starting strength gym
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Jared Nessland SSC: From College Strength Coach to SS Denver

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    1

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Just inserting my two cents. Completely agree with your statement that bonuses/salary increases for on field team success is not a great metric to prove effectiveness for the job of a strength coach. However, I also agree with Jared that injury rate is in no way the next best thing to measure. Even though at the collegiate level you hope to prevent as much injury occurrence as possible you will never be the only stressor and stimulus the athlete experiences throughout a season/academic year. Not that the general population does not also have life stressors and busy schedules, but they also don’t have sport coaches that think it’s purely mental toughness or lack of nutritional supplements as to why they are so tired and under recovered.

    I worked with a softball team that allowed me decent freedom until they didn’t based on things the head coach had learned at conventions or online with what other (more often better, top tier) teams were doing. We did a strength test (Sqt, Press, BP, DL) and a conditioning test upon return in the fall and again in the spring before season. In the spring you didn’t play till you passed. Had an athlete who knowingly slept less than 5 hours a night, took in no more than 1000 shitty calories, and participated in ROTC at 6am. After that she had class and was to report to me for the conditioning test. She passed by the skin of her teeth then practiced right after. She tore her ACL fielding a routine ground ball. The pitchers also performed “strength” workouts in practice that consisted of a chosen pitcher hitting a spot multiple times in a row while the remaining pitchers rode an assault bike, performed air squats, or jumps of some sort. If she kept missing they kept going. Could result in 1:30-2 hours of straight pitching and the result would be a profound effect for a couple days following and the soreness would turn out to be the fact that we bench or press in the weight room. I don’t want to lose the forest for the trees and these examples could go on and on for different coaches.

    I had recorded metrics of improvement in the weight room: Sqt, BP, Press, DL, Clean, BW, 10/20 yard sprints, Jumps to show that physical metrics had been improved over time. But comparing these metrics to an industry average is also ill-advised because very few coaches follow the same model to ensure the movements are being performed the same way every time, or the test is performed the same way, etc. so the validity wouldn’t be there. As much as we would hope it would be across the industry.

    To add, strength and skill are different performance parameters that don’t always correlate. Sometimes the strongest isn’t the most-skilled. Now everything else equal, skill included, you take the stronger athlete every time but that’s a perfect world when skill is equal throughout the roster. And if the strong athletes aren’t skilled the coach sees that as the weight room not doing “its job” in making the athlete a better softball, basketball, volleyball player. This also ties into why sport-specific metrics aren’t a great idea for our measurements but could be a great measurement for sport coaches in their ability to take a stronger, more physically capable athlete and make them a better “insert sport” player. And I don’t mean for that to sound condescending at all just a different way to think about it.

    Also, the position of administration needing to be a former strength coach is great in theory... if the individual can maintain an objective stance based on education and expertise. If their goal is just to keep the sport coaches happy and find a compromise to ease the working the relationship not only are we failing to educate those with less knowledge of the field but we are perpetuating an industry that allows sport coaches, not strength coaches, to choose what their athletes do in the weight room or in conditioning.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Rip, who do you think a college strength coach should report to, and how do you think they should be evaluated?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    "Team building," hazing, pep rallying, dick-measuring, and fear are the current staples in D1 S&C. As long as someone wins the game, other stupid people (mainly in the media) will say that the aforementioned approach is working well enough to win the game/conference title/national championship/Prune Bowl. I don't know that reporting to a superior will solve this very serious problem. It certainly should not be a head coach who has proven that he is not capable of evaluating strength and conditioning. It might be useful to appoint someone in the AD's office to be responsible for S&C, AT, rehab, etc., that removes the sports coaches from the circuit. But as it stands now, unqualified stupid people, who all believe themselves to be both highly intelligent and supremely qualified, are in the absolutely worst possible positions in college athletics.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    "Team building," hazing, pep rallying, dick-measuring, and fear are the current staples in D1 S&C. As long as someone wins the game, other stupid people (mainly in the media) will say that the aforementioned approach is working well enough to win the game/conference title/national championship/Prune Bowl. I don't know that reporting to a superior will solve this very serious problem. It certainly should not be a head coach who has proven that he is not capable of evaluating strength and conditioning. It might be useful to appoint someone in the AD's office to be responsible for S&C, AT, rehab, etc., that removes the sports coaches from the circuit. But as it stands now, unqualified stupid people, who all believe themselves to be both highly intelligent and supremely qualified, are in the absolutely worst possible positions in college athletics.
    Yes, i've been less then impressed with the "suits" during my career. One great AD in my time. A major reason i left SIU for Sac State. He made it clear that he felt strength and conditioning was important, could make a difference, would always have our back no matter what and that we were the experts in our area, nobody else. I reported directly to him, he made it clear that the football coach wasn't my boss. Everything went downhill in our area when he retired. Sport coaches started making demands and we no longer had the support from above. Unfortunate and all too common everywhere. I'm not sure he was fully able to adequately "evaluate" me, but i think he just did all his work on the front end. Identifying what he was looking for, who he wanted, etc. then letting that person do their job.

    Rip, how does an administrator effectively evaluate a SC? or what should they be evaluated on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    Jared, what metrics did you use or consider to prove to the coaches/administrators that you were in fact doing your job more effectively than your predecessor?
    I know some university S&C coaches get bonuses or salary increases based on the on-field success of the team. However, that is often not a valid evaluation criterion.

    It looks like Injury rates are an excellent metric. The average improvement of the main lifts of the athletes compared to an industry average would be a good metric, I assume. Body composition may be another. There are likely several physiological and sport-specific metrics that could be of value. How did you approach it, how well did your approach pan out and how much data did you compile over your time at Sacramento State?
    Yngvi, to answer your question more precisely, I was evaluated using the department Head Coach evaluation form (where 3/4 of it didn't apply to me).

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jared Nessland View Post
    Rip, how does an administrator effectively evaluate a SC? or what should they be evaluated on?
    The logical way is the improvement in strength by each player, each year and over the entire time they have with the SC.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Reid View Post
    "I am not very sentimental or emotional, and I don't often express myself well."

    There is real sentiment, emotion and expression all throughout this piece Jared. It is an excellent summation of your career to date. And I have no doubt all those you seek to thank will appreciate every word.

    Congratulations on the many successes you've had to this point. I trust you'll receive the same level of gratification, if not more, training members of the general populous, as you did college athletes.

    I'm really looking forward the opening of SS Denver, and wish you every success.

    Great article Jared. I agree there is real sentiment, emotion and expression in this piece. As a collegiate S&C coach I agree with everything you have written and my journey has been similar. Nice work. Good luck with SS Denver!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Like it or not collegiate S&C will almost always be linked to wins and losses. The Injury rate I think is tough because there are so many factors involved. I have been doing this for over 20 years and I have seen some years with a low injury rate and others have been higher. We will never be able to prevent all injuries but we may be able to make them more resistant to injury and more resilient if injured. There are so many things outside the control of the S&C coach that contribute to injury rates (sleep, nutrition, athlete adherence, previous injury history, length of practice, difficulty of practice, surface of practice/competition, equipment and many more) that it's use in evaluation should be cautioned. I have tracked improvement in the main lifts, improvements in jumping and sprint time, change of direction and, body composition. I have found this to be of little help and will be ignored over a coaches perception of how fast, strong or how an athlete should look. There is so much junk and myth out there as far as what an athlete can run or jump and how much those things can be improved that a sport coach can look at hard numbers of improvement and believe the program is not working. Sport coaches would rather see the S&C yelling and jumping up and down and making the athletes puke. If they see that they are more likely to believe the program is "working" than seeing objective facts.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Interesting topic for sure. A lot of moving parts to the equation. I agree with Jared 100% with his article and the shortcomings of collegiate strength and conditioning. It is also a fine line to walk when you work with individuals that are making certain suggestions to training when their job is contingent upon wins and losses. Which goes back to what Coach Alejo is talking about with restructuring the athletics reporting structure.

    Related thoughts. Are we:

    Keeping our athletes safe? Coaching proper technique.
    We can take every precaution in the world, teach exceptional technique, use proper progressions, and if you are training and pushing the envelope…sometimes shit happens. On the flip side if you are so worried about injuries that happen in training and you program on the conservative side, are you able to create enough stimulus for adaptation? That will result in underprepared athletes that increase their risk of injury on the field. So “over” training is just as detrimental as “under” training.

    Are the athletes increasing their strength, power, and speed?
    Again I agree with Jared that if you are not testing you are just guessing. The wild card here is there are some sport coaches that do not believe in numbers. Shocking I know since every sport employs statisticians so they know the stats. Well a test/re-test are our stats. As Amanda mentioned earlier we can increase their stats from a training or physiological perspective, but that may not transfer to the field of play. Not because we haven’t improved the athletes athleticism, but they may not have the requisite skill to play at a certain level. I had an athlete in the top 3 of all of our metrics that we tested at the time (Squat, bench, clean, VJ, Pro test) but was “stiff” on the playing field. It must be the S&C coaches fault!!! However, we don’t want to account for the multiple position changes and the learning curve that comes with that.

    Are we upholding the culture of accountability, teamwork, hard work?
    Unfortunately this is subjective. The sport coach and the strength staff may have differing ideas on what accountability, and hard work looks like. This is a part of culture, and unfortunately the douche donkey’s that wear shmedium shirts with their sleeves cut off and run around breaking boards over their backs is the new definition of strength and conditioning.

    Do our athletes exhibit proficient technique in the basic movements?
    One thing that has stuck with me was a way to evaluate your program and coaching, was to assume that someone was observing you through a two way mirror. Are you proud of what that individual is witnessing through the mirror? Is everyone in the room perfect? No, but that is our goal to have everyone “look good”. I had a great compliment a few years ago from another collegiate strength coach from a rival school that was on campus to visit. He was thoroughly impressed in the work ethic, technical proficiency, and organization of the workout. I did not have to raise my voice, or be a “cheerleader”, as the athletes understood what was expected of them in how they should conduct themselves and accomplish the task at hand. That does not mean that there was not positive coaching and motivation, but no douchebaggery. With that said, in 17 years of coaching I have not had one administrator come and observe a workout. They are taking second and third hand information and making decisions on biased or uneducated opinions.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Logic. That is the problem. It is rarely used, I wish it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jared Nessland View Post
    Yes, i've been less then impressed with the "suits" during my career. One great AD in my time. A major reason i left SIU for Sac State. He made it clear that he felt strength and conditioning was important, could make a difference, would always have our back no matter what and that we were the experts in our area, nobody else. I reported directly to him, he made it clear that the football coach wasn't my boss. Everything went downhill in our area when he retired. Sport coaches started making demands and we no longer had the support from above. Unfortunate and all too common everywhere. I'm not sure he was fully able to adequately "evaluate" me, but i think he just did all his work on the front end. Identifying what he was looking for, who he wanted, etc. then letting that person do their job.

    Rip, how does an administrator effectively evaluate a SC? or what should they be evaluated on?


    Yngvi, to answer your question more precisely, I was evaluated using the department Head Coach evaluation form (where 3/4 of it didn't apply to me).
    Usually, the administrator simply asks the coaches their opinion of the S&C coach. So the evaluation comes back to what the HC / Assistant coaches think. I have supervisor now who though he does not know S&C has been very fair and has been about the best I can ask for at this point.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,363

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by amanda_sheppard View Post
    I had recorded metrics of improvement in the weight room: Sqt, BP, Press, DL, Clean, BW, 10/20 yard sprints, Jumps to show that physical metrics had been improved over time. But comparing these metrics to an industry average is also ill-advised because very few coaches follow the same model to ensure the movements are being performed the same way every time, or the test is performed the same way, etc. so the validity wouldn’t be there. As much as we would hope it would be across the industry.
    .
    I agree with the majority of what you wrote.
    Measurement variability across the industry can certainly present a challenge with many of the lifts and tests (including dexa tests that will be dependent on the technician). Even the Standing vertical jump test can be measured differently or be gamed to juice the numbers. On the other hand, I noticed the NSCA, in its Essentials of Strength and Conditioning textbook has a table of average lifts by sport, gender and division; The numbers look low enough that an athlete running an SS program for over a year should blow them out of the water even with the variability in testing methods being considered. For example, it pegs the average 1RM squat of division 1 male basketball player at 265lbs. For D1 female softball players, that squat 1RM number is 125lbs. And, remember, those charts are averages from the literature that has been compiled over several decades, so the "industry averages" are not going to change any time soon. [In addition, we can normalize the data for your athletes; if you know one of them has been injured and has a low number because they haven't been able to train, you exclude it. If one of them has been missing workouts, it can be excluded. If they have been losing bodyweight when they were not supposed to, it can be excluded. As I understand it, the statistical analysis of those numbers and associated methods would fall within your purview as head of S&C] People may take notice if you can claim your players are getting 50% stronger than the average athlete in their sport.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jared Nessland View Post
    Yngvi, to answer your question more precisely, I was evaluated using the department Head Coach evaluation form (where 3/4 of it didn't apply to me).
    There seem to be a few recurring thoughts here:
    1. The review was not applicable to a S&C coach
    2. The admins may not listen to or care about effective evaluation. (and in the event that they do care, you could be following a "medical model" where you could be unfortunate enough to report to a risk-averse Dr or public health employee who does not think it is necessary to lift more than 50lbs)
    3, The current hierarchy and reporting structure disincentivises the use of effective training methods.

    Maybe there is an economic argument that could get their attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    The logical way is the improvement in strength by each player, each year and over the entire time they have with the SC.
    That is the obvious way, but it is too easy, not flashy enough and challenges too many preconceived notions.

    Quote Originally Posted by NateMoe50 View Post
    Logic. That is the problem. It is rarely used, I wish it was.
    That is the problem. They are concerned with several factors before logic.

    They may be open to an argument for effectiveness in the form of a data-driven statistical analysis (this may even include composite scores for metrics like: strength and power); It looks academic, it gives the illusion of a high-tech approach, it leaves some room for flexibility, the coaches won't understand the analysis well enough to hit you with a knee-jerk reaction or specific demand and above all, it is marketable. That being said, they still may ignore it, unless it gets published in a journal.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •