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.
Stoney Creek Finishes as Best from Rochester, Best in all of Division 1
By
Tom Kendra
Special for MHSAA.com
March 1, 2024
MOUNT PLEASANT – “The Rochester Invitational,” an event also known as the Division 1 Competitive Cheer Finals, proved Friday how a great rivalry pushes everyone to be their best.
The MHSAA represents schools covering more than 96,000 square miles in Michigan, but the Division 1 battle came down to three Rochester Community Schools all located within four miles of each other – Rochester, Rochester Adams and Rochester Hills Stoney Creek.
The teams have tussled at the Oakland Activities Association Red level, followed by District, Regional and Finals for years, with the difference between them often coming down to a tenth of a point, or less.
Rochester Adams won the Finals for the third-straight year in 2022, Rochester took the title last year and, appropriately enough, Stoney Creek led from start-to-finish and won Friday at Central Michigan University’s McGuirk Arena.
“Today was our day, and it feels great,” said Stoney Creek senior Charlotte Cahill. “It’s so tough. All three of our teams have experienced the close losses and the wins. It’s three great teams, and it comes down to the little, tiny, minute details.”
Stoney Creek finished with a three-round score of 792.98 - good for a 1.42-point margin of victory over second-place Adams (791.56), with Rochester a mere two-tenths of a point further back in third at 791.36.
The Cougars captured their third Finals title, after winning most recently in 2019.
The competition was close throughout, with Stoney Creek holding the lead going into the pivotal third round, but with both Rochester and Adams less than two points behind.
McGuirk Arena was absolutely rocking with more than 3,000 fans as the three Rochester schools went back-to-back-to-back in the third round – first Stoney Creek, then Adams, then Rochester – to decide the title.
All three delivered nearly flawless performances, executing every stunt and basket toss with precision, with every flyer strong at the top.
“What you have to understand is that it’s not like this just at state,” said Stoney Creek coach Tricia Williams, who is in her 21st season. “We do this on almost a weekly basis, so we feel this same pressure and we get better at learning how to handle it. Today, our girls handled it wonderfully.”
Adams actually posted the best score of the three schools in the final round, which was enough to leapfrog 2023 champion Rochester for second place but not enough to overtake Stoney Creek, which was slightly better than Adams in both Round 1 and Round 2.
“There’s a lot of attention on Round 3, but it takes all three rounds,” explained Williams, who is assisted by Andrea Cairns, Kayla Kenan, Jessica Ma and Susan Wood. “Against this good of competition, we have to be as perfect as we can in every round.”
While some cheer teams check the standings between each round and possibly adjust their strategy accordingly, the Cougars absolutely do not look at the scores.
“That’s one of our values as a team is not knowing the score,” explained senior Abby DeGraw. “We don’t think it makes sense to change the way that we’re performing. We just try to do our best each round and let the score take care of itself.”
That strategy worked to perfection Friday, as Stoney Creek went out with wins at Regionals and Finals after finishing second in the conference behind Rochester and second at Districts behind Adams. The Cougars’ winning score of 792.98 on Friday was just shy of their season-best of 793.56, which was good for second place at Districts.
Seniors Alison Kalaj and DeGraw, both returning all-staters, are two of the leaders for Stoney Creek, along with Cahill (second team in 2023) and Ariana Rabaut (honorable mention).
Other seniors for the Cougars were Kacey Bauer, Gracie Darling, Sofia Finazzo, Lily Leone, Laura Machak, Helena Merritt and Jane Stabnick.
Adams, which took home the runner-up trophy for the second-straight year after a three-peat as champions from 2020 to 2022, nearly roared back for the title with the best Round 3 score (322.10).
“I would say that was our best Round 3, not only of the season, but in years,” said 10th-year Adams coach Brooke Miller, who had just five seniors and just one returning all-state honoree in Lily Hittle (honorable mention). “They nailed it. They couldn’t have done any more.”
Miller and Williams exchanged a hug after the awards ceremony, full of mutual respect, and both expect the three-way Rochester rivalry to continue for the foreseeable future.
“The bottom line is that these three schools are pushing each other to be amazing,” said Miller. “It’s tenths of a point that you’re fighting for, and that forces you to be the best coach and the best athlete that you can be.”
Hartland placed fourth, followed by Macomb L’Anse Creuse North and Brighton.
PHOTOS (Top) Rochester Hills Stoney Creek competes during Friday’s Division 1 Finals at McGuirk Arena. (Middle) The Cougars celebrate their championship. (Photos by Hockey Weekly Action Photos.)