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: Returning Champions Set to Build on Past Seasons' Successes

By Geoff Kimmerly
MHSAA.com senior editor

May 30, 2024

A blend of strong seeds and substantial postseason experience could make catching three of last year’s champions difficult as those teams again pursue repeat titles at this weekend’s Lower Peninsula Girls Tennis Finals.

But the race for the Division 1 championship might be one of the most intriguing in some time.

While Birmingham Seaholm in Division 2, Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood in Division 3 and Ann Arbor Greenhills in Division 4 remain the teams to chase in those respective brackets, Clarkston should give Ann Arbor Pioneer a mighty challenge as the latter pursues a fourth-straight Finals title.

All four divisions again will be played Friday and Saturday over multiple locations, with semifinals and finals to be played at the first sites listed below in each division. Play begins between 8:15-8:30 each morning.

Below is a glance at the highest-ranked teams in each division and additional No. 1 singles players expected to be in contention. Click for full brackets and more from MHSAA.com.

LP Division 1 at Midland Tennis Center

Top-ranked: 1. Clarkston, 2. Ann Arbor Pioneer, 3. Novi.

Clarkston: The Wolves finished third a year ago and are seeking their second team championship to go with the Division 1 title won in 2011. All eight flights are seeded, including four top seeds – freshman Sydney Geisz at No. 2 singles, freshman Kayla Lemke at No. 3, junior Charlotte Partchenko at No. 4, and senior Katarina Fisher and junior Ava Henkel at No. 2 doubles. A flight champion would be the team’s first since 2014. Partchenko finished No. 4 singles runner-up last season, and Henkel and now-sophomore Lana Sloan reached the semifinals at No. 3 doubles; Sloan and senior Lauren Sielinski are the second seed at that flight this weekend.

Ann Arbor Pioneer: The Pioneers have won the last three Division 1 championships (sharing with Bloomfield Hills in 2021), and the majority of Finals experience returns in doubles or with doubles players from 2023. Senior Noa Gluskin and sophomore Jessica Primus are the fifth seed at No. 2 after winning the No. 4 doubles title a year ago, and senior Casey Roe and junior Natalie Guo are the second seed at No. 1 with Roe having been part of last season’s runner-up at No. 2 and Guo half of a semifinalist at the top flight. Junior Arella He was part of the runner-up at No. 3 doubles in 2023 and this time is seeded third at No. 4 singles, and senior Eleanor Vogel teamed with Roe last year and this weekend is seeded third at No. 3 singles.

Novi: The Wildcats have never won or finished runner-up at the Finals, but did tie for fourth a year ago and enter this weekend with six seeded flights and especially strong points potential in doubles. Seniors Haruka Ishibashi and Arushi Singh are the top seed at No. 3 doubles, and sophomores Samaara George and Kyra Thomas are second-seeded at No. 4. George played No. 1 singles last season, and Ishibashi played No. 3. Singh was part of the runner-up at No. 4 doubles in 2023.

Gabrielle Sadkowski, Utica Eisenhower sophomore: Top seed Sadkowski’s only loss over two years of high school tennis was last season to eventual LPD1 No. 1 singles champion Sari Woo from Ann Arbor Skyline. Sadkowski is 11-0 this spring.

Nicole Fu, Rochester Adams junior: Fu has finished No. 1 singles runner-up the last two seasons, and she’s the second seed this weekend entering at 16-0 this year.

Brooke Nicholson & Alexis Gabriel, Utica Eisenhower senior/sophomore: This pair entered last season’s No. 1 doubles bracket as the fifth seed and reached the quarterfinals. They’re the top seed this time and 28-2 this spring.

Other returning 2023 flight champions: Troy seniors Hannah Lee & Michelle Baik (No. 3 doubles last season, No. 1 doubles this weekend).

LP Division 2 at Byron Center West Sports Complex & Grand Rapids South Christian

Top-ranked: 1. Birmingham Seaholm, 2. Grand Rapids Forest Hills Northern, 3. Farmington Hills Mercy.

Birmingham Seaholm: The Maples jumped past Forest Hills Northern into the top spot in the final coaches poll of the regular season, and the reigning LPD2 champion has finished first or second at this tournament nine times beginning in 2011. All eight flights are seeded this time, but the greatest scoring potential is in doubles with junior Jordyn Lusky and sophomore Lucy Jen seeded first at No. 3 and sophomore Anna Olekszyk and freshman Katie Joyce top-seeded at No. 4. Lusky and Jen were part of championship pairs at Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, last season, and seniors Katie Slazinski and Jenna Ting were champions at No. 2 and are the second seed this weekend at No. 1. Senior Stella North won with Jen a year ago and is seeded fifth this time at No. 2 doubles with freshman Sophia Arndt. Senior Courtney Marcum is seeded fourth at No. 1 singles after winning No. 2 a year ago, and sophomore Jada Josifovski is seeded third at No. 2 coming off a No. 3 runner-up finish as a freshman.

Grand Rapids Forest Hills Northern: Although only five flights are seeded, three are top-seeded as FHN looks to bump up from last year’s tie for second place and claim a third championship over the last four seasons. Seniors Ryan Morey and Paige McKenzie at No. 1 doubles and junior Lauren Jaklitsch and Morgan McKenzie at No. 2 carry those top seeds, with Morey and Paige McKenzie the reigning champs at the top flight and Jaklitsch part of last year’s runner-up at No. 2. Morey also was part of No. 2 doubles flight championships as both a freshman and a sophomore. Junior Andrea Wang adds another top seed at No. 2 singles, and sophomore Harriet Ogilvie is the fourth seed at No. 3 singles after winning No. 4 in 2023.

Farmington Hills Mercy: The Marlins have been surging with a powerful singles lineup that locked down top seeds at No. 1 with junior Megan Sullivan, No. 3 with sophomore Alexa Dueweke and No. 4 with sophomore Gabby Owens, and a second seed at No. 2 with sophomore Keira Kirkland. Mercy’s only top-two Finals finish was second place in Division 1 in 2013, and the Marlins tied for 11th in Division 1 last season. Two doubles flights also are seeded.

Lily Ohlman, Grand Rapids Forest Hills Central senior: The reigning champion at No. 1 singles is 24-2 and seeded second with her most recent loss coming to Sullivan on May 4 by a score of 7-6 (2), 6-7 (4), 10-8.

LP Division 3 at Kalamazoo College & Western Michigan University

Top-ranked: 1. Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood, 2. Detroit Country Day, 3. Bloomfield Hills Marian.

Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood: The Cranes have won the last two Division 3 titles after three straight runner-up finishes (not counting COVID-canceled 2020). There’s loads of championship experience and every flight is seeded, with four top seeds – junior Chiarra Martella at No. 3 singles, senior Olivia Zhang at No. 4, junior Madeline Day and senior Sanvi Upadhyayala at No. 3 doubles and juniors Michelle Chen and Jessica Hall at No. 4. Zhang has won No. 4 singles the last two seasons, and senior Sienna Ilitch has won No. 3 singles the last two seasons and is seeded eighth at No. 1 this weekend; both also were singles runners-up as freshmen. Martella was the runner-up at No. 2 a year ago. Seniors Daryn Krause and Kayli Lala are the second seed at No. 1 doubles after finishing runner-up last year, winning No. 4 in 2022 and finishing No. 3 runner-up in 2021. Junior Sophia Kouza and senior Grace Zhang are fourth-seeded at No. 2 doubles after winning that flight last year. Day and Upadhyayala were runners-up last spring at No. 3, and Chen and Hall were the runners-up at No. 4. Grace Zhang also was part of the No. 3 doubles champion in 2022 and the No. 4 runner-up in 2021.

Detroit Country Day: The Yellowjackets fell just two points shy of catching Cranbrook a year ago and return significant members of that lineup as well. Junior Sophia Grzesiak is the top seed at No. 1 singles after reaching the semifinals last season, followed by freshman Quinn Norland seeded first at No. 2 and sophomore Helen Benjamin seeded second at No. 3 after finishing runner-up at No. 4 singles in 2023. Seniors Marin Norlander and Peja Liles are the top seed and reigning champs at No. 1 doubles, and Liles also was part of the winning pair in 2022 and runner-up pair in 2021. Sophomore Jiya Gill and senior Becca Borgia are the third seed at No. 3 doubles with Gill coming off a No. 4 doubles championship last year.

Bloomfield Hills Marian: The Mustangs finished fifth last year and were third in Division 2 just three seasons ago. All eight flights are seeded, led by a pair of second-seeded doubles – sophomore Audrey Agbay and freshman Yana Higgins at No. 3 and senior Lauren Higdon and freshman Stella Glorio at No. 4.

Natalie Poortenga, Grand Rapids Christian senior: Last season’s champion at No. 2 singles is the third seed at No. 1 this time, and took Forest Hills Central’s Ohlman to three sets in an April loss.

Lilah Zaskowski, Ada Forest Hills Eastern freshman: She’s 22-3 and the second seed at No. 1 singles heading into her first Finals, with two of her three losses coming over the last two weeks in tune-ups against Ohlman and Forest Hills Northern’s Wang.

Other returning 2023 flight champions: Grand Rapids Christian sophomore Avah Jerke (No. 3 doubles last season, No. 4 singles this weekend).

LP Division 4 at University of Michigan & Ann Arbor Greenhills

Top-ranked: 1. Ann Arbor Greenhills, 2. Pontiac Notre Dame Prep, 3. Traverse City St. Francis.

Ann Arbor Greenhills: The Gryphons also are seeking their third-straight Finals team championship, and nearly doubled up the next-highest finisher a year ago. Junior Maddie Morgan is the reigning champion at No. 1 singles and seeded second this weekend, while junior Shangyang Xia is the top seed at No. 3 after winning No. 2 in 2023 and sophomore Danica Rakic-Dennis the top seed at No. 4 after winning at No. 3 a year ago. They moved with freshman Ellie Kim is the top seed at No. 2 singles. Greenhills has all four top seeds in doubles as well – sophomore Lauren Ye and freshman Nina Malani at No. 1, juniors Sophie Chen and Sophia Kleer at No. 2, juniors Meera Tewari and Meera Pandey at No. 3, and senior Parini Rao and freshman Alyssa Hong at No. 4. Chen and Ye were runners-up at No. 1 last season, and Pandey and Tewari were the runners-up at No. 3.

Pontiac Notre Dame Prep: The Fighting Irish should provide a nice challenge after finishing fourth in Division 3 last season and with all eight flights seeded fourth or higher. Junior Francheska Daugaru at No. 2 singles and senior Addison Bellows at No. 3 lead with second seeds. Bellows was the Division 3 runner-up at No. 4 singles as a sophomore, and senior Julia Gurne – seeded third at No. 1 singles this weekend – was the Division 3 runner-up at No. 1 as a freshman.

Traverse City St. Francis: The Gladiators were fourth a year ago and have finished runner-up four of the last nine years, most recently in 2021. All but one flight is seeded, and five are seeded fourth or higher led by senior Ava Pomaranski with the second seed at No. 4 singles.

Ayva Johnstone, Elk Rapids senior: She reached the quarterfinals at No. 1 singles as the fourth seed last season and returns this weekend as the top seed and 25-0.

Other returning 2023 flight champions: Bloomfield Hills Academy of the Sacred Heart senior Kayla Nafso (No. 1 doubles last season, No. 1 singles this weekend), Bloomfield Hills Academy of the Sacred Heart senior Maggie Pulte (No. 2 doubles last season and this weekend).

PHOTO Birmingham Seaholm's Jordyn Lusky returns a volley during last season's LPD2 Finals championship match at No. 3 doubles. (Click for more from High School Sports Scene.)