SCIENCE DISCUSSION(NO PLAGIARISM, A++ WORK, QUALITY, ON TIME)

54

International Sport Coaching Journal, 2016, 3, 54 -64

© 2016 Human Kinetics, Inc. BEST PRACTICES http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2015-0007

Andy Gillham owns and operates Ludus Consulting LLC focusing on performance enhancement for athletes, coaches and business executives in the USA and Canada. Of specific note is his work with coaches and athletic administrators on improving systematic coach evaluation and providing targeted coach development opportunities. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist through the National Strength and Conditioning Association and a certified consultant through the Association for Applied Sport Psychology.

Gary Schofield is the head Strength and Conditioning Coach at Greater Atlanta Christian School, a private high school in Norcross, GA. He has served in the same position for 15 years and is the NSCA Southeast Regional Coordinator, a former NSCA State Direc- tor and the 2012 NSCA High School Strength and Conditioning Coach of the Year.

Michael Doscher is the head Speed and Strength and Conditioning Coach at Valdosta State University in Valdosta, GA. Multiple teams training under Doscher have won national championships and Doscher was named College Strength and Conditioning Coach of the year in 2005 by the NSCA and was the NCAA Division II Strength and Conditioning Coach of the year in 2007. He was further recognized with the certification of Master Strength and Conditioning Coach (MSCC) in 2009 by the Collegiate Strength and Conditioning Association (CSCCa).

Joe Kenn is the head Strength and Conditioning Coach for the Carolina Panthers in the National Football League. Kenn has won both the Professional (2014) and College (2002) Strength and Conditioning coach of the year awards from the NSCA and has earned the MSCC certification.

Dan Dalrymple is the head Strength and Conditioning Coach for the New Orleans Saints in the National Football League. Dalrymple was named the Cybex Professional Strength and Conditioning coach of the year and the Samson Strength and Conditioning coach of the year, and has earned the MSCC certification.

Address author correspondence to Andy Gillham at [email protected]

Developing and Implementing a Coaching Philosophy: Guidance From Award-Winning Strength

and Conditioning Coaches

Andy Gillham Ludus Consulting, LLC

Michael Doscher Valdosta State

Gary Schofield Greater Atlanta Christian School

Dan Dalrymple New Orleans Saints

Joe Kenn Carolina Panthers

Traditional examinations of coaching philosophies consider the perspective of sport coaches (e.g., soccer, cricket, rugby). The focus on sport coaches’ coaching philosophy has advanced the study of coaching effec- tiveness while simultaneously omitting strength and conditioning coaches from the larger body of literature on coaching philosophy. The purpose of this paper is to reveal how award winning strength and conditioning coaches shape and use their coaching philosophy. The participants include four renowned strength and con- ditioning coaches, one at the high school, one at the college, and two at the professional level. A summary is provided at the end that examines commonalities (e.g., all the respondents expressed the need to have a specific coaching philosophy) and differences (e.g., how discipline factors into their coaching philosophy) across the respondents’ views and connects their viewpoints to the broader literature on sport coaching.

Keywords: professional roles, coaching dynamics, youth sport, professional sport

Award-Winning Strength and Conditioning Coaches 55

ISCJ Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

The primary reason for coaches to develop a coach- ing philosophy is to help guide them through difficult decisions (Burton & Raedeke, 2008; Hammermesiter, 2010). Coaching philosophy is a consistent topic in the sport coaching literature as evidenced by its presence in books (e.g., Burton & Raedeke, 2008), research papers (e.g., Carless & Douglas, 2011), and organizational papers (e.g., ICCE, 2014). The breadth of information on coaching philosophy also spans high school (e.g., Gould, Collins, Lauer, & Chung, 2007), college (e.g., Yukelson & Rose, 2014) and professional (e.g., Bennie & O’Connor, 2010) competitive levels. In-depth examina- tions of exceptional coaches have been published (e.g., John Wooden; Jenkins, 2014) and Perez, Van Horn and Otten (2014) report those in-depth examinations have helped young coaches. One commonality is that the coaches examined were coaches of a specific sport, such as cricket (Bennie & O’Connor, 2010) or soccer (Wang & Straub, 2012). Comparisons of coaching philosophy have also been detailed across sport adaptations (e.g., wheelchair versus stand-up basketball; Robbins, Houston, & Dummer, 2010). Models or frameworks that include coaching philosophy have been developed to further guide researchers in studying the concept (e.g., Gould & Carson, 2008; Vealey, 2005). Links between life skill development in athletes and a coach’s philosophy have been established across a series of articles (i.e., Collins, Gould, Lauer, & Chung, 2009; Gould, Collins, Lauer, & Chung, 2006; Gould et al., 2007). Despite all of the atten- tion paid to coaching philosophies, a notable exception is the philosophies of strength and conditioning coaches.

The disparity of importance of a coaching philosophy in a sport coaching context compared with a strength and conditioning context is striking when examining text books and organizational standards. In the sport coaching domain, information on developing, and the importance of having, a coaching philosophy seems to be a prerequisite for nearly all coaching textbooks. Different authors from across the world have different approaches, but the message from them is clear, coaching philosophy is important (Burton & Raedeke, 2008; Ham- mermeister, 2010; Lyle, 2005; Martens, 2012; Robinson, 2015; Sproule, 2015; Vealey, 2005). Coaching standards in the USA (SHAPE, 2014) and internationally (ICCE, 2014) emphasize the importance of coaching philosophy. Conversely, the preeminent textbook for strength and conditioning coaches (Baechle & Earle, 2008) makes no mention of a coaching philosophy. Coaching philosophy as a topic is entirely absent from the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) standards and guidelines for strength coaches (NSCA, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to reveal how award winning strength and conditioning coaches shape and use their coaching philosophy.

Coaching Philosophy in a Strength and Conditioning Context

While there is not a universally accepted definition of a coaching philosophy and debate about how it has been used in the literature exists (Cushion & Partington, 2014), a central theme is that coaches make choices based on their individual values and their actions should be guided by, and congruent with, those values (Burton & Raedeke, 2008; Lyle, 2005; Vealey, 2005). When the concept of a coaching philosophy is applied to strength and condition- ing, the results have been murky. The confusion stems from a mixture of operational definitions for the term ‘philosophy’ that is not inherently synonymous with how the term is used when referring to sport coaches which also has some authors (Cushion & Partington, 2014) calling for a reexamination of the discourse on coaching philosophy. Gearity (2010) expressed a need to clarify the use of the term ‘philosophy’ within the strength and conditioning field because the term has been used to describe a coach’s mission, a specific attitude or belief, a specific method of training, a coach’s style, a system of training or the even more abstract theory of training. One particularly murky example of the term ‘philosophy’ in a strength and conditioning context involved the recruiting process. Petersen, Wagner and Greener (2012) discussed the role of a strength and conditioning coach (SCC) in recruiting potential student athletes and a critical read- ing of the article shows four different ways ‘philosophy’ was used to describe: (a) the strength coaching staff’s collective program philosophy, (b) general training phi- losophies, (c) the head sport coach’s philosophy about recruiting, and (d) an evaluation comparing program philosophy to potential student athletes.

Aspiring sport coaches can turn to a number of text- based sources to get help building a coaching philosophy (e.g., Robinson, 2015; Sproule, 2015) and some may even find examples for the sport they coach (e.g., soccer; Wang & Straub, 2012). This is a crucial point because sport coaches report learning how to coach from other sport coaches (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003; Erickson, Bruner, MacDonald, & Côté, 2008; Nash & Sproule, 2009). But what of aspiring strength and conditioning coaches, where do those coaches turn for answers? The problem seems compounded if the expert coaches, espe- cially those serving as mentors, do not have a coaching philosophy. Sport coaching literature (e.g., Robinson, 2015) could be used to build a framework or model for coaching philosophies in strength and conditioning making a plethora of research paths viable. Research on those paths may even be able to avoid some of the mis- steps described by Cushion and Partington (2014) from the sport coach literature. However, before any of those research paths are explored, it seems prudent to ask SCC

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

on 1

2/ 27

/1 6,

V ol

um e

3, A

rt ic

le N

um be

r 1

56 Gillham et al.

ISCJ Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

if they even have a coaching philosophy as it is difficult to study how a coaching philosophy was developed, what it is used for, explore problems that developed or best practices for applying a coaching philosophy if the participants do not have one.

There are examples in a SCC context (e.g., Chiu, 2010) of authors using the concept of a coaching philoso- phy in the same way as described in sport coach contexts. Chiu (2010) explained the importance of SCC utilizing a coaching philosophy and described having a personal coaching philosophy as being a sound foundational base from which to build a professional practice. Going further, Chiu (2010) provided examples of how SCC typically do not use an underlying coaching philosophy to guide their actions. In partial support of Chiu (2010), Grant and Dorgo (2014) provided example characteristics of SCC at three different levels of expertise and described novice coaches as not having a coaching philosophy, competent coaches as developing their personal philosophy and expert coaches as being able to clearly describe their philosophy. Further examination of the literature when coaching philosophy is used synonymously across sport coach and SCC contexts shows a pattern that SCC should explain their coaching philosophy to others as a way to improve buy-in. Bennett (2007) encourages SCC to share their coaching philosophy with the sport coaches they work with. Vanderbush and Nitka (2007) described the challenge of SCC and sport coaches working together with the primary source of disagreement between SCC and sport coaches stemming from differing coaching philosophies. Murray, Zakrajsek and Gearity (2014) considered the sharing of coaching philosophies to be the initial step in developing a community of practice for SCC. However, the problem with advocating for SCC to share their philosophies with others is that the strength and conditioning coach must actually have a coaching philosophy, which may not be a safe assumption. In summary, coaching philosophies in SCC contexts are advocated for but not clearly expressed or described in the literature. The lack of examples of SCC providing details on coaching philosophy is concerning because working with a SCC is commonplace across collegiate and more elite competitive levels, and increasingly common at the high school level.

Question Development and Sample Recruitment

Gearity and Mills (2012) described the lack of psycho- social research involving SCC as a problem and advo- cated for additional research on the psycho-social aspects of SCC. Gilbert and Baldis (2014) applied sport coach literature to the SCC context and specifically considered coaches at different expertise levels to emphasize the importance of contextual differences when considering coaching effectiveness. Research across sport coaching and SCC contexts were considered to formulate topics (i.e., coaching philosophy, athlete discipline, relationships

between sport coaches and SCC) that seemed important to both sport coaches and SCC. SCC from high school, NCAA Division II and the National Football League (NFL) were solicited to respond to a series of questions.

Question Development

Questions used in this paper were open-ended, developed specifically for this project and had roots directly in the literature. The first question (i.e., having a coaching philosophy) was the natural starting place based on the recommendations of previous authors (e.g., Grant & Dorgo, 2014) that expert level coaches would be able to describe their coaching philosophy. In addition, there is a noticeable absence of SCC providing examples of their coaching philosophy in the literature. Question two (i.e., disciplining athletes as it relates to a coaching philosophy) was included because Wagner, Greener and Petersen (2012) identified athlete discipline as the single most important factor in the overall success of a strength and conditioning program. Gearity and Mills (2012) described a typical scenario for SCC that achieved athlete compli- ance primarily through fear based mechanisms which may be reflected in a coach’s philosophy. Question three (i.e., transferability of coaching philosophy) targeted the importance of context which has been described as criti- cal to the effectiveness of SCC (Chiu, 2010; Gilbert & Baldis, 2014) and that it is acceptable for coaching phi- losophies to change given new information (Chiu, 2010; Jeffreys, 2014; Murray et al., 2014). The fourth question (i.e., advice to young coaches) was included because the concept of mentorship or working with novice coaches was alluded to by previous authors (Grant & Dorgo, 2014; Jeffreys, 2014; Murray et al., 2014; Gillham, Doscher, Schofield, Dalrymple, & Bird, in-press). Question five (i.e., working with sport coaches) examined the interac- tions between SCC and sport coaches as this is a critical variable in the career of a strength coach (Bennett, 2007; Greener, Petersen, Pinske, 2013; Greener, Petersen, Pinske, 2014; Wagner, Greener, Petersen, 2011; Wagner et al., 2012; Vanderbush & Nitka, 2007).

Sample Recruitment

The first author contacted a colleague from the national office of the NSCA seeking recommendations for high- level SCC that were likely to provide thoughtful responses to a series of questions, a recruitment procedure congru- ent with previous research recruiting coaches to serve as participants (Camiré, Trudel, & Forneris, 2012). Michael Doscher was the first recommended participant and after an exploratory phone call, Doscher agreed to assist in recruiting the remaining participants based on: (a) having won at least one national-level award for their coaching, (b) being willing to provide detailed written answers to e-mailed questions, (c) being known for their coaching practices (i.e., not for working with especially talented or gifted athletes), (d) working as a SCC for at least five years, (e) having a primarily professional relationship

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

on 1

2/ 27

/1 6,

V ol

um e

3, A

rt ic

le N

um be

r 1

Award-Winning Strength and Conditioning Coaches 57

ISCJ Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

with the other coaches in the group (i.e., an attempt to minimize personal relationships and focus more on pro- fessional reputation) and (f) accepting the need to make their contribution public by including their name and contact information in any publication.

Four coaches met the criteria and responded to the first author’s request for participation. Gary Schofield is the head Strength and Conditioning Coach at Greater Atlanta Christian School, a private high school. Schofield has served in the same position for 15 years and is the NSCA Southeast Regional Coordinator, a former NSCA State Director and the 2012 NSCA High School Strength and Conditioning Coach of the Year. Michael Doscher is the head Speed and Strength and Conditioning Coach at Valdosta State University. Multiple teams training under Doscher have won national championships and Doscher was named College Strength and Conditioning Coach of the year in 2005 by the NSCA and was the NCAA Divi- sion II Strength and Conditioning Coach of the year in 2007. Doscher was further recognized with the certifica- tion of Master Strength and Conditioning Coach (MSCC) in 2009 by the Collegiate Strength and Conditioning Association (CSCCa). Joe Kenn is the head Strength and Conditioning Coach for the Carolina Panthers in the NFL. Kenn has won both the Professional (2014) and College (2002) Strength and Conditioning coach of the year awards from the NSCA and has earned the MSCC certification. Dan Dalrymple is the head Strength and Conditioning Coach for the New Orleans Saints in the NFL. Dalrymple was named the Cybex Professional Strength and Conditioning coach of the year and the Samson Strength and Conditioning coach of the year, and has earned the MSCC certification.

Data Generation

All questions were asked of all respondents, each coach was contacted independently and provided one round of follow-up answers and clarifications to complete the process. Only minor editing (i.e., mechanics and style, not content) was done by the first author; thus the respon- dents’ answers are to be viewed as entirely their own.

Gary Schofield—Director of Sports Performance Training, Greater Atlanta Christian School, High School

Question (Q): Sport coaches are recommended to have their own coaching philosophy to guide their behaviors. How does that translate to being a strength and conditioning coach? I believe that the SCC should be as prepared as any sport coach. Before any pen is set to paper, or fingers to keyboard, the SCC must decide on a program philosophy. Program philosophies are internally focused while training principles and programs are externally driven. My program philosophy drives what we do but not the way in which we do it. The first step in creating the program philosophy is to establish

a vision, a mission and a set of core beliefs. These are not meant to be stale words to put on a page or poster, but a living document that will grow as the coach develops as an individual over time. The program philosophy must reflect the character and culture of the program. The training principles used to execute the philosophy only show the knowledge the SCC has gained. I actively reflect on the document before committing to any process to make certain we are progressing down the right path. The second step in developing a program philosophy is to decide three to five general rules that will govern what we do and are developed from our vision, mission and core beliefs. This is the hardest step but is vital to have a solid foundation that athletes and sport coaches can believe in. A major tenet of our program philosophy is safety for the athletes. When looking at exercise systems or selections, if it increases a risk of injury, we will not include it in what we do. Ultimately, if our programs do not allow our athletes to thrive on and off the field, we have missed the entire point of our existence.

Q: How does athlete discipline factor Into your coaching philosophy? What do you do when a player is late, disruptive or not giving full effort? How does your reaction fit within your coaching philosophy? Improving how I deal with athlete discipline is the area that I have grown the most in over the last five years thanks to great mentors in the profession. I grew up with volatile coaches that demanded responses and actions from their athletes. When those responses and actions were not met, consequences were handed out. The culture I became accustomed to was one of ‘have-to’ not ‘want-to’. I had to be on time, or else. I had to make the play, or else. I had to go to work and make a living, or else. This is the way most people go through life, but it is no way to live. A few years ago I read a book on expectations (Harris & Harris, 2008). The thesis was how our American culture has lowered the expectations of people, especially the youth. In the early 1800s, young teens were ship captains in the military; yet today, we don’t expect them to make their own bed. It dawned on me that all the yelling, screaming and demanding did not create a culture I believed in. It did not form the environment that would allow my athletes to thrive. Now, we establish extremely high expectations not high emotions in our program. The rules, expectations and procedures are clearly stated, reviewed and posted. You are expected to meet those to be a part of our program; no exceptions or excuses. When an athlete falls short, there is a consequence. When the athlete takes care of the consequence his/her status is restored. If he does not attend properly to the consequence, he will no longer be part of what we do. The athlete has the choice and is in an environment free from volatile coaching. We have created a culture that allows the athlete to either want-to be here or not; there simply is no have-to be here.

Another seminal moment as a coach came for me at the 2012 NSCA Coaches Conference. I attended a pre- sentation (Boone, 2012) on philosophy. Boone’s central

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

on 1

2/ 27

/1 6,

V ol

um e

3, A

rt ic

le N

um be

r 1

58 Gillham et al.

ISCJ Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

thesis was that what we do is not about us but about our athletes. Being a SCC should not be about creating the perfect program and finding ways to make athletes com- plete it. I spent years trying to become an expert in the profession by learning all I could; not for vain pursuit, but to give that knowledge back to my athletes. Yet year-in and year-out, I would design a program only to see my athletes give half effort, or worse, and then be excited to use a program they saw on an infomercial or the Internet. After Boone’s (2012) session I was forced to realize that coaching is about connecting. If the athletes do not know you care, they will not care what you know. I decided to spend time on learning how to coach, as much as what to coach, and it has made an incredible difference in our program and athletic development.

Q: Is your coaching philosophy site and situation specific or how widely would it translate? Program philosophies should not depend on the skill of the athlete, the size of the facility, or the quality of equipment. Instead, philosophies are internal markers that set the compass for program direction. Conversely, training principles may change or be influenced due to external measures such as site specific variables (e.g., competitive level, facility availability). Good sport coaches consider their athletes when deciding upon a system of play, good SCC should match the training principles of their program to the athletes they have, the facilities they use, the mission of the athletic program and their own abilities. There is no best program, there is only a program that is most suited for the athletes we are charged with developing given the other localized variables. If we copy other programs, we are bound to fail.

Q: What do you recommend to young coaches about developing their own coaching philosophy? Young coaches should be like sponges when it comes to both knowledge and philosophies. But coaching is more than just knowledge; it demands wisdom. The difference between wisdom and knowledge is experience. I explain to young coaches I work with to gather the knowledge but create a means to apply that knowledge and know you will fail as much as you succeed. Allow your coaching philosophy to ferment with time and grow without putting limits or preconceived notions into the mix. Realize that what you believe to be true today may change, and there is not anything wrong with that.

Q: Do you talk to your athletes and the sport coaches you work with about your coaching philosophy? Why? What is their typical response? I believe in what we do and I believe it is important to share that knowledge and my coaching philosophy with the athletes we work with. In fact, we make it a huge point of emphasis. If you walk into our facility and ask what a hip hinge is, you will be given the definition and example of the movement as well as why that it is important to learn. The basis and support for all we do is a fundamental level of buy-in. High buy-in is crucial to any program and building a winning culture. The athletes must believe in you and the program in order for them to want to commit to it. The

response of the athlete will reflect the culture that has been built in the program. Our athletes know why we do what we do and believe that it is the best option possible for them to succeed.

My belief in the importance of explaining both pro- gram philosophy and training principles extends to sport coaches as well. Most sport coaches are former athletes and have spent many hours training. However, this does not make them any more qualified to dictate a training program to a SCC than should a SCC call offensive plays on a football sideline. There are many sport coaches who are qualified and certified as professional strength and conditioning specialists and I am not referring to those individuals. Unfortunately, the more common situation at the high school level is a sport coach is given weight room supervisory responsibilities to support their sport coaching position. This is often problematic because it implies they have a greater level of skill than is typically true. Most sport coaches I encounter have a general thought process and approach to athletic development. But after seeing the complex process and rationale behind my coaching philosophy and the training principles we use, the sport coaches most often are relieved that they can focus on their sport instead of what occurs within the training facility. This does not mean they are not a part of the process. In fact, performance in the sport is the only reason we as SCC exist. To create an atmosphere to get the most out of the athletes, we meet regularly with the sport coaches. We ask them what the athlete needs to do better in the coach’s language and terminology, not strength and conditioning language; it is our job to make that transition for our staff and athletes. For example, when meeting with the defensive line coach we do not want to discuss speed, agility, strength or conditioning. I want the coach to use his terminology (e.g., the player takes plays off or gets overpowered). I then take that informa- tion and modify the training program to meet the needs of that player. Sharing those modifications has allowed the sport coaches to understand what we are doing while emphasizing that we are working toward the same goal.

Michael Doscher—Head Speed/Strength and Conditioning Coach, Valdosta State University- NCAA DII

Q: Sport coaches are recommended to have their own coaching philosophy to guide their behaviors. How does that translate to being a Strength and Conditioning Coach? The coaching philosophy for a SCC varies just like that of a sport coach. Mine comes from personality traits, education and experiences while I have been learning and growing as a professional. Over the last 25 years it has become clear to me that all successful SCC have a philosophical umbrella over their program. Each coach’s umbrella looks, and is implemented, differently because it is unique to them. However, the constant across all of the successful coaches is that their coaching philosophy is scientifically sound, practical for their environment and safe for the athlete.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

on 1

2/ 27

/1 6,

V ol

um e

3, A

rt ic

le N

um be

r 1

Award-Winning Strength and Conditioning Coaches 59

ISCJ Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

A coach demonstrating a strong belief in his coaching philosophy allows the athletes to train with confidence that their time and effort will lead to successful outcomes and can inspire their staff to greater heights.

Q: How does athlete discipline factor into your coaching philosophy? What do you do when a player is late, disruptive or not giving full effort? How does your reaction fit within your coaching philosophy? I believe discipline is a key ingredient in the coaching philosophy of a SCC. To teach the players to hold themselves accountable, the coach must be disciplined in every aspect of his program and hold himself accountable. My approach to discipline is that my job is to keep athletes accountable to their own goals, their position group, their side of the ball and the team to build team-wide trust and unity. I believe the disciplined athlete will reach their individual and team goals more often. I strive for the athletes I work with to be able to look their coaches and teammates in the eye with confidence knowing they have done everything they can to do what is best for the team. I keep this in mind when an athlete I am working with needs to be reminded of what being a teammate means. I address the situation right away reminding the athlete that it is not personal. The individual has hurt the team and made a mistake that requires an adjustment be made. The resulting disciplinary action for that mistake is not personal; it is done to keep them accountable to the team. I use a variety of methods for disciplining athletes according to what they have done and only discipline athletes for weight room mistakes. I do not discipline athletes for mistakes made outside the weight room because it is not my job and it makes athletes look at the weight room as punishment. That is not what the SCC and the training facilities are supposed to be used for or how they should be perceived.

Accountability is a corner-stone of my coaching philosophy and I try hard to use positive coaching prin- ciples when working with my athletes. I do not believe that positive coaching means a coach does not raise his voice; and I do yell and get on the athlete for not perform- ing his best physically or mentally. However, I yell at the athlete only when I know that he knows what he did was wrong. It is not fair for me to yell at an athlete if I have not taught the athlete the correct way to do something. When a mistake occurs, my thought process first turns inward to myself to make sure I have taught the proper technique. Once my athletes know the proper execution of a skill though and they do something wrong, I do get frustrated and raise my voice. I need to emphasize a key distinction though. When I yell at the athlete I do not yell at the athlete personally. I yell at what the athlete has done wrong and make sure he understands I believe he can do it better and that he should not accept poor execution. When an athlete makes a mistake I want to be that little voice in my athletes’ head that says ‘that is not good enough, I cannot and will not let the team down. I am better than that.’ I have seen too many coaches attack the athlete at a personal level for making a mistake and say little of either the mistake made or how to fix it. As part

of my coaching philosophy I strive to have my athletes compete with themselves to encourage a more intrinsi- cally motivated approach.

Q: Is your coaching philosophy site and situation specific or how widely would it translate? I do not think my coaching philosophy is specific to any site or situation. My philosophy is what I believe in and it comes through in how I coach and will travel with me wherever I go. It is my foundation and who I am as a coach. I strive to demonstrate that I am caring, intelligent, loyal, passionate, consistent, fair and confident in the way I coach and live my life. A SCC that tries to fake a coaching philosophy will struggle because sport coaches and athletes will see right through you. The site or situation that you are in will dictate the implementation but will not change your coaching philosophy.

Q: What do you recommend to young coaches about developing their own coaching philosophy? My advice for young coaches on developing a coaching philosophy is to learn from everybody. Learn the good and the bad. Have an open mind and follow your instincts. That is the truest form of who you are and the players, coaches and administration will see that and believe in you.

Q: Do you talk to your athletes and the sport coaches you work with about your coaching philosophy? Why? What is their typical response? I talk to my athletes about my coaching philosophy. This lets the athletes know who I am, what I expect and serves as a confident display of my abilities. I believe that if a SCC takes the time to educate their athletes on their own coaching philosophy the result will be increased buy-in and effort from the athletes. When I have taken that time to explain my approach to the athletes the results have almost always been positive. I try to talk to sport coaches about my coaching philosophy, but that is more difficult to do. My responsibility is to train the sport coach’s athletes so ideally his and my philosophies will be compatible. For the best performance of the athletes to shine through, the SCC and the sport coach have to work together. Being educated professionals within the larger field of coaching is a good base for the relationship to grow from. Yet it is important for the SCC to remember it is the sport coach’s team and he gets the win-loss under his name.

Joe Kenn—Head Strength and Conditioning Coach, Carolina Panthers, NFL Q: Sport coaches are recommended to have their own coaching philosophy to guide their behaviors. How does that translate to being a Strength and Conditioning Coach? It is important for SCC to have a mission, system, and a coaching philosophy that they believe in and this should include how an athlete should be developed both physically and mentally. The SCC also has to be able to adapt their methods to fit the overall structure of the sport coach’s belief system. For

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

on 1

2/ 27

/1 6,

V ol

um e

3, A

rt ic

le N

um be

r 1

60 Gillham et al.

ISCJ Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

any relationship to be successful, SCC must be highly adaptable and remember the sport coach is the lead coach and is entrusting us with the development of their athletes. Generally, it is our job to work within the framework of the sport coach’s team.

Q: How does athlete discipline factor into your coaching philosophy? What do you do when a player is late, disruptive or not giving full effort? How does your reaction fit within your coaching philosophy? How to discipline an athlete is always up for debate and should be dealt with in a manner consistent with an overall philosophy. I learned early on that a disruptive athlete is not going to be a distraction to those who want to succeed. We set a discipline plan in place with punishment for violations and it is nondebatable. I am going to devote time to those who want to succeed, not to the few who are not interested in being a part of the team structure.

Q: What do you recommend to young coaches about developing their own coaching philosophy? Young coaches need to do two things. First, study your mentors and study those outside your network to stretch yourself and test your beliefs against what you hear from others. You need to be able to know what you believe in and be able to express that to others confidently. Secondly, you need to settle on your own mix of all that information you found. It will not work to copy someone else’s style or coaching philosophy. Finding the right environment that you can adapt to your beliefs will allow the athletes you work with to reach higher levels. Athletes know if you are 100% bought-in and if you are trying to implement someone else’s beliefs and training modalities they will lose trust in you. Once the athletes lose that trust, their effort decreases which results in performance declines, not improvements.

Q: Do you talk to your athletes and the sport coaches you work with about your coaching philosophy? Why? What is their typical response? It is important for athletes to know the reasoning behind what we are trying to accomplish. Those who are mature enough to comprehend it are encouraged and engaged in the communication necessary to have a successful program. I do express my coaching philosophy to the sport coaches I work with and this has generally been well received. The success I have experienced with this approach is largely because it does not take the sport coach long to determine that we have the interests of their program and athletes at the center of what we are trying to do.

Dan Dalrymple—Head Strength and Conditioning Coach, New Orleans Saints, NFL

Q: Sport coaches are recommended to have their own coaching philosophy to guide their behaviors. How does that translate to being a Strength and Conditioning Coach? I think it is important to have a coaching philosophy to guide you. However, part of

your philosophy should be that you are open to change and new ideas. A good coach knows how to change his/ her approach to fit the needs of athletes. When I made the jump to the NFL there were adaptations that I needed to make to work with a different age and type of athlete. For example, NFL players are professional athletes and grown men who have a good idea of how to prepare themselves and typically have years of training experience. A coach saying, ‘Do this because I say so’ simply does not work at the NFL level. From a physiological standpoint, these players are all at the top-end of genetic potential which means they adapt quickly to their training programs. A coach needs to be prepared for a variety of situations and have the knowledge to adjust programs as quickly as the athletes need. Ultimately, I believe a good coach purposely seeks improvement not just in the athletes she/he is working with but also in his/her own coaching.

Q: How does athlete discipline factor into your coaching philosophy? What do you do when a player is late, disruptive or not giving full effort? How does your reaction fit within your coaching philosophy? We fine players for transgressions and that obviously is possible at the professional level where playing the sport is the player’s job. When I was coaching college kids we had to use other discipline measures. If players were late for an early morning workout that workout might start earlier for the whole team the next week. Or we might have to start a conditioning workout over if the players were not achieving the right level of intensity.

Q: Is your coaching philosophy site and situation specific or how widely do think it would translate? There are certain aspects to being a SCC that are only available in the NFL. For example, I am working with world class athletes who should be highly motivated to keep their jobs. My role becomes more of a facilitator for their success. At this level keeping players on the field and getting them back after the physical toll of a game becomes the main focus. However, other key pieces of my coaching philosophy were developed as I was moving up through the ranks and I still do the same thing today. Obviously the athletes I’m training with the Saints are older, the season is longer and there is less contact with the players during the offseason as players are away from the facility and the collective bargaining agreement places specific limits on what we can do, for how long and when we can do it during the offseason. From a training perspective I place special emphasis on free weights and Olympic lifts. But my fundamental belief is that hard work will translate to success at any level.

Q: What do you recommend to young coaches about developing their own coaching philosophy? The basic building block of a coaching philosophy is that you establish core beliefs that guide you. This is absolutely not the same as simply copying what you see other coaches do and that should be avoided. Your core beliefs should be formulated from your experiences and studies. One problem is when coaches seek information that just confirms what they already believe. Do not only listen

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

on 1

2/ 27

/1 6,

V ol

um e

3, A

rt ic

le N

um be

r 1

Award-Winning Strength and Conditioning Coaches 61

ISCJ Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

to or study coaches and programs that reinforce your beliefs. Young coaches need to not be afraid to research programs, coaches and philosophies that are outside their comfort zone.

Q: Do you talk to your athletes and the sport coaches you work with about your coaching philosophy? Why? What is their typical response? Yes I do. The players need to know what you believe and why you believe it. Players need to have an appreciation for your knowledge and that specific decisions with their training are not just picked out of thin air. We devote substantial time into building programs for our players. I have found that players tend to appreciate our efforts and attention to details. Players frequently thank us at the end of the year or after they achieve a career milestone. Sometimes they might mention your work in the media or to other sport coaches and staff members. I spent more time detailing my beliefs to sport coaches when I coached at the collegiate level. Some coaches were interested and welcomed the information and would meet with me to ask for my opinion on the training for their team. Other coaches were disinterested, or worse, and they wanted me to run a program taken from one of their past coaching stops. Too many head sport coaches I have come into contact with think they have all the answers for their sport. This can present a problem when the sport coach’s beliefs conflict with the strength coach’s core beliefs or the specifics of the situation (e.g., facility availability, staffing). I once had a basketball coach who wanted me to train each of his players individually, which was the way they did it at the program he was previously at. The problem is that I was also responsible for training multiple other sports so his request was simply impossible for me to do.

Cross-Coach Summary

Each of the respondents provided their own unique perspective on coaching philosophy. There are some commonalities though across the three competitive levels and four SCC.

• Having a coaching philosophy is important

• Must be willing to adapt and change your coaching philosophy over time

• Telling players and sport coaches about your coach- ing philosophy increases buy-in

• Do not fake or copy someone else’s coaching phi- losophy

Discussion The purpose of this paper was to provide an opportunity for four SCC to outline their beliefs on some psycho- social components of their coaching practice, particularly their coaching philosophy. Based on the absence of examples in the literature, there was some question as to whether the respondents would be able to describe their coaching philosophy. Even when authors (e.g., Bennett,

2007; Greener et al., 2014; Murray et al., 2014; Petersen et al., 2012; Vanderbush & Nitka, 2007) recommend SCC share their coaching philosophies with others, there is a noticeable absence of what a coaching philosophy may consist of for SCC. The NSCA standards and guidelines (NSCA, 2009) do not include information related to coaching philosophy. Having a coaching philosophy is viewed as being critical to the success of a sport coach (Burton & Raedeke, 2008; Hammermeister, 2010; ICCE, 2014) but much less clear is the value of a coaching phi- losophy for SCC. Why the discrepancy between the value of a coaching philosophy across coaching contexts? Is there actually a discrepancy or are in-depth examinations of coaching philosophy for SCC simply an area that sport scientists have yet to delve into?

In-depth qualitative interviews with exceptional SCC could be conducted and then compared with sport coach examples. Alternatively, investigating Grant and Dorgo’s (2014) premise that different expertise levels of SCC have developed their coaching philosophies to varied levels by surveying a wide swath of SCC across the globe would provide information on the development pathways and even effects of coaching philosophies for SCC. The current respondents had more similarities than differences and that is intriguing in that Schofield works with athletes paying-to-play (i.e., high-school) while Kenn and Dalrymple work with athletes being paid-to-play. In a college context, Janz (2009) discussed the problem of overcoaching by SCC and posited that a lack of confidence by the strength coach was a root cause of overcoaching. If having a coaching philosophy helps coaches be more confident by giving them a foundation to make decisions from, as suggested by Hammermeister (2010), then perhaps an identified problem within the SCC context (i.e., overcoaching) could be improved by SCC developing their coaching philosophies. All respon- dents in this project believed in the value of adopting a coaching philosophy and, perhaps more importantly, they all agreed that a coaching philosophy must be adaptable over time. The need to adapt and refine a coaching philosophy is congruent with the views of the participants’ in Collins and colleagues’ (2009) work and recommendations from researchers discussing the strength and conditioning context (e.g., Grant & Dorgo, 2014; Murray et al., 2014).

The professional roles and dynamics that make up the relationship between sport coaches and SCC seems to be a critical factor to the success of both types of coaches, as well as athlete performance. The need to get athletes and sport coaches to buy-in to what the SCC believes in was unanimously cited by the respondents as being critical to their success and supports previous work (e.g., Bennett, 2007; Vanderbush & Nitka, 2007). Doscher pointed out problems that can arise when sport coaches and SCC are not effectively working together and Dalrymple recalled a specific negative experience from his past. While it is a positive that the importance of the relationship is identified and agreed upon, is there really a viable alternative? It is difficult to imagine how a con- tentious relationship between the types of coaches would

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

on 1

2/ 27

/1 6,

V ol

um e

3, A

rt ic

le N

um be

r 1

62 Gillham et al.

ISCJ Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

benefit anyone. Jeffreys (2014) stated that the building and maintaining of positive relationships is an under- developed skill for most SCC. The importance of those relationships is also expanded to include working with the athletic training staff (Greener et al., 2013; Wagner et al., 2011). Grant and Dorgo (2014) state that obtaining degrees and certifications are simply not enough to yield a successful professional career as a SCC. Improvement of interpersonal skills, one of the three primary areas of coach effectiveness (Côté & Gilbert, 2009), through vari- ous professional development opportunities may be an area that SCC could benefit from. Those skills though are difficult to obtain through attending training-technique dominated conferences and workshops. Perhaps this is an area where mentoring could be applied in a more systematic fashion. Mentoring research in sport is still relatively sparse (Bloom, 2013) which may make for an intriguing collaborative project between researchers, applied practitioners and SCC and an initial discussion on mentorship specific to SCC has recently been published (Gillham et al., 2015).

Developing best practices for interactions between sport coaches and SCC could be valuable information for all coaches. Bennett (2007) provides some good preliminary options (e.g., the importance of asking questions to determine why a sport coach wants some- thing) but it would seem more could be done. An initial step could be sampling sport coaches to determine their knowledge and training regarding strength and conditioning and even the value sport coaches ascribe to SCC. Vanderbush and Nitka (2007) consider sport coaches without training in strength and conditioning to be a major source of tension because sport coaches without that background will tend to copy what they have seen before. Copying philosophies and programs was described by the respondents in this article as prob- lematic, which is congruent with sport coach literature on authentic coaching (Fusco, Palmer, & O’Riordan, 2011; Kinsler, 2014). Schofield points out how wrong it would be for a SCC to call offensive plays during a competition (i.e., that is clearly a responsibility of the sport coach). However, it is substantially less clear how much of a role sport coaches should have in the physical training of the athletes. The general consensus seems to be that the strength and conditioning staff should abide by the sport coach’s wishes when possible (Greener et al., 2014; Wagner et al., 2012) and the respondents agreed with that approach. One caveat seems to be safety related. All of the respondents in this paper stressed the importance of safely training athletes based on sound scientific principles and Bennett (2007) provides some guidelines for SCC working with sport coaches that insist on an unsafe approach.

A final insight is an encouragement for SCC to reach beyond technique-dominated professional devel- opment experiences. This encouragement is based on the respondents pointing out the need for their coach- ing philosophy to be dynamic and adaptable. The idea

of continuing professional development is not foreign to SCC (Grant & Dorgo, 2014; Jeffreys, 2014). Sport coaching effectiveness is well-documented (Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Horn, 2008) and Gilbert and Baldis (2014) extended that conversation to the SCC context. Opertionalizing professional development as improving effectiveness, there are many avenues SCC could travel down to improve effectiveness: (a) examining defini- tions of coaching effectiveness (Côté & Gilbert, 2009) to determine areas of weakness, (b) improving use of mental skills while coaching (Thelwell, Weston, Greenless, & Hutchings, 2008), (c) considering what athletes report great coaches do (Becker, 2009) to do more of those behaviors, (d) using video more effectively (Groom & Nelson, 2013), (e) teaching skills and techniques (Gilbert, Nater, Siwik, & Gallimore, 2010) more efficiently and effectively or (f) increasing your contribution to build- ing a successful sport program (Vallée & Bloom, 2005). Not only are all of those examples unlikely to be found at technique-dominated conferences, unfortunately, it may be difficult for those efforts to result in continu- ing education credits. For example, while the NSCA’s continuing education packet (NSCA, 2014) lists ‘Sport Psychology’ as a qualifying event/activity, attending the national conference hosted by the Association for Applied Sport Psychology has not traditionally been a source of qualifying continuing education credits for the NSCA. Going further, the list of NSCA approved home-study courses (NSCA, 2014) for continuing education credits lists more than 400 options and only two of them appear to be related in any way to ‘Sport Psychology’. It is unclear if the sport psychology trained professionals are not reaching out to the strength and conditioning trained professionals or if one group places such little value on the other group that collaboration is deemed inconse- quential to professional success. One route forward may be for SCC to collaborate with researchers and applied practitioners on articles and conference presentations, which the NSCA routinely grants continuing education credits for completing.

Conclusion Safe and effective training of athletes is a primary charge for SCC (NSCA, 2009) and content knowledge related to safely improving athletic performance will always be paramount to SCC. What is also clear is that the psycho- social aspects of being an effective strength coach are underdeveloped (Gearity & Mills, 2012) and those skills are seen as valuable (Chiu, 2010; Greener et al., 2014; Jeffreys, 2014; Vanderbush & Nitka, 2007). This serves as an opportunity for researchers, applied practitioners and SCC to collaborate on improving strength and con- ditioning coaching. The knowledge base for the ‘strength and conditioning’ part is undoubtedly well-developed and effective. Perhaps now is the time to research and improve the effectiveness of the ‘coaching’ part of strength and conditioning coaching.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

on 1

2/ 27

/1 6,

V ol

um e

3, A

rt ic

le N

um be

r 1

Award-Winning Strength and Conditioning Coaches 63

ISCJ Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

References Baechle, T.R., & Earle, R.W. (Eds.). (2008). Essentials of

strength training and conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Becker, A. (2009). It’s not what they do, it’s how they do it: Athlete experiences of great coaching. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(1), 93–119. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.4.1.93

Bennett, S. (2007). How do you handle input from sport coaches? Strength and Conditioning Journal, 29(2), 71–73.

Bennie, A., & O’Connor, D. (2010). Coaching philosophies: Perceptions from professional cricket, rugby league and rugby union players and coaches in Australia. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 5(2), 309–320. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.5.2.309

Bloom, G. (2013). Mentoring for sport coaches. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sports Coaching (pp. 476–485). New York: Routledge.

Boone, J. (2012). How to coach your best. Presented at the National Strength and Conditioning Association Coaches Conference, Orlando, FL.

Burton, D., & Raedeke, T. (2008). Sport psychology for coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Camiré, M., Trudel, P., & Forneris, T. (2012). Coaching and transferring life skills: Philosophies and strategies used by model high school coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 26, 243–260.

Carless, D., & Douglas, K. (2011). Stories as personal coach- ing philosophy. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 6(1), 1–12. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.6.1.1

Chiu, L.Z.F. (2010). Chaos revisited: From the brickyard into the weight room. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 32(2), 83–89. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181d51fb7

Collins, K., Gould, D., Lauer, L., & Chung, Y. (2009). Coach- ing life skills through football: Philosophical beliefs of outstanding high school football coaches. International Journal of Coaching Science, 3(1), 29–54.

Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International Journal of Sports and Coaching, 4(3), 307–323. doi:10.1260/174795409789623892

Cushion, C.J., Armour, K.M., & Jones, R.L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55, 215–230. doi:10.1080/00336297.2003.10491800

Cushion, C., & Partington, M. (2014). A critical analysis of the conceptualization of ‘coaching philosophy’. Sport Educa- tion and Society. doi:10.1080/13573322.2014.958817

Erickson, K., Bruner, M.W., MacDonald, D.J., & Côté, J. (2008). Gaining insight into actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge. International Jour- nal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(4), 527–538. doi:10.1260/174795408787186468

Fusco, T., Palmer, S., & O’Riordan, S. (2011). Can coaching psychology help develop authentic leaders? Part two. The Coaching Psychologist, 7(2), 127–131.

Gearity, B. (2010). The discipline of philosophy in strength and conditioning. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 32(6), 110–117. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181f63382

Gearity, B.T., & Mills, J.P. (2012). Discipline and punish in the weight room. Sports Coaching Review, 1(2), 124–134. doi:10.1080/21640629.2012.746049

Gilbert, W., & Baldis, M.W. (2014). Becoming an effec- tive strength and conditioning coach. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 36(1), 28–34. doi:10.1519/ SSC.0000000000000026

Gilbert, W., Nater, S., Siwik, M., & Gallimore, R. (2010). The pyramid of teaching success in sport: Lessons from applied science and effective coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 1, 86–94. doi:10.1080/21520704 .2010.528172

Gillham, A., Doscher, M., Schofield, G., Dalrymple, D., Bird, S. (2015). Strength and conditioning roundtable: Work- ing with novice coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 10, 985-1000.

Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport: Current status and future directions. Inter- national Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 58–78. doi:10.1080/17509840701834573

Gould, D., Collins, K., Lauer, L., & Chung, Y. (2006). Coach- ing life skills: A working model. Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 2(1), 10–18.

Gould, D., Collins, K., Lauer, L., & Chung, Y. (2007). Coach- ing life skills through football: A study of award winning high school coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychol- ogy, 19, 16–37. doi:10.1080/10413200601113786

Grant, M.A., & Dorgo, S. (2014). Developing expertise in strength and conditioning coaching. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 36(1), 9–15. doi:10.1519/ SSC.0000000000000028

Greener, T., Petersen, D., & Pinske, K. (2013). Traits of successful strength and conditioning coaches. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 25(1), 90–93. doi:10.1519/ SSC.0b013e3182822597

Greener, T., Petersen, D., & Pinske, K. (2014). Working with coaches who want to drastically change the train- ing plan you have designed for their athletes. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 36(3), 97–99. doi:10.1519/ SSC.0000000000000059

Groom, R., & Nelsen, L. (2013). The application of video- based performance analysis in the coaching process: The coach supporting athlete learning. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sports Coaching (pp. 96–107). New York: Routledge.

Hammermeister, J. (2010). Cornerstones of coaching. Traverse City, MI: Cooper Publishing Group, LLC.

Harris, A., & Harris, B. (2008). Do hard things: A teenage rebellion against low expectations. Colorado Springs, CO: Walterbrook Multnomah.

Horn, T.S. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 240–267). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

International Council for Coaching Excellence. Associa- tion of Summer Olympic International Federations, &

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

on 1

2/ 27

/1 6,

V ol

um e

3, A

rt ic

le N

um be

r 1

64 Gillham et al.

ISCJ Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016

Leeds Metropolitan University. (2013). International sport coaching framework (version 1.2). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Janz, J. (2009). Overcoaching in the weight room. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 31(2), 86–90. doi:10.1519/ SSC.0b013e31819d8086

Jeffreys, I. (2014). The five minds of the modern strength and conditioning coach: The challenges for professional development. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 36(1), 2–8. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000035

Jenkins, S. (2014). John R. Wooden, Stephen R. Covey and servant leadership. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(1), 1–23. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.9.1.1

Kinsler, L. (2014). Born to be me… who am I again? Interna- tional Coaching Psychology Review, 9(1), 92–105.

Lyle, J. (2005). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behavior. New York: Routledge.

Martens, R. (2012). Successful Coaching (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Murray, M.A., Zakrajsek, R.A., & Gearity, B.T. (2014). Developing effective internships in strength and con- ditioning: A community of practice approach. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 36(1), 35–40. doi:10.1519/ SSC.0b013e31828557d7

Nash, C.S., & Sproule, J. (2009). Career development of expert coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coach- ing, 4(1), 121–138. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.4.1.121

National Strength and Conditioning Association. (2009). National Strength and Conditioning Association: Strength and conditioning professional standards and guidelines. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 31(5), 14–38. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181b9c34c

National Strength and Conditioning Association. (2014). Recertification & Continuing Education. Retrieved from http://www.nsca.com/Certification/Continuing-Education/

Petersen, A., Wagner, K., & Greener, T. (2012). Recruit- ing. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 34(1), 87–88. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e318232df04

Perez, D., Van Horn, S., & Otten, M.P. (2014). Coach John Wooden’s pyramid of success: A comparison to the sport psychology literature. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(1), 85–101. doi:10.1260/1747- 9541.9.1.85

Robbins, J.E., Houston, E., & Dummer, G.M. (2010). Phi- losophies and expectations of wheelchair and stand-up collegiate basketball coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33(1), 42–62.

Robinson, P.E. (2015). Foundations of Sports Coaching (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Society of Health and Physical Educators. (2014). Coaching Standards and Benchmarks. Retrieved from http://www. shapeamerica.org/standards/coaching/coachingstandards. cfm

Sproule, J. (2015). The importance of coaching philosophy. In C. Nash (Ed.), Practical sports coaching (pp. 54–68). New York: Routledge.

Thelwell, R.C., Weston, N.J.V., Greenlees, I.A., & Hutchings, N.V. (2008). A qualitative exploration of psychological- skills use in coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 38–53.

Vallée, C.N., & Bloom, G.A. (2005). Building a success- ful university program: Key and common elements of expert coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 179–196. doi:10.1080/10413200591010021

Wagner, K., Greener, T., & Petersen, D. (2011). Working with athletic trainers. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 33(1), 53–55. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3182079d6c

Wagner, K., Greener, T., & Petersen, D. (2012). Weight room discipline. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 34(2), 93–95. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e31824e4bf5

Wang, J., & Straub, W. (2012). An investigation into the coaching approach of a successful world class soccer coach: Anson Dorrance. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7(3), 431–447. doi:10.1260/1747- 9541.7.3.431

Vanderbush, K., & Nitka, M. (2007). Working with the sport coach. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 29(3), 43–44. doi:10.1519/00126548-200706000-00006

Vealey, R. (2005). Beyond shrinks: What coaches should know about mental training. Coaching for the inner edge (pp. 131–148). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Yukelson, D., & Rose, R. (2014). The psychology of ongoing excellence: An NCAA coach’s perspective on winning consecutive multiple national championships. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 5, 44–58. doi:10.1080/2152 0704.2013.866604

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

on 1

2/ 27

/1 6,

V ol

um e

3, A

rt ic

le N

um be

r 1

Copyright of International Sport Coaching Journal is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.