NCAA T&F Problems

Expert Discussion Advanced Sprint Training
1

This thread is being started in reference to an exchange Fogelson and I were having that pertains to my assertion that potential problems in the coaching models of NCAA T&F programs exist and that they, in my view, are reflective of the lack of more impressive times being ran as a whole in the sprints.

I have copy and pasted some of Fogelson’s comments, and numbered them, from another thread.

RE 1. fogelson, perhaps you’d consider being less antagonistic as we further this exchange. While I’d enjoy coaching T&F I’m not certain that I’d be able to laterally transfer to a position that compensates me equally or better.

As far as what I’d be able to accomplish, that’s complete speculation so why don’t we stick to the facts and those exists as the wide variety of coaching schemes in the NCAA- some much less informed than others.

Same as ‘S&C’ there’s no qualification model beyond USATF and I suspect that the elite T&F coaches here would agree with me in not putting an incredible amount of stock in any current certification process.

RE 2. I didn’t name any particular programs, good or bad; although you have cited some of the more premier programs so that certainly isn’t useful when the context of the discussion is directed towards programs that are not successful.

RE 3. Fogelson, I only shared some data with you because it appeared as if it would behoove you to know more of the situation and your post that I replied to insinuated that you were interested in me justifying my statements with some reality.

RE 4. I only trained him for that one season as personal matters on his end removed him from the sport. I didn’t share anything in regards to how he was training prior to me coaching him so perhaps you would, once again, relax your tone and assumptions.

The fact is that he was already familiar with Charlie’s model when I met him and I was able to more effectively assimilate the material than he was as well as restructure some of his training exercises and so on.

I should note that his main event was LJ and prior to me coaching him his PR was in the range of 7.5m and after those few months of me coaching him, while he fouled by the smallest possible margin, he put in a jump that was in the 8.3m range at a meet at SAC State (the entire crowd went silent in disbelief).

I have long contended that information that is presented, such as the way Charlie does, is far superior to the type of garden variety programs, as detailed as they may be, that spell out all details- as this type of delivery is far too often carelessly copy and pasted into the training of other athletes who have entirely different levels of preparation, needs, and so on.

So while you, and anyone else, may be interested in Charlie offering certain product formats I’m not sure how this relates to you taking such a defensive posture.

RE 5. You and me both. Good luck in that endeavor as I have yet to discover any uniformity in the timing of American footballers other than the fact that most timers have a stop watch in their hands.

If only all combine and pro day times were FAT; but then of course, no one would be running the 4.3 that you challenged me with in the first place.

If you’d consider taking a step back from your combative responses to me you might find that, upon further consideration of NCAA programs that aren’t at the top of the field, it is the programming, more than anything else, that leaves much to be desired.

I state all this in the context there are more sub 10.5 potential sprinters out there than many current times indicate; and before I look at weather conditions, training facilities, and so on, I always look first at the training.

Your responses to me seem to indicate that you feel that the T&F coaching is satisfactory in the NCAA and that the real issue is a lack of training materials that more clearly elucidate certain programming concepts.

to this I state that there is more than enough coaching/training literature out there and what is desperately lacking is a well founded unified theory of training that serves as a foundational model from which coaches may formulate their own unique approaches.

I am a physical preparation coach for American Football so if you are unsatisfied with my assertions perhaps Charlie, Number 2, Top Cat, Kitkat, PJ, or others will share their views on the matter.

2

I am simply dumbfounded. Thank you for another great post. I hope all of the NCAA coaches here (and there are dozens) are happy to know that they have no idea what they are doing, and neither do the people that make-up the current USATF coaching education, who also make-up part of this board.

And referencing a foul is beyond lame.

3

I thought we might have a good discussion.

It is good that all of these words are written because all of the coaches who read these posts may reads the words that are written versus the imagined messages that you insist upon interpreting.

You continue to embellish my words; rather than simply take them at face value.

Regarding the foul, I listed it because the physical preparation required to attain it is meaningful because he was less than an inch on the foul board. I view something like this to be similar to a feat accomplished in training. While it never counts in the record books, it provides the coach and athlete with very meaningful information.

I can see that there is no point in the two of us communicating with one another any further. Perhaps other coaches would like to share their thoughts on the matter.

4

I can see that there is no point in the two of us communicating with one another any further. Perhaps other coaches would like to share their thoughts on the matter.[/QUOTE]

I agree completely and strongly suggest you take your own advice and don`t start a thread just so you can disagree with someone else about part of a thread happening elsewhere.

5

It’s garbage like that (and folgelson’s post) that will drive coaches with results from the forums. James started this thread to continue what could have been an interesting discussion.

6

Old Bloke, by me asking if other coaches would be interested in sharing their thoughts on the matter I was referring to the matter of the state of coaching in the NCAA.

The exchange that was developing elsewhere was becoming far off topic relative to the thread and the topic of our disagreement is one that I thought might generate some critical thinking as the thought of the size of the talent pool in CONUS certainly spawns curiosity when weighed against the magnitude of athletic achievement that is or is not demonstrated at the collegiate level.

Old Bloke if forum etiquette is important to you than I’ll remind you that starting a new thread, in order that the discussion won’t side track the original thread where it started, is exactly the proper protocol to follow.

Alternatively, if taking the time to post your ‘strong suggestions’ that are void of training insight, and only cleverly antagonistic in their design, is what interests you, than, ironically, it is you who should take your own advice.

7

Exactly Juggler. I still think there’s potential, however, so let’s see who else might have some information to share on any topics ranging from:

  • existing T&F coaching qualification models
  • talent pools versus sporting results
  • solutions to the existing issues (ergo Charlie’s products)
  • and so on
8

I actually think the NCAA coaching is pretty good. The NCAA coaches are all trying to win and there’s very little luck in track so whoever doesn’t produce usually gets canned especially at high levels of D1.

I talked to a colleague this week asking what his sprinters do as they are doing quite well. His answer “lots of 150s FAST and overspeed runs”. He was serious as we are pretty good friends. Sounds ‘wrong’ but his sprinters are like #1,2,3,4,5 in the conference including a soph who just went 21.4x into -1.9m/s (division 3).

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Getting your ass handed to you year after year will teach you that.

If someone thinks that there is a problem with NCAA track coaching, then take a job, dominate, then take a better job and you can make 60k+ as an event specialist at a big track school. It sounds easy on paper but it is very difficult and incredibly humbling especially if you don’t have the gene pool to take a good shot at the top. It’s also hard to know if you are doing a good job of coaching or not.

You can always wonder if you’re doing a terrible job and your 23’ long jumper could be going 26’ or if you are doing a great job bringing him near his genetic potential at 23’.

9

I’ll jump in with a few very general thoughts (especially since I have very little knowledge about this sort of thing in track, but have a decent amount of knowledge about this sort of thing in another sport).

Everyone (in Olympic sports in general) seems to have a great interest in coaching certification, but it always ends up having to be so general that it doesn’t do much good, or so specific that a lot of new people with new ideas can’t get in (so the latter is almost never chosen). If Canada had had a hard-and-fast system in the early 80s, would Charlie have ever gotten going? There needs to be a way for good new people with different methods to get in the game. However, if that happens, bad new people with different methods will get in the game, too, and they need to adapt or be removed from the system (informal as it may be).

I think a major problem is that the migration of athletes with great potential to great coaches is a lot closer to a random event than most of us would like. Bad coaches continue to get as many, or almost as many, great athletes as good coaches get. Athletes “vote with their feet” far less often than would be ideal.

Charlie’s claim to fame, as I see it, is that he had an athlete run 9.79, along with some of his other results. It’s not his short-to-long system, or his lifting program, or low volume with lots of rest, or his understanding of massage. Those are all things you learn about after you try to figure out how this coach in Canada got a guy to run 9.79. For some reason, though, a lot of athletes and coaches don’t look at results, and say “Wow, how did he make that happen?” Sure, there are mitigating factors – athletes you get, financial support, and so on, but bad coaches and administrators always have a reason why they could have coached a 9.78.

I like to see lots of new ideas, and I think it’s neat when a guy does everything that is supposedly wrong, and gets great results. But I hate it when I see athletes with great potential wasted by bad coaches.

I read something by a pretty good coach once, and he said something like “I’d like to thank, and apologize to, all the athletes I ruined before I had any idea what I was doing.” The good coaches tend to think that way. The bad ones never do. I know that if I ever look back a couple of years and don’t think I used to be terrible, then I should get out of coaching, because I’m done learning.

Anson Dorrance, who coaches North Carolina Women’s soccer (lots of National Championships), and who coached the winning 1991 women’s World Cup team, said at a clinic that a big advantage for the US women is that there is no national directive on what formation to use, so the US is always coming up with new twists and such. A lot of other countries have to do it one way at pretty much every level, and no new thinking gets into the system.

Basically, I’m big on educating rather than certifying, and letting pretty much everyone have a shot, but there has to be a better way to steer the top athletes to the people who can do them the most good (and I am pretty sure that picking a few development coaches and directing athletes to them is not the way to do it). However, I do not know what that better way is, and I haven’t yet found someone who does know.

Just my thoughts.

10

I’ll jump in with a few very general thoughts (especially since I have very little knowledge about this sort of thing in track, but have a decent amount of knowledge about this sort of thing in another sport).

Everyone (in Olympic sports in general) seems to have a great interest in coaching education, but it always ends up having to be so general that it doesn’t do much good, or so specific that a lot of new people with new ideas can’t get in (so the latter is almost never chosen). If Canada had had a hard-and-fast system in the early 80s, would Charlie have ever gotten going? There needs to be a way for good new people with different methods to get in the game. However, if that happens, bad new people with different methods will get in the game, too, and they need to adapt or be removed from the system (informal as it may be).

I think a major problem is that the migration of athletes with great potential to great coaches is a lot closer to a random event than most of us would like. Bad coaches continue to get as many, or almost as many, great athletes as good coaches get. Athletes “vote with their feet” far less often than would be ideal.

Charlie’s claim to fame, as I see it, is that he had an athlete run 9.79, along with some of his other results. It’s not his short-to-long system, or his lifting program, or low volume with lots of rest, or his understanding of massage. Those are all things you learn about after you try to figure out how this coach in Canada got a guy to run 9.79. For some reason, though, a lot of athletes and coaches don’t look at results, and say “Wow, how did he make that happen?” Sure, there are mitigating factors – athletes you get, financial support, and so on, but bad coaches and administrators always have a reason why they could have coached a 9.78.

I like to see lots of new ideas, and I think it’s neat when a guy does everything that is supposedly wrong, and gets great results. But I hate it when I see athletes with great potential wasted by bad coaches.

I read something by a pretty good coach once, and he said something like “I’d like to thank, and apologize to, all the athletes I ruined before I had any idea what I was doing.” The good coaches tend to think that way. The bad ones never do. I know that if I ever look back a couple of years and don’t think I used to be terrible, then I should get out of coaching, because I’m done learning.

Anson Dorrance, who coaches North Carolina Women’s Soccer (lots of National Championships), and who coached the winning 1991 women’s World Cup team, said at a clinic that a big advantage for the US women is that there is no national directive on what formation to use, so the US is always coming up with new twists and such. A lot of other countries have to do it one way at pretty much every level, and no new thinking gets into the system.

Basically, I’m big on educating rather than certifying, and letting pretty much everyone have a shot, but there has to be a better way to steer the top athletes to the people who can do them the most good (and I am pretty sure that picking a few development coaches and directing athletes to them is not the way to do it). However, I do not know what that better way is, and I haven’t yet found someone who does know.

Just my thoughts.

11

I’ll jump in with a few very general thoughts (especially since I have very little knowledge about this sort of thing in track, but have a decent amount of knowledge about this sort of thing in another sport).

Everyone (in Olympic sports in general) seems to have a great interest in coaching education, but it always ends up having to be so general that it doesn’t do much good, or so specific that a lot of new people with new ideas can’t get in (so the latter is almost never chosen). If Canada had had a hard-and-fast system in the early 80s, would Charlie have ever gotten going? There needs to be a way for good new people with different methods to get in the game. However, if that happens, bad new people with different methods will get in the game, too, and they need to adapt or be removed from the system (informal as it may be).

I think a major problem is that the migration of athletes with great potential to great coaches is a lot closer to a random event than most of us would like. Bad coaches continue to get as many, or almost as many, great athletes as good coaches get. Athletes “vote with their feet” far less often than would be ideal.

Charlie’s claim to fame, as I see it, is that he had an athlete run 9.79, along with some of his other results. It’s not his short-to-long system, or his lifting program, or low volume with lots of rest, or his understanding of massage. Those are all things you learn about after you try to figure out how this coach in Canada got a guy to run 9.79. For some reason, though, a lot of athletes and coaches don’t look at results, and say “Wow, how did he make that happen?” Sure, there are mitigating factors – athletes you get, financial support, and so on, but bad coaches and administrators always have a reason why they could have coached a 9.78.

I like to see lots of new ideas, and I think it’s neat when a guy does everything that is supposedly wrong, and gets great results. But I hate it when I see athletes with great potential wasted by bad coaches.

I read something by a pretty good coach once, and he said something like “I’d like to thank, and apologize to, all the athletes I ruined before I had any idea what I was doing.” The good coaches tend to think that way. The bad ones never do. I know that if I ever look back a couple of years and don’t think I used to be terrible, then I should get out of coaching, because I’m done learning.

Anson Dorrance, who coaches North Carolina Women’s Soccer (lots of National Championships), and who coached the winning 1991 women’s World Cup team, said at a clinic that a big advantage for the US women is that there is no national directive on what formation to use, so the US is always coming up with new twists and such. A lot of other countries have to do it one way at pretty much every level, and no new thinking gets into the system.

Basically, I’m big on educating rather than certifying, and letting pretty much everyone have a shot, but there has to be a better way to steer the top athletes to the people who can do them the most good (and I am pretty sure that picking a few development coaches and directing athletes to them is not the way to do it). However, I do not know what that better way is, and I haven’t yet found someone who does know.

Just my thoughts.

12

Good post MSO. I am in full agreement. Certifications are nice and it shows that you care enough to pursue further education but in reality their value is mainly in networking or job hunting…

13

I read a pretty funny thing about youth (American) football certification on a message board a few days ago. A new coach was trying to get certified, so he signed up online and sent for the book and started studying. His fellow coaches were wondering what was taking him so long and why he kept complaining about how advanced the course was. He said he was shocked at how much you had to know to coach a bunch of 7-year-old kids.

He got through it and passed the test and got his certifcation back. It turns out he took the high school test. He was now certified to coach high school football and to lecture at clinics on youth football. He said there was absolutely no way he was ready to teach anyone other than a 7-year-old kid anything concerning football, especially since I think he might have said he had never coached before.

14

Sports like football can be extremely complicated but sometimes other sports can be easy- if you are prepared to follow advise. You mentioned I might not have developed in a strict system but ironically, I was one of the few who followed a very simple Gerard Mach approach at the beginning. Others were tarting his stuff up and adding all sorts of crap. The only big difference was that at the early stage I figured that nothing could matter as much as the SE would so everything around it had to be subordinate- especially tempo.

15

Regarding the significance or the pitfalls of coaching efforts, hindsight being what it is, the art of coaching, individual approaches, certifications, etcetera, I’ve always thought that these dynamics could only exist in an environment where the fundamental qualification/educational system is non-existent.

It’s interesting, the vast majority of coaches who find themselves stating if ‘I only knew then what I know now’, or who find themselves recalling the errors of their earlier ways- these things could only happen in the absence of the proper qualification structure.

-ergo coaches obtaining the position of coaching before they were truly qualified

Yet, it is difficult to discuss such matters without imparting subjectivity to the 10th power

In the end it’s always the athletes who are either more greatly benefited or more greatly hindered by the skill or lack thereof of the coach.

Yet, when we consider where/how this skill is developed it is always an aggregate of practical experience and pedagogical knowledge.

I always come back to holding the insufficient western educational models as being accountable.

Charlie mentioned the early and more concentrated influence of Mach on his coaching model.

The near entirety of coaches overseas followed this chronology:

  • Athlete in the same discipline (many of whom competed at the national team level)
  • return to sport institute to obtain highly specialized training in anyone of a variety of curricula that do not exist in the western hemisphere
  • begin coaching athletes

As a result, an enormous amount of experience and knowledge was accrued prior to day one of coaching.

Now I have, and continue, to receive a great deal of criticism regarding my efforts in pointing this out and it routinely comes back to my critics saying ‘well how many Russian or East German sprinters have run sub 10’

Yet, we all agree upon the genetics necessary to attain world class performances in the sprints so we must all agree that the ‘how many sub 10 sprinters have they produced’ crowds’ opinion has no place in such discussions as I suspect the majority of them are not coaches in the first place.

What I aim to share is how the existing situation could be greatly improved if those ‘in the know’ simply took more initiative in spreading ‘the know’

The ideal scenario is of course the complete annihilation of the current institutional/academic model and its inhabitants; however, this is not going to happen.

Certifying organizations than appear in an effort to address what academia does not; yet, the foundations of many of certifying organizations are typically no more well informed/structured than the institutionalized academic ones and thus more of the same is fostered.

The true substance exists in the minority, however, and similar to the dynamics of the superior Jazz and classical musicians and composers who never reach the mainstream magnitude of popularity and recognition as their inferior pop-culture counterparts- the most powerful voices in the coaching/sport science industry also remain below the radar, so to speak, in comparison to what is more readily accepted and shared amongst the greater masses.

Thus, we cannot dispute the fact the resources exists to ensure that coaching efforts may optimized from day one; however, the challenge lies in integrating these resources into the existing coaching ‘factories’ that exist as academia, certifying organizations, and current coaches.

So for example, Charlie starts this website and distributes product, and various other websites exist and distribute valuable products for coaches, and various translated literature exists, and so on and those who have most effectively assimilated the shared information are better equipped to optimize a coaching scenario.

However, the practical experience may not be in place, especially if we are addressing the younger audience who is still in school, for instance. Thus, while the educational aids are available, it is important that the aspiring coach is able to effectively assimilate them into the training.

The challenge then realizes itself in the many situations where a more informed intern, GA, or assistant is suppressed by a micromanaging head coach.

Thus, the reality of ‘having to put in the time’, grow the network, and so on, that is currently necessary for advancement in the business.

Whereas, if a fundamentally sound qualification process existed, the market would open up to those most qualified who- interestingly enough- would likely turnout NOT to be those who currently hold the most influential positions within the coaching community.

So I hold to my assertion that while coaching is very much an art, the integrity of coaching efforts will be far more optimized when the pedagogical foundations begin to approach what the more well informed minority considers to be the most fundamentally complete and unified model of coaching theory and practice.

And the subjectivity continues…

16

As I think I’ve said somewhere on here before, what annoys me most about bureaucracies is not that they’re slow. It’s that if Jesus came back to earth, He’d have no chance of making Pope.

17

That’s beautiful. If you give me your name I’ll quote you the first three times I use that phrase.

18

James, what is there to discuss when you disqualify and label an entire group (NCAA T&F coaches) without even knowing who makes it up? You have said you don’t know much about the coaching previously, so you are talking out of your ass and/or making gross assumptions based on a small number of observations.

And James, it isn’t just that Russians and East Germans don’t have anybody sub 10. They weren’t even competitive with people that have the same genetic pools elsewhere. Find us the East German or Russian Mennea, Kenteris, Papadias, Wariner, or Kevin Little. There are multiple Japanese sprinters who have gone faster than any Russian or East German. Hell, PFAFF has coached more Japanese sprinters to run faster in the 100m than any Russian/East German has even run.

I am done here, but I appreciate many of the other posts here.

19

What I have stated in the past is that I have paid little mind to what was being done in CONUS specifically in regards to S&C because my investigations lead me to less than impressive discoveries save for very few exceptions.

Regarding T&F, I have great respect for Pfaff and Smith;however it is foolish for you to compare what western coaches have done with talent pools other than those of the nationality that you are criticizing.

If you are interested in drawing off the wall comparisons than perhaps you might consider what many former T&F coaches from the GDR and USSR might have accomplished with the talent pools that western coaches have access to.

Since your last post there have been only insightful additions to this thread.

Now that you’ve decided to contribute again, it is once again in a combative nature.

Please stay the course and be done here for good this time.

Some stats, however, in order to clarify why my statements are never based upon assumption ( this does not include, throws, jumps, etc):

All of the following are/were world, world junior, or area records according to the IAAF:

100m women
10.88 Marlies Göhr GDR

200m women
21.71 Marita Koch GDR
21.71 Heike Drechsler GDR

400m men
44.33 Thomas Schönlebe GER

400m women
47.60 Marita Koch GDR
49.42 Grit Breuer GER

1000m women
2:28.98 Svetlana Masterkova RUS
2:35.4 Irina Nikitina URS
2:35.4 Katrin Wühn GDR

1500m women
3:52.47 Tatyana Kazankina URS

Mile women
4:12.56 Svetlana Masterkova RUS

100m hurdles women
12.21 Yordanka Donkova BUL

400m hurdles women
52.34 Yuliya Pechenkina RUS

womens 4x100
41.37 GDR

womens 4x200
1:28.15 GDR

womens 4x400
3:15.17 URS

womens 4x800
7:50.17 URS

This is evidence that the former GDR and USSR were, to the contrary of fogelsons ‘assumptions’, competitive at the international level and in order to inform those of you that may be mislead by fogelson, gene pools are characterized by specific genetic coding specific to indigenous populations specific to precise geographical locations.

As a result, to state that They weren’t even competitive with people that have the same genetic pools elsewhere. is fantastically uninformed statement to make as this implies that fogelson has managed to categorize gene pools based solely upon skin tone.

Well, let’s hope that fogelson doesn’t share this with black athletes or they will be mighty disappointed to find out that just because their skin tone is dark they don’t automatically inherit the ACTN3 gene.

20

The performances you state were from a time where women ran 10.4 and flirted with 25’ long jumps. The 80s are long gone. Women aren’t men anymore for the most part.