Logo

Classification Trends

April 14, 2015

Every year, just as winter tournaments are concluding, MHSAA staff are already pointing to the following school year, including finalizing and publishing the classifications and divisions for MHSAA tournaments for the next school year.
For 2015-16, there are 754 member schools classified, an increase of five over 2014-15.
The sports with the largest increase in school sponsorship are girls soccer (+11), girls competitive cheer (+8), wrestling (+7) and boys bowling (+6); while the sports with the greatest decline in school sponsorship are girls softball (-8), girls skiing (-6) and boys skiing (-5).
The enrollment range between largest and smallest school is at historical lows in Classes B and C and near historical lows in Class D. The enrollment range in Class A increased for the third consecutive year; it’s now 259 more students than five years ago, but 718 fewer students than 10 years ago.
These statistics undermine arguments by some who opine that the enrollment ranges are too large and that more classifications and divisions for MHSAA tournaments are needed today.
Even in Class A, which is the only classification for which the enrollment range has been increasing in very recent years, it’s the schools in the mid-range of Class A that are most successful. For example, in this year’s Class A Boys Basketball Tournament, the average rank of the 16 Class A Regional finalists was 85th of 185 Class A schools in the tournament. And the four teams in the Class A Semifinals at MSU ranked 72nd, 75th, 94th and 171st in enrollment among the 185 schools in Class A basketball.
No, Class A schools get little sympathy from those of us who crunch the numbers and manage the tournaments. Even though the enrollment of the largest Class D school keeps declining, it is the very smallest of our member schools which must actually climb the largest mountains to MHSAA titles.

The Seeding Disease

May 1, 2018

I have yet to hear one satisfactory reason to advocate for seeding an all-comers, 740-team high school basketball tournament. But this I do know: Advocates of seeding are never satisfied.

Seeding high school basketball tournaments has become the rage since the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament, still just a 68-team affair, became a billion dollar media business. Many people assume that what is used for this limited invitational college tournament is needed and appropriate for a high school tournament that involves 11 times as many teams.

The NCAA pours millions of dollars into the process of selecting and seeding its 68-team tournament, combining a variety of data-based measurements with the judgments and biases of human beings.

One of this year’s questionable selections to make the 68-team field was Syracuse ... which sent our more highly touted and seeded Michigan State Spartans back home early in the tournament.

Meanwhile, low-seeded Loyola-Chicago upset four teams on its way to the Final Four, and became the favorite of fans nationwide. Which argues for upsets. Which argues for randomness.

Which argues against seeding. Why pick the No. 1 seeds of four regions and have all four glide to the Final Four? What fun would that be?

A local sports columnist who is an outspoken advocate for seeding our state’s high school basketball tournament actually wrote a published column advocating for “more Loyolas” in the NCAA tournament, and he explained how to make that happen. Which, of course, seeding is designed to not make happen, but instead, to grease the skids for top-seeded teams.

When the NCAA Final Four brackets for San Antonio resulted in two No. 1 seeds on one side, playing in one semifinal game (Kansas and Villanova), while the other side of the bracket had a semifinal with a No. 3 seed (Michigan) and a No. 11 seed (Loyola), there was a call for more finagling ... for reseeding the semifinals so that the two No. 1 seeds wouldn’t have to play until the final game.

It was poetic justice to watch one No. 1 seed clobber the other No. 1 seed in a terrible semifinal mismatch.

The point is this: Seeding is flawed, and advocates of seeding are never satisfied. If we take a small step, they will want more steps. If we seed the top two teams of Districts, they will lobby for seeding all teams of the Districts. If we seed all teams of Districts, they will ask for seeding Regionals. And, if we seed the start of the tournament, they will want a do-over if it doesn’t work out right for the Finals.

Seeding is a distraction, and an addiction.