Program Management in D3 Football

Header courtesy of Mike Kabay

Program management first went viral in May of 2012. It appeared in an article by James Smith, Sport Training Program Management – The Criminal Nature of its Absence, on elitefts™. However, the concept has been around for a very long time, dating back to the 1950s when Yuri Verkhoshansky started using a system of training means and methods in the preparation of his jumpers (and most likely before this). The working definition of a program manager is “the individual with autonomy over the sport training process.” This individual will have the final say in what is done on the field and in the weight room (and wherever physical, technical, tactical, and psychological preparation sessions will take place).

Many coaches have used this concept without calling themselves a program manager. Usually they will simply call themselves a “coach.” Here is a brief list of those "coaches" who are truly program managers:

• Charlie Francis
• Anatoli Bondarchuk
• Yuri Verkhoshansky
• Dan Pfaff
• Glen Mills
• Stephen Francis
• Tom Tellez
• Ivan Abadjiev

If you recognize all of these coaches’ names, you will know that each and every one of them has worked with one of the following sports:

1. Sprints
2. Throws
3. Weightlifting

Basically, any coach who has the autonomy of the training process and gets to orchestrate any efforts aimed at increasing an athlete’s sport results is the program manager.

The unifying belief amongst all of these coaches is that they view training as an entire systematic process aimed at reaching one goal: increasing sport results. They do not view sessions “in the weight room” or “mental toughness workouts” as independent from sport practice or competitions. Rather, they view everything as interdependent and believe that each individual part must be complimentary to the others based on the goal during the annual cycle. Anything and everything that they do with their athletes is done to achieve the best training result. For these coaches, there is no “because they aren’t working hard”, “we need to condition more because we are out of shape”, or “why are we only lifting two days a week?” when it comes to planning and organizing their athletes' training.

The nature of these three sports, in that they require limited bio-motor abilities compared to team and combat sports, make them a better candidate for a coach to oversee the entirety of the training process. That is not an excuse, however, for a coach to ignore principles of sport science/methodology/pedagogy/physiology and sport biomechanics as guides for the training process. Program management and unified efforts amongst all coaches and support individuals associated with one team is possible.

Program Management in Team Sports

The football team from Waynesburg University successfully used concepts of program management in its 2012 training year. Below is a timeline of key points, along with specific examples, of what was done:

Off-season:

• The off-season period (January to March) was organized according to bio-motor/energetic/dynamic objectives moving from general to specific.
• Collaborative efforts amongst coaches during physical preparation sessions allowed them to individualize the work as much as possible to meet each athlete’s needs. (i.e. individual coaches oversaw either the lineman, combo, skill etc. groups on the floor with an appointed coach responsible for the management and flow of the sessions).
• Each training session was guided by High-Low sequencing and bio-motor/energetic/dynamic reciprocity according to the work of C. Francis, V. Issurin, and Y. Verkhoshansky. (i.e. High CNS Stress + Strength + Speed + Power + Alactic Power vs. Low CNS Stress + Endurance + Stamina + Suppleness + Aerobic Capacity)

Spring Ball:

• During the spring ball period (March-April), the physical preparation efforts outside of the sport practice sessions were moved to a “maintenance” level. (i.e. 50-70% total volume, <80% intensity for lifts, no sprinting outside of practice sessions, and the most intensive jump efforts were broad jumps)
• In order to reduce exposure to high-intensity CNS stressors across multiple days, 30-50% volume of reactive/elastic and explosive jumps, along with explosive medicine ball throws, was done after the warm-up one to two times a week.
• Each practice was initiated with a walk/jog/run in order to increase the athletes' heart rates and circulation.
• Extensive calisthenics, dynamic stretches, and joint circles were done before each practice in hopes of reducing the likelihood of injury.

Summer:

• During the summer (May-early August), athletes are sent home from school. To combat the lack of access to the athletes, extensive program manuals were given to each athlete. There were at least 50 distinct training programs given to the athletes and contact with the physical preparation coach (via text, phone, and email) was encouraged in order to continue to individualize the work load.
• Once again, the training plan followed programming and organization principles that were similar to what took place during the off-season (January to March). (i.e. sequencing of bio-motor/energetic/dynamic abilities from block-to-block, organized into a High-Low model on a day-to-day basis)
• The biggest change was the inclusion of sprints and tempo runs due to the warm weather and the fact that there was no longer a constraint on space.

Training Camp:

• All athletes reported to training camp in early August. After completing all pre-screening medical evaluations, the athletes took place in a general strength and movement assessment in the form of an extensive, but modified, active/dynamic warm-up. This gave all of the coaches a better idea of the preparedness and specific fitness of the athletes.
• Next, the athletes were given a sport specific test as shown below:
  • Line: 5x10yd <2.5s (30s + 2m RI) + 5x40yd @ 7.2 seconds (30s + 3m RI) x2
  • Combo: 5x20yd <3.6s (30s + 2m RI) + 5x50yd @ 8 seconds (30s + 3m RI) x2
  • Skill:  5x30yd <4.7s (30s + 2m RI) + 5x60yd @ 9.2 seconds (30s + 3m RI) x 2

This test assessed alactic-aerobic capacity along with specific bio-motor and dynamic needs dependent on position. All athletes who had been in the winter and summer preparation programs diligently passed with flying colors. Several newcomers, however, did not pass, along with athletes who did not participate in either the winter or summer preparation programs.

• Due to the stress of training camp, any physical preparation sessions were utilized as either recovery/regeneration or maintenance for general bio-motor abilities. (i.e. PNF stretching, abdominal work, aerobic work, SMR, etc.)

2012 Season:

The 2012 season was a very tumultuous, yet rewarding journey for the Waynesburg Football team. Below is a list of what was done from a sport -raining perspective and culminates with our record and other relevant statistics.

The practice schedule was organized as follows:

 

Notes:

• Armor = Soft shoulder pads + girdle
• Shells = Shoulder pads + girdle
• Intensity/Volume are subjective and not based off any metric, but rather on observation and the reaction of the players.

The physical preparation schedule was as follows:

 

 

Notes:

• “Vet” players were those who were receiving significant playing time in the previous or upcoming game.
• “Rook” players were all freshmen players, as well as any player who was not receiving significant playing time.
• AR = Active recovery
• UB = Upper body weight training
• LB = Lower body weight training
• Ex MB = Explosive med ball
• GPP = General physical preparation (in this case, various calisthenic and gymnastic moves)
• Sunday was active recovery for vets; upper body weight training for rooks.
• Monday was the most sporadic day, and the typology was dependent on the previous game. JV games were played on this day.
• The players only attended one of the sessions on Wednesday or Thursday. Vets performed upper body weight training; Rooks performed lower body.
• No more than three to five exercises were done on each day, <80% intensity and 50-70% volume
• Many, many individual adjustments were made for a specific player. (i.e. quarterback/kicker/punter program, injuries, those who were fatigued from having larger amount of plays during the game than usual, etc.)
• In most cases, a range was assigned to the intensity, and the volume was prescribed by the coach. The higher the level of preparedness an athlete had, the more involvement in the programming and selection he had.
• The biggest points that must be stressed are that the resulting schedule was based on how the players were reacting to the loading, the stress/result of the game, weather restrictions, and many other factors. Collaboration between all coaches and the athletic training staff was done in order to form the best daily and weekly plan for the players.

The Result

When it was all said and done, Waynesburg finished the season 10-1, winning a share of the President’s Athletic Conference. They also hosted an ECAC Bowl game, which they won, and they tied the school record for most wins in the season. From a health standpoint, there were no soft tissue injuries sustained throughout the entire year, and only two post-season surgeries were induced by contact plays. The players were awarded multiple All-Conference, All-Region, and All-American accolades.

This is only one instance where the beauty of program management has led to a successful season. It is my hope that more coaches (both sport and physical preparation alike) will take notice of this concept, along with the guiding principles of sport science, sports physiology, and sports biomechanics, and do what (in my mind) is the most important thing in sport training—make decisions based on what is best for your athletes.