Girls D3 CC Individuals for 2012

Running Man 101

Well-known member
Looks like the Girls D3 top 4 went Fresh, Soph, Fresh and Soph and will be set for the next 3 years. What I talented group of young ladies! Great work!
 

ezdoesit

New member
Anyone know what happened to Alexandria Markovich from Gates Mill Hawken? Looks like she didn't run at her Regional meet.
 

mcgavin

New member
This post got me curious so I did some quick research. Going back to 1998 state results on the OHSAA website, 70% (147 out of 210) of podium finishers in D1 girls are upperclassmen. In the same span only 55% (114 out of 209) of podium finishers in D3 girls are upperclassmen. One girl in one of the D3 girls results is errantly listed as a first grader, so I did not count her in the total.

Why the big disparity? Just a coincidince? This is over 14 years of results.
 

Mr.K

New member
This post got me curious so I did some quick research. Going back to 1998 state results on the OHSAA website, 70% (147 out of 210) of podium finishers in D1 girls are upperclassmen. In the same span only 55% (114 out of 209) of podium finishers in D3 girls are upperclassmen. One girl in one of the D3 girls results is errantly listed as a first grader, so I did not count her in the total.

Why the big disparity? Just a coincidince? This is over 14 years of results.

I think the D3 girls maybe just dont continue to get better as they grow, as many girls have that problem. There bodies are changing and they cant contiune to perform...I personally think it has something to do with that. Maybe the D1 girls just train differently and can get used to the change...i dont know for sure. Whats your opionion?
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
This post got me curious so I did some quick research. Going back to 1998 state results on the OHSAA website, 70% (147 out of 210) of podium finishers in D1 girls are upperclassmen. In the same span only 55% (114 out of 209) of podium finishers in D3 girls are upperclassmen. One girl in one of the D3 girls results is errantly listed as a first grader, so I did not count her in the total.

Why the big disparity? Just a coincidince? This is over 14 years of results.

I'm not sure why the big disparity, but maybe the DI schools just have had a better run of the "lucky ones," i.e. girls who have yet to undergo the physiological changes that can hinder a female's ability to run fast.

Another issue could be training philosophy although I've never really discussed the idea with big and small school coaches.

The smaller schools with presumably less people on their teams have a greater need for runners who can contribute immediately in order to make their teams competitive, so the smaller school coaches might feel the need to bring their younger runners along more quickly which can hinder their long term development.

By contrast, the larger schools presumably have more than enough runners to choose from and can be a little more patient and take a longer term approach to developing their younger runners.

Another possibility could be that the average smaller school runners are playing other sports (basketball for example) during the year because their schools need them to play those sports in order to fill the rosters; whereas the average larger school girls might be able to focus on running year round since their schools have more than enough girls to fill the rosters in the other sports.

I'm just thinking out loud here. If we could just get a hold of training logs for all of these kids, then we might have a more accurate answer.
 

badger1

Member
I'm not sure why the big disparity, but maybe the DI schools just have had a better run of the "lucky ones," i.e. girls who have yet to undergo the physiological changes that can hinder a female's ability to run fast.

Another issue could be training philosophy although I've never really discussed the idea with big and small school coaches.

The smaller schools with presumably less people on their teams have a greater need for runners who can contribute immediately in order to make their teams competitive, so the smaller school coaches might feel the need to bring their younger runners along more quickly which can hinder their long term development.

By contrast, the larger schools presumably have more than enough runners to choose from and can be a little more patient and take a longer term approach to developing their younger runners.

Another possibility could be that the average smaller school runners are playing other sports (basketball for example) during the year because their schools need them to play those sports in order to fill the rosters; whereas the average larger school girls might be able to focus on running year round since their schools have more than enough girls to fill the rosters in the other sports.

I'm just thinking out loud here. If we could just get a hold of training logs for all of these kids, then we might have a more accurate answer.

Wow. Speaking for at least one small school, our training philosophy is no different than it would be if we had 500 girls--help each runner develop his/her potential. The athlete's development is paramount. No one is rushed into anything that hinders long term development. Successful runners (state qualifiers) have been pretty evenly split between those that concentrate on running and those that play multiple sports.

IMO, the reason for the disparity between ages of girls from small and large schools on the podium is simply that at a small school there aren't the numbers to draw from, giving the younger athletes a larger role in CC teams. A typical small-school team might only have two or three upperclassmen while a large-school team might have 15-20. Given normal athletic development for everyone, that means there is likely a larger number of upperclassmen making the top 7 of a large-school team.

Also IMO, girls don't automatically get slower as they age. (Honestly I want to slap someone every time I hear this.) To be sure, there is a period of time (usually somewhere in the 9th-10th grade area) where physical maturity blindsides girls and some struggle to gain control of their new bodies and physiology. However, it's been my observation that any decline in performance is more a function of changing priorities and lifestyle changes than physical development. One needs only to look at the the highest levels of the sport for confirmation. You don't see 13 year old Olympians in track. The best athletes are mature women in their 20's and thirties.
 

mcgavin

New member
Not as big a difference in guys.

Guys since 1998,
In D1- 191 out of 210 podium finishers were upperclassmen (91.0%)
In D3- 185 out of 210 podium finishers were upperclassmen ( 88.1%)

Four freshmen boys have made the podium in D1 since 1998.
Six freshmen boys have made the podium in D3 since 1998 (including three in the same year, 2009).
 

mathking

Well-known member
First off, the samples are small enough that the simplest explanation is random chance.

But otherwise, you should probably expect more of the young phenoms to reach the podium in D3 than in D1. When you have a standout freshman girl in D3, the total number of really fast girls is smaller, so there is a better chance they will make the podium. Outliers stand out more in small populations. Basically, in D1 the young phenoms have to compete against more kids who were themselves young phenoms and now have the advantage of two or three more years of development.

Probably you would want to see if the total distribution of athletes and times is different in D1 and D3 if you wanted a more definitive answer to this question.
 
Last edited:

ENA

New member
you truly are the "Math King"....
badger, I share your observations, and I remember when you were in the same boat as these youngster... and you turned out just fine IMO.
 

badger1

Member
badger, I share your observations, and I remember when you were in the same boat as these youngster... and you turned out just fine IMO.

Yikes! I'm older than dirt so you must be quite an elder statesman. Do I know you?
 

mcgavin

New member
Mr. K, just an opinion, but I think it has to do more with the difference in overall competition level than with any differences in training. It's not that rare for a freshman girl with natural talent to run low to mid-19s, but much less rare for that same freshman to run mid-18s. The smaller population of D3 means that a sub-19:30 performance will often make or at least sniff the podium. The larger population of D1 means that it often takes a mid-18 to make the podium, giving the advantage to older runners with more training and maturity under their belts.

I would like to see someone take mathking's advice and compare the two divisions based on time instead of place. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of sub-19:30 (as an example) underclassman to upperclassman in D3 is very similar to that of D1.

I thought D3 girls individuals had a great state meet this year, particularly with their underclassman. Look forward to seeing how well they continue to do.
 

Mr.K

New member
Mr. K, just an opinion, but I think it has to do more with the difference in overall competition level than with any differences in training. It's not that rare for a freshman girl with natural talent to run low to mid-19s, but much less rare for that same freshman to run mid-18s. The smaller population of D3 means that a sub-19:30 performance will often make or at least sniff the podium. The larger population of D1 means that it often takes a mid-18 to make the podium, giving the advantage to older runners with more training and maturity under their belts.

I would like to see someone take mathking's advice and compare the two divisions based on time instead of place. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of sub-19:30 (as an example) underclassman to upperclassman in D3 is very similar to that of D1.

I thought D3 girls individuals had a great state meet this year, particularly with their underclassman. Look forward to seeing how well they continue to do.

That could be a reason why also, but yeah I would like to see someone compare the two on times instead of place.
 
.
Top