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: Pair of Reigning Champs, Pair of 2025 Runners-Up Hold Tennis Top Team Seeds
By
Geoff Kimmerly
MHSAA.com senior editor
October 15, 2026
This season’s 10-day run of four Lower Peninsula Boys Tennis Finals at Midland Tennis Center will feature two reigning champions expected to lift the winner's trophy once again and two 2025 runners-up expected to take the next step – the Division 4 favorite for the first time.
Division 1 begins the series of Finals with its two-day tournament Oct. 14-15, and Division 2 concludes the season Oct. 23-24.
Below is a preview of anticipated contenders in all four divisions. Click here for full brackets and additional details on all four tournaments.
Division 1 – Oct 14-15
Top-ranked: 1. Troy, 2. Novi, 3. Bloomfield Hills Brother Rice.
Reigning champion Troy has finished among the top two in Division 1 four of the last five seasons and broke Bloomfield Hills’ three-year hold on the championship with last year’s 10-point Finals win. Novi tied for third last season and is seeking its first Finals title since 2015, and edged Brother Rice by two points at their Regional last week. The Warriors are seeking their first Finals championship since 2009.
Troy: Three top-seeded doubles pairs plus another second-seeded duo could provide the power needed to drive Troy’s repeat run. Junior Sourish Daruri was part of last season’s No. 2 champion and is playing with senior Jesse Hao as the top-seeded pair at No. 1 this time. Juniors Jyotiraditya Kashyap and Siddarth Manikandan are second-seeded at No. 2, with sophomore Brad Bagley and freshman Aaditya Manikandan the top seeds at No. 3 and sophomore Vivaan Shan and junior Stas Barodka top-seeded at No. 4. Senior Zain Taqi was part of the No. 4 doubles champion last season and is seeded first at No. 4 singles, and junior Krish Gupta is seeded second at No. 2.
Novi: Sophomore Kris Thomas won No. 2 singles last season and enters this weekend as the fourth seed at No. 1 and as one of six Novi flights total seeded fourth or higher. Juniors Ishan Parikh and Luka Milosevich carry the team’s highest seed, second at No. 4 doubles. Sophomore Ronak Sharma is teaming with junior Daniel Han as the third seed at No. 2 doubles after Sharma was part of the runner-up at No. 4 last year with sophomore Vincent Maisano, who is teaming with sophomore Suveer Singh as the third seed at No. 3 this time.
Bloomfield Hills: Ranked No. 5 heading into the postseason, Bloomfield Hills is hoping to make a run at another title after finishing second at last year’s Final and also second to Troy at their Regional earlier this month. The Black Hawks are seeded at six flights, with Zev Spiegel the sixth seed at No. 2 singles after winning No. 3 a year ago. Seniors Krish Reddy and Maanav Majmuder are seeded fourth at No. 1 doubles after Reddy was part of last year’s champion at that flight.
Grant Miller, Ann Arbor Pioneer sophomore: Last season’s No. 1 singles runner-up – after entering as the second seed – is the top seed this time with a 22-1 record and his only loss in three sets in August to Salem’s Aarav Shah, who he then defeated 6-0, 6-1, at last week’s Regional.
Aarav Shah, Salem senior: Shah is back at the Finals after just missing qualifying last season but making the No. 1 singles quarterfinals as a sophomore. His only loss this season was to Miller at the Regional, and all of his wins but the one over Miller went just two sets.
Division 2 – Oct 23-24
Top-ranked: 1. Birmingham Seaholm, 2. Grand Rapids Forest Hills Northern, 3. Midland Dow.
One of the three schools mentioned above has finished first the last four seasons and six of the last seven, and last year was the first time since 2020 that one of those three also didn’t finish runner-up. Byron Center – ranked No. 5 heading into this weekend – finished second by five points to champion Seaholm a year ago, with Dow third and Forest Hills Northern fourth. FHN’s most recent title came in 2024, and Dow won back-to-back in 2022 and 2023.
Birmingham Seaholm: The Maples will pursue a repeat championship with all eight flights seeded third or higher and four flights on the top line of their respective brackets. Freshman Luke Janz is seeded first at No. 4 singles, with senior Kalil Wahab and freshman Hunter Helman top-seeded at No. 1 doubles, senior Aaryan Senthilvanan and freshman Mark Latinsky top-seeded at No. 3 and seniors Deven Badhwar and Ryan McArdle on the top line at No. 4. Sophomores Ahren Gupta and Kyle Carr are seeded second at No. 2 doubles, with junior Carter Griffith second at No. 1 singles, sophomore Charlie Griffith second at No. 3 and senior Giorgio Materazzo seeded third at No. 2. Charlie Griffith is the reigning champion at No. 3 singles, Materazzo was the runner-up at No. 2 a year ago, and Senthilvanan was part of the champion at No. 3 doubles in 2024.
Grand Rapids Forest Hills Northern: All eight FHN flights also are seeded, with four third seeds or higher – freshman Andrew Yang seeded second at No. 2 singles, junior Sam Ogilvie third at No. 3, freshman Jayden Qi second at No. 4 singles and junior Daniel Jin and senior Mikey Hernly seeded third at No. 3 doubles. Junior Vikram Krishnan is seeded seventh at No. 1 singles after winning the No. 2 flight a year ago, and junior Drew Decker is teaming with senior Ethan Han as the fifth seed at No. 2 doubles after Decker was part of the champion at No. 3 last fall.
Midland Dow: Three top seeds lead the way for a group with seven seeded flights total. Senior Chase Martin is on the top line at No. 2 singles, and Raymond Chai holds the same at No. 3, with seniors Ethan Clark and Jashwanth Thamminana top-seeded at No. 2 doubles and junior Vetter Xu and senior Zander Salisbury second-seeded at No. 3. Clark and Xu teamed up to win No. 4 doubles a year ago, and senior Nathan Song is playing with junior Sullivan Ladd as the third seed at No. 1 doubles after Song was part of the runner-up at that flight in 2025.
Mason Crosby, South Lyon East senior: After finishing second at No. 1 singles last season and second at No. 2 as a freshman, Crosby is seeking to finish his career with his first title and enters with a 26-0 record including five straight 6-0, 6-0 wins and 17 total this fall.
Evan Weber, Berkley junior: Weber is pursuing the title at No. 1 singles with a 21-2 record entering the weekend and losses to only Carter Griffith and Division 1 Ryan Brockhaus from Brother Rice – and Weber won a rematch with Griffith at their Regional.
Division 3 – Oct. 16-17
Top-ranked: 1. Detroit Country Day, 2. Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood, 3. Holland Christian.
Cranbrook returned to the top of the Division 3 standings last season for the second time in three years and fourth time over the last six, finishing just a point ahead of Country Day. The Yellowjackets fell back to second after sharing the 2024 title with Ann Arbor Greenhills – which is ranked No. 4 this fall. Holland Christian won Division 4 in 2024 and finished third in Division 3 last fall.
Detroit Country Day: The Yellowjackets will attempt to win back the team title with the top or second seeds at all but one flight. Junior Ricky Jeong is seeded first at No. 1 singles and freshman Nicholas Nadjarian is the top seed at No. 4, Jeong pursuing his third Finals singles championship after winning No. 1 last year and No. 3 in 2024. Sophomore Samuel Kole-James at No. 2 singles and senior Victor Marin at No. 3 are joined by senior Preston Blum and freshman Emmanuel Kole-James at No. 2 doubles, freshman Rithik Vakhariya and senior Henry Diemer at No. 3 and sophomore Sasha Kebl and junior Sebastian Shah at No. 4 doubles among second seeds as well. Sophomore Shiv Kumar and junior Adam Mahmoud round out the lineup as the third seed at No. 1 doubles. Samuel Kole-James is the reigning champ at No. 2 singles, Plum was part of last year’s champion at No. 1 doubles and Kumar was part of the winner at No. 2. Marin also made the final matches last season, finishing runner-up at No. 4 singles.
Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood: The Cranes also are seeded first or second at every flight but one, with top lines going to freshman Trevor Ilitch at No. 2 singles, Eli Rosen at No. 3, seniors Ryan VanDyke and Josh Day at No. 1 doubles, senior Liam Black and junior Luke Stevenson at No. 3 and junior Jaiden Swami and senior Stanley Shen at No. 4 doubles. Freshman Jacob Yang is seeded second at No. 1 singles, sophomore Henry DeMuth is second at No. 4, and junior Dylan Popat and senior Andy Yu are the third seed at No. 2 doubles. Day was the champion at No. 4 singles last season, and Popat and Yu won the title at No. 4 doubles. Rosen was the runner-up at No. 2 singles in 2025, and DeMuth was part of the runner-up pair at No. 3 doubles.
Holland Christian: All eight flights are seeded as Holland Christian attempts to make its move on the annual contenders. Seniors Graham Tannis and Michael Gorno are leading the way as the second seeds at No. 2 doubles, with freshman Asher Grosso is the third seed at No. 2 singles. Senior Eli Whitmore is teaming with junior Brody Bergsma as the fifth seed at No. 2 doubles after Whitmore was part of the champion at No. 3 last season, and seniors Jonathan Haig and Carter Leep are seeded fourth at No. 3 doubles after finishing runner-up at No. 4 last fall. Junior Nico Grosso is the sixth seed at No. 1 singles coming off last year’s runner-up finish at No. 3.
Anish Komirisetty, Haslett junior: The third-seeded player at No. 1 singles is 28-0 and a combined 79-3 for his career while competing in his second season at the top flight after playing No. 2 as a freshman.
Division 4 – Oct. 21-22
Top-ranked: 1. Jackson Lumen Christi, 2. Grosse Pointe Woods University Liggett, 3. Ludington.
University Liggett took back the title last season, claiming its first since 2022 by finishing 10 points ahead of Lumen Christi. The Titans are favored this time as they seek their first Finals championship in this sport. Ludington is pursuing the same after tying for ninth in Division 3 a year ago.
Jackson Lumen Christi: Powerful doubles are expected to pace Lumen’s title drive, with senior Maden Brady and sophomore Theo McEldowney seeded first at No. 2 and senior Gurmilan Singh and junior Shayan Challapalli seeded first at No. 4. Senior pairs Chase Schirmacher and Brogan Kelly and Harrison Botke and Vincent Tran are seeded second at Nos. 2 and 3 doubles, respectively. Seniors TJ O’Neill at No. 2 singles and Gabe Cooper at No. 3 are expected to add punch as third seeds. Kelly was part of the runner-up last season at No. 3 doubles.
Grosse Pointe Woods University Liggett: A repeat run could be led by junior Justin Platt at No. 3 singles, junior Fernando Romine at No. 4 and junior Lucas Ferguson and sophomore Ian Moya at No. 2 doubles – all second seeds. Seniors Davis Ford and Charlie Laethem at No. 1 doubles also will be counted on to score big points as a third seed. Platt was the No. 4 singles champion a year ago, while Laethem was part of the champion at No. 2 doubles and Ferguson part of the flight winner at No. 3.
Ludington: A powerful singles lineup could send the Orioles into the title hunt, with seniors Oliver Kolb at No. 2, Tyler Keillor at No. 3 and Ryder Saya at No. 4 all top seeds and senior Ryan Higley at No. 1 unseeded but coming off a Regional championship. Juniors Gavin Cohoon and Ethan Blough at No. 1 doubles also are seeded, in the fifth spot.
Mateus Pimental, Goodrich senior: The second seed at No. 1 singles enters the weekend 21-0 and hasn’t lost a set this season.
Noah West, Lansing Catholic junior: He’s the top seed at No. 1 singles with a 28-2 record but with those defeats in three sets to Haslett’s Komirisetty (see above) and Maple City Glen Lake senior Hawthorn Sutherland, who is seeded fifth in this bracket.
Matthew Brenzing & John Oliver, Grandville Calvin Christian juniors: Brenzing returned to doubles after playing No. 1 singles a year ago and has teamed with Oliver to achieve a 26-0 record and the top seed at No. 1 doubles this weekend.