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: Powerful Teams, Potential Record Setters Ready to Set Pace

By Geoff Kimmerly
MHSAA.com senior editor

March 10, 2022

An anticipation of dominance accompanies this weekend’s Lower Peninsula Boys Swimming & Diving Finals.

In Division 1, Ann Arbor Pioneer is loaded with high seeds as it attempts to repeat as champion. A closer team race is expected in Division 2, but Ann Arbor Skyline enters with similar high-seed credentials. And East Grand Rapids is the favorite again in Division 3 as its seeks Finals win No. 27. At least three relay records appear in the running to be broken, and we’ll say good-bye to some accomplished individual standouts including a pair of past champions in Division 3.

Preliminaries at all three Finals sites begin at noon Friday, with swimming and then diving, with Saturday championship events starting at noon. Tickets cost $11 each day and may be purchased for Divisions 2 and 3 exclusively at GoFan. (Division 1 tickets were assigned two per participant.) Both days of all three meets will be streamed live and viewable with subscription on MHSAA.tv. 

Here’s a glance at team and individual favorites:

LP Division 1 at Holland Aquatics

Reigning champion: Ann Arbor Pioneer
2021 runner-up: Holland West Ottawa
2022 top-ranked: 1. Ann Arbor Pioneer, 2. Northville, 3. Holland West Ottawa

The Pioneers have been considered the favorites to repeat all season long. They enter this weekend top-seeded in all three relays with five more top seeds over their 20 total individual entries seeded to score. West Ottawa, the 2019 champion, is expected to be back in the mix at the top with all three relays and six individual entries seeded to score. Northville jumped into the second spot in the final coaches association rankings and has a strong case with all three relays and 13 individual entries seeded to score. Pioneer and Northville also both have one diver competing.

Joshua Brunty, Saline senior: The top seed in the 100-yard breaststroke (57.02) also may swim on two top-four seeded relays. He was second in the breaststroke last season and swam on winning and runner-up relays. He also finished 13th in the 50 freestyle and will swim that again this weekend.

Ryan Gurgel, Canton junior: After placing third in the 200 individual medley and ninth in the 100 butterfly in 2021, he enters this weekend the top seed in the 200 freestyle (1:41.96) and seventh in the butterfly.

Ryan Hume, Ann Arbor Pioneer senior: Last season’s champion in the IM and runner-up in the 500 freestyle is the top seed in both at 1:50.92 and 4:33.39, respectively.

Kevin Maas, Holland West Ottawa senior: He won the 50, tied for second in the 100 free and swam on the winning 200 freestyle relay as a junior, and returns this weekend as the second seed in the 50 (21.14) and breaststroke (57.79) while likely also swimming on two of three third-seeded relays.

Gabriel Sanchez-Burks, Ann Arbor Pioneer junior: He competed at last season’s Finals in the 50, finishing 19th in qualifying, but he’s moved all the way up to having the top seed in that race this weekend (21.05) and the eighth seed in the 100.

Fletcher Smith, Huron Valley United senior: The reigning champion in the butterfly and seventh-place finisher in the 200 free, Smith is seeded fourth in the 200 (1:42.85) and third in the butterfly (50.35) this weekend.

Jack VanHowe, Rochester senior: The reigning champ in the backstroke is seeded first in that race (48.62) and third in the 100 free (46.19) after tying with Maas for second in that race a year ago.

Jack Wilkening, Ann Arbor Pioneer senior: He’ll look to build on his third place in the 100 backstroke and seventh place in the 50 from last season entering this weekend as the top seed in the 100 free (45.88) and second seed in the backstroke (49.17).

Robert Yang, Ann Arbor Pioneer senior: He’s the top seed in the butterfly (50.08) and 11th in the 50 and likely to swim on two top-seeded relays after finishing eighth in the butterfly and ninth in the 100 free in 2021.

Ann Arbor Pioneer’s 200 free relay: The expected lineup of Sanchez-Burks, seniors Harrison Sanders and Alex Farmer and Hume have a seed time of 1:23.97 that would rank as fifth-fastest in LPD1 Finals history and is just more than a second off the all-Finals record of 1:22.8 swam by Bloomfield Hills Brother Rice in 1996.

Alex Poulin, Waterford United junior: Last season’s third-place diver won his Regional this time by 80.45 points with the highest score, 469.75, at any Division 1 Regional by 23.45.

LP Division 2 at Oakland University

Reigning champion: Birmingham Seaholm
2021 runner-up: Grosse Pointe South
2022 top-ranked: 1. Ann Arbor Skyline, 2. Grosse Pointe South, 3. Detroit U-D Jesuit

The preseason and midseason rankings both read Jesuit, South, Skyline, respectively, before Skyline jumped to the front heading into this week. Skyline was fourth in Division 2 last season and last won a Finals in 2018 in Division 1. Two of three Eagles relays are top seeded, as are four individual entries, and combined all three relays and 16 individual entries are seeded to score. South has all three relays and 11 individual entries seeded to score, plus the top-scoring diver from Regionals. Jesuit, which finished third last season, has all three relays and 11 individual entries seeded to score. Skyline also has a diver competing.

Christian Bouchillon, Detroit U-D Jesuit senior: He’s the top seed in the backstroke (50.17) and 10th in the IM after finishing 10th in the IM and fourth in the backstroke last season.

Charlie Bruce, Detroit U-D Jesuit senior: He won the 50, finished fourth in the 100 and swam on the winning medley relay in 2021, and enters this weekend seeded second in the butterfly (50.32) and fifth in the 50 (21.38).

Gianni Carlino, Grosse Point North senior: The reigning champion in the 500 is seeded first (4:39.51) in that race and second in the 200 free (1:43.30) after finishing sixth in the 200 last year.  

Drew Collins, Detroit U-D Jesuit senior: He’s the reigning champ in the backstroke and was fourth in the 200 free last season. He enters this weekend seeded second in the backstroke (51.02) and fifth in the IM (1:55.67).

Michael Grover, Byron Center senior: The reigning breaststroke champion is seeded first (56.08) in that race and eighth in the IM after taking seventh in the latter last season.

Ben Kurniawan, Ann Arbor Skyline senior: He returns after finishing fifth in both the butterfly and IM in 2021. He’s seeded first in the butterfly (49.50) and second in the IM (1:54.42) with a chance at a pair of relay records as well.

Matthew Lee, Ann Arbor Skyline senior: He’s seeded first in the 50 (20.66) and second in the 100 free (45.61), coming off a 12th in the 50 last season. He also could be part of two record relays.

Evan McKelvey, Ann Arbor Skyline senior: He finished seventh in the 100 and fifth in the 200 as a junior and returns this weekend as the top seeds in both (49.69 and 1:39.77, respectively) and a possible leg of both record-pursuing relays.

Drew Vandeputte, Grosse Point South senior: He finished ninth in the IM and seventh in the breaststroke last season while also swimming on a winning relay. He returns as the top seed in the IM (1:54.30), fifth in the breaststroke (57.34) and as part of a top-seeded medley relay.

Ann Arbor Skyline’s 200 freestyle relay: The expected lineup of McKelvey, junior Jack Staunton, Kurniawan and Lee enters with a seed time of 1:23.69, which would best the LPD2 record by four tenths of a second.

Ann Arbor Skyline’s 400 freestyle relay: McKelvey, freshman Lucas Caswell, Kurniawan and Lee have a seed time of 3:04.36, which would break the LPD2 record by 37 hundredths of a second.  

Logan Hepner, Grosse Pointe South junior: Last season’s diving runner-up won his Regional by nearly 55 points with a score of 548.15, the best at any Division 2 Regional by 49.05 points.

LP Division 3 at Calvin University

Reigning champion: East Grand Rapids
2021 runner-up: Holland Christian
2022 top-ranked: 1. East Grand Rapids, 2. Holland Christian, 3. Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood

East Grand Rapids will look to add to its record 26 Lower Peninsula Finals championships, making the short drive with all three relays and 12 individual entries seeded to score plus the reigning Finals champion diver and another competing. Holland Christian will attempt to take back the top spot after most recently winning back-to-back in 2018-19. The Maroons also have all three relays and 12 individual entries seeded to score, plus two divers competing. Cranbrook most recently won four straight Finals from 2014-17, and finished third last season. The Cranes have all three relays but only seven individual entries seeded to score – although two are top seeds.

Erik Bolang, Pinckney senior: This will be his second Finals as he swam the IM and 500 as a freshman, and Bolang enters this time as the top seed in the IM (1:54.84) and second seed to teammate Tyler Ray in the butterfly (49.66). He’s also slated to swim on the top-seeded medley relay.

Charles Brown, Spring Lake senior: He’s hoping to take the final step after finishing second in both the 50 and butterfly last season. Brown is seeded first in the 50 (20.54) and third in the butterfly (49.68).

Andrew Dobrzanski, Milan senior: The reigning breaststroke and IM champion also won the former as a sophomore and set the LPD3 Finals record in that race of 54.67 last season. This time he is seeded first in the 200 free (1:41.56) and second in the breaststroke (56.26).

Tyler Ray, Pinckney senior: The reigning butterfly champion could double or triple his individual championship number as the top seed in both that race (48.89) and the backstroke (50.34). He’s also part of that top-seeded medley relay.

Ethan Schwab, Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood junior: Last season’s runner-up in the 500 and breaststroke (and a medley relay champion), Schwab is seeded first in both individual races in 4:43.42 and 55.59, respectively.

Ben Sytsma, Grand Rapids Christian sophomore: He finished seventh in the 50 and swam on three scoring relays as a freshman, and this weekend enters as the top seed in the 100 free (46.41), second in the 50 (21.06) and as part of top-seeded 200 and 400 freestyle relays.

Charley Bayer, East Grand Rapids senior: The reigning champion diver posted a score of 520.80 to win his Regional by 97.3 points and pace all of Division 3 by 38 points.

PHOTO A pair of swimmers launch side-by-side during a relay at last season's Lower Peninsula Division 1 Finals. (Click for more from HighSchoolSportsScene.com.)