STRENGHT AND CONDITIONING COACH

Maintaining strength during season is a different animal. That’s why 3 out of the top 4 openly juice to maintain strength throughout the season. OState isn’t as noticeable as Clemson, bama, and uga.
Thank you for your comment, we have lacked explosive strength ever since B.Davis guy Moffet left. i think the S&C given the attitude could put together a Bama, UGA , Clemson , Wisconsin,OSU type program but think administration or someone is blocking this type of S&C program
 
Advertisement
No problem. I did an internship with men's and women's basketball/soccer S&C here at UM while I was getting my Master's in Exercise Physiology. I don't really have much insight anymore as that was many years ago and many of the coaches I worked with are no longer there. I only heard from friends about the stuff Swasey was doing and I've posted before on this forum that it was very archaic and not good at all. I met him and he seemed like a gentleman but he's from that "old school" period of strength coaching that's been superseded by updated science and programming.

I could write for hours about this but I would just say that Strength and Conditioning is tough because it is not an exact science. There are multiple viable ideologies for training a team of players, and so many coaches across the country will implement their S&C programs in different ways. I'm highly critical of the new influx of psuedo-powerlifting that's seeped into S&C lately (pretty sure this is what the guy at Clemson implements) just as much as I am about the guys who are scared to have their guys touch a barbell. As I mentioned in an earlier post, sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the entire purpose of resistance training is to make you better at football, not to see how much weight you can lift. I'd guess nobody cares how much Ed Reed benched when he was playing.

I would say the "ideal" S&C coach - or what separates the good ones from the bad or average ones - is someone whose programming can change based on new information. And this is similar to coaching in general, right? If you're still trying to run the Wing-T in today's game you're going to get crushed. But there's a TON of ego in this field and guys love to tout how they've been doing this since 1982 and blablabla and it's the only way to do it (Swasey). But if you go to a conference and it turns out there's a safer or more effective way to get the same results, that should be something you strive to implement in your own program even if it wasn't your idea. However, the S&C coach also has to be a motivator and a guy that gets the team fired up; they need to come in the weight room ready to work because they've bought into the system and they respect the coach. If you don't have that you don't have anything, even if you have a perfect plan.

Anyway like I said I could talk for hours about this stuff but I'm kinda rambling so I'll leave it there lol.
THIS IS THE INFORMATION, TONE AND KNOWLEDGE THAT WE PAY FOR ON THIS SIGHT*







on a serious note, great information. thank you.
 
No problem. I did an internship with men's and women's basketball/soccer S&C here at UM while I was getting my Master's in Exercise Physiology. I don't really have much insight anymore as that was many years ago and many of the coaches I worked with are no longer there. I only heard from friends about the stuff Swasey was doing and I've posted before on this forum that it was very archaic and not good at all. I met him and he seemed like a gentleman but he's from that "old school" period of strength coaching that's been superseded by updated science and programming.

I could write for hours about this but I would just say that Strength and Conditioning is tough because it is not an exact science. There are multiple viable ideologies for training a team of players, and so many coaches across the country will implement their S&C programs in different ways. I'm highly critical of the new influx of psuedo-powerlifting that's seeped into S&C lately (pretty sure this is what the guy at Clemson implements) just as much as I am about the guys who are scared to have their guys touch a barbell. As I mentioned in an earlier post, sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the entire purpose of resistance training is to make you better at football, not to see how much weight you can lift. I'd guess nobody cares how much Ed Reed benched when he was playing.

I would say the "ideal" S&C coach - or what separates the good ones from the bad or average ones - is someone whose programming can change based on new information. And this is similar to coaching in general, right? If you're still trying to run the Wing-T in today's game you're going to get crushed. But there's a TON of ego in this field and guys love to tout how they've been doing this since 1982 and blablabla and it's the only way to do it (Swasey). But if you go to a conference and it turns out there's a safer or more effective way to get the same results, that should be something you strive to implement in your own program even if it wasn't your idea. However, the S&C coach also has to be a motivator and a guy that gets the team fired up; they need to come in the weight room ready to work because they've bought into the system and they respect the coach. If you don't have that you don't have anything, even if you have a perfect plan.

Anyway like I said I could talk for hours about this stuff but I'm kinda rambling so I'll leave it there lol.
Great post. I agree wholeheartedly. Too many focus on building better lifters and not building better athletes
 
Advertisement
Back
Top