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: All Eyes Turn to Midland as Tennis Debuts Revamped Championship Round (Updated 10/23)

By Geoff Kimmerly
MHSAA.com senior editor

October 16, 2025

While several contenders at this season’s Lower Peninsula Boys Tennis Finals will be familiar, the season-concluding tournaments across four divisions will have a significantly different look.

Beginning this weekend, all four championships will be decided at Midland Tennis Center over the next nine days. Division 1 begins Friday and concludes Saturday, followed by Division 4 next Monday and Tuesday, Division 2 on Oct. 22 and 23 and concluding with Division 3 on Oct. 24 and 25.

As such, our preview will be updated in advance of those Finals, concluding with Division 3 added prior to its championship weekend. 

Division 3 (Oct. 24-25)

Top-ranked: 1. Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood, 2. Detroit Country Day, 3. Holland Christian.

Cranbrook, Country Day and Ann Arbor Greenhills (ranked No. 4 this season) have combined to win every Division 3 championship since 2008, with Country Day and Greenhills sharing the title last season and Cranbrook finishing third. But Holland Christian provides an intriguing angle this time; the Maroons moved into Division 3 this year after winning last season’s Division 4 title.

Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood: The Cranes are seeded to score big, with four top seeds, three second-seeded flights and a third seed. Holding down top lines are senior Kenneth Hu at No. 3 singles, junior Josh Day at No. 4, senior Kethan Lala and freshman Henry DeMuth at No. 1 doubles and sophomore Dylan Popat and junior Andy Yu at No. 4. After finishing runners-up at Nos. 3 and 4 singles, respectively, last season, senior Jace Bernard and sophomore Eli Rosen are second-seeded at Nos. 1 and 2. Hu was the No. 2 singles champion last year, and junior Ryan VanDyke and senior Cole Kirschenbaum were the No. 2 doubles runners-up last season and are seeded second at No. 1.

Detroit Country Day: All eight flights are seeded fourth or better, but the power is expected to come at singles where two flights are top-seeded and two are seeded second. Sophomore Ricky Jeong is the top seed at No. 1 after winning No. 3 last year as a freshman, and freshman Samuel Kole-James is the top seed at No. 2 singles. Sophomore Adam Mahmoud is the second seed at No. 3 after winning the No. 4 title last fall, and junior Victor Marin is the second seed at No. 4. Senior Charlie Khaghany was part of the runner-up at No. 1 doubles last season and is teaming with junior Preston Blum as the fourth-seeded pair this time.

Holland Christian: The Maroons are seeded at six flights and especially powered by doubles where they are seeded first at No. 1 and second-seeded at the other three flights. Juniors Michael Gorno and Graham Tanis hold that top seed at the top flight, and won No. 3 doubles in Division 4 last season. Senior Jack DeYoung was part of the No. 4 champion in Division 4 and is teaming with sophomore Brody Bergsma on the second-seeded pair at No. 2. Senior Dylan Becksvoort was the Division 4 champion at No. 2 singles last season and is the third seed in this bracket, sophomore Nico Grosso won No. 4 singles in Division 4 and is seeded sixth at No. 3, and Lucas VanWieren was part of the No. 1 doubles champ last season and is playing No. 1 singles.

Anish Komirisetty, Haslett sophomore: Komirisetty is seeded third at No. 1 singles, 28-1 with his only loss this season to Lansing Catholic’s Noah West, who finished Division 4 No. 1 singles runner-up Tuesday.

Carson Coles, Big Rapids senior: The fourth seed at No. 1 singles is 30-1 with his only loss to Komirisetty on Oct. 4.

Division 2 (Oct. 22-23)

Top-ranked: 1. Birmingham Seaholm, 2. Midland Dow, 3. Grosse Pointe South

Reigning champion Grand Rapids Forest Hills Northern is ranked No. 5 this season, and Dow and Seaholm tied for second last year just two points behind. The Chargers most recently won the 2022 and 2023 titles, and Seaholm are seeking their first Finals team championship in this sport but with five runner-up finishes over the last 18 seasons – its most recent two years ago.

Birmingham Seaholm: The Maples will pursue a first championship with all eight flights seeded third or higher and seven top or second seeds. Junior Giorgio Materazzo is on the top line at No. 2 singles, and senior Joaquin Flory occupies the same at No. 4, while sophomore Carter Griffith at No. 1 singles, freshman Charlie Griffith at No. 3, and three of four doubles pairs are all second-seeded. Seniors Britton Leo and Alex Ting are second-seeded at No. 1 doubles; Ting was the champion at No. 4 singles and Leo part of the No. 3 doubles winner a year ago. Leo’s 2024 partner, junior Aaryan Senthilvanan, is partnered with senior Jad Abdo as the second-seeded pair at No. 2 doubles. Carter Griffith is 22-5 and last fall reached the No. 1 singles semifinals as an unseeded freshman.

Midland Dow: The Chargers will be powered by their doubles, as three pairs are top-seeded – senior Matthew McGaugh and junior Nathan Song at No. 1, sophomore Sullivan Ladd and junior Jashwanth Thamminana at No. 3, and sophomore Vettel Xu and junior Ethan Clark at No. 4. Junior Yassin Elsaadany is seeded second at No. 2 singles and sophomore Raymond Chai is seeded second at No. 4, while senior Siddarth Venkatesan is seeded fifth at No. 3 singles after finishing runner-up at No. 4 a year ago.

Byron Center: While Byron Center enters ranked No. 4, a number of high seeds could allow the team to push the top two favorites as the Bulldogs seek their first top-two Finals finish. Seven flights are seeded, including six seeded third or higher. Senior Nolan Booth and junior Brayden Slot are the top seeds at No. 2 doubles, and seniors Aidan Banchoff and Ben Vander Stelt are seeded second at No. 3. Seniors Rylan Vandenberge and Casey Schans are seeded third at No. 1 doubles after finishing runner-up at No. 2 a year ago.

Mason Crosby, South Lyon East junior: He’s seeded third at No. 1 singles and undefeated at 31-0 with only one match going three sets this season.

Sam Schumacher, Portage Central junior: The top seed at No. 1 singles is undefeated at 28-0 and just missed a first championship finishing runner-up at the top flight last season. He defeated Seaholm’s Carter Griffith on Sept. 6.

Division 4 (Oct. 20-21)

Top-ranked: 1. Grosse Pointe Woods University Liggett, 2. Jackson Lumen Christi, 3. Maple City Glen Lake.

Last season’s champion Holland Christian is playing in Division 3 this season, but Glen Lake is the returning runner-up and Liggett was third in 2024. That was Glen Lake’s first top-two Finals finish, while Liggett is seeking its first championship since 2022 and Lumen Christi its first in program history with its previous high finish second in 2004.

Grosse Pointe Woods University Liggett: The Knights are seeded at every flight, with four top seeds leading the way – sophomore Yurii Polnyi at No. 2 singles, sophomore Justin Platt at No. 4, senior Landen Maltby and junior Charlie Laethem at No. 2 doubles and sophomores Rene Quint and Lucas Ferguson at No. 3. Maltby was part of the No. 1 runner-up last season, while seniors Griffin Marchal and Niko Cooksey were runners-up at No. 2 in 2024 but are second-seeded at No. 1 this week. Ferguson was part of the runner-up at No. 4 doubles last season with Davis Ford, who is seeded third at No. 3 singles this time.

Jackson Lumen Christi: This team is expected to make a big jump after tying for 13th a year ago. Six Titans flights are seeded as they seek their first team championship, led by a pair of second seeds – senior Holden Luce and junior Brogan Kelly at No. 3 doubles and senior Jason Gonerka at No. 3 singles.

Maple City Glen Lake: Sophomores Levi Lamb and Luke Selby lead four seeded flights on the top line at No. 4 doubles, while junior Porter Martin is second-seeded at No. 4 singles. Last season’s No. 2 singles runner-up Hawthorn Sutherland is playing No. 1 this week as a junior.

Noah West, Lansing Catholic sophomore: After advancing to the No. 1 quarterfinals last season as a freshman, West is the top seed at the top flight and 26-2 without a loss since Aug. 16.

Luke Zhang, Plymouth Christian Academy junior: He defeated West to reach the semifinals at No. 1 singles last season as the fifth seed, and is second-seeded this time and undefeated at 17-0.

Division 1 (Oct. 17-18)

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

Bloomfield Hills has won the last three Division 1 championships – including last season’s by eight points – with Troy finishing runner-up last fall and tying for second in 2023 after winning the most recent title in 2021 before the Black Hawks began their run. A Novi championship would be its first since 2015.

Troy: All eight Colts flights are seeded fourth or better, with five top seeds and domination expected especially at doubles. Senior Varun Shetty and sophomore Sourish Danui are top-seeded at No. 2, senior Nate Wanstreet and sophomore Jackson Kraus are top-seeded at No. 3 and senior Raghav Karur and junior Zain Taqi are top-seeded at No. 4. Troy also claims top lines at No. 3 singles with sophomore Krish Gupta and No. 4 with senior Anthony Wu. Sophomore Dheeraj Yelleti is seeded fourth at No. 2 singles after winning the No. 4 title a year ago, and Karur and Kraus won No. 4 doubles in 2024 while Wu and Shetty were runners-up at No. 2.

Bloomfield Hills: A top seed and three seconds should put Bloomfield Hills in position to score significant points again, and they could get a boost from at least one unseeded flight as well. Senior Connor Shaya is unseeded at No. 1 singles but won No. 2 a year ago, No. 3 as a sophomore and No. 4 singles as a freshman. Junior Brady Winston follows as the top seed at No. 2 singles, and reigning No. 3 singles champion Zev Spiegel is second-seeded at that flight. Also second-seeded are senior Jonah Chernett and junior Krish Reddy at No. 1 doubles and seniors Sajan Doshi and Meyer Saperstein at No. 2. Doshi and Saperstein were champions at No. 3 last season, while Winston was the runner-up at No. 4 singles.

Novi: The Wildcats finished seventh a year ago and enter this weekend with four flights seeded fourth or higher. Seniors Daniel Han and Jaehoon Lee lead the way as second seeds at No. 3 doubles as they play to become Novi’s first flight champions since 2016.

Chad Anderson, Rochester senior: Undefeated this fall at 22-0, he’s seeking to finish his career with his first championship and is seeded first at No. 1 singles after finishing runner-up at that flight last season and runner-up at No. 2 as a sophomore.

Grant Miller, Ann Arbor Pioneer freshman: He’s 25-2 this debut season with losses only to Anderson and Ann Arbor Skyline senior and third-seeded Connor Wilcox after winning the first set.