Like any other sport it depends on the kids you get. You can train them perfect. Focus on eating, sleeping, mental toughness and you're gonna get average performance at best no matter how great the coach is if the kid is not the right kid. The greater the school size, the greater the "chance" of success by finding the right kids. The more willing the school is to allow multiple sports the greater the "chance" of success of finding more of the right kids.
Can Mason B & G repeat another double win at DI State meet
- Thread starter Lancermania
- Start date
ohiorunner14
New member
Check out the last decade of D1 boys and girls team champs (not even looking at runner ups)..private school or very big schools the last decade. Sure a lot has to do with culture, knowledge, motivation, etc and this is not taking away a state title honor from any of these coaches but rather the reality that yes private schools whom take athletes who do not run for their hometown or the big schools (who are doubled or tripled in enrollment than the average d1 school) makes things a bit easier to achieve success. The true test (which may be unreasonable) is to see these coaches coach at the smaller schools and see what they can build with the "culture, motivation, knowledge" and etc they possess that is superior to the smaller schools, and the non private schools. Now of course yes not every private school or big school is elite in xc but that is not the point as I am not saying these coaches are not good..but let's utilize Steve Kerr on the Warriors as an example..where would he be legacy wise without the Warriors as a coach? Spolestra on the Heat is a great example who coaches the big 3 with lebron yet proved his abilities over the last few years taking those other teams to the nba finals/deep runs in playoffs. Sure this is an odd reference but I think is relevant to what I am saying..can the coaches of the last decade or so from the big schools and private schools who find themselves top of the state every year, do the same thing elsewhere? whether it take 1 year or 5? or they at the right place right time with the school they are at, despite yes some impressive knowledge and culture building abilities? Bigger school and private school (coaching kids from various cities) get to benefit far more with being decent/good coaches than a great coach at a smaller/non private school..numbers play a huge role
List of OHSAA cross country champions - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Mason’s girls coach started a program from scratch at a D2 school and won 2 state titles and a runner-up. Mason and St X have a rep of striving for excellence in every activity. They tend to attract quality people that are drawn towards that trait. While the numbers might help they don’t account for specific accomplishments when compared to other high population schools. Mason’s football team certainly does not achieve at a high level in a sport we’re numbers can make a big difference. I’m not sure why this is a constant topic. It’s not like Mason is winning state year after year.Check out the last decade of D1 boys and girls team champs (not even looking at runner ups)..private school or very big schools the last decade. Sure a lot has to do with culture, knowledge, motivation, etc and this is not taking away a state title honor from any of these coaches but rather the reality that yes private schools whom take athletes who do not run for their hometown or the big schools (who are doubled or tripled in enrollment than the average d1 school) makes things a bit easier to achieve success. The true test (which may be unreasonable) is to see these coaches coach at the smaller schools and see what they can build with the "culture, motivation, knowledge" and etc they possess that is superior to the smaller schools, and the non private schools. Now of course yes not every private school or big school is elite in xc but that is not the point as I am not saying these coaches are not good..but let's utilize Steve Kerr on the Warriors as an example..where would he be legacy wise without the Warriors as a coach? Spolestra on the Heat is a great example who coaches the big 3 with lebron yet proved his abilities over the last few years taking those other teams to the nba finals/deep runs in playoffs. Sure this is an odd reference but I think is relevant to what I am saying..can the coaches of the last decade or so from the big schools and private schools who find themselves top of the state every year, do the same thing elsewhere? whether it take 1 year or 5? or they at the right place right time with the school they are at, despite yes some impressive knowledge and culture building abilities? Bigger school and private school (coaching kids from various cities) get to benefit far more with being decent/good coaches than a great coach at a smaller/non private school..numbers play a huge role
List of OHSAA cross country champions - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
I'm going to go back to the original post. This Mason boys team is nowhere near their 2021 and 2022 teams in terms of depth. The 2021 team had one of their top runners DNF and won by 40, that team probably could have fielded a second team that would have placed in the top 10. The 2022 team DNF their top runner and won again, their #7 runner placed 73rd . This current team is solid 1-4 but unlike past years #5 is a question mark, and a bad day or injury to one of their top runners would be tough to overcome. Favorites yes, but far from a lock like past years.
MasonComet
U. S. American
Mason boys dominate GMC today with all 7 runners finishing in the top 9 (with a range of 15:27.11 - 16:23.82).
CincyIllinifan
Active member
I agree, and I’m a Mason fan. They‘re not as strong this year, and it’s entirely possible they don’t win this year.
Unfortunately, at least according to this thread, if Mason does win, then it’s expected, primarily due to their enrollment. If they don’t win, and finish 2nd/3rd/4th, then they’ve underachieved, which is pretty sad.
CincyIllinifan
Active member
Why is Mason’s size and accomplishments insulting to coaches of smaller schools? Who’s insulting them?
Obviously, enrollment is a factor, and anyone would expect Mason to be successful. But, winning a state championship is a significant feat, much less trying to win 3 in a row. Using your example, if Dublin had one high school, wouldn’t they have 5000-5500 students? That’s considerably larger than Mason, but I would still consider it a feat if they won 2 state championships in a row.
Saying that Mason's size doesn't matter that much, that it's mostly coaching, is insulting. Because you are saying that they are better coaches because they beat those other D1 schools. That's the point being made. I honestly can't think of a year when Mason's girls couldn't have defeated the Minster girls. Does this mean coach Dobson is better than coach Magoto?
Clearly coaching matters a great deal. I am not saying that I am as good a coach as coach Dobson or coach Rapp, but if all the kids in Dublin were running at one high school, whoever was coaching them would have beaten Mason most of the years over the last two decades. This year, a combined Dublin team would beat Mason's boys. A combined Olentangy team would beat Mason's girls. That DOES NOT mean coach Rapp and coach Dobson are not excellent coaches. But going up against teams drawn from such schools would put Mason at a numerical disadvantage.
Honestly, as a statistician, it seems kind of insane to me to argue that the size of the school is not a significant factor. It clearly does matter quite a bit. You only have to look at the finish times for the teams at the state meet. Either school size matters very much, or D1 coaches are way, way, better coaches than D2 and D3 coaches. There really are no other alternatives.
No, school size is not determinative. Coaching skill matters a great deal. As does the socioeconomics of a school. My son only had a full team for 2 of his 4 years in XC because too many kids at his school lacked transportation to be able to stay after school for practice. But school size matters a great deal. If my son's school were 1000 instead of 400 kids I have no doubt his coach would have always been able to recruit full teams.
On another note, because this has been bothering me for a while now, can we refrain [CincyIllini fan, I am not referring to you here] from arguments like "Mason's size advantage is only immigrant kids who only help the chess team." This is insulting, and there's another word that could be used to describe it.
100% perfectly said. Thank you!
Can this message board be set up so anytime someone posts "school size doesn't matter" that this reply is automatically posted in response?
CincyIllinifan
Active member
I’ve never said Mason coaches are better. I’ve certainly never insulted coaches of other teams. To be honest, I seriously doubt any of the Mason coaches or fans have ever insulted other coaches. The Mason coaches are excellent, as I’m sure there are many other excellent coaches in Ohio, regardless of division. Don’t you think it’s insulting to the Mason coaches that they are successful due to enrollment?
I agree that school size does matter. Given their enrollment numbers, socioeconomic factors, and excellent coaching, I would expect Mason to get to State, and perform well most if not every year. However, don’t you consider a state championship to be a big deal? Much less 2 in a row?
It’s unfortunate, but if I had to guess, most posters here would love it if Mason doesn’t win State this year (which is entirely possible). I get the impression that if they finish 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, some will say they’ve underachieved, which is ridiculous.
Last edited:
CincyIllinifan
Active member
I think most people would agree that school size does matter - we’re just not willing to agree that it is the main contributing factor, which you’ve alluded to in your prior posts.
Main contributing factor isn't really that meaningful. Posters here trying to show that the size of the school isn't that important typically will point to large schools that are not good at cross country as their proof. And then go on to say or imply that this citation shows that Mason's size isn't why they are so often right at or near the top in relation to other schools that do actually have cross country programs.
Running Man 101
Well-known member
But if you combined the enrollment of the Dublin schools you are not quite double Mason's size. What is fascinating is how big many of the Southwest schools and how poor many are at XC. I would imagine that if you combined enrollment, wealth (measured with income or property value) and graduation rate (or maybe ACT score) you would get a very good match.
Attachments
Just in Mason’s conference, Lakota West, Lakota East and Oak Hills are all large enough to be regular top 10 teams if they had Coach Rapp. Here’s a question for the statisticians; Someone claimed Mason should win every year because they had an extra 1000 “athletes” to choose from. How many sub-16 or sub-17 runners should be expected in 1000 students? If Mason has 15 runners under 17:00 how many can be attributed to those extra 1000 “athletes”?
Last edited:
Newton's Third
Well-known member
I think everyone joining in this conversation agrees that many factors go into successful programs. However, when all other factors are there including great coaching, socio-economics, community support.... enrollment size then plays a major role. Put the excellent Mason coaches at a school with 350 boys or girls and they would likely not be looking at a three-peat, maybe not even one championship. Minster or Woodridge have exceptional coaches but would rarely be in the hunt for even one DI championship.
An overlooked part of this is training. If Mason has 15 runners under 17:00, could that be attributed to being able to push the envelope a little in training because if one gets hurt, there are 10 more to step in? A school with 350 rarely has that option and most undertrain to assure all stay healthy knowing that if even one gets hurt, all goals are kaput. I am not suggesting Mason or anyone else 'runs kids into the ground', just that they have options with numbers. Could 15 under 17:00 be because it takes that to fit in, be one of the gang? I am suggesting that there are advantages to a large enrollment that are not always clearly seen.
That's actually really easy to answer. Let's compare Mason and Dublin Jerome, because the enrollment data was already posted in this thread, and they have very similar demographics and good resources, so we are justified in ignoring those as factors for a quick look at the data. Masons enrollment is 1300 and Jerome's is 736. [Note: this would be the 9-10-11 boys from the year the data was collected.] Which means Mason has approximately 1.7663 times Jerome's population. Which means, assuming talent is roughly evenly distributed and Mason has 15 under 17, you would expect Jerome to have about 8.5 runners under 17. That's the quick look at the numerical advantage over Jerome.
Let's compare some of the OCC schools in Central Ohio, because I know they have adequate resources and competent coaches. As well as a sports culture that doesn't make it hard to recruit cross country runners.
Coffman (730), Liberty (722), Orange (744) are all about the same size as Jerome, so similar ratios compared to Mason.
Scioto (512) and Kilbourne (528) are at about 2.5 for their ratio, so you would expect them to have about 6 sub 17 compared to Mason's 15.
Lancaster (678), Thomas (655) and Westerville North (606) are in the 1.9 to 2.1 range. So you'd expect about 7.5 sub 17.
Gahanna (the biggest of the OCC schools at 948) has a ration of 1.37, so you would expect about 11 sub 17 runners using Mason as the standard.
If I get motivated (and honestly this is starting to lose its appeal as a topic for argument) I might look at the last decade and get an estimate for the standard deviation for average number of runners under 17 and then look at the probability of any given school having 5 under 17. But just examining the data we have shows Mason is actually much more likely, from random chance, to have 5 under 17 (and even higher difference in the chance of 5 under 16) than all but maybe Gahanna of those OCC schools, given adequate resources and good coaching.
None of which means that Mason's coaches are not excellent coaches. None which means, as some (and yes this too is insulting) kind of imply, that just anyone could win titles coaching at Mason. It does mean that when you say "It's more about the coaching than it is about school size" in the context of a discussion about who will win the state cross country meet, where most teams present have adequate resources and competent coaching, you are implicitly saying "Those Mason coaches are better."
EuclidandViren
Well-known member
Other factors to consider:
1-Middle School program and coaches.
2-Parents. No matter how good or bad some coaches are- some kids show up and are 5:00 milers as freshmen.
3- Move-in rate. With the success of the program, it breeds more success. How many families move to Mason over Fairfield, Hamilton, or Lakota just for running when starting a family? If mom and dad are both runners would you move to Hamilton or Mason for your kids?
4- Aesthetics- bike paths, parks, yoga studios, coffee shops, and other yuppie items. How many people move to Mason over other areas due to the parks and bike paths to run on over a competitor school?
I would assume Mason pulls the best and brightest from the other school districts and they are left depleted at times due to their success. Why would you choose any other GMC school or suburb to live in if you want your kid to have success?
1-Middle School program and coaches.
2-Parents. No matter how good or bad some coaches are- some kids show up and are 5:00 milers as freshmen.
3- Move-in rate. With the success of the program, it breeds more success. How many families move to Mason over Fairfield, Hamilton, or Lakota just for running when starting a family? If mom and dad are both runners would you move to Hamilton or Mason for your kids?
4- Aesthetics- bike paths, parks, yoga studios, coffee shops, and other yuppie items. How many people move to Mason over other areas due to the parks and bike paths to run on over a competitor school?
I would assume Mason pulls the best and brightest from the other school districts and they are left depleted at times due to their success. Why would you choose any other GMC school or suburb to live in if you want your kid to have success?
psycho_dad
Well-known member
As a father from a family of runners. I did not for one second think about the running program when I bought my house. I happened to go the school, but I looked at many other houses in other school systems. The offer was accepted. I had moved from a place where I had also not thought about the athletic programs. I would have never pulled my kids from one school and sent them to another because of sports. My daughter helped elevate the program to what it is today. My sons also contributed to the success. I would think that as a family, we would have helped elevate the program no matter where we ended up. I think my kids would have been successful no matter where they went, It might have been a different type of success, but successful none the less. It's possible to help cultivate the culture.
Once again, coaching matters. It's funny that we are having this argument about how much coach matters in XC, where it is possible to make a decent case that coaching matters less than in football, basketball, baseball, soccer and similar "team all working together to score/precent scoring" sports. Or maybe "sports where you can play defense?" We should probably also take some time to consider the (provably very large) effect that luck plays on success. And how that interacts with how past success can breed current and future success, by motivating kids to participate and raising the standards everyone is seeing in practice every day.
In any event, unless this was a comment just slamming other sports teams at Mason, I have to assume its purpose was to argue that school size isn't a significant factor in how good teams are?
Also, @psycho_dad, I agree. There are going to be a (very) few parents who make a choice as to where to move based on the cross country program and how their kids will do. But not very many. And I would guess almost all families where the kids are already runners and the family was moving anyway
The argument being made here is that it IS the main differentiating factor when you are comparing the top teams in the state. Such as when a thread is asking who is going to win the state cross country meet.
I know that Mason is a closed district so athletes can not just come and compete because they are good. The only families that move to Mason is for the academics which is demonstrated from the demographics that I've seen on social media.
So someone would have to literally move to Mason to be on the team and from my various conversations with coaches they have not had any move to just run in the last ten years. They have had many good runners go to St X.
BUT they do have a very good Middle School coach/program that feeds the high school program.
Newton's Third
Well-known member
It is rare that state champion teams in DI, DIII and even DII which has the least deviation of enrollment from highest to lowest, come from the lowest 10-15% enrollments in their respective divisions. However, it is not rare at all for them to come from the top 10-15%.
I wouldn’t say it’s a slam on the other sport coaches at Mason but it doesn’t appear those coaches have built a winning culture that could make use of their population advantage.
oncearunner
Member
Well dang coach, I suppose this means that when Kilbourne and Coffman square off in a few weeks at regionals along with W North, Orange, Lancaster, Jerome, etc., we should only score 4 runners. Or shoot, maybe just 3. You know, get rid of that enrollment-enhanced depth advantage y'all have over WK. What do you say? Deal?
I'm joking, of course.
EuclidandViren
Well-known member
The sports you listed are not county club sports. Hamilton and Middletown compete with Mason with football, wrestling, basketball, and baseball because economics does not play a role in these sports at the elementary school level.
Mason and similar schools (Springboro in Warren County) and many suburban schools in the state, excel at the country club sports because that is their socio-economic draw. I would argue that the country club sports in Ohio are swimming, golf, tennis, cross country, and some parts of track and cross country.
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying enrollment size has no affect on sports you don’t consider “country club” sports? Why would football not have an advantage from those “1000 extra athletes” that cross country does?
psycho_dad
Well-known member
Cross Country is a "Country Club Sport"? You can't get a less expensive sport. Track and Field as well.
It's what the School / community get behind.
It's like I said before. Our family contributes to the success, but there are 10 other families that do the same. We have people that help out 10 + years after their kids have graduated. The 10 families get replaced by 10 other families as things move along. If you look at the really good programs, they not only have the best runners in races, but they often have runners that are in the back as well. Coaching that works just as hard for those kids at the back as they do for the championship level kids. A family.
Last edited:
XC and TF are more "blue collar" than "country club" sports... at least where I come from.
psycho_dad
Well-known member
I'm thinking more Crew, Fencing, Polo, Water Polo, Squash....Golf.....Swiming....Diving..... Equestrian.....Show Jumping.... LOL =XC and T&F