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: Parade of Champions Set to Feature Several New Standouts

By Geoff Kimmerly
MHSAA.com senior editor

March 13, 2025

We’ve become accustomed to frequent favorites often finishing at the top of our three MHSAA Lower Peninsula Boys Swimming & Diving Finals.

But changing leaderboards could be the theme of this weekend’s meets.

Although Ann Arbor Pioneer in Division 1 and Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood in Division 3 are returning champions and ranked No. 1 in their respective divisions, both could face stronger competition this time. A possible first-time champion appears most in play in Division 2, as top-ranked Detroit U-D Jesuit and No. 2 Byron Center are both seeking first team Finals titles.

Individually, only four 2024 champions will swim this weekend – guaranteeing plenty more opportunities for new stars to climb the podium.

Preliminaries at all three Finals sites begin at noon Friday, with Saturday championship events starting at noon as well. Both days of all three meets will be streamed live and viewable with subscription on MHSAA.tv. For information on purchasing tickets, plus psych sheets, dive orders and more, visit the Boys Swimming & Diving page – and see below for a glance at several team and individual contenders to follow.

Division 1 at Holland Aquatic Center

Reigning champion: Ann Arbor Pioneer
2024 runner-up: Saline
2025 top-ranked: 1. Ann Arbor Pioneer, 2. Northville, 3. Detroit Catholic Central.

Pioneer has won four straight Division 1 championships, last year by just 30 points ahead of rival Saline, with Detroit Catholic Central finishing third and Northville fourth and just 49 points separating those top four teams. Pioneer enters this weekend with all three relays and 10 individual entries seeded to score plus a diver competing. Northville, the runner-up in 2022, is seeking its first championship since 1973 and sending three relays and 15 entries seeded to score and a diver, and DCC is seeking its first team title and sending three relays and eight individual entries seeded to score. Pioneer and Saline shared the Southeastern Conference Red title this winter, and Saline is ranked No. 4 and also could make the big move sending all three relays and 16 individual entries seeded to score, plus three divers.

Elijah Almeida, Ann Arbor Pioneer sophomore: He swam the 100-yard breaststroke during his Finals debut a year ago and returns as the top seed in that race (56.99), sixth-seeded in the 100 butterfly (51.91) and likely to swim on top-seeded 200 freestyle and medley relays.

Sam Campbell, Milford junior: He’s seeded first in the 100 backstroke (49.45) and third in the 200 freestyle (1:40.64) and is expected to swim on two top-seven seeded relays.

Owen Stevens, Zeeland senior: He’s won the 200 individual medley and 500 freestyle championship the last two seasons. He is seeded first in both the IM at 1:49.54 and 500 at 4:28.69 and likely to swim on two top-11 relays.

Brady Stenson, Northville junior: He finished fourth in the 500 and seventh in the 200 freestyle last season and returns as the top seed in the 200 (1:39.30) and second in the 500 (4:31.40) and is expected to swim on two top-seven relays.

Camren Turowski, Detroit Catholic Central sophomore: The top seed in the 50 (20.69) and 100 freestyles (45.25) is also expected to swim on two top-three seeded relays. He finished second in the 50 and swam on two championship and one runner-up relay in 2024.

Diego Valdes, Saline senior: Last season’s fourth-place finisher in the IM and runner-up in the butterfly also swam on two top-three relays. He returns as the top seed in the butterfly (49.97) and 11th seed in the IM and is expected to swim on two top-four seeded relays.

Ann Arbor Pioneer 200 freestyle relay: The anticipated lineup of Almeida, senior Brighton Han and juniors Edward Zhang and Henry Baumhover enter with a top-seeded time of 1:25.91, with the meet record 1:23.25 swam in 2021.

Riley Brimm, Utica Eisenhower senior: He finished 15th in Division 1 diving last season but enters this weekend after posting the highest score in any Division 1 Regional qualification meet, 452.45.

Division 2 at Oakland University

Reigning champion: Birmingham Groves
2024 runners-up: Farmington, Birmingham Seaholm
2025 top-ranked: 1. Detroit U-D Jesuit, 2. Byron Center, 3. Birmingham Seaholm.

Last year’s finish certainly was among the most incredible in MHSAA Finals history, as Groves repeated as champion with 245 points but Farmington and Seaholm tied for second both with 244. The list of favorites is a little different this time, as Jesuit is expected to move up from fourth last year and Byron Center could also make a jump after finishing eighth. The Cubs are seeking their first Finals title and finished runners-up in 2022 and 2023, and they enter this weekend with all three relays and 15 individual entries seeded to score and three divers competing. Byron Center is seeking its first top-two Finals finish and also will bring a sizable lineup of three relays and 16 individuals seeded to score, and three divers. Seaholm most recently won Division 2 in 2021 and will look to three relays and eight individuals seeded to score, with one diver competing.

Will Cicco, Rochester Hills Stoney Creek senior: The top seed in the 200 (1:39.21) and 500 freestyles (4:31.02) is likely to also swim on two top-seven seeded relays.

Patrick Mackillop, Detroit U-D Jesuit senior: Last year’s third-place finisher in the breaststroke and 12th-place finisher in the IM is seeded first in the breaststroke (55.86), 10th in the IM and expected to swim on two top-four seeded relays.

Josh Martin, Mattawan senior: He’s seeded first in the butterfly (49.03) and fifth in the 50 (21.30) and will swim on two relays after finishing third in both the butterfly and 50 last winter.

Charlie McCuiston, Detroit U-D Jesuit sophomore: He debuted last season with a third place in the 200 freestyle and eighth place in the breaststroke, and will return as the top seed in the 100 free (45.57), second seed in the 200 free (1:40:60) and likely to swim on those two top-four relays with Mackillop.

Quinn O’Neill, Birmingham Seaholm sophomore: The reigning champion in the 500 also finished seventh in the 200 free last year. He’s seeded eighth in the 500 and 11th in the 200 this time but is also expected to swim on top-seeded 200 medley and 400 freestyle relays.

Elliott Rijnovean, Birmingham Seaholm junior: He won the butterfly and backstroke last season and also swam on the winning 200 medley and third-place 400 freestyle relays. He’s seeded first in the backstroke (49.35), fourth in the butterfly (50.73) and expected to swim on the same top-seeded relays with O’Neill.

Evan Tack, Detroit U-D Jesuit senior: Last year’s runner-up in the 200 freestyle and third-place finisher in the backstroke is seeded first in the IM (1:50.84) by more than five seconds and second in the butterfly (49.50). He’s also expected to swim on second-seeded 200 medley and 400 freestyle relays.

Lucas Witham, Grand Rapids Forest Hills Central junior: He finished fifth in the 50 and eighth in the 100 freestyle last season, and is seeded first in the 50 (20.83), second in the 100 (46.18) and will likely swim on two top-nine seeded relays.

Birmingham Seaholm 200 medley relay: The lineup of Rijnovean, O’Neill, senior Emmett Knudsen and junior Finn Murray enters with a seed time of 1:31.42, two seconds faster than the field and also faster than the meet record of 1:31.85 swam in 2022.

Farmington 200 freestyle relay: The anticipated group of seniors Jack Tomlinson, Luke Morden and Paul DeMartini and junior Joshua Luo has a top-seeded time of 1:25.13 and could approach the meet record of 1:23.72 swam in 2022.

Jack Olivier, Byron Center senior: He finished fourth in diving last season and posted this year’s highest Division 2 Regional qualifying score of 505 points.

Division 3 at Eastern Michigan University

Reigning champion: Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood
2024 runners-up: East Grand Rapids
2025 top-ranked: 1. Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood, 2. Holland Christian, 3. East Grand Rapids.

It’s been Cranbrook first and EGR second the last two seasons, and the Cranes will pursue a third-straight title with three relays and 19 individual entries seeded to score, plus a diver in the mix. East Grand Rapids won the previous two titles before this Cranbrook run and will look to pile points with three relays and 11 individuals seeded to score, and a strong group of three divers competing. Holland Christian is another regular, most recently champion in 2018 and 2019, runner-up in 2021 and 2022 and third place a year ago. The Maroons will seek to contend with three relays and 15 individuals seeded to score, and a similarly highly-touted pair of divers.

Sam Harper, Plainwell junior: He finished fourth in the 500 freestyle last season and is seeded first in that race (4:39.61) and second in the 200 free (1:44.70).

Jack Langeland, Hamilton junior: He’s seeded first in the 200 (1:44.11) and fifth in the butterfly (52.56) and could swim on two top-three seeded relays. He finished 11th in the 200 and 12th in the butterfly last season.

Basilio Ledesma, Holland Christian senior: He finished sixth in the 50 and fourth in the butterfly in 2024 and returns as the top seed in the 100 free (47.53), fourth seed in the 50 (21.78) and expected to swim on the second-seeded 200 medley relay. 

Kade Opsal, Adrian junior: He finished fifth in the 50 and 10th in the backstroke and swam on two high-placing relays last season. He’s seeded first in both the backstroke (50.20) and 50 (21.0) this weekend and will likely swim on two seventh-seeded relays.

Levi Rozema, Holland Christian senior: He’s seeded first in the breaststroke (57.64) and sixth in the IM (2:01.72) and is likely to swim on two second-seeded relays. He finished third in the breaststroke and 11th in the IM last year, also swimming on the third-place medley relay.

Liam Smith, Otsego junior: He’s won three Finals championships over his first two seasons – two in the butterfly and last year in the IM as well. He’s seeded first in the IM (1:52.44) and second in the butterfly (50.37) and will likely swim on two top-10 seeded relays.

Ethan Xu, Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Kingswood sophomore: He and Smith may be racing repeatedly as he’s seeded second in the IM (1:54.99) and first in the butterfly (49.64) and may also swim on top-seeded medley and 400 freestyle relays. He finished fifth in the IM and eighth in the 500 last season.

Rowan Bishop, East Grand Rapids senior: Last season’s fourth-place diver scored 524.65 points at his Regional qualifier to set the pace for all of Division 3.

PHOTO Division 1 swimmers including Zeeland's Owen Stevens and Northville's Brady Stenson launch to begin a 500 freestyle race at last season's Finals. (Click for more from High School Sports Scene.)