New Math: Division & Multiplication Problems
July 25, 2017
By Jack Roberts
MHSAA Executive Director
This is the second 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.
High school tournament classifications went viral before there was social media and most of us knew what “viral” meant.
Much as a virus infects computers today or has created epidemics of disease around the world for centuries, high school tournament classification – once introduced – tends to spread uncontrollably. Once started, it tends to keep expanding and rarely contracts.
While we are still some distance from providing every team a trophy as a result of expanding high school tournament classification across the country, there is criticism nevertheless that we are headed in that direction – a philosophy which is supposed to exist only in local youth sports for our youngest children.
Michigan could be blamed for all this. Michigan is generally accepted as the first state to provide different classifications for season-ending tournaments for different sized schools. It started a century ago. Today, every state has various classifications for its tournaments in most if not all sports. And it is a bit ironic that Michigan – creator of the classification chaos – more than most other states has kept the number of tournament classes or divisions under control.
Yes, there is evidence that tournament classifications have expanded over the years in Michigan, especially with the relatively recent introduction of tournaments in football and the late 1990s’ move from classes to divisions in most MHSAA tournaments. But the MHSAA Representative Council has held true to its word when it expanded the playoffs for football from four classes to eight divisions: this is needed because of unique factors of football, factors that exist in no other sport; and all other sports should be capped at a maximum of four classes or divisions.
Kentucky is the preeminent defender of single-class basketball. All of its 276 high schools compete for the single state championship for each gender. In Indiana, there are still open wounds from its move in 1998 from one to four classes for its 400 schools in basketball.
Multi-class tournaments have tended to increase the number of non-public school champions, which some states are trying to lower through enrollment “multipliers,” and also tend to increase the number of repeat champions, which some states are trying to affect with “success factors” which lift smaller schools into classifications for larger schools if they take home too many trophies.
While there is considerable evidence that state tournaments do as much bad as good for educational athletics, state associations persist in providing postseason tournaments because, on balance, the experiences are supposed to be good for student-athletes. And once we reach that conclusion it is just a small leap to believe that if the tournaments are good for a few, they must be better for more – which leads to creating more and more tournament classifications. One becomes two classes, then three, then four and so forth.
While the argument is that more classifications or divisions provides more students with opportunities to compete and win, it is undeniable that the experience changes as the number of tournament classifications expands. It is not possible for state associations to provide the same level of support when tournament classifications expand to multiple venues playing simultaneously. For example, there is less audio and video broadcast potential at each venue, and less media coverage to each venue. Focus is diluted and fans diminished at each championship.
No one can argue reasonably that today's two-day MHSAA Football Finals of eight championship games has the same pizazz as the one-day, four-games event conducted prior to 1990.
In some states the number of divisions has grown so much that it is difficult to see much difference between the many season-ending state championship games and a regular-season event in the same sport.
It is a balancing act. And Michigan has been studying that balance longer than any other state, and charting a steadier course than most.
Addition by Division
The shift to Divisions for MHSAA Tournament play in numerous sports has added up to a greater number of champions for teams and individuals across the state. Following are the sports currently employing a divisional format, and the procedures for determining enrollment and classification.
In 23 statewide or Lower Peninsula tournaments, schools which sponsor the sport are currently divided into nearly equal divisions. They are:
- Baseball - 4 Divisions
- Boys Bowling - 4 Divisions
- Girls Bowling - 4 Divisions
- Girls Competitive Cheer - 4 Divisions
- LP Boys Cross Country - 4 Divisions
- LP Girls Cross Country - 4 Divisions
- LP Boys Golf - 4 Divisions
- LP Girls Golf - 4 Divisions
- Ice Hockey - 3 Divisions
- Boys Lacrosse - 2 Divisions
- Girls Lacrosse - 2 Divisions
- Boys Skiing - 2 Divisions
- Girls Skiing - 2 Divisions
- LP Boys Soccer - 4 Divisions LP
- Girls Soccer - 4 Divisions
- Girls Softball - 4 Divisions
- LP Boys Swimming & Diving - 3 Divisions
- LP Girls Swimming & Diving - 3 Divisions
- LP Boys Tennis - 4 Divisions
- LP Girls Tennis - 4 Divisions
- LP Boys Track & Field - 4 Divisions
- LP Girls Track & Field - 4 Divisions
- Wrestling - 4 Divisions
Lists of schools for each division of these 23 tournaments are posted on MHSAA.com approximately April 1. Listings of schools in Upper Peninsula tournaments for their sports are also posted on MHSAA.com. The lists are based on school memberships and sports sponsorships in effect or anticipated for the following school year, as known to the MHSAA office as of a date in early March.
In football, the 256 schools which qualify for MHSAA 11-player playoffs are placed in eight equal divisions annually on Selection Sunday. Beginning in 2017, the 8-player divisions will be determined in a like manner on Selection Sunday as well, with 32 qualifying schools placed in two divisions.
Schools have the option to play in any higher division in one or more sports for a minimum of two years.
The deadlines for "opt-ups" are as follows:
- Applications for fall sports must be submitted by April 15
- Applications for winter sports must be submitted by Aug. 15
- Applications for spring sports must be submitted by Oct. 15
Subsequent to the date of these postings for these tournaments, no school will have its division raised or lowered by schools opening or closing, schools adding or dropping sports, schools exercising the option to play in a higher division, or approval or dissolution of cooperative programs.
When the same sport is conducted for boys and girls in the same season (e.g., track & field and cross country), the gender that has the most sponsoring schools controls the division breaks for both genders.
Ishpeming Repeats by Repeat 1-Point Advantage Over West Iron County
By
Jason Juno
Special for MHSAA.com
October 2, 2024
KINGSFORD — Ishpeming’s doubles dominance continued at Wednesday’s Upper Peninsula Division 2 Girls Tennis Finals.
That was the driving force last year behind the Hematites’ first U.P. Finals title, and this year, with an entirely new group of doubles players, they did it again. Ishpeming edged West Iron County 13-12 for the Division 2 championship after outpacing the Wykons by the thinnest of margins last year as well.
“It’s really exciting,” Ishpeming’s Janelle Seelen said after winning the No. 3 doubles title match with her twin sister Lydia. “And especially since last year’s seniors, it feels special because they won last year and we could follow that tradition.”
Even their coach, Josh Kitto, is new. He said it was special to win a U.P. title in his first year with the team.
“We’ve got hard workers; they’re coachable,” he said. “They work hard. That’s a big thing is their work ethic is great.”
Ishpeming won Nos. 1, 2 and 3 doubles. Neither the 1 or 2 doubles teams lost a set all day Wednesday. The No. 3 doubles team was the only one seeded No. 1.
The team of Brynn Way-Lanala and Ava LaPin, seeded third, defeated West Iron County’s top-seeded Destiny Lemery and Olivia LaMay 6-3, 6-4 in the final.
LaPin said they never got down on themselves or each other.
“It’s crazy. I didn’t think we’d be here honestly,” Way-Lanala added. “It was a rough start to the season.”
Lilly Ryan and Stella Nerlfi defeated Munising’s Tessa Salo and Tamryn Nolan 6-3, 7-5 in the No. 2 final.
“Me and Stella from the start always worked well together, and I think today we really pulled that through,” Ryan said. “We pulled through our best games today, and I think that meant a lot.”
Janelle and Lydia Seelen downed Norway’s Emily Carlson and Myah Gilroy 6-4, 6-3 in the No. 3 doubles final. They got there by getting past Munising’s Kinley Hall and Keira Albright 7-5, 4-6, 6-4 in the semifinal.
“With the wind, it was really hard on the one side. We had to adjust and hit harder on the one side and hit shorter on the other side,” Lydia Seelen said.
Munising took home the No. 4 doubles title with Lauren Nelson and Maddy Knuttila defeating West Iron County’s Vivian Holm and Jenna Sunn 7-6 (6-4), 6-1.
Nelson said she and Knuttila talked to each other and cheered each other on while working through their little mistakes.
“I think she had some very good crushes, and I think I had some good shots towards the back that would get behind them to their feet,” she said.
West Iron County won two of the four singles titles.
The Wykons’ Kaitlyn Smith prevailed 6-2, 6-0 over Gwinn’s Miaha Schiefel. Smith had won the No. 3 title last year and Schiefel was runner-up in No. 1 singles last year as well.
“In the beginning, I was a little bit slower, but then I took it to her,” Smith said. “I was good on my forehands, backhands. I came up to the net when I needed to.”
Teammate Kaycee Ingram defeated Ishpeming’s Sophia Nerlfi 7-6 (8-6), 6-2 to take the No. 3 singles crown.
Gwinn’s Brook Chaput took No. 2 singles 6-3, 6-1 over Iron Mountain’s Alysia Wood. Chaput bowed out in the semifinals last year.
“I just felt like I had to do it since I was a senior, and I’m just so happy it finally happened,” Chaput said. “I hit a lot of lobs good today. My serves were actually better than usual. And I just didn’t stay in my head the whole time, which I usually do, and that helped me get through.”
Norway’s Jessa Rossler won the final title of the day, at No. 4 singles. She defeated Munising’s Jolie Ake 7-6 (8-6), 6-3.
“It’s pretty crazy. It’s hard to believe because this is my first year playing tennis, so I’m pretty excited,” Rossler said. “My uncle actually joined when he was in high school, and he won a U.P. championship too. It’s just kind of something that I always wanted to try, but I’m really glad I did.”
PHOTOS (Top) Ishpeming celebrates its repeat Division 2 championship Wednesday at Kingsford. (Middle) West Iron County’s Kaitlyn Smith returns a volley during a No. 1 singles match. (Photos by Jason Juno.)