Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2004, 18(1), 518 2004 National Strength & Conditioning Association

STUDY OF THE KEY DETERMINING FACTORS NCAA DIVISION I HEAD STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACH
DAVID M. MARTINEZ

FOR THE

Graduate School of Education and Psychology, Pepperdine University, Malibu, California 90263.

ABSTRACT. Martinez, D.M. Study of the key determining factors for the NCAA Division I head strength and conditioning coach. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(1):518. 2004.The purpose of this study was to determine the appropriate educational, competitive, and work experiences the aspiring strength and conditioning coach should attain in pursuit of a head position at the intercollegiate level. The study was compared to a doctoral study conducted by Frank Pullo in 1988. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, educational background, competitive experiences, coaching experiences, duties, and opinions of the head strength and conditioning coaches in the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I intercollegiate body. These data were used to determine if differences occurred among the Division I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA coaches on these 6 indicators along with comparable items in Pullos study. A total of 212 of 313 coaches returned the questionnaire. Each item on the questionnaire was examined with either descriptive statistics or frequency distributions. The results indicated that differences occurred among the 3 Division I subdivisions and between this study and Pullos study along the 6 indicators measured. KEY WORDS. demographics, education, duties, NSCA, CSCCa

INTRODUCTION
olleges and universities at the Division I level seriously began seeing the importance of strength training for their athletes in the 1970s. Sometimes an assistant football or basketball coach was designated as the strength coach, because that individual may have possessed the most experience with weight training or was simply an enthusiast about such training. However, these individuals usually did not receive the proper training or education to train athletes in the most appropriate program design. A few athletic programs realized that the need for a competent person to ll this void was vital for the success of the athletic programs and should not be treated as an add-on responsibility for an assistant coach to assume. Rather, the strength coach should be a person hired solely for the purpose of training the athletes. The National Strength Coaches Association, later to become known as the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA), was formed in 1978 not only to educate further those within the profession of strength and conditioning in the current trends within the eld but also to educate those who would benet from the expertise of the strength and conditioning professionals. As the NSCA began gaining notoriety in the early 1980s, the strength and conditioning coachs impact on intercollegiate athletics became noticeable (5). The role of the strength and conditioning coach then spread beyond the needs of the football team. If individual players had spe-

cic needs to address to enhance their performance, other athletic teams had similar needs as well and could also benet from strength and conditioning training. According to Kraemer (3, 4), the primary skill and fundamental job of the strength and conditioning professional was to prescribe appropriate exercises for training athletes so that it aided in the prevention of sports injuries and enhanced sports performance. The strength and conditioning professional must also be adept in skills pertaining to administration, organization, motivation of athletes, exercise techniques, and public relations. Kraemer also said this knowledge basis required constant study, continuing education and work, and that the professional who was hired should only be responsible for strength and conditioning duties and no other administrative or coaching duties unrelated to the demands of the job. In a 2-part article that appeared in the 1991 volume of the NSCA journal, a panel of experts in the eld of strength and conditioning was asked about the formal education and experiential base recommended for the strength and conditioning professional (11, 12). The panel suggested that the individual should garner experience as a part-time, full-time, or graduate assistant strength and conditioning coach under the tutelage of a certied strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS). In addition, the individual also should attend NSCA-endorsed clinics, earn a CSCS credential, receive formal education in physical education (bachelors or masters degree), receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and rst aid certication, and know the proper form and techniques in weight training lifts (including spotting techniques) associated with them. In 1997, Sutherland and Wiley (14) reported that 91% of strength and conditioning coaches at the professional level had at least a bachelors degree in physical education or a related eld. Thirty-seven percent had a masters degree. Also, the study showed that 53% were NSCA certied and 5% were certied by the American College of Sports Medicine. Dooman and colleagues (2) stated in 1998 that all strength and conditioning professionals should earn a bachelors or masters degree in exercise science (or a related eld), maintain membership in the NSCA, earn a CSCS, and have experience as a student, graduate, volunteer, or part-time or full-time assistant. The role of the strength and conditioning coach became more of a coordinator as the need for more strength and conditioning coaches at a given institution became apparent. As the weight training facilities increased in quality and quantity, the need for assistant strength and
5

MARTINEZ

conditioning coaches increased as well. Smith (13) stated that such a situation benets the assistant coach because the individual becomes a viable candidate for future jobs because of the practical experience gained, contacts with knowledgeable people in the eld, and hands-on experience working with athletes. McClellan and Stone (6) sent 80 surveys to Division I institutions in 1986. The results revealed that almost all schools (96%) had a full-time strength and conditioning coach. Most had assistant coaches, and the average number of weight room facilities to accommodate the athletes was 3. Todd and colleagues (17) reported that bigger schools were more likely to have a full-time strength and conditioning coach on staff. The survey was sent in 1989, and, at that time, 87% of coaches were NSCA members, with almost 50% NSCA certied. In fall 1988, Pullo (9) identied and examined the qualications, duties, and opinions of those persons assuming the role and responsibilities of strength and conditioning coaches within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I-A and I-AA sanctioned football programs (9, 10). The results of the study indicated that coaches were homogenous in demographic characteristics, educational background, experience levels, and opinions about the profession. Most Division I-A coaches had NSCA certication (CSCS) and served as graduate assistants for strength coaches at the college level. The Division I-A coaches served as full-time strength and conditioning coaches and had the responsibility to condition all varsity athletic teams. Most Division I-AA coaches who did not have NSCA certication were not full-time strength coaches but were mainly assistant football coaches who only conditioned the football team (9). Approximately one decade later, Teichelman (16) reported the trends in the strength and conditioning profession at Division I schools. Teichelman developed a questionnaire for more than 100 Division I head strength and conditioning coaches in such areas as salaries for all positions (head strength and conditioning coach, full-time assistants, part-time assistants, graduate assistants, and student assistants) and experience level. Some of the signicant ndings were that higher salaries correlated with seniority in the profession and strong football and basketball conferences. Compared with Pullos study, the average salary had increased by $10,000 in this 10-year span. Also, many schools employed more assistants to stay in compliance with the athletic directors manual for stafng procedures, which recommends that there be one strength and conditioning coach for every 200 student athletes at the school. In addition to all the educational and experiential expectations of the strength and conditioning coach, Booker and Meir (1) maintained that the strength and conditioning professional must adapt to the ability and attitude levels of the student athlete. Booker and Meir stated that strength and conditioning coaches must be effective leaders who must (a) possess the drive and desire to lead, (b) possess honesty and integrity, (c) exude self-condence, (d) develop intelligence, and (e) revisit job-relevant knowledge to be inuential with todays student athlete. According to Petosa (8), the strength and conditioning coach was a key component in the athletic program if the goal of the program was to enhance athletic performance. The educational, competitive, and work experiences of the

strength and conditioning coach closely coincided with the athletic coach. Since the inception of the NSCA, the role of the strength and conditioning coach has become more of a profession rather than a role assumed by an existing athletic coach who had some knowledge or interest in weight training and exercise. As a result, the strength and conditioning coach must display a high level of qualication for the position at the intercollegiate level by earning the only nationally accredited credential (CSCS) in addition to having the necessary educational, competitive, and work experience background. Although the CSCS still is the standard used by the NSCA for competency and professionalism, many intercollegiate strength and conditioning professionals desire a higher standard by either raising the bar on the current CSCS or developing a different credential (15). The formation of the Collegiate Strength and Conditioning Coaches Association (CSCCa), with its certication standards specically designed to promote the credibility and unique knowledge of the intercollegiate strength and conditioning coach, has been a profound step in this direction. Intercollegiate athletics has undergone monumental changes in the last 100 years. The student athletes wellbeing, from a physical standpoint, has been greatly addressed and emphasized throughout the years to reduce the number of injuries and enhance athletic performance. The literature reveals that increased competency has taken place for those aspiring to be strength and conditioning coaches so that the student athlete is in good care. The purpose of the study was to currently determine the appropriate educational, competitive, and work experiences the aspiring strength and conditioning coach should attain in pursuit of a head position at the intercollegiate level. The investigator also showed if there were differences with this determination among the 3 NCAA Division I subdivisions (I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA). These results were also compared and contrasted with the ndings of Pullos study performed more than 10 years previous to this one. The concept of which variables were deemed appropriate were validated by a panel of experts who reviewed the questionnaire used in the study. The study also reported the impact of the CSCS credential and the CSCCa certications as necessary requirements for qualication as a Division I strength and conditioning coach.

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem

The approach used was similar to the one undertaken by Pullo (9). Every identied head strength and conditioning coach at all the NCAA Division I institutions at the beginning of the 20012002 competitive season was sent a questionnaire used to collect data on the appropriate educational, competitive, and work experiences the aspiring strength and conditioning coach should attain in pursuit of a head position at the intercollegiate level. The goal was to receive as much current input on the items that appeared on the questionnaire with the greatest possible return rate, because such a study, to this extent, had not taken place since Pullos research in 1988. The process of sending out the questionnaire and receiving all data took approximately 2 months and reects the responses received during fall 2001. The results were

NCAA DIVISION I STRENGTH

AND

CONDITIONING COACHES 7

tabulated using descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, means, and medians. These data were then interpreted to suggest which items were considered more signicantly appropriate than others both within and between the 3 Division I subdivisions. The results were then compared with Pullos ndings to show which areas have differed, since his study took place more 10 years ago.
Population Studied

nal result was that the instrument had some items reworded and some items inserted for clarity purposes.
Data Collection

The population for this study was all the head strength and conditioning coaches employed at each NCAA Division I institution beginning in fall 2001. Although humans were used to collect data, the dissertation committee did not see the need for human use consent documentation. Rather, every subject was given a cover letter that indicated the purpose of the study and statement saying that the anonymity to their responses would be honored. Division I schools were categorized by the NCAA into 3 subdivisions based on their football classication. There were a total of 117 Division I-A institutions (high-prole football programs), 123 Division I-AA institutions (lowerprole football programs), and 86 Division I-AAA institutions (no football programs) for a total of 326 Division I schools.
Research Study Instrument

The research instrument used in this study was a questionnaire adapted and revised from Pullos study with the permission granted from the author. Pullos questionnaire stated the demographic characteristics, educational background, competitive experiences, coaching experiences, duties, and opinions of the intercollegiate head strength and conditioning coaches in the NCAA Division I-A and I-AA (9). The questionnaire in this study used the same variables and the desired undergraduate and graduate coursework needed for the profession. The questionnaire also measured the impact of the NSCA and CSCCa and their respective certication programs in preparing individuals to become intercollegiate head strength and conditioning coaches.
Validity of the Study

Before any data were collected, the investigator attempted to contact every head strength and conditioning coach (1 week before the rst mailing of the questionnaire), urging them to participate in the study. The investigator sent an e-mail to every identied Division I head strength and conditioning coach whose e-mail was published on their respective institutions Web site or through the 2001 2002 Clell Wade Coaches Directory (7). Those coaches who did not have a published e-mail had an e-mail sent to the athletic director of that school, requesting that the message sent by the investigator be transmitted to the strength and conditioning coach. Those schools with a published e-mail for neither the strength and conditioning coach nor the athletic director on the schools Web site or in the directory were contacted by telephone. These telephone numbers were found in this same directory. Once the nal version of the questionnaire was drafted, the instrument was sent to all the NCAA Division I head strength and conditioning coaches for data collection. Each coach received a cover letter with instructions and a self-addressed, stamped questionnaire. The cover letter explained the importance of an expedient response to the questionnaire, their participation in the study, and a statement that complete anonymity in their responses would be granted. The participants were asked to not write their name or college or university afliation on the questionnaire. Each questionnaire had a code number in the upper, right-hand corner so that only the investigator knew which institutions coach responded. After completing the questionnaire, the participants sent it back in the self-addressed, stamped envelope to the investigator. As the questionnaires were returned, the investigator made note of which institutions coach had taken part in the study. A second mailing occurred a month after the rst mailing to those schools coaches who had not returned the questionnaire by the rst mailings deadline. A second e-mail was also sent to those coaches who did not respond to encourage participation.

A panel of experts was organized to determine the content validity of the questionnaire to be used as the research instrument. A panel of 5 experts, including Pullo, was chosen so that there was not an even representation of a certain viewpoint about any item on the questionnaire. All 5 experts on the panel were active members of the NSCA. All members of the panel were asked to review the questionnaire and send in their comments citing any improvements, modications, and/or suggestions they had regarding each section of the questionnaire as to the appropriateness of the variables being measured.
Reliability Pilot Study

RESULTS
Although there were a total of 326 member institutions of the NCAA in the 20012002 competitive seasons, not every institution employed a head strength and conditioning coach. Either some schools did not employ a head strength and conditioning coach in name or each sport had an assistant coach on each teams staff that took care of the strength and conditioning duties. Some institutions were identied as employing 2 head strength and conditioning coaches. Sometimes these responsibilities were divided among mens athletics and womens athletics, varsity sports and Olympic sports, or football only and all other varsity sports. The total number of Division I head strength and conditioning coaches eligible to take part in the study was determined to be 313. The total number of responses resulted in 212 questionnaires being returned for a return rate of 67.7%. After the nal deadline, 4 questionnaires were returned but were not included in the statistical analyses. The return rates for each subdivision were as follows: Division I-A, 80 responses (63.0%) of a possible 127; Division I-AA, 82 (71.9%) responses of a possible 114; and

Once the instrument was revised after factoring in the panel of experts comments and suggestions, a pilot group of current Division I head strength and conditioning coaches was organized to determine that all questions were clearly understandable to the respondents. A group of 4 Division I strength and conditioning coaches (1 from I-A, 2 from I-AA, and 1 from I-AAA) was chosen as the pilot group. All members of the pilot group were asked to complete the questionnaire provided and to comment on the clarity and ease in completing the questionnaire. The

MARTINEZ

Division I-AAA, 50 responses (69.4%) of possible 72. The results indicate that differences occurred to one degree or another in all the categories analyzed for this study.
Demographic Characteristics

Division I-A coaches averaged 37.46 years of age, whereas Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches averaged 33.98 and 33.59 years, respectively. No differences occurred within sex and ethnicity. All 3 subdivisions were predominantly male and white, at ranges of 98100% and 8793%, respectively. Division I-A coaches average yearly salary was $57,948.72, whereas Division I-AA coaches averaged $33,765.43 yearly and Division I-AAA coaches averaged $37,291.67 yearly. In terms of certication held, the CSCS was the most referenced credential for all 3 subdivisions (Division I-A, 72.5%; Division I-AA, 69.51%; and Division I-AAA, 92%), with the second-most referenced being different for the 3 subdivisions. Division I-A and IAA coaches cited the Strength and Conditioning Coach Certied (SCCC) credential offered by the CSCCa at 36.25 and 14.63%, accordingly. Division I-AAA coaches indicated the USA Weightlifting (USAW) Certication at 16%.
Educational Background

A greater percentage of Division I-AA coaches (79.27%) held a masters degree than did Division I-A (67.5%) and I-AAA (68%) coaches. Division I-AAA coaches cited exercise science as the highest undergraduate major at 26.09%, whereas Division I-A and I-AA coaches indicated physical education as the highest undergraduate major at 22.54 and 31.88%, respectively. In terms of graduate majors reported, more Division I-AAA coaches held a masters degree in exercise science (37.5%), whereas more Division I-A and I-AA coaches held a masters degree in exercise physiology at 17.31 and 19.05%, accordingly.
Competitive Experiences

the amateur level. For Olympic-style weightlifting coaching experience, a greater percentage of Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches had this experience at the amateur level, whereas Division I-A coaches had it more often at the college level. No differences occurred among the 3 subdivisions with coaching experiences in sports. High school football was the highest-rated experience (26.42 4%). No differences were reported among the 3 subdivisions with high school and college head strength and conditioning coaching experience. A greater percentage of Division I-AAA coaches (16%) indicated experience as a professional head strength and conditioning coach than did Division I-A (6.25%) and I-AA (4.88%) coaches. No differences were found among the 3 subdivisions with high school assistant strength and conditioning coaching experience. Although more than half of all coaches had assistant experience on the college level, 54% of all Division I-AAA coaches had this experience compared with 76.25% of Division I-A and 71.95% of the Division I-AA coaches. Also, almost 3 times the rate of Division I-AAA coaches had professional assistant strength and conditioning coaching experience (14%) than Division I-A (5%) and Division I-AA (4.88%) coaches. More than 62% of all Division I-A and I-AA coaches had graduate assistant experience compared with 48% of all Division I-AAA coaches. At least 60% of all Division IAA and I-AAA coaches had experience as a volunteer assistant and/or personal trainer. Slightly more than 41% of all Division I-A coaches had volunteer assistant coaching experience and slightly less than 38% had personal training experience.
Duties

The greatest percentage of coaches who had college football experience occurred among Division I-A coaches at 73.75%. Slightly more than 51% of all Division I-AA and 40% of all Division I-AAA coaches participated in college football. College track and eld was the second-most participated sport for Division I-A and I-AA coaches. The second highest played sport among Division I-AAA coaches was college baseball. Outside college athletics serving as the primary context of weightlifting experience for all Division I coaches, each subdivision had a different nonteam or individual sport experience as the next highest weightlifting experience. Almost one-third of all Division I-A coaches cited open competition powerlifting as the second highest experience. Slightly more than 18% of all Division I-AA coaches referenced club Olympic lifting as the second highest experience. For Division I-AAA coaches, 24% stated open competition Olympic lifting as the second highest experience.
Coaching Experiences

A greater percentage of Division I-A and I-AA coaches had bodybuilding coaching experience at the college level compared with Division I-AAA coaches, who had the greatest rate at the amateur level. A greater percentage of Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches had powerlifting coaching experience at the college level compared with Division I-A coaches, who reported the greatest rate at

The most frequent job title was that of head strength and conditioning coach for all 3 subdivisions. Only Division IAAA had more than 50% of the coaches with this title. Division I-AAA also had the least varied job titles with 13 as opposed to Divisions I-A and I-AA with 22 job titles apiece. The most often reported direct supervisor was the athletic director for Divisions I-AA and I-AAA and the assistant athletic director for Division I-A coaches. A given difference was the primary sport of responsibility, because Division I-AAA differs from the other 2 subdivisions by not having intercollegiate football. Division I-A and I-AA coaches primary sport responsibility was football, whereas for Division I-AAA coaches, the primary sports were mens and womens basketball. At least 76% of all coaches in each subdivision had staff status (either alone or in conjunction with faculty status). Differences occurred in full-time status among the 3 subdivisions. All Division I-A coaches were full-time employees compared with 92.59% of Division I-AA coaches and 80% of the Division I-AAA coaches. At least 92% of all coaches in each subdivision were contracted to work for at least 10 months per year. Most coaches did not have a teaching assignment. Division I-A coaches had the lowest rate at 22.5% compared with Division I-AA coaches at 32.1% and Division I-AAA coaches at 32%. Most coaches in all 3 subdivisions were content with remaining as head strength and conditioning coaches at the college level. Slightly more than 25% of all coaches expressed the desire to become a head strength and conditioning coach on the professional level as the second-most desired career goal. Most Division I-A coaches had full-time, graduate, and volunteer assistants on their staff. The response rates for

NCAA DIVISION I STRENGTH

AND

CONDITIONING COACHES 9

Table 1. Ratings for demographic characteristics (ratings represent the median or at least the 50th percentile of the subjects responses).* Division Item SCCC certication MSCC certication CSCS certication NSCA-CPT certication I Nonessential Nonessential Essential Very nonessential I-A Somewhat nonessential Nonessential Essential Very nonessential I-AA Nonessential Very nonessential Essential Very nonessential I-AAA Nonessential Nonessential Very essential Very nonessential

* SCCC Strength and Conditioning Coach Certied; MSCC Master Strength and Conditioning Coach; CSCS Certied Strength and Conditioning Specialist; NSCA-CPT National Strength and Conditioning Association-Certied Personal Trainer.

Table 2. Ratings for educational background (ratings represent the median or at least the 50th percentile of the subjects responses). Division Item Bachelors degree Masters degree Doctorate Major in physical education Major in exercise physiology I Very essential Essential Very nonessential Somewhat essential Essential I-A Very essential Essential Very nonessential Somewhat essential Essential I-AA Very essential Essential Very nonessential Essential Essential I-AAA Very essential Essential Very nonessential Somewhat essential Essential

each was 85, 52.5, and 60%, respectively. The response rates for these 3 support staff positions among Division I-AA coaches were 34.18, 30.38, and 44.3%. For Division I-AAA coaches, the response rates were the lowest at 20, 22, and 34%. Also, 41.25% of all Division I-A coaches had part-time assistants compared with 31.65% of all Division I-AA and 32% of all Division I-AAA coaches. In terms of facilities, differences were evident. Most Division I-A coaches had at least 2 or more weight rooms, whereas not even three-fourths of the Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches could make that claim. Another difference occurred with the size of the facilities. The average size for Division I-A was 11,018.94 sq ft compared with Division I-AA at 4,729.23 sq ft and Division I-AAA at 2,926.32 sq ft. No major differences occurred in the area of job responsibilities. Most coaches in all 3 subdivisions believed that testing athletes was the primary responsibility of the head strength and conditioning coach. The second-most important responsibility for Division I-A and I-AA coaches was supervising or maintaining the weight room(s). For Division I-AAA coaches, it was counseling athletes on supplements and diet. Although most coaches had not published articles in strength and conditioning, only Division I-A coaches were closest to 50% at 49.37%. Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches responded at 35.44 and 40%, accordingly. Most coaches in all 3 subdivisions have given presentations or seminars at the local level (Division I-A, 81.25%; Division I-AA, 66.23%; Division I-AAA, 80.43%), but only most Division I-A coaches have done so at the state level. Of the Division I-A coaches, 75% have presented at the state level compared with 45.45% of the Division I-AA and 43.48% of the Division I-AAA coaches. Although most coaches in all 3 subdivisions have not presented at the national level, the Division I-A response rate (45%) was almost twice as much as the Division I-AA and I-AAA responses rates (20.78 and 23.91%, respectively). Most Division I-AA coaches (51.95%) have conducted scientic research on

strength and conditioning. Less than 38% of Division I-A and I-AAA coaches have performed scientic research.
Opinions: Question 1

Question 1 asked the coaches to rate how essential the given items on the questionnaire are for a head strength and conditioning coach to be successful at that coachs school on a 5-point Likert scale (1 nonessential, 5 essential). The questionnaire included 32 items (4 under demographic characteristics, 5 under educational background, 5 under competitive experiences, 8 under coaching experiences, and 10 under duties). Since the median response for all subjects was used as the nal indicator, all ratings given by each subdivision and for all Division I coaches reect the majority response rate per item. (The mean served as a tie-breaker in case the median came out to be a 3 on the 5-point Likert scale.) The following median rating system was used to indicate the essentialness of each item: 1 very nonessential; 2 nonessential; 3 (with a mean less than 3) somewhat nonessential; 3 (with a mean greater than 3) somewhat essential; 4 essential; and 5 very essential. Tables 15 show the results of the questionnaire in response to demographic characteristics, educational background, competitive experiences, coaching experiences, and duties, respectively.
Opinions: Question 2

Question 2 asked the coaches to rate how essential the given items on the questionnaire are for an individual to complete as an undergraduate or graduate student to be a viable candidate as a head strength and conditioning coach at that coachs school on a 5-point Likert scale (1 nonessential, 5 essential). The questionnaire included 32 items (22 under course requirements and 10 under cocurricular requirements). Again, the same rating system was used to indicate these items as was implemented for question 1. Tables 6 and 7 show the results of the

10

MARTINEZ

Table 3. Ratings for competitive experiences (ratings represent the median or at least the 50th percentile of the subjects responses). Division Item Played college or amateur sports Played professional sports Competed in powerlifting Competed in bodybuilding Competed in Olympic lifting I Somewhat essential Very nonessential Very nonessential Very nonessential Very nonessential I-A Essential Very nonessential Very nonessential Very nonessential Very nonessential I-AA Somewhat essential Very nonessential Nonessential Very nonessential Nonessential I-AAA Somewhat essential Very nonessential Very nonessential Very nonessential Very nonessential

Table 4. Ratings for coaching experiences (ratings represent the median or at least the 50th percentile of the subjects responses). Division Item Coached a powerlifting team Coached an Olympic lifting team Coached a sport at any level Served as an assistant strength and conditioning coach at a Division I school Served as an assistant strength and conditioning coach at any school level Served as a graduate assistant strength and conditioning coach at any school level Served as a volunteer strength and conditioning coach at any school level Served as a personal trainer I Very nonessential Very nonessential Somewhat nonessential Essential Essential Essential Somewhat essential Very nonessential I-A Very nonessential Nonessential Somewhat nonessential Essential Essential Essential Somewhat essential Very nonessential I-AA I-AAA Very nonessential Very nonessential Very nonessential Nonessential Somewhat essential Somewhat essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Very nonessential Essential Essential Essential Somewhat essential Very nonessential

Table 5. Ratings for duties (ratings represent the median or at least the 50th percentile of the subjects responses). Division Item Full-time strength and conditioning coach Coaches a sport Recruits athletes Tests and evaluate athletes Counsels athletes on illegal drugs, supplements, and diet In charge of the supervision and maintenance of the weight room(s) Oversees the budget and purchasing of equipment Gives seminars, lectures, and/or presentations in strength and conditioning Conducts research in strength and conditioning Publishes articles in strength and conditioning I Very essential Very nonessential Somewhat nonessential Very essential Very essential Very essential Very essential I-A Very essential Very nonessential Essential Very essential Very essential Very essential Very essential I-AA Very essential Nonessential Somewhat nonessential Very essential Very essential Very essential Very essential I-AAA Very essential Very nonessential Somewhat essential Very essential Essential Very essential Very essential

Somewhat essential Somewhat nonessential Nonessential

Somewhat essential Somewhat nonessential Nonessential

Somewhat essential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat nonessential

Somewhat essential Somewhat nonessential Nonessential

NCAA DIVISION I STRENGTH

AND

CONDITIONING COACHES 11

Table 6. Ratings for curricular requirements (ratings represent the median or at least the 50th percentile of the subjects responses). Division Item Exercise physiology Human anatomy Human physiology Kinesiology or biomechanics Motor learning Tests and measurement Athletic injuries studies Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and rst aid Nutrition Research methods Strength and conditioning training methods Weight training methods Individual and team coaching theory Sports psychology Biology Biochemistry Chemistry Physics Athletic administration Evaluation and selection of training equipment Environmental physiology Computer software and skills I Very essential Very essential Very essential Very essential Essential Essential Essential Very essential Essential Somewhat essential Very essential Very essential Essential Essential Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Essential Somewhat nonessential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Essential Very essential Essential Somewhat essential Very essential Very essential Essential Essential Somewhat essential Somewhat nonessential Nonessential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat essential Essential Somewhat nonessential Essential I-A I-AA Very essential Very essential Very essential Very essential Essential Essential Essential Very essential Essential Somewhat essential Very essential Very essential Essential Essential Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Essential Somewhat nonessential Essential I-AAA Very essential Very essential Very essential Very essential Essential Essential Essential Very essential Essential Somewhat essential Very essential Very essential Essential Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Somewhat Essential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat essential essential essential nonessential nonessential nonessential nonessential

essential nonessential nonessential nonessential essential

essential nonessential nonessential essential essential

Table 7. Ratings for cocurricular requirements (ratings represent the median or at least the 50th percentile of the subjects responses).* Division Item Graduate assistant strength and conditioning coaching experience Graduate assistant team sport coaching experiences Internship experience outside graduate assistantship Student membership in the CSCCa Attendance of the CSCCa national conference Becoming SCCC certied Student membership in the NSCA Attendance of NSCAsponsored clinics, seminars, and conferences Taking the CSCS examination Taking the NSCA-CPT examination I I-A I-AA I-AAA

Essential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat essential Nonessential Nonessential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat essential Essential Very nonessential

Essential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat essential Nonessential Nonessential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat nonessential Essential Very nonessential

Essential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat essential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat essential Essential Very nonessential

Essential Nonessential Somewhat essential Nonessential Nonessential Nonessential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat nonessential Very essential Very nonessential

* CSCCa Collegiate Strength and Conditioning Coaches Association; SCCC Strength and Conditioning Coach Certied; NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association; CSCS Certied Strength and Conditioning Specialist; NSCA-CPT National Strength and Conditioning Association-Certied Personal Trainer.

12

MARTINEZ

questionnaire in response to the curricular and cocurricular requirements, respectively.

Differences With Pullos Findings

Differences occurred between Division I strength and conditioning coaches in this study compared with Division I strength and conditioning coaches from Pullos study when looking at demographic characteristics, educational background, competitive experiences, coaching experiences, duties, and opinions on the profession. As stated earlier, Pullo was only able to study Division I-A and I-AA schools at that time, so it was only these schools that were analyzed. In terms of demographic characteristics, the average age for Division I-A and I-AA coaches has increased from 33 to 37.46 years and 32 to 33.98 years, respectively, from 1988 to this study. Almost 100% of the coaches then and in this study were male for both Division I-A and I-AA. Most coaches were white in both subdivisions in 1988 as they were in this study. A slight decrease was noted in Division I-A as the percentage went from 94.1% in 1988 to 87.34% in 2001. An increase occurred in Division I-AA as the percentage went from 83.3% in 1988 to 92.68% in 2001. The yearly salaries increased for both Divisions IA and I-AA since 1988. Division I-A salaries increased from the average range of $30,000$39,999 to $50,000 $59,999, whereas Division I-AA salaries rose from the average range of $20,000$29,999 to $30,000$39,999. Most Division I-A and I-AA coaches were CSCS certied unlike in 1988. From 1988 to 2001, CSCS certication went from 48 to 72.5% in Division I-A and from 30 to 69.51% in Division I-AA. Also, a greater percentage of coaches were certied in both subdivisions than in 1988. In Division IA, 54% of all coaches were certied in 1988 compared with 87.5% in 2001. For Division I-AA, 36.7% were certied in 1988 compared with 84.15% in 2001. In the area of educational background, slight increases occurred in the percentage of coaches who earned a masters degree when compared with Pullos study. In Division I-A, the percentage went from 63.5 to 67.5% between 1988 and 2001. In Division I-AA, the percentage went from 70 to 79.27% in that same span of time. Physical education was the top undergraduate major for these coaches in both years, but the percentage of coaches with this major declined from 1988 to 2001. The results show that for Division I-A coaches, the rate decreased from 63.4 to 22.54%; for Division I-AA coaches, the rate decreased from 50 to 31.88%. The top graduate major for each subdivision changed in both subdivisions from 1988 to 2001. The most received graduate major of physical education in both subdivisions changed to exercise physiology for Division I-A and exercise science for Division I-AA. In the competitive experiences section, both Division I-A and I-AA coaches cited decreases in bodybuilding, powerlifting, and weightlifting experiences in the context of the sport the coaches competed in from 1988 to 2001. Olympic-style lifting trends were expressed differently for both groups between both years. Division I-A coaches showed a decrease in participation at the college level but an increase in open competition. Division I-AA coaches had an increase in both college and open competition levels. Another difference noted between both studies showed that a greater percentage of Division I-A and IAA coaches in 2001 have, in one format or another, weightlifting experience than did the coaches in 1988.

The top 3 sports for both studies were college football, track and eld, and baseball, in that order. College football participation decreased among Division I-AA coaches between 1988 and 2001 from 83.3 to 51.23%. Also, more coaches in 2001 cited having no collegiate sports participation than did the coaches in 1988. In Division I-A, the nonparticipation rate went from 1.2 to 8.75%. In Division I-AA, the same rate increased from 5 to 20.73%. The coaching experiences portion revealed some differences in comparing the 1988 study to this study. A greater percentage of Division I-A and I-AA coaches in 2001 have had experience as a professional (both head and assistant), college assistant (full-time, part-time, graduate, and volunteer), and Olympic-style lifting coach than in 1988. Conversely, a lesser percentage of Division I-A and I-AA coaches in 2001 have had experience as a bodybuilding coach, powerlifting coach, and athletic team coach than in 1988. The duties of the position also have changed from the 1988 study to 2001 in some areas. A greater percentage of coaches had full-time status with a contract of 12 months. This was especially true for Division I-AA coaches, because full-time status rose from 36.7 to 92.59% from 1988 to 2001. A greater percentage of coaches indicated in 2001 that they had full-time and volunteer assistants on their staff than in 1988. For Division I-A, the increases for both types of assistants went from 50.6 to 85% and 49.9 to 60%, accordingly. For Division I-AA, the rates were 5 to 34.18% and 28.3 to 44.3%, respectively. A lesser percentage of Division I-A coaches had a teaching assignment, published articles, and conducted scientic research in 2001 than in 1988. As for Division I-AA, a lesser percentage of coaches had a teaching assignment and were expected to recruit athletes for the school. A greater percentage of Division I-AA coaches have conducted scientic research and used computerized programs (also true for Division I-A coaches) between 1988 and 2001. The percentage of Division I-A coaches having presented in local and national conferences or seminars has decreased since 1988. Conversely, the overall percentage of Division I-AA coaches having presented in state and national conferences or seminars has increased. Although a greater percentage of Division I-A coaches presented than did Division I-AA coaches (as was the case in 1988), the differences were not as widespread as they were in 1988. From 1988 to 2001, both Division I-A and 1-AA coaches cited an increased response in wanting to remain at their current job (27.1 to 80% and 20 to 68.75%, respectively). In terms of desiring to become a professional strength and conditioning coach, the response rate dropped for Division I-A coaches (29.4 to 22.5%), but rose for Division I-AA coaches (10 to 32.5%). The average size of weight room facilities increased from 4,101.7 sq ft in 1988 to 11,018.94 sq ft in 2001 for Division I-A and increased from 1,851 sq ft in 1988 to 4,729.23 sq ft in 2001 for Division I-AA. Only 18 of the opinions items from question 1 could be compared with the ndings from Pullos study. Although Pullos study used a 2-label classication system (essential vs. nonessential), whereas this study implemented a 6-label classication system addressing the magnitude of essential and nonessential responses on 3 levels each, the comparison between the 2 studies only identied differences in classication (essential vs. nonessential) for those items (Table 8).

NCAA DIVISION I STRENGTH

Table 8. Comparing the opinions between the 2 studies.* Division Item Educational background NSCA certication (CSCS) Bachelors degree Masters degree Doctorate degree Physical education degree Exercise physiology degree Competitive experiences Powerlifting experience Body building Olympic lifting Coaching experiences Coach powerlifters Coach Olympic lifters Assistant strength coach Personal trainer Duties Full-time strength coach Test and evaluate Conduct research Give seminars Publish articles Nonessential (2.0) Nonessential (2.6) Essential (5.6) Nonessential (2.4) Essential (6.5) Essential (6.5) Essential (4.1) Essential (5.1) Nonessential (3.9) Very nonessential Nonessential Essential Very nonessential Nonessential (2.6) Nonessential (2.6) Essential (4.4) Nonessential (2.8) Essential (5.4) Essential (6.2) Essential (4.4) Essential (4.5) Nonessential (3.7) I-A (1988) Nonessential (3.6) Essential (6.7) Essential (4.7) Nonessential (1.8) Essential (4.9) Essential (4.7) Nonessential (2.3) Nonessential (1.9) Nonessential (2.6) I-A (2001) Essential Very essential Essential Very nonessential Somewhat essential Essential I-AA (1988) Nonessential (3.6) Essential (6.6) Essential (4.7) Nonessential (2.2) Essential (4.6) Essential (4.5) Nonessential (3.1) Nonessential (2.2) Nonessential (2.9)

AND

CONDITIONING COACHES 13

I-AA (2001) Essential Very essential Essential Very nonessential Essential Essential

Very nonessential Very nonessential Very nonessential

Nonessential Very nonessential Nonessential

Very nonessential Nonessential Essential Very nonessential

Very essential Very essential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat essential Nonessential

Very essential Very essential Somewhat nonessential Somewhat essential Nonessential

* Pullos study reects the mean responses to a 7-point Likert scale. A measure less than 4.0 on an item was considered nonessential and a measure of 4.0 or more on an item was considered essential. NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association; CSCS certied strength and conditioning specialist.

DISCUSSION
The following tables are given to show how the results compare among the Division I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA head strength and conditioning coaches responses to the questionnaire. In Table 9, the proles of each subdivision in this study do not necessarily mean that most of the coaches reected that particular result. Rather, the indicated response resembled the highest rate measured to show the characteristic or viewpoint a coach was most likely to demonstrate. Tables 10 and 11, respectively, compare the proles of the Division I-A and I-AA coaches from Pullos study expressed under the 1988 heading to this study (under the 2001 heading) on items that are consistent between both studies. Again, the responses resembled the highest rate measured to show the characteristic or view-

point a coach was most likely to demonstrate in both studies. Division I-A coaches differed from Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches in terms of average age and yearly salary. Division I-A coaches tend to be older by an average of 3.5 4 years and average more than $20,000 per year. Division I-AAA coaches differed from Division I-A and I-AA coaches in reference to the second-most common certication held. It seemed the CSCCa has made some headway with Division I-A and I-AA coaches, since it came in second behind the CSCS. However, it has not reached out to the nonfootball Division I-AAA institutions, since it came out to be the fth highest certication held. Although more than two-thirds of the Division I-A and I-AAA coaches held a masters degree, close to 80% of all

14

MARTINEZ

Table 9. Comparative prole of Division I head strength and conditioning coaches. Division Item Average age (y) Sex Ethnicity Salary Certication Degree Undergraduate major Graduate major Sports or athletic competitive experience Nonsport-related weightlifting experience Total number of coaches Bodybuilding coaching experience Powerlifting coaching experience Olympic-style lifting coaching experience High school strength and conditioning coaching Professional strength and conditioning coaching Team or individual sport coaching experience Average years of head college experience Average years of assistant college experience Graduate assistant experience Volunteer assistant experience Personal trainer experience Job title Direct supervisor Primary team responsibility Employment status Full-time status Contract (mo) Teaching assignment Career goals Number of full-time assistants Number of part-time assistants Number of graduate assistants Number of volunteer assistants Number of weight rooms Average size (sq ft) Primary job responsibility Published articles Presented at local level Presented at state level Presented at national level Conducted scientic research I-A 37.46 Male White $50$59,999 CSCS Masters Physical education Exercise physiology or exercise science College football Open power Lifting No No No No No Yes 8.66 3.12 Yes No No Head strength and conditioning coach Assistant athletic director Football Staff Yes 12 No Status quo 2 0 1 1 2 11,018.94 Test athletes No Yes Yes No No I-AA 33.98 Male White $30$39,999 CSCS Masters Physical education Exercise physiology or exercise science College football Club Olympic Lifting No No No No No Yes 4.89 1.98 Yes Yes Yes Head strength and conditioning coach Athletic director Football Staff Yes 12 No Status quo 0 0 0 0 1 4,729.23 Test athletes No Yes No No Yes I-AAA 33.59 Male White $30$39,999 CSCS Masters Exercise science Exercise science College football Open Olympic Lifting No No No No No Yes 4.53 1.55 No Yes Yes Head strength and conditioning coach Athletic director Mens and womens basketball Staff Yes 12 No Status quo 0 0 0 0 1 2,926.32 Test athletes No Yes No No No

Division I-AA coaches held a masters degree, which indicated a slight difference. More Division I-AAA coaches tend to have either a bachelors or masters degree in exercise science than any other major. More Division I-A and I-AA coaches tend to have either a bachelors degree in physical education or a masters degree in exercise physiology as the highest degree attained than any other major. More than half of all Division I-A and I-AA coaches played college football followed by track and eld as the second highest competitive experience. Less than half of all Division I-AAA coaches played college football, but it had the highest rate of participation. Unlike Division I-A and I-AA coaches, college baseball had the second highest rate of participation. All 3 subdivisions differed in the highest weightlifting experience that was not afliated

with a team or individual sport. Division I-A coaches indicated open powerlifting, Division I-AA coaches reported club Olympic lifting, and Division I-AAA coaches stated open Olympic lifting as this type of primary weightlifting experience. Most Division I coaches did not have experience as a bodybuilding, powerlifting, or Olympic-style weightlifting coach. Most Division I coaches had experience coaching a sport outside strength and conditioning duties at the high school, college, and/or professional level. Most coaches did not have high school and professional experience as either a head or assistant strength and conditioning coach. Most coaches came from strictly a college background. One difference that occurred was that most Division I-A and IAA coaches had graduate assistant experience, whereas most Division I-AAA coaches did not have this experience.

NCAA DIVISION I STRENGTH

Table 10. Comparative prole of Division I-A coaches in 1988 and 2001.*

AND

CONDITIONING COACHES 15

Division I-A Item Age (y) Sex Ethnicity Salary NSCA certication (CSCS) Degree Undergraduate major Graduate major College strength and conditioning coach experience (y) College assistant strength and conditioning coach experience (y) Athletic lifting experience Played college football Coaches athletes Coached college football Graduate assistant experience Job title Status Supervisor Full-time strength coach Contract (mo) Responsible for conditioning Teach Number of assistants Number of part-time assistants Number of graduate assistants Use computers for programs Test athletes Drug counseling Supervise and maintain rooms Number of weight rooms Average size (sq ft) Publish articles Presentations at local level Presentations at state level Presentations at national level Research in strength training Help recruit athletes Goals 1988 33 Male White $30$39,999 Yes Masters Physical education Physical education 6.4 2.5 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Strength coach Staff Athletic director Yes 12 All teams No 1 0 1 No Yes Yes Yes 2 4,101.7 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Status quo 2001 37.46 Male White $50$59,999 Yes Masters Physical education Exercise physiology or exercise science 8.66 3.12 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Head strength and conditioning coach Staff Assistant athletic director Yes 12 All teams No 2 0 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 11,018.94 No Yes Yes No No Yes Status quo

* NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association; CSCS certied strength and conditioning specialist.

A second set of differences was that most Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches had volunteer assistant and personal training, whereas most Division I-A did not have either experience. The most frequently given job title was that of head strength and conditioning coach. Division I-A coaches differed from Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches in citing more frequently the assistant athletic director more than the athletic director as the direct supervisor. Division IAAA coaches differed from Division I-A and I-AA coaches in that their primary responsibility was with the mens and womens basketball teams, unlike football at the Division I-A and I-AA institutions. Most coaches had staff status and were contracted full-time with a 12-month, nonteaching assignment. Most coaches were content with remaining as head strength and conditioning coaches at the college level. Division I-A coaches differed from Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches in that most coaches were likely to have full-time, graduate, and volunteer assistants on their staff. Division I-A coaches also were more likely to have part-time assistants on staff than Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches. Division I-A coaches also had

more facilities and space to use than Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches. Most Division I-A coaches had at least 2 weight rooms compared with 1 for Division I-AA and IAAA coaches. Division I-A coaches also had on average more than 11,000 sq ft of space compared with less than 4,800 sq ft for Division I-AA and less than 3,000 sq ft for Division I-AAA coaches. Most coaches believed that testing athletes was their primary responsibility. Most coaches have presented at the local level but have neither presented at the national level nor published articles on strength and conditioning. Division I-A coaches differed from Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches in that most of the coaches have presented at the state level. Division I-AA coaches differed from Division I-A and I-AAA coaches in that most of the coaches have conducted scientic research in strength and conditioning. Many differences occurred with regard to the magnitude of how an item rated as being either essential or nonessential when comparing all 3 subdivisions. However, only 2 differences occurred in which an item received contrasting ratings of essential and nonessential among all 3 subdivisions. Division I-A coaches viewed coaching

16

MARTINEZ

Table 11. Comparative prole of Division I-AA coaches in 1988 and 2001. Division I-AA Item Age (y) Sex Ethnicity Salary NSCA certication (CSCS) Degree Undergraduate major Graduate major College strength and conditioning coach experience (y) College assistant strength and conditioning coach experience (y) Athletic lifting experience Played college football Coaches athletes Coached college football Graduate assistant experience Job title Status Supervisor Full-time strength coach Contract (mo) Responsible for conditioning Teach Number of assistants Number of part-time assistants Number of graduate assistants Use computers for programs Test athletes Drug counseling Supervise and maintain rooms Number of weight rooms Average size (sq ft) Publish articles Presentations at local level Presentations at state level Presentations at national level Research in strength training Help recruit athletes Goals 1988 32 Male White $20$29,999 No Masters Physical education Physical education 4.8 2.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Assistant football or strength coach Staff Football coach No 12 Only football No 0 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes 1 1,851.0 No Yes No No No Yes Football coach 2001 33.98 Male White $30$39,999 yes Masters Physical education Exercise physiology or exercise science 4.89 1.98 yes Yes Yes No Yes Head strength and conditioning coach Staff Athletic director Yes 12 All teams No 0 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 4,729.23 No Yes No No Yes Yes Status quo

experience of a sport on any level as somewhat nonessential vs. somewhat essential by the Division I-AA and IAAA coaches. Collectively, the results showed that this was somewhat nonessential among all coaches. Division I-A coaches viewed the duty of recruiting athletes as essential vs. somewhat nonessential by the Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches. Collectively, the results showed that this was somewhat nonessential among all coaches. In conclusion, Division I head strength and conditioning coaches believe the following were essential for a coach to be successful as a head strength and conditioning coach at their institution: must be CSCS certied with a masters degree in physical education and/or exercise physiology (or related major); must have college or amateur sports competitive experience; must have experience as an assistant (full-time, part-time, graduate, and/or volunteer) strength and conditioning coach at any school level; and must have a full-time position entailing test and evaluation of athletes, counseling athletes on illegal drugs, supplements, and diet, supervising and maintaining the weight room(s), overseeing the budget and purchasing of equipment, and giving seminars, lectures, and/

or presentations on strength and conditioning. Division IA coaches would add that being able to recruit athletes was essential. Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches would add that experience in coaching team sports was an added essential item. Many differences occurred with regard to the magnitude of how an item rated as being either essential or nonessential when comparing all 3 subdivisions. However, only 3 differences occurred in which an item received contrasting ratings of essential and nonessential among all 3 subdivisions. Division I-AA coaches viewed a course in physics as somewhat essential vs. somewhat nonessential by the Division I-A and I-AAA coaches. Collectively, the results showed that this was somewhat nonessential among all coaches. Division I-AAA coaches viewed a course in athletic administration as nonessential vs. somewhat essential by the Division I-A and I-AA coaches. Collectively, the results showed that this was somewhat essential among all coaches. Division I-AA coaches viewed that attendance of NSCA-sponsored clinics, seminars, or conferences as somewhat essential vs. somewhat nonessential by the Division I-A and I-AAA coaches. Col-

NCAA DIVISION I STRENGTH

AND

CONDITIONING COACHES 17

lectively, the results showed that this was somewhat essential among all coaches. In conclusion, Division I head strength and conditioning coaches believed the following undergraduate and graduate components were essential for an individual to be considered a viable candidate as a head strength and conditioning coach at their institution: coursework in exercise physiology, human anatomy, human physiology, kinesiology or biomechanics, motor learning, tests and measurement, athletic injuries studies, CPR and rst aid, nutrition, research methods, strength and conditioning training methods, weight training methods, individual and team coaching theory, sports psychology, biology, athletic administration, evaluation and selection of training equipment, and computer software skills; experience as a graduate assistant strength and conditioning coach; internship experience outside graduate assistantship; attendance at NSCAsponsored clinics, seminars, or conferences; and taking the CSCS examination to become a CSCS. Division I-AA coaches would add a course in physics, whereas Division I-AAA coaches would not include a course in athletic administration. Division I-A and I-AAA coaches would not include attendance at NSCA-sponsored clinics, seminars, or conferences. In terms of demographic characteristics, the average age, yearly salaries, and CSCS certication have increased for Division I coaches since Pullos study. The position continued to be predominantly occupied by white men for both subdivisions. In the area of educational background, more coaches possessed a masters degree, with the predominant graduate major changing from physical education to exercise physiology or exercise science. This can be attributed to many colleges and universities having undergone a change in the name of the major from physical education to a more specic emphasis (such as exercise physiology and exercise science). In the competitive experiences section, a greater percentage of coaches in 2001 came into the profession with weightlifting experience than in 1988. Although decreases were noted in bodybuilding, powerlifting, and weightlifting attributed to the sport they competed in, coaches in this study have been more selective in the type of lifting they have done in contrast to those in 1988, who competed in many types of lifting. Also, increases were cited in Olympic-style lifting from 1988 to 2001. A greater percentage of coaches in 2001 cited having no collegiate sports participation than did the coaches in 1988 by as much as 4 times the response rate. The coaching experiences portion revealed a greater percentage of coaches had experience as a professional (both head and assistant), college assistant (full-time, part-time, graduate, and volunteer), and Olympic-style lifting coach in 2001 than in 1988. Conversely, a lesser percentage of coaches had experience as a bodybuilding, powerlifting, and athletic team coach in 2001 than in 1988. The duties of the position also have changed from 1988 to 2001 in some areas. In this study, the Division IAA position looked more like the Division I-A position in terms of full-time staff status with no teaching assignment, responsibility for all teams, greater use of computerized programs, and presenting at conferences and seminars on all levels. Division I-AA coaches were not expected to recruit athletes as much as in the past because

they were not as likely to be an assistant coach for a sport at that school (which was a prime responsibility of an assistant coach of a varsity sport). Coaches were more content with their position and were more likely to want to remain as a college head strength and conditioning coach. Facilities have improved dramatically for both subdivisions since 1988 in terms of square footage availability. Division I-AA facilities in 2001 were commensurate to Division I-A facilities in 1988 in terms of space. Both Division I-A and I-AA facilities have increased by almost 3 times since 1988. Only 2 major differences appeared between the 2 studies in reference to the opinions section. Coaches in this study viewed the CSCS (NSCA credential) as essential, whereas in 1988 it was classied as a nonessential item. Also, coaches in this study viewed conducting research as somewhat nonessential. In 1988, this was classied as an essential task.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The ndings of this study provide some key factors that a prospective college head strength and conditioning coach on any level should consider. A masters degree is most desirable with a degree in exercise physiology or exercise science (or related course of study) that exposes the individual to those courses rated as essential in this study. A CSCS is the most desirable certication. Knowledge in many sports is desirable, since most head positions demand that you work with nearly all male and female teams in need of your services. Knowledge in using computers and technology is desirable. Gaining assistant experience on various levels (full-time, part-time, graduate, and volunteer) is highly desirable before being considered for a head position. Individuals should expect to be an assistant strength and conditioning coach for at least 13 years (this is a majority result found, and more years could be necessary due to the limited number of opportunities that exist within Division I athletics). Division I-A coaches should expect to report directly to the athletic director or an assistant athletic director, whereas Division I-AA and I-AAA coaches usually report to the athletic director. Individuals should expect to test athletes, supervise facilities, counsel athletes, and oversee the budget. Presenting at conferences and seminars at any level is desirable. Trends show that the position has improved in the areas of salary (supported by ndings with Division I-A and I-AA results), job attenuation, and the facilities available to the coach.

REFERENCES
1. BOOKER, R., AND R. MEIR. Coaching and leadership: A model for enhancing athlete development. Strength Cond. J. 22(1):34 39. 2000. DOOMAN, C.S., P.J. TITLEBAUM, AND E.M. DEMARCO. More weight on the bar: Being a strength and conditioning coach today. Strength Cond. 20(5):3134. 1998. KRAEMER, W.J. Education and learning. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 12(2):7273. 1990. KRAEMER, W.J. A fundamental skill of the profession. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 12(6):7273. 1990. MCCLELLAN, T. A comparison and analysis of the physical facilities, administration and off-season conditioning programs of Division I-A athletic departments. Arizona State University, Tempe, 1984. MCCLELLAN, T., AND W.J. STONE. Research technique: A survey of football strength and conditioning programs for Division

2.

3. 4. 5.

6.

18

MARTINEZ
I NCAA universities. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 8(2):3436. 1986. NORTH AMERICAN COLLEGE COACHES DIRECTORY. Cassville, MO: Clell Wade Coaches Directory, Inc., 2001. PETOSA, P.S. A sport science model for enhancing intercollegiate performance. Strength Cond. 18(2):5864. 1996. PULLO, F.M. The qualications, duties, and opinions of National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I football strength and conditioning coaches [doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1989]. Dissertation Abstracts Intl. 50:3180. 1989. PULLO, F.M. A prole of NCAA Division I strength and conditioning coaches. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 6(1):5562. 1992. Responsibilities of the strength and conditioning professional, part I. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 13(1):1021. 1991. Responsibilities of the strength and conditioning professional, part II. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 13(2):1021. 1991. 13. SMITH, M. Call for assistants: A review of the need for assistant strength coaches in good athletic programs. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 6(4):52. 1984. SUTHERLAND, T.M., AND J.P. WILEY. Survey of strength and conditioning services for professional athletes in four sports. J. Strength Cond. Res. 11(4):266268. 1997. TAYLOR, J. A perspective on the status of college strength and conditioning coaches and the NSCA. Strength Cond. J. 23(1): 1012. 2001. TEICHELMAN, T. Trends in the strength and conditioning profession in Division I schools. Strength Cond. 20(2):7072. 1998. TODD, J., D. LOVETT, AND T. TODD. The status of women in the strength and conditioning profession. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 13(6):3538. 1991.

7. 8. 9.

14.

15.

16. 17.

10. 11. 12.

Address correspondence to David M. Martinez, EdD martinez44@earthlink.net