller classifications did not. Most Class D Districts have had four teams (some only three), while Class A Districts often had seven or eight teams. In Regional levels of individual sports, the number of entries in the larger classification once greatly outnumbered those in the smaller classifications of the tournament for the same sport.
Over the years, these dividing lines between classes escalated gradually, as did the differences in enrollments of largest and small schools in each class. In 1937 the dividing lines were 700, 300 and 100 between Class A and B, B and C, and C and D, respectively. By 1987, the dividing lines were 1,129, 571 and 298, respectively, leading to the current method of collecting enrollments and then setting the classification.
With the pendulum swinging well past center by the late 1980s, coaches associations, MHSAA sport committees, tournament managers and school administrators began discussion and offered proposals to correct what many believed had become a flawed system of MHSAA tournament classification.
At the 1996 MHSAA Update Meetings, ¾ of 858 respondents to that year’s annual survey indicated they favored a system that would divide schools which actually sponsor each sport into two, three or four nearly equal divisions.
Problem solving
At its meeting May 4-6, 1997, the Representative Council defeated a motion that would have adopted in one action a coordinated plan of reclassification for all sports to equalize the number of schools in each tournament for each respective sport. Instead, the Council discussed and voted on each proposal that had been presented from sport committees.
This resulted in the Representative Council adopting four equal divisions for baseball and softball, four equal divisions for boys and girls tennis, four equal divisions for boys soccer and three equal divisions for girls soccer, effective with the 1997-98 school year. Helping in the decision was the success of the 1995-96 MHSAA Wrestling season, which saw the sport move to four divisions for its tournament structure
The Council delayed action on similar proposals for football and boys golf at that time to glean additional input. The same decision was made with respect to a proposal from the Ice Hockey Committee that would have split the Class A schools in two divisions and left the Class B/C/D Tournament unchanged.
“The gist of the move from classes to divisions was to equalize the path to championships for students of all schools, regardless of the size of those schools,” said MHSAA Executive Director Jack Roberts.
While the restructuring accomplished that goal for the majority of competitors, opposition exists now as it did then. The primary argument in opposition to the changes is that, in some sports, it increases the range between largest and smallest schools in the division for smallest schools, even as the range is usually reduced for other divisions.
Larger schools offered a counterpoint.
“The larger schools suggested that while they may have more students, they also attempt to sponsor more sports than the smaller schools, in some cases spreading the enrollment as thin as a much smaller school with fewer sports,” Roberts said.
“Even today, the idea of four equal divisions can be unpopular among some Class D schools which feel especially burdened by the equal division concept,” Roberts said. “There was enough opposition in 1997 that equal divisions were rejected for boys and girls basketball and girls volleyball, and some of that opposition remains.”
The numbers of schools sponsoring each MHSAA tournament are still close to the totals today, with the exception of soccer in both genders, which has enjoyed substantial increases. This spring, 466 girls teams were scheduled to compete in the MHSAA Soccer Tournament, while 473 boys teams will suit up this fall.
Since the beginning of MHSAA divisions in 1996 with wrestling, 147 additional team champions have been crowned and countless individuals have known the thrill of victory due to an extra level of Finals in various sports. Girls soccer has seen the most growth in opportunity, moving from two classes in 1987 to three divisions the following year, and then four divisions in 2000. Boys soccer had enjoyed four classes for two years prior to the new four-division format, and it was the sport of soccer that helped to create a caveat in the nearly equal division movement.
Lower Peninsula boys and girls swimming & diving expanded from two to three divisions in 2008, while boys and girls bowling are the most recent sports to enjoy increased tournament opportunity, adding a fourth division in 2010.
“Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. While having the same number of schools in each division is one kind of fairness, holding in check the enrollment range between the largest and smallest schools in Division 4 is another kind of fairness that is dear to a great number of people,” Roberts said. “Because more schools sponsor basketball and volleyball than other sports, Class D schools would have been least affected by the equal divisions concept in those sports; but that, and ‘tradition,’ did not dissuade the opponents in the 1990s.”
The shift to divisions not only paved the way for student-athletes, but also assisted administrators and schools hosting tournaments. MHSAA tournament mangers looked to equal divisions to more closely equalize the number of schools in District or Regional Tournaments and to better equalize the length of day required for these rounds of tournaments, both for management and participating teams and individuals.
Pinning down an answer
Wrestling became the first MHSAA Tournament to be conducted in nearly equal divisions when team and individual champions were crowned in Divisions 1, 2, 3 and 4 rather than Classes A, B, C/D for the 1996 winter championships.
The movement was well received, as schools saw more opportunity for success: four champions where there once were three at the District, Regional and Final levels, and a smaller range of enrollment between the smallest and largest school in all four tournaments, leading to the impetus for the Fall 1996 Update Meeting Survey of schools regarding similar movement in other sports.
Team champions that year were Holt (D1), Petoskey (D2), Middleville Thornapple Kellogg (D3) and Dundee (D4).
Getting their kicks
When the "equal divisions" concept was approved by the Representative Council for most MHSAA Tournaments for the 1997-98 school year, there was opposition from the smallest schools which, under the equal divisions, are forced to play against larger schools than reside in Class D. Compelling arguments were made – and still are – that an enrollment difference between schools with smaller enrollments (e.g., Class D) is more difficult to overcome in athletic competition than an even larger enrollment difference between schools with larger enrollments (e.g., Class A).
The opposition was most intense in soccer because of the number of students needed to field a team and the physical nature of the sport. As a result, from 2000-01 through 2010-11, soccer operated with a “20-percent modification.” This placed 20 percent of all schools that actually sponsored soccer in Division 4, and the remaining 80 percent were placed equally in Divisions 1, 2 and 3.
At the time the 20 percent modification was adopted, it was also established that soccer would return to four equal divisions when the largest Division 4 soccer school had an enrollment equal to or smaller than the mid point for Class C schools. That occurred in 2010.
Last class on the schedule
In the same volume of “history being the best teacher,” one can also find the adage, “times change.” While the division format was a welcome change in some sports, others were left to hold class without change.
In the sports of boys and girls basketball, and girls volleyball, the number of schools sponsoring the sports were so close to the overall membership of the MHSAA that divisions were not necessary; the enrollment breakdowns themselves were enough to delineate equal opportunity for tournament success.
That is no longer the case, according to MHSAA membership. The last move from classes to divisions occurred for the 2006-07 school year following Council action. Before this May, that is. Action at the most recent Representative Council meeting, May 2017, called for the shift to divisions for MHSAA Boys and Girls Basketball, and Girls Volleyball, beginning with the 2018-19 season.
“Because the MHSAA Volleyball Committee had requested this change several times a number of years ago, and because the Council felt the change inevitable, there should not be further delay,” Roberts said. “It is an important detail that the Class D maximum has dropped 50 students over the past decade so the objection that much larger schools would be competing in Division 4 isn’t very strong now.”
Using the 2017-18 enrollment figures, just eight Class C schools would be competing in Division 4 for boys basketball, 11 for girls basketball and 14 for girls volleyball.
Good things came of the previous most-recent switches in 2006-07. Competitive Cheer was re-classified from Class A, B and C-D into four equal divisions assisting in the rapid growth of sponsoring schools (approximately 80 schools per division). Alpine skiing was changed from Class A and B-C D to two equal divisions.
At that time, the MHSAA Basketball Committee had recommended to the Council the study of increased classifications, but status quo remained.
Back on the grid
As such, MHSAA Basketball and Volleyball remained the only holdovers of the MHSAA class structure. Discussion resurfaced periodically during the last two decades to bring those tournaments in line with the other MHSAA sports.
Regular-season football-playing schools are separated by class, then are reshuffled by divisions for the playoffs. Football, as we know, underwent a significant postseason facelift in the late 1990s.
While MHSAA Football also remained a class sport through 1998, it had expanded from four to eight classes from 1990-98, becoming the first MHSAA sport to crown more than four team champions. Member schools were asked to consider a pair of options in November of 1997. One called for eight equal divisions, and the second would leave Class D by itself as division 8, and split Class A, B and C schools into seven nearly equal divisions.
After much discussion, retooling, and crunching of formulas, the MHSAA unveiled its revised Football Playoff model that continues to roll today, nearly 20 years later. It was determined that 256 teams would qualify for the tournament based first on a minimum of six wins, then by Playoff Points determined by formula. From there, the field would be divided into eight divisions, with the field being filled out by a nearly equal number of five-win teams in each division as needed to reach 256.
Eight championships would indeed be enough, until football sponsorship among the MHSAA’s smallest schools – some with rich football traditions – began to trend downward. The MHSAA again went to the drawing board, examining the viability of 8-player football. After an experimental year in 2010 without a tournament, the 8-player game was playoff-ready for 2011, with a field of 16 qualifiers embarking on a four-week tournament.
Not only did the 8-player option restore recently canceled programs, but it also created teams in schools which previously had none, and convinced some 11-player schools that this new division was the best path to take.
What did this do for the Class D holdovers staying in the traditional 11-player game? Well, a couple of things, positive and negative. As two and three dozen Class D schools opted for the 8-player game, the remaining 11-player Class D schools at times found themselves in disrupted leagues and had to travel further to complete schedules. They also competed against larger teams in Division 8 of the 11-player MHSAA Football Playoffs.
However, the growth of the 8-player game among the smallest schools also resulted in more Class D schools qualifying for the MHSAA Football Playoffs than ever before. In 2012, an all-time high 44 percent of Class D schools sponsoring football qualified for either the 8-player tournament or Division 8 of the 11-player tournament. That compared to 42.2 percent of Class C schools, 44.9 percent of Class B schools and 41.6 percent of Class A schools which qualified for the 2012 playoffs.
Much is to be determined in the most recent chapter of MHSAA Tournament expansion as the 8-Player Football Playoffs welcome a second division. As the past illustrates, there will be pluses and minuses. History also shows that the MHSAA has received maximum input from its constituents, researched all possibilities, and will find solutions to questions still in the balance before an additional group of athletes hoists a new trophy in November.
Through the Years
A chronology of when which sports moved from Class to Division in the MHSAA.
1995-96: LP Wrestling
1997-98: Baseball, Boys Soccer, Girls Soccer, Softball, LP Girls Tennis, LP Boys Tennis
1998-99: LP Boys Golf, LP Girls Golf
1999-2000: Ice Hockey, LP Boys Track & Field, LP Girls Track & Field
2000-01: LP Boys Cross Country, LP Girls Cross Country, UP Boys Cross Country, UP Girls Cross Country, UP Boys Golf, UP Girls Golf, UP Boys Tennis, UP Girls Tennis, UP Boys Track & Field, UP Girls Track & Field
2002-03: LP Girls Swimming & Diving, LP Boys Swimming & Diving
2005-06: Boys Bowling, Girls Bowling
2006-07: Girls Competitive Cheer, Boys Skiing, Girls Skiing
2018-19: Boys Basketball, Girls Basketball, Girls Volleyball
Note: Boys and Girls Lacrosse has been a divisional sport since it began in during the 2004-05 school year.
Preview: Reigning Champions Seeking Repeat Performances at Midland Tennis Center
By
Geoff Kimmerly
MHSAA.com senior editor
May 26, 2026
As with the MHSAA boys championship tournaments this past fall, the Lower Peninsula Girls Tennis Finals over the next two weeks will have a new look – although familiarity reigns as last year’s four team champions are the favorites again in their respective divisions.
Northville, Birmingham Seaholm, Detroit Country Day and Ann Arbor Greenhills will look to maintain their supremacy all at Midland Tennis Center, beginning with Division 4 today and Thursday, followed by Division 1 this Friday and Saturday, and then Division 2 on June 3 and 4 and Division 3 over June 5 and 6.
Below are details on those top-ranked teams and more contenders to watch during all four Finals:
Division 1
Top-ranked: 1. Northville, 2. Utica Eisenhower, 3. Novi.
Northville is the reigning champion, and Utica Eisenhower has finished second the last two seasons and is seeking its first title. Northville claimed last year’s team trophy by just a point, and third-place Novi was only four back of the lead and also enters this weekend seeking a first Finals championship.
Northville: The Mustangs will pursue a repeat with six seeded flights and potentially powered by doubles with juniors Sravya Doppalapudi and Francine Ong seeded first at No. 2 and senior Michelle Lee and junior Emma Murphy seeded first at No. 4. All four doubles pairs are seeded third or higher, as is sophomore Grace Xu at No. 3 singles. Doppalapudi and Ong were champions at No. 3 doubles last season, Murphy was part of the No. 4 champion, juniors Lucia Lachapelle and Aadya Pullalarevu were runners-up at No. 2 and are second-seeded at No. 3 this time, and junior Emmi Dober is part of the third-seeded No. 1 pair after finishing second at No. 3 singles in 2025.
Utica Eisenhower: The Eagles just missed a first title last year, and they are loaded especially at singles with six flights total seeded for the weekend. Senior Gabriella Sadowski is seeded second at No. 1 singles after winning the flight as a sophomore and finishing runner-up a year ago. Sophomore Morgan Emerick is seeded first at No. 2 and the reigning champion in that bracket, and senior Sofia Gardner is seeded second at No. 4. Sadowski and Emerick are undefeated this spring. Senior Alexis Gabriel has been part of No. 1 and No. 2 doubles champions over the last two seasons and is seeded fourth at No. 1 this time with junior Kara Lu.
Ann Arbor Pioneer: The Pioneers were ranked No. 4 in the most recent poll and seeded to make a move after finishing seventh a year ago. They are seeded at all four singles flights and two doubles flights, with sophomores Maryn Etheridge and Ayla Altinsel the top seed at No. 3 doubles.
Saline senior Emerson Jones: She’s the top seed at No. 1 singles and 18-0 in her only season playing high school tennis, with 11 wins (including her last four) by 6-0, 6-0 scores.
Clarkston junior Kayla Lemke: The third seed at No. 1 singles is 20-2 with her only losses to Saline’s Jones and Eisenhower’s Sadowski.
Rochester Hills Stoney Creek junior Larissa Yoshino/sophomore Yousong Choi: The top-seeded pair at No. 1 doubles is 19-1 with its only loss in three sets to Eisenhower’s Gabriel and Lu.
Division 2
Top-ranked: 1. Birmingham Seaholm, 2. Grand Rapids Forest Hills Northern, 3. Farmington Hills Mercy.
Reigning champion Seaholm has won two of the last three titles and finished first or second the last four seasons. Forest Hills Northern most recently won this tournament in 2024 and owns three of the five championships in Division 2 this decade. Mercy finished runner-up to Seaholm last year and is seeking its first team Finals title in this sport.
Birmingham Seaholm: The Maples will be tough to catch with seven top-seeded flights – sophomore Devon Rusk at No. 2 singles, junior Sabrina Dunn at No. 3, junior Izzy Bloom at No. 4, senior Lucy Jen and junior Sophia Arndt at No. 1 doubles, senior Anna Olekszyk and junior Katie Joyce at No. 2, junior Cate French and senior Kate Crowley at No. 3 and junior Alina Villaire and senior Jacqueline Supancich the top-seeded No. 4 pair. Senior Jada Josifovski is the sixth-seeded player at No. 1 singles and won No. 2 a year ago. Olekszyk and Arndt won No. 2 doubles last spring, Crowley and French won No. 3, Joyce and Villaire won No. 4 and Jen was part of the runner-up at No. 1. Bloom was the runner-up at No. 4 singles in 2025.
Grand Rapids Forest Hills Northern: The Huskies finished third a year ago and will make a run at the top spots led by four second-seeded flights – senior Harriet Ogilvie at No. 1 singles, sophomore Audrey Kowatch at No. 4, sophomore Hayla Messelink and senior Hailey Pfeiffle at No. 3 doubles and senior Maddie Decker and freshman Mercedes Acevedo at No. 4. Senior Ava Targosz and sophomore Sadie Wolfe are seeded fifth at No. 2 doubles after finishing runner-up at No. 4 last year.
Farmington Hills Mercy: The Marlins will look to make up seven points from last year’s runner-up finish with five flights seeded among the top three in their respective brackets. Seniors Alexa Dueweke and Scarlett Manchinger are second seeds at Nos. 2 and 3 singles, respectively, and sophomore Anna Naida and senior Gabby Owens are second-seeded at No. 2 doubles. Owens was the champion at No. 4 singles last season, and senior Keira Kirkland was the runner-up at No. 2 and is seeded third at No. 1 this weekend.
Ana Cheng, Mattawan senior: The top-seeded player at No. 1 singles is 24-2 with a win over Ogilvie just two weeks ago but a loss to Kirkland at the start of May. Cheng reached the quarterfinals at No. 1 last season as the seven seed.
Division 3
Top-ranked: 1. Detroit Country Day, 2. East Grand Rapids, 3. Bloomfield Hills Marian.
Country Day is seeking to run its latest championship streak to three, and East Grand Rapids in 2009 is the last team not Country Day or Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood to win the Division 3 title. The Pioneers are seeking to make a jump from sixth last season. Marian finished third a year ago and most recently won a championship in 2016 in Division 2.
Detroit Country Day: Five top seeds will lead the Yellowjackets’ pursuit. Sophomore Chloe Conniff is on the top line at No. 1 singles after finishing second at No. 2 last year, and sophomore Karishma Vakhariya is the top seed at No. 2 coming off the championship at No. 3. Junior Quinn Norlander and senior Helen Benjamin are top-seeded at No. 1 doubles and familiar with this stage as well; Benjamin has won two singles titles including at No. 4 last season, and Norlander was part of last spring’s No. 1 doubles runner-up. Sophomore Grace Kalkanis was part of the No. 4 champion last season and is seeded first at No. 2 with sophomore Zoe Bergg, and senior Jiya Gill and sophomore Zoe Grebinski are top-seeded at No. 4 this time. Sophomore Addie Grebinski is seeded third at No. 3 singles and senior Noor Mahmoud is part of the third-seeded pair at No. 3 doubles after they teamed up to finish runner-up at No. 2 doubles in 2025.
East Grand Rapids: Seven of eight EGR flights are seeded, and all seven are seeded fourth or higher with freshman Evelyn Gingras leading the way on the top line at No. 3 singles. Sophomore Mia Owings also is forecasted to play for a flight championship as the second seed at No. 4 singles.
Bloomfield Hills Marian: Seven flights are seeded and with several championship match expectations. Freshman Gwen Slapak is the top seed at No. 4 singles, with senior Emerson Turkot and junior Stella Glorio the second seed at No. 2 doubles, freshman Emerson Villalba and junior Lexa Hindo second-seeded at No. 3 and juniors Lizzie Plunkett and Clare Reaume the second seed at No. 4. Glorio and Hindo were the champions at No. 3 last season.
Henley Honholt, Grand Rapids Christian sophomore: The second seed at No. 1 singles is 16-1 with her only loss to Country Day’s Conniff. Honholt reached the semifinals as the third seed last season.
Lilah Zaskowski, Ada Forest Hills Eastern junior: After reaching the quarterfinals last season as the sixth seed, she’s back as the third in the No. 1 singles bracket with three of her four loses to Honholt or Conniff.
Division 4
Top-ranked: 1. Ann Arbor Greenhills, 2. Pontiac Notre Dame Prep, 3. Allegan.
Greenhills has won the last four Division 4 championships, and Notre Dame Prep has finished second the last two seasons – which have been the Fighting Irish’s highest Finals finishes as they continue to pursue a first title. Allegan is seeking its first as well and has four runner-up finishes, its most recent in 2013 in Division 3.
Ann Arbor Greenhills: Junior Nina Malani at No. 1 singles and freshman Jahan Soofi at No. 4 are on the top lines of their respective brackets, and similarly seniors Danica Rakic-Dennis and Lauren Ye are seeded first at No. 1 doubles and senior Aoife Tang and sophomore Linnea Bengtson are the top seed at No. 4. The other four flights are seeded second or third in their brackets. Malani won No. 4 singles last season and sophomore Hazel Morgan is seeded third at No. 2 this time after winning No. 3 in 2025. Rakic-Dennis was part of the champion at No. 1 doubles and Ye part of the winning pair at No. 3 last spring with junior Alyssa Hong, who is joined by junior Jessica Lou on the third-seeded No. 2 doubles pair.
Pontiac Notre Dame Prep: The Irish will attempt to cut into Greenhills’ advantage led by sophomores Vanessa Artinian and Regina Carpenese holding down the top seed at No. 2 doubles and senior Nina Shanidze seeded second at No. 3 singles. Artinian was part of the No. 4 doubles champion last year – with sophomore Elena Vandieren, who is playing No. 1 doubles with sophomore Adriana Dedukaj – and senior Adriana Johnson was part of the runner-up at No. 3 and with freshman Adrienne Hofley is seeded sixth at that flight this time. Junior Ana Jarvis is playing No. 1 singles after finishing runner-up at No. 3 a year ago.
Allegan: The Tigers are seeded at six flights and especially powerful in doubles. Seniors Sophia Augustine and Emma Scheffler are the top seed at No. 3, with junior Ireland Dewey and senior Madison Cook the second seed at No. 1 and seniors Taylor Fuller and Hanna Kievit second-seeded at No. 2.
Sonya Jayakar, Grosse Pointe Woods University Liggett sophomore: After opening this season with a pair of defeats – including the first to Malani – Jayakar has run off 12 straight wins. She reached the quarterfinals at No. 1 while unseeded as a freshman.
Eliana McClellan, Traverse City St. Francis junior: She finished runner-up at No. 2 singles last season, and her only losses this spring were during the first event – against Malani and Saline’s Jones.
PHOTO Detroit Country Day's Quinn Norlander gets to a ball near the net during the 2025 Division 3 Finals. (Click for more from High School Sports Scene.)