Tournament Divisions
May 26, 2017
The spring 2017 issue of benchmarks published by the Michigan High School Athletic Association examines tournament classification in this state and around the country [Click for this issue]. Editor Rob Kaminski anticipated this would be a breaking story in Michigan.
In late March, the MHSAA Representative Council approved a second 16-team playoff for Class D schools in 8-player football, starting this fall – 2017.
Then in early May the Council approved the move from four traditional classes (A, B, C, D) to four equal divisions (1, 2, 3, 4) in boys and girls basketball and girls volleyball, effective with the 2018-19 school year.
The growth in 8-player football schools (from 24 in 2011 to 60 today) predicated the football change, while an 18 percent decline in the Class D enrollment cap over the past decade (248 in 2007-08 to 203 in 2017-18) was making the change to equal divisions in basketball and volleyball more sensible each year.
The objection of smaller schools to the equal divisions format in these sports has diminished over time as the Class D enrollment range has shrunk. If the change to equal divisions had occurred for 2017-18, the change would be from a Class D maximum of 203 students to a Division 4 maximum of 216 in girls volleyball, 212 in girls basketball and just 208 in boys basketball.
Making Matters Worse
March 17, 2017
For many years there have been complaints that the MHSAA Football Playoffs make it difficult for some teams to schedule regular season football games. Teams that are too good are avoided because opponents fear losses, and teams that are too small are avoided by larger schools because they do not generate enough playoff point value for wins.
Recently the MHSAA has learned, only indirectly, that some among the state’s football coaches association are recycling an old plan that would make matters worse. It’s called the “Enhanced Strength of Schedule Playoff System.”
Among its features is doubling the number of different point value classifications from four (80 for Class A down to 32 for Class D) to eight (88 for Division 1 down to 32 for Division 8).
What this does is make the art of scheduling regular season games even more difficult; for the greater variety of values you assign to schools, the more difficult it is to align with like-sized schools.
The “Enhanced Strength of Schedule Playoff System” makes matters even worse by creating eight different multipliers depending on the size of opposing schools. Imagine having to consider all this when building a regular season football schedule.
When this proposal was discussed previously statewide in 2012, it was revealed that it would have caused 15 teams with six regular season wins to miss the playoffs that year, while two teams with losing records would have qualified. How do you explain that to people? It was also demonstrated in 2012 that larger schools in more isolated areas would have to travel far and wide across the state, week after week, to build a schedule with potential point value to match similar sized schools located in more heavily populated parts of our state and have many scheduling options nearby. How is that fair?
The proposal is seriously flawed, and by circumventing the MHSAA Football Committee, its proponents assure it is fatally flawed.