If one accepts the claim that the sport profession, in general, is still relatively young (sport coaching, for example, has only existed as a formal occupation for less than two hundred years), then it’s not unreasonable to suggest this profession may currently be in its own “Stone Age”, to use anthropological terms. Now, consider the sum of all sport-related achievements to-date and attempt to balance this with the assertion that the sport profession could still be in its evolutionary infancy. Sit on this proposition for a minute and then ask yourself: Could the progress we’ve seen in sport up until this point only scrape the surface of what is possible? Now, try to reconcile your natural conclusions to that question with the myriad of current sporting practices that go unquestioned, unchallenged, or are even considered infallible. Yet, how often do we encounter athletic administrators, sport coaches, strength and conditioning coaches, and athletic trainers who not only cling to various ideas, behaviors, and traditions, but resist opening their ideas up for criticism, debate, error correction, let alone change? I have been guilty of this myself at times. 

However, if you’re anything like me, the first time you consider the evolution of sport from this global perspective, it is similar to the feeling of gazing up at the night sky and realizing for the first time how enormous the universe actually is (and likewise, how small we really are) – only to remember that for the vast majority of human history, people believed the earth was the center of our solar system (a concept called geocentrism). In fact, to run with this analogy a bit further, after the very first heliocentric observations (that is the sun, not the earth, is the center of our solar system) were made around 230 BC , it still took nearly two thousand years for this astronomical model to be accepted as truth. In other words, two thousand years was the passage of time between the discovery of evidence and the acceptance of that evidence. Think about that.

Perhaps the perspective illuminated by this analogy can be a useful lens through which we can view the current state of the collegiate sport profession, appreciate how far it has come, but nevertheless recognize the need for constant forward progress. It is important to note – I am not downplaying the evolution the sport profession has made thus far. In fact, it is remarkable to consider the shattering of various athletic and coaching barriers once deemed impossible (e.g., a sub-two-hour marathon, a sub-four-minute mile, UConn Women’s Basketball, Alabama Football). Rather, the point I am trying make is what we perceive (or cling to) as the pinnacle of sport achievement is merely a snapshot of where we are right now, and it is likely notthe pinnacle of what is possible and/or what is still to come. 

The goal of this blog is not to disparage any athlete, team, coach, administrator, or university, but to foster critical thinking for the sole purpose of driving forward progress. Some of what I will put forward is conjectural in nature, but it is precisely conjecture (followed by criticism and error correction) that serves as the bedrock of knowledge creation. Ideally, sport preparation at the collegiate level should be viewed as the systematic development and harmonious integration of the six modes of preparation: Cultural, Psychological, Technical, Tactical, PhysicalPreparatory, and Physiotherapeutic. 

The specific aim of this blog is twofold: 1) to zoom-in and analyze each of these individual pillars of sport preparation and 2) to zoom-out in order to view and assess the system as a whole. As it pertains to the former, I will direct the focus of some posts towards the various “stakeholders” responsible for optimizing the six different modes of sport preparation – including athletic directors/administrators, head and assistant sport coaches, strength and conditioning coaches, certified athletic trainers, and others. As it pertains to the latter, other posts will take on a more global perspective by analyzing the current interrelationship (or lack thereof) and interdependence (or lack thereof) between these six modes of preparation and their respective stakeholders. Combining these two perspectives together, what will likely become crystallized is the difference between was is and what could be regarding the organization, management, preparation, and performance of athletic departments and sport programs at the collegiate level. However, what good is identifying a problem if it is not met with a solution? To that end, I will provide possible solutions (to the best of my intellectual ability) to the various dysfunctions and problems discussed – all for the purpose of driving forward progress within the collegiate sport profession. 

Finally, it is important to recognize some of the individuals responsible for shaping the way I think about this subject, whether directly (i.e., personal relationships) or indirectly (i.e., through books, articles, lectures, or podcasts): Harrison Heditsian, James Smith, Keir Wenham-Flatt, Nick Dimarco, Jeff Casebolt, Josh and Zach Daniel, Alex Carnall, Steve Magness, Peter Thiel, Jim Collins, Fergus Connolly, and others.