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 Boys Tennis Finals Champs Set to Pursue 3-Peat

By Geoff Kimmerly
MHSAA.com senior editor

October 17, 2024

All four of last season’s Lower Peninsula Boys Tennis Finals champions are considered among top contenders again as we head into our season-ending tournaments, and two will be playing for third-consecutive titles – but only three at most will repeat.

Bloomfield Hills in Division 1 and Midland Dow in Division 2 are playing for three-peats and enter this weekend top-ranked in their divisions according to the final state coaches polls. Last season’s Division 3 champion Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood is ranked No. 1 as well, but will have the added challenge of fending off Ann Arbor Greenhills, which is back in Division 3 after winning the Division 4 title a year ago.

The Division 1, 2 and 3 Finals will be played Friday and Saturday at the sites listed below. Division 4 will be played Monday and Tuesday of next week.

Play begins between 8:15-8:30 a.m. Friday at the various sites for opening rounds, and between 8:30-9 a.m. Saturday for anticipated semifinals and championship matches. Visit the Boys Tennis page to find out which flights will be played at each location and to track results as they are received. 

LP Division 1 at Byron Center West Sports Complex & Grand Rapids South Christian

Top-ranked: 1. Bloomfield Hills, 2. Troy, 3. Northville.

Two-time reigning champion Bloomfield Hills has been ranked No. 1 all season. Similarly, Troy has been No. 2, Northville has ranked No. 3 and Bloomfield Hills Brother Rice has been listed No. 4 in all five state coaches polls as well. Troy most recently was champion in 2021 and co-runner-up last season, and Northville finished runner-up alone in 2022 and shared second with Troy last fall – the Mustangs’ highest finishes in program history.

Bloomfield Hills: The Black Hawks finished nine points ahead of the field in winning last season’s championship, and they are set up to score big again with three top seeds, three second seeds, a third and a fourth seed. Senior Pierce Shaya (20-1) and junior Connor Shaya won Nos. 2 and 3 singles last season and are seeded first at No. 1 and second at No. 2, respectively, for this weekend. Both are seeking third Finals singles flight titles. Sophomore Zev Spiegel is seeded first at No. 3 after making the No. 4 semifinals last season, and sophomore Brady Winston is the second seed at No. 4. Seniors Asher Langwell and Dominic Pascarella lead the doubles lineup as the top-seeded pair at No. 1; Pascarella was at No. 3 and Langwell No. 4 last year as Bloomfield Hills swept doubles flight championships. Juniors Meyer Saperstein and Sajan Doshi earned the top seed at No. 3 for this weekend.

Troy: All eight flights are seeded, and only one player will graduate after this season. A pair of highly-regarded freshman will lead the Colts’ singles lineup, with Dheeraj Yelleti on the top line at No. 4 and Krish Gupta second-seeded at No. 3. Juniors Varun Shetty and Anthony Wu are top-seeded at No. 2 doubles, freshman Sourish Darui and junior Nate Wanstreet are second-seeded at No. 3, and freshman Jackson Kraus and junior Raghav Karur are second-seeded at No. 4. Shetty and Vu were the flight runners-up at No. 3 doubles last season, and sophomore Jesse Hao was part of the runner-up at No. 4 and will team with junior Derrick Kim for the third-seeded No. 1 doubles pair.

Northville: Strong doubles are expected to pace Northville’s team title pursuit, with all four flights seeded third or higher. Seniors Nick Song and Josh Kim are seeded first at No. 1, and juniors Michael Rogala and Rohi Maddali are top-seeded at No. 4. Kim was the runner-up at No. 3 singles last season.

Chad Anderson, Rochester junior: Last season’s runner-up at No. 2 singles is the third seed this time at No. 1, carrying a 24-2 record with his only losses to Shaya a month ago and Stoney Creek’s Andrew Vincler (see below) in three sets at the end of August. He then defeated Vincler in three sets at their Regional last week.

Patrick Cretu, Bloomfield Hills Brother Rice senior: Cretu was the runner-up at No. 2 singles as a sophomore and made the semifinals at No. 1 as the fifth seed last season. He’s 21-3 with losses to Shaya and Vincler, plus a default.

Andrew Vincler, Rochester Hills Stoney Creek senior: He’s 26-1 and seeded second at No. 1 singles, with his only loss last week to Anderson and as the only player to defeat Shaya, which he achieved Sept. 5. He’s made a solid jump after entering as the sixth seed a year ago.

LP Division 2 at Kalamazoo College & Western Michigan University

Top-ranked: 1. Midland Dow, 2. Birmingham Seaholm, 3. Byron Center.

Dow also has been the season-long favorite in this division, with Seaholm and Byron Center pushing into the second and third coaches poll spots, respectively, in mid-September. The Chargers are seeking their third-straight Division 2 championship. Seaholm finished runner-up last year and is seeking its first Finals title, as is Byron Center coming off a seventh place in 2023.

Midland Dow: After winning last season’s title by five points and then graduating seven seniors from that lineup, Dow will go for the three-peat with seven seeded flights including two top seeds and two seconds. Senior Austin King (34-0) is seeking to finish his high school career with a second-straight championship at No. 1 singles and is top-seeded at that flight, and senior Nimai Patel (31-0) won No. 4 the last two seasons and is top-seeded this time at No. 3. Junior Siddarth Venkatesan is the second seed at No. 4 singles, and junior Ian Kohl and senior Dominic Griffin are seconds at No. 2 doubles.

Birmingham Seaholm: The Maples also were quite senior-heavy last season, graduating all but three starters from their runner-up lineup. Seven flights are seeded this time, with junior Britton Leo and sophomore Aaryan Senthilvanan second-seeded at No. 3 doubles and seniors Connor Champion and Andrew Wachowicz second-seeded at No. 4. Seniors Leo Kim and Carson Wright are the fourth seeds at No. 1 doubles; Kim was part of the flight winner at No. 4 last season, and Wright was half of the runner-up at No. 2.

Byron Center: The Bulldogs are seeded at six flights and with plenty of anticipated scoring opportunities in both singles and doubles. Sophomore Terrence He is second-seeded at No. 2 singles and junior Cole Krauss is the top seed at No. 4. All four doubles flights are seeded, led by sophomores Brayden Slot and Zeke Sandholm on the top line at No. 3. Terrence He reached the quarterfinals at No. 2 singles last season, and Krauss did the same at No. 4, while Slot and Rylan Vandenberge (now part of the third seed at No. 2 doubles) made the semifinals at No. 3 doubles.

Tanner Cooley, Traverse City Central senior: Cooley is back in the mix this season as the second seed at No. 1 singles. He’s 35-3, with his only losses twice to King and in a default.

Michael Liss, Birmingham Groves senior: As a freshman, Liss at No. 3 singles was Groves’ only flight winner on a team champion, and he’ll close his career as the fourth seed at No. 1 singles with all of his six losses to contenders in either Division 1 or Division 3. He made the quarterfinals while unseeded at No. 1 last season.

Sam Schumacher, Portage Central sophomore: He reached the quarterfinals at No. 1 singles as the seventh seed last season and returns as the third seed. He’s 26-5 also with a pair of losses to King and one to Cooley, plus two defaults.

LP Division 3 at Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood

Top-ranked: 1. Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood, 2. Detroit Country Day, 3. Ann Arbor Greenhills.

No surprises here; one of these three teams has won the championship every season since 2008, and some combination of these three has finished first or second every season since 2014. Reigning champion Cranbrook took over the top spot in this season’s rankings from Country Day in the Sept. 2 poll and hasn’t given it back.

Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood: All eight flights are seeded third or better, with six first or second seeds. Senior Ryan Michaels, last season’s runner-up at No. 1 singles, is seeded first this time with an 18-3 record and all three losses to contenders in Divisions 1 or 4 – plus a pair of wins over reigning champion Saahith Reddy (see below). Juniors Kenneth Hu and Jace Bernard are seeded second at Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, with freshman Eli Rosen the top seed at No. 4 singles. Bernard was the No. 3 champion a year ago and part of the No. 1 doubles champion as a sophomore. Junior Cole Kirschenbaum and sophomore Ryan VanDyke are the second seed at No. 2 doubles, and senior Sanjay Lokum and junior Daniel Ma are second-seeded at No. 3. Kirschenbaum and Hu teamed up to win No. 2 doubles last season, while VanDyke was half of the champion at No. 3.

Detroit Country Day: The Yellowjackets are seeking their first team title since 2014 and finished second and nine points back a year ago. All eight flights also are seeded third or higher, and like Cranbrook again six flights are seeded first or second. Senior Saahith Reddy (11-5) is the second seed at No. 1 singles but last season’s champion at the flight. Senior Dan Marin is the top seed at No. 2 singles after finishing runner-up last season, and freshmen Ricky Jeong and Adam Mahmoud are seeded first at No. 3 and second at No. 4, respectively. Junior Charlie Khaghany and senior Achyut Reddy have teamed up again this season at No. 1 doubles and are the top seed after finishing runner-up at that flight in 2023, and junior Rick Nie and sophomore Preston Blum are second-seeded at No. 4. Seniors Thomas Bresson and John McKany also are teamed up again as the third seed at No. 3 doubles after finishing runner-up at that flight last fall.

Ann Arbor Greenhills: The 2022 team champion moved into Division 4 for last season and won that Finals title as well before returning to Division 3 this fall. Doubles are where the Gryphons are expected to dominate with three tops seeds and a second seed. Sophomore William Pearce and senior Kabir Rajendra are that second seed, at No. 1, with Rajendra last season’s Division 4 runner-up at No. 1 singles and Pearce part of last year’s No. 3 doubles winner in that division. Juniors Ajay Purohit and Charlie Rich are top-seeded this weekend at No. 2 doubles, junior Richard Wu and sophomore Kirtan Palapattu are top-seeded at No. 3, and sophomores Lander Whelan and Deven Pimputkar are top-seeded at No. 4. Wu teamed with Pearce on last year’s Division 4 No. 3 winning pair, and Rich was the No. 3 singles champion. No. 1 singles senior Teddy Staebler, seeded fourth, was the No. 2 champion in Division 4 last year.

Bhavesh Burramukku, St. Joseph senior: He’s seeded third at No. 1 singles and advanced to the semifinals at that flight and that seed last season as well before losing in a three-set match to Michaels. He’s also played several of the highly-seeded players from all divisions this season in going 19-7.

LP Division 4 at Midland Tennis Center

Top-ranked: 1. Holland Christian, 2. Grosse Pointe Woods University Liggett, 3. Maple City Glen Lake.

As reigning champion Greenhills moved back into Division 3 this season, Holland Christian moved into Division 4 after finishing fourth in Division 3 a year ago. The Maroons are seeking their first Finals championship in this sport since 1965, and first top-two finish since 1998. Liggett is a familiar contender in this bracket, most recently winning it in 2022 and 2020 and finishing runner-up last season and in 2021. Glen Lake could be on the verge of history as it seeks its first top-two Finals finish. The Lakers moved back up to No. 3 in the rankings after edging No. 4 Traverse City St. Francis by three points at their Regional.

Holland Christian: The Maroons have the top seeds at every doubles flight plus No. 4 singles, and the second seeds at Nos. 2 and 3 singles. Senior Henry Langejans and junior Lucas VanWieren are the top seed at No. 1 doubles after Langejans made the semifinals at No. 1 in Division 3 last fall. Seniors Tyler Hemmeke and Gavin Swiftney are the top seed at No. 2; Hemmeke was part of a semifinalist at No. 2 in Division 3 last season, and Swiftney reached the quarterfinals at No. 4. Sophomores Michael Gorno and Graham Tanis are the top seed at No. 3 after teaming up to reach the Division 3 semifinals at No. 3 last year, and senior Levi King and junior Jack DeYoung earned the top seed at No. 4 doubles. Also earning a top seed for this weekend was freshman Nico Grosso at No. 4 singles, and juniors Dylan Becksvoort and Evan Disselkoen are the second seeds at Nos. 2 and 3 singles, respectively. Both made quarterfinals playing those flights, but in Division 3, last season.

Grosse Pointe Woods University Liggett: The Knights edged St. Francis by three points to finish second to Greenhills a year ago and have six seeded flights this weekend, all fourth or higher. Juniors Griffin Marchal and Niko Cooksey are the second seeds at No. 2 doubles, and sophomore Davis Ford and freshman Lucas Ferguson are seeded second at No. 4. Cooksey and junior Landen Maltby – part of the third-seeded No. 1 doubles this weekend – finished runner-up at No. 2 last year, and Marchal was part of the No. 3 champion in 2022.

Maple City Glen Lake: The Lakers finished two points out of third place and five out of second a year ago. All four singles and three doubles flights are seeded, with senior Michael Houtteman the top seed at No. 3 singles after making the No. 2 quarterfinals as a sixth seed a year ago. Sophomore Hawthorn Sutherland is the fourth seed at No. 2 this weekend after finishing runner-up at No. 3 in 2023.

Oliver Caldwell, Grand Rapids West Catholic freshman: Caldwell enters his first Finals as the top seed at No. 1 singles with a 29-1 record after falling to Traverse City St. Francis’ Owen Jackson in August but winning the rematch a month later.

Stephen Gollapalli, Lansing Christian sophomore: He’s 23-0 and the third seed at No. 1 singles after reaching the quarterfinals as a sixth seed a year ago.

Owen Jackson, Traverse City St. Francis senior: The second seed at No. 1 singles will cap a career that included the No. 3 championship as a freshman, No. 2 title as a sophomore and a run to the No. 1 semifinals last season. He’s 31-5 this fall.

PHOTO Byron Center’s Terrence He prepares to send a forehand back to his opponent during a match at last season’s LPD2 Finals. (Click for more from High School Sports Scene.)