I think s&c has less of an effect on bigtime programs than most s&c coaches would like to think.
I sometimes think that people screw up more athletes than they help them. At U of M, RR and the press have made this guy into a demigod. I just think that blowing smoke up his rear so often is a disservice to so many S&C coaches. USC has a pretty good program and S&C coach, yet you don’t see articles all over LA do you?
I think it’s kind of like guys running for office saying they will balance the budget by getting rid of waste. It’s always the first thing they say. Then they come in and find out that they can do about 10% as much good as they thought, if that.
Football coaches are the same way. They could be taking over a team that just won the National Championship, and the first thing they say is “We’re going to improve the conditioning here, I’ll tell you that.” Then they kill the kids all off-season and end up in about the same place the last coach did.
But they always act like the last guy’s program was like running third-grade recess, and like their own program makes Lance Armstrong training for the Tour de France look like your grandparents riding their tandem bike.
watch the Juction Boys. The great Bear Bryant said it was his greatest remorse. He was a tough coach, but realized more isn’t always better.
More is always seems to be the excuse for coaches who don’t know what they are doing. Smarter training is the key. Developing the correct energy systems for the sport the teams participating in. In combination having the right system for the team. For example in football, if you have a team that is speed oriented. Run the option get outside. If your team is power oreinted, run power football (Off tackle) in combination of traps and play action. Work on perfecting the skill in combination with the training (physical). Must be worked hand in hand.
You run for President? Why not considering the current one? And, on the subject of bullshitting resumes, there’s also an opening for Vice-President. They’re currently looking for a spot to park the trailer in case the Republicans get in again! (Can you spell potato?)
Haha. Yup. I guess I could have picked a more suitable analogy considering the state of political affairs these days.
Thats some funny stuff. Good call on Bush. I guess we are all qualified to be Prez if he can. You and James kill me. Cerebral sarcasm is awesome.
Damn, he took less breaths to spout that garbage than Phelps did in all his races
for the U of M superiority in strength, speed, and conditioning to show up. That team looks awful. I don’t see any of our local papers talking about the Barwis advantage now.
barwis vs gittleson. the war wages on. s&c is not the key.
random article: http://deathrattlesports.com/200808271415/Michigan-Wolverines/Football/Old-vs.-New-Comparing-Michigan-s-Strength-Philosophies.html
Journalists can be pretty dumb. He clearly has no knowledge of anything training-related, which is fine, but not when he writes an article about it acting like he does. “Using machines to build more muscle over free weights?” And when did HIT become “all about power”? Sigh.
I personally don’t see the slow start as a result of anything s & c. I believe it’s simply the case of a brand new system/new coaching staff and likely not having the correct personnel to implement those strategies. Returning one offensive linemen, one of three starting recievers, new qb, new rb’s etc. As over the top as MB is with his volumes and inadequate recoveries I have little doubt he’s still better than Gittleson. I’d hate to see this team with him still at the helm.
The offense looked much better moving the ball but it goes without saying that 6 turnovers won’t win many games. Granted ND is horrible so seeing the o look better against them is not a whole lot of consolation-don’t know what to make of that.
Granted Im not a u of m fan cause Im from michigan state but I have to agree with you. It is a new system and MB is a idiot but yeah I dont think S & C has that much of a impact on them loosing like that expecially with 6 turnovers.
Agree with everything said there!
I read in an interview somewhere about a month ago MB was quoted as saying something to the likes of “in order to be a successful team” blah blah we need to blah blah. Like Gittleson or not…
Why not assume a perception that more readily simplifies the quantitative/qualitative assessment of the efficacy, or not, of the physical preparation of any sports team…
It is agreed that the scoreboard will not always reflect who is the more physically prepared team because the contest is not one exclusive to the state of physical preparation alone.
Tactics are not exclusively, if at all, trained by most physical preparation coaches
Positional technique is not exclusively trained, if at all, by most physical preparation coaches
Psychological preparation is not exclusively trained, if at all, by most physical preparation coaches or any other coach on the team for that matter- at least not in any systematized fashion.
These dimensions of sports preparation are hugely significant towards the outcome of team sport contests.
I would wager that physical preparation can only be held accountable for the win or the loss if it is either so overwhelmingly superior or deficient in either team to the point in which the lay fan makes the observation.
To the experts, however, the physical preparation program must be evaluated, not so much the scoreboard, if that is what is being assessed.
To this end, it is not only the programs that must be scrutinized but also the knowledge of the people doing the scrutinizing.
Herein lies the rub.
Most coaches with an opinion,as well as the sporting institution itself, don’t even have the knowledge of what physical capacities must be trained for the American footballer. I’m not sure there is a better example of this than the scouting combine and all related factors.
I’m amused/disgusted by how insufficient/incomplete the recruiting process is from high school to college as well as the scouting process from college to the NFL.
At any rate, if it is the physical preparation coach and his/her program that are to be evaluated then it is those two precise factors that must be scrutinized:
- The coach
- The program
The success of the team, while being the most important factor from a job retention standpoint, is unfortunately only partly reflective of the qualification level of the physical preparation coach.
The head coach, position coaches, physical preparation coaches, quarter back, etcetera all share the same luxury of being geniuses when the team wins and the misfortune of being to blame when the team does not. Unfortunate that more people, the media for starters, aren’t educated enough to sufficiently assess all related factors.
And once again, I question the qualifications of those who are drawing the conclusions because it’s not enough to obtain the data when non-experts are making the judgment.
James (No offense intended) you’re a great guy I’m sure … but damn … it takes me time to read, re-read and understand your posts.
Am I the only slow learner here?
eh… might mental fatigue be a factor?
Ok …
Interesting post … but you in essence are suggesting that
- Coaches (qualified coaches) looking in from the outside don’t have all the facts so can’t offer proper opinion - A very small percentage of the total
- Score board is too simple a measure (agreed)
- Ordinary punters have no qualifications to make judgement - The majority of opinions formed
So … from an assessment point of view (instead of analysis by result) - it doesn’t really matter then how or what way teams are trained… the public will almost always be ill informed!
Just do like MB - create an impression.