Issuu

Contents Volume 20 Number 1 / November 2026

28 6

IN EVERY ISSUE

USTFCCCA Presidents

FEATURES

Planning for Success The Architecture for Sprint Design REMI KORCHEMNY

AWARDS

44 USTFCCCA Coaches Hall of Fame Class of 2026 46 The Bowerman Finalists 2026

16 Technology in Modern Coaching Tool or Trap? DR. CHRISTINE BROOKS

28 Making the Grade Testing and Measuring for the Track and Field Coach

START OF HEAT 4 OF THE COLLEGE WOMEN’S 100M DASH DURING THE 130TH PENN RELAYS AT FRANKLIN FIELD, FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 2026, IN PHILADELPHIA. PHOTOGRAPH BY JEFF SCUDDER/IMAGE OF SPORT

AN EXCERPT FROM THE USTFCCCA TRACK AND FIELD ACADEMY

NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

THE LEADING SURFACE OF TRACK & FIELD

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, OH

FULL CONTROL ON QUALITY

PROVEN DURABILITY

Beynon controls all aspects of the manufacturing value chain. From start to finish, your project doesn’t leave our hands.

Manufactured and installed with the highest attention to detail, Beynon systems showcase proven durability.

TRUSTED

FINANCIALLY STRONG

For indoor or outdoor venues, Beynon is the trusted surface of leading NCAA Div I programs, thousands of high schools and distinguished municipal facilities.

Part of Tarkett Sports, a division of the Tarkett Group, a worldwide leader of innovative flooring and sports surface solutions, Beynon has unprecedented financial support and stability. You can rest easy.

LET’S GET STARTED ON YOUR TRACK

BEYNONSPORTS.COM

USTFCCCA PRESIDENT

CONNIE PRICE-SMITH PUBLISHER Sam Seemes

USTFCCCA President

Connie is the Head Coach of Men’s and Women’s Track and Field and Cross Country at the University of Mississippi. She can be reached at cmprices@olemiss.edu

MEMBERSHIP SERVICES Nick Lieggi, Kristina Taylor, Dave Svoboda, Gisele Sallade COMMUNICATIONS Garrett Bampos, Tom Lewis, Tyler Mayforth, Howard Willman

DIVISION PRESIDENTS

NCAA DIVISION III

NCAA DIVISION II

NCAA DIVISION I

CHARLES RYAN Track & Field

Charles is the Director of Track and Field and Cross Country at San Jose State University. He can be reached at charles. ryan@sjsu.edu.

Stefanie Slekis is the Head Coach of Track and Field and Cross Country at Nicholls State University. Stefanie can be reached at stefanie.slekis@nicholls.edu

TINA DAVIS FERNANDEZ Track & Field

ERIC PHILLIPS Cross Country

Tina Davis Fernandez is the Head Cross Country and Track & Field Coach for CAL State LA. Tina can be reached at Tina.DavisFernandes@ calstatela.edu

CHAD GUNNELSON Track & Field

Chad Gunnelson is the Director of Track and Field and Cross Country at Augustana College. Chad can be reached at chadgunnelson@augustana.edu

NAIA

CALEB SNYDER Track & Field

Caleb Snyder is the Head Men’ and Women’s Track & Field Coach at Indiana Wesleyan University. Caleb can be reached at caleb.snyder@indwes.edu

NJCAA

CHIP GAYDEN Track & Field

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

STEFANIE SLEKIS Cross Country

Chip Gayden is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track & Field Coach at Meridian Community College. He can be reached at hgayden@meridiancc.edu

Eric Phillips is the men’s distance assistant coach for track and field and cross country at Saginaw Valley State University. He can be reached at edphilli@svsu.edu.

RYAN CHAPMAN Cross Country

Ryan Chapman is the Head Coach of Men’s and Women’s Cross Country at Wartburg College. Ryan can be reached at ryan.chapman@wartburg.edu

GRIER GATLIN Cross Country

Grier Gatlin is the Head Coach of Track and Field and Cross Country at Southern Oregon University. Grier can be reached at gatling@sou.edu

DEE BROWN Cross Country

Dee Brown is the Director of Track and Field and Cross Country at Iowa Central CC. Dee can be reached at brown_dee@iowacentral.edu

PHOTOGRAPHER Kirby Lee EDITORIAL BOARD Tommy Badon, Scott Christensen, Todd Lane, Derek Yush ART DIRECTOR Tiffani Reding Amedeo

PUBLISHED BY Renaissance Publishing LLC 110 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 123, Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 828-1380 myneworleans.com

USTFCCCA National Office 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: 504-599-8900 Website: ustfccca.org

If you would like to submit content for, or advertise your business in Techniques, please contact 504-599-8906 or techniques@ustfccca.org.

Techniques (ISSN 1939-3849) is published quarterly in February, May, August and November by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner, in whole or in part, without the permission of the publisher. techniques is not responsible for unsolicited manuscripts, photos and artwork even if accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope. The opinions expressed in techniques are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the magazines’ managers or owners. Periodical Postage Paid at New Orleans La and Additional Entry Offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: USTFCCCA, PO Box 55969, Metairie, LA 70055-5969.

Planning for Success The Architecture of Sprint Design

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

SECTION I The Paradigm of High-Performance Planning To design a training system for elite sprinters, one must completely reject the traditional, calendar-bound approach to planning. Standard athletic planning treats the season like an architectural blueprint for a static building—drawing rigid boxes around specific weeks and dictating fixed, arbitrary workloads months in advance. But a human athlete is a highly complex, dynamically changing biological engine. High-performance planning cannot be a concrete mold; it must be a master strategy of responsive engineering. To plan effectively, we must organize our thinking around two central models: The Metaphor of the River and The Lego Paradox. The Metaphor of the River: Stability of Direction, Fluidity of Means An elite training plan must function exactly like a river. A river is defined by two distinct elements: its rigid, unyielding banks and the fluid, constantly moving water that flows between them. • The Riverbanks (The Stable Constraints): The banks represent the training objectives and the laws of human physiology. These are fixed, permanent, and absolute. The biological timeline required to adapt the ATP-CP system does not change based on a calendar date. The requirement to maintain high neuromuscular conductivity does not bend to a coach’s wishes. Your strategic objectives—absolute speed, structural integrity, and perfect motor rhythm—are the immovable borders that dictate the direction of the training. • The Flowing Water (The Fluid Means): The water represents the daily execution of training—the specific distances, repetitions, volumes, and rest intervals. The water must remain entirely fluid. It must dynamically adapt in real time to the actual functional state of the athlete on the track. If an athlete arrives at the track with compromised neuromuscular conductivity, forcing them to execute a rigid, pre-written workout is a fundamental engineering failure. It introduces destructive “structural vibrations” that break down the human engine rather than tuning it. The high-performance planner maps out the exact trajectory of the riverbanks but leaves the daily volume and intensity completely open to immediate adaptation based on real-time feedback and metric control. KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

PLANNING FOR SUCCESS

The Lego Paradox: Component-Based Assembly Traditional coaching frequently commits a massive logical error: it attempts to teach sprinting by forcing the athlete to practice the final, finished product over and over again. They treat the sprint like an unbreakable monolith. High-performance planning requires the Lego Paradox. An elite sprinter is assembled by engineering isolated, high-precision individual components at the cellular and mechanical levels, and then fitting them together into a unified, flawless motor rhythm. You do not simply train “the 100 meters.” Instead, you isolate and manufacture the specific pieces of the puzzle: • The precise cellular energy capacity of the anaerobic alactic system. • The explicit joint-angle force expression (maximum, explosive, and strength endurance). • The neuromuscular firing rate required for minimal ground-contact time. • The starting acceleration component, developed via specialized overload vectors that weaponize track geometry to force highconductivity neuromuscular responses. Your plan is a strategic assembly line. By systematically isolating, developing, and mastering these highly specific metabolic and mechanical sub-components, you allow the final, elite competitive performance to assemble itself naturally, with absolute geometric and physiological integrity. SECTION II The Biological Architecture of Stress and Adaptation To engineer an elite sprinter, the planner must understand that the human body does not adapt to a specific distance, a coach’s stopwatch, or a textbook training program. It adapts to homeostatic disruption. Training is the deliberate, calculated introduction of cellular stress. However, from a physiological perspective, the human body’s reaction to stress is not a single, generalized response. It is a highly integrated cascade operating across two distinct domains: General Biological Adaptation and Cellular Micro-Damage. 1. The Real-Time Strain on the System: When an athlete executes a high-velocity sprint, the body responds instantly to preserve its internal equilibrium (homeostasis): • The Sympathetic Cascade: The central nervous system (CNS) immediately triggers a massive surge of catecholamines (adrenaline and noradrenaline). This accelerates 8

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

the heart rate, elevates stroke volume, and shifts blood flow away from visceral organs directly into the working musculature. • The Metabolic Emergency: At the cellular level, the sudden demand for explosive energy creates an immediate deficit. The cell cannot wait for oxygen; it must violently split its localized adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and phosphocreatine (CP) stores. As the sprint extends past a few seconds, the glycolytic engine kicks in, rapidly producing energy but generating hydrogen ions and metabolic byproducts that alter the intracellular pH, disrupting the enzyme systems required for muscle contraction. 2. General Adaptation Energy (The Cellular Reservoir): The foundational law of high-performance planning is that an athlete has a finite capacity for adaptation. When stress is applied, the body draws from this localized biological reservoir to repair, reinforce, and upgrade its systems. If the stress is perfectly targeted—respecting the boundary where the required energy and neuromuscular qualities can no longer be maintained—the body triggers a supercompensation phase. It builds a larger engine: expanding metabolic capacity, increasing phosphocreatine storage, and reinforcing structural tissues like tendons. However, if the coach overloads the system, the body enters a state of exhaustion. The biological reservoir is drained, neuromuscular conductivity drops, and the athlete begins practicing broken motor rhythms. The coach is no longer building components; they are destroying them. 3. Molecular Engineering: Actin-Myosin and Shortened vs. Mid-Range Positions: To understand how the muscular system reacts to mechanical stress, we must look directly at the molecular bridge-building inside the sarcomere—specifically, the actin-myosin cross-bridges. Muscular adaptation is heavily driven by mechanical tension, which occurs when actin and myosin filaments bind together to generate force. The nature of this stress changes dramatically based on the joint angles and the muscle’s working length. • The Shortened Position (Low Structural Stress): When a muscle is loaded in a shortened range of motion, the physical strain and subsequent structural micro-damage are heavily minimized. This is why utilizing a shortened stride radius early in the preparation phase is a stroke of biological genius. It allows you to expose the nervous system

to high-frequency sprint rhythms without inducing severe mechanical damage or tearing up the muscle fibers. The athlete adapts to the speed without the destructive cellular wear and tear. • The Mid-Range Position (Peak Force Stress): As the muscle moves into its midrange position, the overlap between actin and myosin filaments reaches its absolute geometric optimum. This is where the muscle can produce its absolute maximum force. By understanding this specific structural behavior, we can intentionally select and order our explosive strength and contrast exercises (like heavy sleds and uphill running) to hit the exact joint angles. SECTION III Training Modalities to Match High-Intensity Demands To match the brutal neuromuscular and metabolic demands of maximal sprinting, training modalities cannot be applied as random, exhausting exercises. They must be engineered as precise mechanical and biochemical stimuli that match the specific operational constraints of the elite human engine. To bridge the gap between cellular stress and tracking execution, we deploy four distinct high-intensity training modalities. 1. The Variable Stride-Radius Modality (Rhythm Stabilization): The primary highintensity demand of sprinting is maintaining an ultra-high frequency of neuromuscular firing without introducing early coordination errors or structural breakdown. • The Modality: We manipulate the working lever of the limb by using a shortened stride radius at the beginning of the preparation cycle. • The Demand Match: By tucking the heel tighter under the hip and shortening the cyclic path, we reduce the rotational inertia of the leg. This allows the nervous system to practice the exact competitive motor rhythm and high firing frequency under low mechanical load. Over several months, we gradually open up the radius to a full stride, naturally transforming high-frequency coordination into massive horizontal displacement. 2: Time-Bound Segmented Runs (Metabolic Capacity Modality): Highintensity sprint endurance requires the body to tolerate extreme intracellular acidification (hydrogen ion accumulation) without dropping the competitive motor rhythm.

YES, WE HAVE IT.

That’s why we’ve been your one stop for everything track and ﬁeld for over 65 years.

• We are proud of our same day shipping policy.*

• Backed with a team of track and ﬁeld experts to advise and make suggestions on the right equipment. • All with sensible low prices on our full line. • You’ll be more than pleased with our people, our pricing, our selection and our

100

SATISFACTION GUARANTEE!

WHY TRUST ANYONE ELSE WITH YOUR TRACK NEEDS! *Most items ship same day. Exceptions apply.

800-556-7464 mfathletic.com

PLANNING FOR SUCCESS

• The Modality: Rather than running continuous, exhaustive distances that degrade mechanics, we utilize segmented high-intensity runs (e.g., 90m broken into 30/30/30m or 250m broken into 50m increments). • The Demand Match: We dictate exact instructions for each segment—requiring a fast beginning, a relaxed middle transition, and an explosive finish. By dividing the distance, we teach the athlete how to deliberately distribute energy and actively switch their neuromuscular system between maximal tension and conscious relaxation. 3. Progressive Flying Sprints & MicroGates (Neuromuscular Power Modality): Absolute maximum velocity demands absolute neurological output. The human body can only sustain peak velocity for a few fleeting seconds before the ATP-CP engine depletes and the central nervous system fatigues. • The Modality: We implement flying sprints (e.g., 30m acceleration + 30m maximum velocity) using 10-meter micro-timing gates.

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

• The Demand Match: We anchor the acceleration distance at a constant 40–50m to fully tap the anaerobic alactic system. We then modularly scale the maximum velocity segment (10m → 20m → 30m). The 10m micro-gates map the exact velocity distribution across the run. If the micro-gates show that velocity peaks too late or drops too early, we immediately know whether the athlete needs more Capacity training or Power training, preventing them from ever crossing the threshold into broken mechanics. 4. Biomechanical Contrast Modalities (Force-Velocity Profiling): Sprinting demands an extraordinary rate of force development (RFD) and highly elastic, minimal ground-contact times (<0.90s). • The Modality: We match this by pairing heavily resisted force stimuli with unresisted velocity stimuli in a single session (The Contrast Method): • Incline/Decline Contrast: 3 × 50m uphill running (on a steep incline to force massive joint-angle power and stride extension) immediately followed by 2 × 50m downhill

running (to force supramaximal firing frequencies). • Load Contrast: Alternating heavy sled runs, light sled runs, and unresisted block sprints. • Diagonal Velocity Descent (The StraightLine Acceleration Ramp): The athlete begins at the highest point of the track turn in the outside of Lane 8 and executes a sprint in a completely straight line cutting diagonally across all lanes down toward Lane 1 and beyond. This modality intentionally rejects sprinting along the curve itself, completely eliminating destructive centrifugal forces. Crucially, the athlete must run this segment strictly in the mode of explosive acceleration, rather than a progressive build-up. By attacking the slope with immediate, maximal acceleration effort, the runner weaponizes the natural sloped elevation and banking of the turn as a mechanical downhill ramp to specifically develop starting acceleration. This creates a supramaximal overspeed stimulus that forces extreme neuromuscular firing frequencies and a rapid rate of force development (RFD) while KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FASTER. SMARTER. STRONGER. HIGH-PERFORMANCE TRACK DESIGN AND SURFACING With decades of experience working with top-ranked programs across the country, TenCate brings the latest in surfacing, design and construction technology to the track market.

Jadwin Gymnasium Princeton University, New Jersey Carl Maddox Field House Louisiana State University, Louisiana Koehler Fieldhouse East Stroudsburg University, Pennsylvania

tencate-americas.com

PLANNING FOR SUCCESS

maintaining perfect postural integrity. SECTION IV: The Art of Tactical Regulation: Volume, Intensity, and the Competitive Taper A dogmatic coach demands a pre-written Monday-to-Friday prescription. An engineering coach understands that prescribing rigid daily workouts months in advance is a fundamental misunderstanding of biology. Dictating an arbitrary schedule ignores the fact that the central nervous system (CNS) and cellular energy systems do not reset on a weekly calendar. Instead of copying cookiecutter programs, coaches must master the operational levers of Volume and Intensity, understand how to read the systemic debt of a session, and learn how to creatively taper these variables to peak an athlete for competition. Every session must be viewed as an integrated piece of skill development. 1. Decoding the Operational Levers— Stress vs. Recovery: Coaches must replace superficial terms with precise physiological definitions to effectively regulate the “water inside the riverbanks”: • Volume (The Systemic Footprint): 12

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

Volume represents the total mechanical and metabolic workload. In this system, it is measured by total distance run within the bounds of a targeted metabolic process (e.g., total meters accumulated in the 80–120m zone). High volume strains the capacity of a system. It drains the biological reservoir, creating deeper, long-term fatigue that requires extended chemical restoration. • Intensity (The Neuromuscular Tax): Intensity is the rate of neurological output and force production. It is not an arbitrary percentage on a sheet; it is the physical demand placed on neuromuscular conductivity and the velocity of actin-myosin crossbridge cycling. High-intensity activities (like block acceleration or flying sprints) demand extreme CNS firing rates. • The Interdependent Balance: You cannot maximize both simultaneously without causing a catastrophic mechanical breakdown. Volume and intensity must be scaled inversely based on the current training cycle objective: • To increase Capacity: Elevate volume while capping intensity just below the point of mechanical distortion. This widens the

cellular engine’s tolerance to stress. • To increase Power: Systematically drop the volume to allow the CNS to fully recover, enabling the athlete to output absolute maximal intensity and hit peak ground-contact speeds (<0.90s). 2. Integrating Modalities into Skill Development: Sprinting is a high-speed motor skill, not a test of raw exertion. Every running activity must be structurally organized to teach, refine, and cement the sprint rhythm. Coaches must use their training means as diagnostic filters: • The Technical Diagnostic (80–120m): When a coach increases volume using 80–120m distances, the objective is not to make the athlete “tired.” The distance is selected because it acts as an analytical window. Fatigue exposes hidden technical flaws. The coach’s job is to watch the rhythm; the moment the athlete reaches the limit where clean neuromuscular mechanics can no longer be maintained, the session is over. Continuing past this threshold teaches a broken motor skill. • The Stride-Length Constructor (Uphill & Sled Contrast): When applying resisted KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

PLANNING FOR SUCCESS

contrast runs, the coach is intentionally over-loading specific joint angles in the mid-range position. This builds the skill of explosive force expression. By immediately following a resisted run with a free sprint or a downhill run, the coach forces the nervous system to instantly integrate that new force capability into a high-frequency, natural sprint rhythm. 3. Tapering Toward Competition— Releasing the Reservoir: The competitive taper is the ultimate act of tactical engineering. To bring an athlete to their absolute peak velocity for a championship, the coach must systematically manipulate the volume and intensity dials to achieve neuromuscular supercompensation. Step 1: The Volume Cut (Skimming the Sludge): Beginning a few weeks out from competition, the coach must aggressively slash the training volume. We purposefully strip away the accumulated metabolic fatigue from months of capacity training. This allows cellular enzyme systems, glycogen stores, and hormonal balances to fully over-recover. Step 2: Maintaining the Rhythm Matrix (Holding Intensity): While volume drops off a cliff, intensity must remain high. The nervous system must not forget the feeling of competitive velocity. The coach prescribes very short, highly explosive stimuli (e.g., flying 10m or 20m sprints with full, complete recovery). Step 3: Sharpening the Neuromuscular Focus: During the taper, the athlete’s motor pattern must be completely unburdened by fatigue. Every step taken on the track must be a perfect, high-conductivity expression of the sprint rhythm. By eliminating the systemic drag of high volume while maintaining ultra-sharp, low-volume speed stimuli, the coach allows the athlete’s biological engine to fully unleash its accumulated power on demand at the track meet. SECTION V The Illusion of Arbitrary Rotation (The Sentence Analogy) A pervasive disease in modern track and field is the obsession with rapid variety. Many coaches fall into the trap of changing their training blocks or rotating their assignments every three to four weeks simply for the sake of novelty. They assume that a new combination of drills or a sudden shift in distances will organically spark a new wave

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

of adaptation. This approach completely misses the mark. It fails to recognize that sprinting is not just a conditioning exercise—it is a highly specialized motor skill that requires physiological and neurological time to crystallize. The Essay Fallacy: Building Mastery from the Sub-Component Up: To understand why this arbitrary four-week rotation fails, we must look at how complex systems are actually mastered: You cannot write a comprehensive essay when you haven’t learned how to write a structurally sound sentence. An elite competitive sprint is the ultimate “essay.” It is a long-form expression of power, acceleration, relaxation, and energy distribution. But that essay is composed entirely of microscopic “sentences”—individual components like a 0.90-second ground-contact time, an isolated joint-angle explosive force expression, or a high-frequency movement pattern established in a shortened stride radius. When a coach forces an athlete to change their training assignments every month, they are effectively asking them to write an essay in a brand-new language before they have even mastered the basic nouns and verbs of the current one. The nervous system never gets the chance to cement the motor skill. True athletic adaptation is not driven by constantly rotating the exercises; it is driven by deeply refining the execution of the exact same stimulus until the component becomes automatic. As a tactical designer, your job is to stand firm. Keep the primary technical and metabolic “sentences” stable. Do not let the calendar or an arbitrary fourweek deadline dictate your strategy. Let the athlete’s actual biological mastery of the pieces dictate exactly when it is time to assemble them into the final masterpiece. SECTION VI Technique vs. Skill—The Art of Speed To truly refine high-performance planning, a coach must distinguish between two heavily conflated concepts: Technique and Skill. We must look at the intersection of technique and skill as an art form, much like painting or precision industrial craftsmanship: • The Painter’s Brush: Anyone can be taught the technique of holding a brush and dipping it into paint. Yet, for one individual, the outcome is merely painting a fence, while for another, it is the Mona Lisa

• The Craftsman’s Hammer: Anyone can be taught the mechanics of swinging a hammer. For one person, it is simply a tool used to drive nails into a board; for a master craftsman, it is an instrument used to forge a masterpiece. The same truth governs elite sports. Technique is the structural baseline—it can be taught in a closed environment, moving correctly but slowly. But technique alone is just holding the brush. Skill is the expression of that technique at absolute maximum velocity. The ultimate objective of sprint design is to merge correctness with extreme speed. Therefore, all preparatory and developmental work must do more than just grant an athlete the ability to handle the mechanical tools. The training system must explicitly build the capacity to transform those tools into high-speed execution. Technique is the tool; skill is the speed that creates the masterpiece. SECTION VII The Final Proof—Why the System Operates When an elite planning model is structured this way, it doesn’t just look elegant on paper—it functions seamlessly under the real-world pressures of the track. It works because it respects the biological boundaries of the human body instead of forcing the body to respect an arbitrary calendar. By prioritizing rhythm stabilization over stride geometry, organizing distances by cellular energy timelines, and letting biological mastery dictate adaptation, you eliminate the guesswork from high-performance training. The coach ceases to be a dogmatic taskmaster and becomes a precision engineer.

REMI KORCHEMNY IS AN INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TRACK AND FIELD COACH SPECIALIZING IN SPRINTING AND SPEED DEVELOPMENT. HE BRINGS DECADES OF EXPERIENCE AND INSIGHT INTO THE SCIENCE AND TECHNIQUE OF SPRINT PERFORMANCE, HAVING COACHED THE 1972 OLYMPIC CHAMPION, VALERIY BORZOV, AMONG OTHER HIGH-PROFILE ATHLETES.

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

Technology in Modern Coaching Tool or Trap?

ports technology is reshaping coaching, giving coaches and athletes access to real-time data from tools like GPS trackers, force plates, and video analysis. While these insights can improve training, relying too much on external feedback can make athletes dependent on cues, hindering the growth of their own awareness. As a result, skills learned in practice often do not carry over to competition. This article explores the critical distinction between performance and learning. It introduces the concept of an “illusion of competence”—when athletes excel in practice settings but struggle to replicate that success in competition. To help coaches find the right balance, the article provides a practical framework for leveraging technology to support learning. It emphasizes developing athletes’ internal awareness, applying constraints to foster learning-by-doing, and progressively increasing task difficulty to promote adaptability. Included are actionable coach-

ing tools, such as diagnostic guides and checklists, designed to translate these concepts into day-to-day practice. Ultimately, technology should serve as a tool that helps athletes refine their skills—not dictate every move—so they can become more self-reliant and adaptable competitors. TECHNOLOGY IN MODERN COACHING: TOOL OR TRAP? The use of sports technology in coaching is expanding rapidly. At the collegiate level, tools such as timing gates, force plates, and GPS tracking have become increasingly common in well-resourced programs. While access still varies by division and budget, the broader trend is for technology to play an increasingly important role in how performance is measured and managed. Common core technologies include: GPS & Wearable Tracking Widely used in field sports and increasingly in track and field, these systems track total

distance, high-speed running, accelerations, and overall workload (Buchheit & Simpson, 2017). They are commonly used to monitor training volume and manage fatigue. Force Plates Now more accessible beyond research settings, force plates provide insight into jump performance, neuromuscular status, and limb asymmetries, often informing training readiness and return-to-play decisions (Claudino et al., 2017). Electronic Timing Systems Timing gates provide precise measures of acceleration and maximum velocity, reducing the variability associated with hand timing and improving data reliability (Haugen et al., 2014). Video & Performance Analysis Video analysis, often paired with tracking software, allows for detailed evaluation of movement and technique.

NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

TECHNOLOGY IN MODERN COACHING

High school coaches usually work with simpler tools—watches, phone apps, and basic video. However, no matter the level, when coaches use technology thoughtfully, it helps them see more, make better training decisions, and gives athletes clearer insights into what they’re doing well and where they can improve. THE DASHBOARD TRAP Inappropriate use of technology entails a hidden risk. Athletes can start relying on instant feedback rather than tuning in to their own bodies. Instead of learning to sense their pace, rhythm, posture, or effort, they wait for a device or coach to tell them how they’re doing. Eventually, they get better at reading numbers on a screen than understanding how their own movement feels. This trend is supported by research on augmented feedback and the guidance hypothesis, which show that frequent external feedback may boost short-term performance but often creates dependency, limiting long-term learning and skill transfer 18

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

(Salmoni et al., 1984; Winstein & Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt & Lee, 2019). The real danger isn’t just overreliance on feedback, but the illusion that genuine skill has been developed. The real challenge isn’t the technology—it’s how feedback shapes the way athletes learn. Basically, athletes get feedback from two main places: • Internal (intrinsic) feedback: sensations of effort, rhythm, balance, tension, and timing • External (augmented) feedback: information provided by coaches, devices, or data (Magill & Anderson, 2017) External feedback helps athletes learn new skills, confirms what coaches observe, and points out things they might miss. Yet constant feedback changes how athletes learn. A runner who checks their watch after every set, or a jumper who reviews video immediately, shifts attention from internal feelings to outside signals. Over time, athletes rely on this input to judge performance rather than develop instincts. As a result, a false sense of mastery can

develop. Confidence in practice may arise, but it often depends on feedback rather than genuine skill. When athletes receive constant guidance, they often seem steady and reliable during practice. Their steadiness, however, results from always having feedback rather than from making their own decisions or managing themselves. Failing to notice how their movements feel or to figure out what to change means they miss the chance to build internal skills. When feedback is reduced or removed—a situation that often arises in competition—their performance can fall apart. This difference between looking good in practice and knowing how to perform independently is an important component of ongoing competitive proficiency. While frequent feedback may help in the short term, reducing it helps athletes learn, remember, and transfer skills (Winstein & Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt & Lee, 2019). Coaches should remember that if an athlete responds well to feedback, it does not always mean they can perform the same way without it. Real independence comes from KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

TECHNOLOGY IN MODERN COACHING

practicing without constant help. This way, athletes build confidence they can rely on when it counts. REBUILDING THE INTERNAL COMPASS Technology is most effective when used for calibration rather than control. Developing adaptable athletes requires strengthening internal feedback—the ability to sense and interpret movement in real time. Internal feedback arises from: • Proprioception (body position) • Kinesthetic awareness (movement feel) • Interoception (effort, breathing, fatigue) When this system is developed, athletes do not simply execute—they adjust. They can detect when rhythm is off, when posture is breaking down, or when effort does not match the task. A well-designed training environment connects internal perception with external data. This connection can be developed by prompting athletes to evaluate their own performance before receiving

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

feedback: • What did that rep feel like? • What pace do I think I just ran? • Was my rhythm stable? • Did I feel smooth, tense, rushed, or balanced? As this process unfolds, athletes start to trust themselves more. They learn to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses and become comfortable adjusting without waiting for outside input. It’s like handing them the steering wheel instead of telling them how to drive. Over time, this builds real confidence and adaptability—skills that last far beyond any single practice or competition. IMPLICIT LEARNING AND CONSTRAINTS Skill acquisition is more effective when athletes avoid excessive cognitive focus on each movement. Too much external feedback can make athletes concentrate on details like arm position or speed instead of executing

movements naturally. This heightened focus may disrupt performance during competition. Athletes develop competencies effectively through repetition, structured practice, and attunement to bodily feedback. Practice settings that encourage exploration, adaptation, and decision-making instead of constant instruction facilitate autonomous skill acquisition. These skills are more resilient under pressure because they are grounded in experiential learning rather than rote memorization. As a coach, you can help your athletes learn faster and more effectively by making subtle adjustments to the environment or the task itself. These small tweaks encourage athletes to think for themselves, explore new solutions, and adapt in real time—far beyond what they’d get from step-by-step instructions. Try incorporating these practical strategies into your sessions: • Ask athletes to pace themselves without KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

TECHNOLOGY IN MODERN COACHING

TABLE 1: DIAGNOSING FEEDBACK DEPENDENCY: THIS TABLE HELPS IDENTIFY WHEN ATHLETES RELY TOO HEAVILY ON EXTERNAL FEEDBACK AND PROVIDES STRATEGIES TO SHIFT TOWARD SELF-REGULATED PERFORMANCE.

SEE (What’s happening) Athlete checks watch/video after every rep Consistent practice, inconsistent competition

UNDERSTAND (What it means) External feedback is driving evaluation Performance is feedback-supported, not self-regulated

Athlete asks, “Was that good?”

Low internal awareness

Athlete can’t describe the rep

Weak perception–action link

Athlete adjusts only after being told

Learning is coach-dependent

INTERVENE (What to do) Delay feedback and ask, “What did that feel like?” Remove feedback on selected reps (“blind reps”) Require athlete prediction before giving results Use feel-based questions (rhythm, effort, posture) Shift to athlete-led evaluation first

Once dependency is identified, the next step is developing internal awareness.

TABLE 2: BUILDING THE INTERNAL COMPASS: THIS TABLE HIGHLIGHTS HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND REINFORCE INTERNAL AWARENESS AND ATHLETE INDEPENDENCE.

SEE (What’s happening)

UNDERSTAND (What it means)

Athlete describes reps using feel

Internal feedback is active

Athlete predicts time/effort accurately Performance stable without feedback Athlete makes small self-corrections Athlete owns the rep before feedback

Strong perception–performance link Skill is transferable Self-regulation developing Learning is becoming implicit

INTERVENE (What to do) Reinforce language: “What did you feel?” Compare prediction vs. actual data Gradually reduce feedback frequency Use constraints instead of constant cues Confirm with data, don’t lead with it

As awareness improves, task difficulty must be scaled to maintain adaptation.

a watch so they begin to tune into their own breathing and rhythm. • Try wicket runs to help athletes naturally organize their step patterns and timing, without needing to explain every detail. • Use sleds for resisted acceleration drills—this helps athletes feel the correct way to apply force, thanks to the resistance. In each of these scenarios, the setup encourages athletes to find the best way to move for themselves. By allowing them to experiment and discover what works, you’re 22

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

helping them build skills they can rely on under pressure—skills that last, even when you’re not there to guide them. When you remove external feedback, it’s important to increase the task’s challenge. According to Newell’s model (1986), movement develops through the interplay of the athlete, the task, and the environment. If feedback is removed but no new challenge is added, practice can become stale and won’t drive improvement. To keep athletes in the learning zone, mix things up with these

ideas: • Using uneven terrain or changing pacing conditions. • Adding reactive or unpredictable start cues. • Combining multiple constraints so athletes must keep adjusting. These adjustments make each task more demanding and encourage athletes to tune into their own feedback. Real learning isn’t just about repetition—it’s about adapting to new and unpredictable situations, so ath-

TRACK & FIELD

CROSS COUNTRY

800-676-7463

VSAthletics.com

Coaches, we will not be beaten on prices! Submit an online quote request! Point your phone’s camera here:

For more Information: Matt Farmer- National Sales Manager 800-676-7463 • Fax: 800-801-9070 • sales@vsathletics.com NOVEMBER 2026 techniques 23

TECHNOLOGY IN MODERN COACHING

COACHING CHECKLIST

Use this checklist during and after practice to identify when athletes are relying too much on feedback, make more informed coaching decisions, and monitor their progress toward performing independently. 1. Spot the Illusion (During Practice) ☐ Athlete looks at device before reflecting ☐ Athlete depends on coach for evaluation ☐ Athlete cannot describe how the rep felt ☐ Performance drops when feedback is removed ☐ Athlete asks outcome-based questions only (“time?”, “distance?”) 2. Build Internal Awareness (In the Moment) Ask First, Tell Second “What did that feel like?” “What do you think that was?” “Where did it break down?” ☐ Athlete gives an answer before feedback is given 3. Use Feedback Strategically ☐ Mix in no-feedback reps each session ☐ Delay feedback (don’t give it immediately) ☐ Reduce feedback frequency over time ☐ Use data to confirm—not control 4. Pair Feel with Data ☐ Athlete predicts time/effort before seeing results ☐ Coach compares felt vs. actual ☐ Athlete adjusts based on mismatch 5. Build Transfer to Competition ☐ Athlete maintains performance without devices ☐ Athlete can self-correct mid-rep or mid-race ☐ Athlete describes performance using internal cues ☐ Athlete shows confidence without constant feedback If the device disappeared tomorrow… Can the athlete still perform? Can they still adjust? Can they still trust what they feel? If yes → learning is owned If no → learning is supported 24

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

letes are ready for anything on game day. (See tables 1, 2 & 3) BRIDGING THE GAP: AN ACTIONABLE ROADMAP FOR SKILL ACQUISITION Understanding the theory behind skill acquisition is just the beginning. The real test comes when you put these ideas into action during fast-paced, unpredictable practice sessions. The frameworks below are designed to help you turn theory into confident, effective coaching on the field. COACH DEPENDENCY These patterns of feedback dependency are not unique to athletes; coaches, too, can become excessively reliant on data. When metrics are used primarily to validate rather than inform training decisions, there is a risk of prioritizing numbers over the athlete’s holistic development. If improvements in quantitative

measures coincide with declines in movement quality, adaptability, or confidence, it suggests a misalignment between the feedback system and genuine learning. Data should enhance, not replace, a coach’s professional judgment and observational skills. SUMMARY Technology is meant to enhance awareness—not replace it. Skilled athletes can read their own sensations, adapt in the moment, and maintain consistency even when conditions change. Technology should always remain a tool, not the main driver. Its greatest value comes from supporting sound decisionmaking, reinforcing internal awareness, and helping athletes become more adaptable, self-regulating, and less reliant on external feedback. In the end, the aim isn’t just to collect better data—it’s to develop athletes who ultimately don’t need it.

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

TABLE 3: SCALING TASK DIFFICULTY: THIS TABLE OUTLINES HOW TO ADJUST PRACTICE CONDITIONS TO INCREASE CHALLENGE AND IMPROVE SKILL TRANSFER.

SEE (What’s happening)

UNDERSTAND (What it means)

INTERVENE (What to do)

Athlete performs well without feedback in controlled settings but struggles when conditions change

Task difficulty is too low; learning is not transferring

Add environmental variability (hills, uneven surfaces, spacing changes)

Athlete hits pace or executes skill only in predictable environments

Internal feedback is not being sufficiently challenged

Remove predictability; introduce variable conditions

Movement breaks down under pressure or disruption

Skill is stable but not adaptable

Add reactive elements (auditory cues, partner timing, unpredictable starts)

Athlete succeeds in isolation but fails when constraints are layered

System is not fully self-organized

Combine constraints (e.g., wickets + pacing, sled + distance targets)

Athlete improves quickly, then plateaus

Challenge level is no longer sufficient

Progress task once consistency is achieved without feedback

Together, these frameworks provide a progression from dependency to adaptable performance.

REFERENCES Buchheit, M., & Simpson, B. M. (2017). Player-tracking technology: Half-full or halfempty glass? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12(S2), S2-35– S2-41. Claudino, J. G., Cronin, J., Mezêncio, B., McMaster, D. T., McGuigan, M., Tricoli, V., … Serrão, J. C. (2017). The countermovement jump to monitor neuromuscular status: A meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(4), 397–402. Haugen, T. A., Tønnessen, E., & Seiler, S. (2014). The difference is in the start: Impact of timing and start procedure on sprint running performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(2), 473–479. Magill, R. A., & Anderson, D. (2017). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341–360). Martinus Nijhoff. Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor

learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 355–386. Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2019). Motor learning and performance: From principles to application (6th ed.). Human Kinetics. Winstein, C. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 677–691.

DR CHRISTINE BROOKS HAS SPENT OVER 17 YEARS HELPING COACHES TURN COMPLEX SCIENCE INTO PRACTICAL, REAL-WORLD TOOLS. AS THE DEVELOPER OF THE USA TRACK & FIELD SPORT SCIENCE COACHING COURSE, SHE’S BECOME A GO-TO EXPERT IN COACH EDUCATION. CHRISTINE IS KNOWN FOR MAKING TOPICS SUCH AS BIOMECHANICS, PHYSIOLOGY, TRAINING DESIGN, AND SKILL ACQUISITION EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND USE ON THE TRACK. SHE ALSO LED THE REDESIGN OF THE USATF LEVEL 1 AND 2 SPORT SCIENCE CURRICULUM, SHIFTING THE FOCUS TO HANDS-ON, SYSTEMS-BASED LEARNING THAT HELPS COACHES MAKE SMARTER CHOICES FOR TRAINING AND DIAGNOSTICS ACROSS ALL EVENTS.

HIGH-PERFORMANCE TRACKS YOU CAN COUNT ON

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

Mondotrack™ EI Olympic‑level performance. Enhanced energy return. Superior shock absorption. Engineered for athletes who push beyond limits.

Contact Mondo for all your track needs. 800.361.3747 | www.mondoworldwide.com

MOND OT R AC K™ EI SU P E R X 720 SU P E R X P ER F O RM A N CE

University of Missouri, Audrey J. Walton Stadium, Columbia, MO NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

AN EXCERPT FROM THE USTFCCCA TRACK AND FIELD ACADEMY

Making the Grade Testing and Measurement for the Track and Field Coach

ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION OF TESTING Administrative Procedures and Consistency • Warmup. Athletes should perform adequate and sufficient warmup before testing. Warmup procedures should be consistent each time a test is given in order to eliminate the possibility of warmup variables affecting the results. An exception might be when the purpose of testing is warmup experimentation and adjustment. Besides a general warmup, the actual test activity itself might be performed a few times before the actual measured test, particularly when the test involves explosive efforts and fatigue is not a great issue. In skill related tests, research shows that the best performances typically

result from trials 3-5 in simple explosive tests. • Trials. It is common to standardize the number of trials given for each test each time that test is administered. In short, explosive efforts a few trials are used, normally between 2-4 attempts each. In weight room testing, when projected maximums are derived, normally one effort is allowed. Run tests offer from 1-3 trials depending on the run distance. • Venue. For tests to have the most validity and value in comparison it is useful to use the same or similar facilities in testing. Of particular concern are indoor vs. outdoor testing and surface variations. • Measurement & Timing. Tests should

be measured in a similar fashion each time. For this reason it is important to decide how you will measure performances (English vs. metric, inside of toeboard). Run tests should be measured using the same procedures each time (FAT vs. hand timing vs. Touch/ Beam systems, lane used, etc.) • Timing. In tests where hundredths of a second are an important factor many programs use some form of electronic timing to ensure accuracy. In longer tests it is important for consistency to determine how to initiate timing the effort. Options include using a touchpad, first movement of the rear foot, or first foot strike. In any case, it is important that the data used is similar from test to test (i.e., one 150m run should NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

MAKING THE GRADE

be timed the same way from person to person and from training cycle to training cycle to produce the most reliable results). In a general training cycle it may be completely appropriate to test in training shoes with a stopwatch while at a later date you may want to test in spikes with an electronic timing system. While the results might not be comparable, they will reveal important data when compared to previous years if the footwear policies are standardized. Procedures • Formal Testing. In many training system formal testing is scheduled beforehand to coincide with specific points in the yearly training cycle. These tests can take various forms and depending on the current training emphasis. Formal testing can be review of previously trained qualities and is often useful to compare to previous years, previous cycles, and previous athletes in a similar training system. • Informal Testing. Informal testing can 30

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

adopt a systems check type of philosophy. Often if we feel that things are going very well or starting to regress we can test certain qualities to gather more information—to refute or confirm hunches. These are often simple tests that will give the coach an idea as to which direction to go. • Testing Events. Many programs use testing events. Typically these are events where several tests are administered in a single session. Usually the entire event is considered a competition of sorts. Such events are valuable because they not only collect valuable date, but the magnitude of the event creates a pressureful situation which might reveal certain psychological characteristics of the athletes involved. • Quadrathlons and Pentathlons. Frequently used batteries of tests include the Pentathlon (Standing Long Jump, Standing Triple Jump. 30m Dash, Overhead Back Shot Throw, and Between the Legs Forward Shot Throw) and the Max Jones’ Quadrathlon (Standing Long Jump, 3 Double Leg Jumps,

30m Dash, and Overhead Back Shot Throw). Many programs schedule these tests each year at or near the end of the specific preparation period as a gauge of preparation and year-to-year improvement. • Scheduling. In general, normal and prolonged testing should be planned and scheduled as a part of the training cycle and not implemented haphazardly. To obtain the most accurate data, tests should be administered at the same relative point in each training cycle. Testing during recovery weeks is popular, since testing provides a low volume, high intensity activity which is appropriate for a recovery week. Many programs test during the first week of each training cycle. • Demands and Recovery. By its nature and intensity most testing is an intense activity. While often scheduled during a recovery themed microcycle, testing can be a very demanding, intense activity with its own specific physical demands and psychological pressures. Due to the low volume of KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

RUNNING SMARTWATCHES FOR ANY LEVEL

Whether you’re coaching beginners or more seasoned runners, Garmin has a Forerunner® smartwatch that suits every runner’s needs.

PERFORMANCE

The data is as important as the workouts when curating a plan that garners results. Recovery time is given after workouts, while training readiness helps athletes know when they’re ready to go hard. Metrics such as health status and sleep score1 help provide athletes with a more comprehensive picture of their overall training and recovery. And with the screenless CIRQA™ Smart Band, these metrics can be recorded and saved to Garmin Connect™ distraction free. Then, when it’s time to build a workout, the Garmin Clipboard™ coaching app and TrainingPeaks® has you covered to help you improve your athletes’ performance.

HEART RATE MONITORS

Garmin heart rate monitors send accurate real-time heart rate and HRV data to compatible smartwatches. The premium HRM 600 has advanced training tools, including expanding running dynamics such as speed step loss and running economy when paired with Forerunner 970. For female athletes, HRM-Fit™ is purpose-built with a clip-on design that captures important metrics. With HRM 200, get the essential data you need for every training session.

NAVIGATION

With built-in features like back-to-start and turn-by-turn navigation when following a downloaded course, it’s tough to get lost. No matter the course, Forerunner running smartwatches can support you from start to finish.

ALL-IN-ONE TEAM APP Garmin Clipboard is an all-in-one team app with features designed to help coaches and athletes build workouts, review stats and more when loaded on their compatible smartphones. Garmin Clipboard lets you review lap splits, VO2 max, lactate threshold, pace trends, or quickly scan performance and wellness with at-a-glance charts. Choose a free preloaded workouts or create a custom training plan.

See Garmin.com/ataccuracy

LEARN MORE ABOUT GARMIN CLIPBOARD

MAKING THE GRADE activity performed in testing, we sometimes neglect the immense effect this has on the athlete due to the elevated intensities testing produces. COMMON TESTS Categories of Tests • Neural Tests. Neural tests are test that measure qualities associated with high neuromuscular demand. Typically they measure various forms of speed, power or strength. • General Tests. General tests are tests that measure qualities associated with low neuromuscular demand, and those that support speed and power related qualities. These tests typically measure qualities like flexibility, mobility, body balance or regional strength rations or relationships, or functional movement abilities. They may be challenging to the energy systems, but that is not their primary purpose. • Endurance Tests. Endurance tests are tests that measure energy system power capabilities and or the ability to sustain force production and power output. These tests vary in neuromuscular demand, depending upon the activity and timeframe over which power is exerted. • Erosion Tests. Erosion tests are low volume, high intensity tests designed to measure any erosion or regression in a quality that was trained previously, but not recently. Common Simple Neural Tests • 30 Meter Sprint. The 30 meter sprint test of accelerative power. The athlete runs 30 meters for time from a stationary start. • Standing Long Jump. A short bounding exercise, the standing long jump is a test of starting power and reactive strength. The athlete performs a single jump for distance from a standing start. • Standing Triple Jump. A short bounding exercise, the standing triple jump is a test of reactive strength, power, and coordination. The athlete, from a double legged standing start, performs three jumps. The test begins with a double leg takeoff, then a right-left or left-right contact pattern prior to landing. • Overhead Back Shot Throw. A multithrow exercise, the overhead back shot throw is a test of power and coordination. The athlete stands on the shot toeboard facing away from the sector with the shot in both hands. The athlete then squats, lowers the shot below the waist, then throws the shot overhead for distance. • Between the Legs Forward Shot Throw. A multithrow exercise, the between the leg forward shot throw is a test of power and 32

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

coordination. The athlete stands on the shot toeboard facing the sector with the shot in both hands. The athlete then squats, lowers the shot below the waist, and then throws the shot forward for distance. • Vertical Jump. This is a jumping power test that is generally used as test of overall power due to the simplicity of execution and the ease of measurement. The athlete begins in standing position and then jumps as high as possible. The difference between their standing reach and their reach in the jump is measured. The test can be done from a stationary, lowered position, or with a countermovement. These variations favor measurement of power and elasticity respectively, and comparisons of the results of these two variations yield valuable information. • Weight Training Exercise Tests. These are tests of absolute strength and power using weight training exercises as the measurement tool. They will be discussed in more detail shortly. Common Complex Neural Tests • Fly Tests. Fly tests are tests of absolute speed. The athlete runs a particular distance (usually 10 or 30 meters) for time, after having previously accelerated through a designated (usually 20 or 30 meter) acceleration zone. • Double-Double. A short bounding exercise, the double-double is a complex test of reactive strength, power, and coordination. The athlete, from a double legged standing start, performs five jumps. The test begins with a double leg takeoff, then a right-right left-left or left-left-right-right contact pattern prior to landing. • Complex Bounds/Throws. Complex Bound tests can use any pattern of repeated bounds. Exchanging legs and increasing numbers of contacts increase the exercise complexity. Combining hops and multithrows provide another complex testing option. • Timed Bounds. Timed Bound tests require an athlete to bound over a given distance in the least time possible. A 25 Meter Single Leg Hop for time test is most common. • Weight Training Exercise Tests. These are tests of absolute strength and power using weight training exercises as the measurement tool. They will be discussed in more detail shortly. General Tests • General Strength Tests. General

strength exercises can be used to construct tests of general strength qualities, coordination, and body control. The athlete is asked to perform as many repetitions of a given general strength exercise as possible in a certain period of time. A 30 second sit-up test is an example. • FMA Series. Functional Movement Assessments are often included in testing batteries. In these tests simple movements are performed to gauge a myriad of qualities. Some of the qualities the coach can examine and evaluate are strength, flexibility, range of motion, balance, stability, reflexiveness, and ease of movement. As a battery, these assessments are intended to gauge the functional state of the body’s various kinetic chains. While there are general norms (and even scoring tables) in the literature for some of these tests, they often best evaluated by intra-individual comparison. Some examples of these exercises include overhead squat, lunge activities, sprint drill exercises, and other special general strength exercises. Endurance Tests • Cooper’s Tests. To determine endurance potential, athletes are asked to run for a designated time period, with distance achieved being the variable measured. • Time Trials. Depending upon an athlete’s event, time trials of certain distances are useful to measure progress and predict performance. Periodization of Testing • General to Specific. Over the course of the training year, tests should progress from general to specific. Tests of simple qualities that should be present at all times should be done early in the training year to evaluate the athlete’s levels in these abilities. They should continue throughout the year, so that any erosion of those abilities can be noted. Tests of specific competition related qualities should be delayed until the athletes are prepared to safely undertake them. It is unreasonable to expect competition specific abilities to be at their highest levels at all times. • Simple to Complex. Over the course of the training year, tests should progress from simple to complex. Simple tests should be present at all times. They should be done early in the training year as the coach’s primary evaluative tool. They should continue throughout the year, and any decreases in performance should be noted. Since these tests are simple, athletes should be able to

One App for Your Entire Program

Trusted by

130+

NCAA Track & Field Programs

Onform helps your staff break down technique across every event, on the phone or tablet you already carry to practice. Capture Technique Across Every Event

Spot What's Costing Them Time and Distance

Give Every Athlete Instant Feedback

Pick from multiple recording modes built for every event, from a sprint start to a discus release, so you always get the right angle.

Draw lines and angles, track joints with skeleton overlays, clock hurdle touchdown times with the stopwatch, and play it all back in slow motion.

Video automatically uploads to the cloud so athletes get instant access to their videos and you can message right from the app.

FREE 1:1 Zoom Demo | 919-228-8756 or lexie@onform.com

MAKING THE GRADE

produce high level performances at almost any time, and falloffs here, late in the training year, normally indicate overtraining. Complex tests should be delayed until athletes are prepared to safely undertake them, since many such tests subject the athlete to risk. Scheduling of Testing • Regular Batteries. Most coaches regularly administer a consistent battery of tests that provide information on key physical performance components. These batteries should be diverse enough so that the comparisons between results of the various tests are meaningful as well. These tests must be simple so that coordination abilities do not bias the results, and so that the tests are safe to use at any time. • Periodic Special Tests. From time to 34

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

time, other tests outside the regular battery can be used to test certain abilities at the times of year. Usually these are tested at some critical point at which the information is most valuable. Often these tests are complex, so they are done only when athletes are physically prepared for them. • Cyclic Testing. Testing usually is done on some regularly scheduled basis. Regular batteries are consistently and regularly administered throughout the year, and special tests are administered at certain times of the year, each year. • Year Start Testing. Many programs test at the onset of training to establish baselines of fitness. These established baselines are seldom accurate because of the absence of training related physical baggage at this time. Because of the long time required for chronic adaptations to training to appear,

year start testing is very valuable in assessing the previous year’s training program. • Year End Testing. Testing at years end is often a valuable practice when evaluating the previous training year and competition season. Year end testing eliminates the technical and psychological issues and permits a less biased evaluation of the training process. If test results are good after bad competition performances, the coach can assume the performances where hindered by technical faults, coordination problems, or psychological issues related to competition anxiety. WEIGHT EXERCISE TESTING • Choosing Lifts. The testing program should test the lifting exercises that are most closely linked to critical, performance related qualities. In most cases an Olympic lift is KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

BUILT FOR TRACK & FIELD. DESIGNED FOR PROGRESS.

PERFORMANCE HAS

A NEW STANDARD.

TrackBoss brings every athlete, event, and result together — seamlessly.

Integrated Video & Results Capture, analyze, and share event footage with synchronized performance data — all in one place.

Built for Track & Field. Unlimited Access. One subscription covers every coach, athlete, and clip, with no storage limits. SEE TRACKBOSS IN ACTION

TrackBossApp.com NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

MAKING THE GRADE

SINGLE REPETITION MAXIMUM PREDICTION CHART

Number of Repetitions

Percentage of 1RM

100

96.5

87.5

82.5

72.5

66.5

Together, these frameworks provide a progression from dependency to adaptable performance. a staple in the testing program and is used to gauge effectiveness at power production and rate of force development. Cleans are typically better than snatches in this regard, because they are technically simpler and less flexibility dependent, giving the coach a better read on the qualities being measured. Gross static lifts are also used frequently to gauge absolute strength capabilities. Gross, simple lifts are more effective because technical and coordination demands are lower. Special exercises might be included if a particular testing need exists. • Warmups. Testing should be preceded by a specific warmup. The warmup should approach intensities that near those the athlete will encounter in the test. Testing Protocols • Single Repetition Maximums. These tests are designed to determine the maximum amount of weight an athlete can use in a single successful repetition. In a single repetition max test, the athlete is required to perform a single repetition of an exercise at a prescribed weight. Success leads to subsequent attempts at increased weights. Single repetition max tests have the advantage of accuracy and functionality, but exhibit the greatest risk of any testing protocol. 36

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

Inaccurate prediction and weight selection might lead to an excessive number of trials being needed to determine the maximum, further increasing the risk factor. Single repetition maximum tests should be used with care, and at appropriate times of the training calendar when athletes are adequately prepared for the intensity associated with such tests. • Multiple Repetition Maximums. These tests are designed to determine the maximum amount of weight an athlete can use when successfully performing a set of some designated number of repetitions. These tests, while demanding, entail less risk than single repetition maximum tests. • Projected Maximums. These tests require the athlete to perform as many repetitions as possible with a designated load. This data is then manipulated mathematically to determine a projected single repetition maximum. Projected maximum tests are the safest form of weight testing. It should be understood that in the early stages of training, the single repetition maximum projection does not represent the athlete’s abilities at that point, but is a measure of progress and a value to consummate as training progresses. Below is a simple chart that will allow a coach to compute projected

single repetition maximums from set performances. A complete table is provided in Appendix A. (See chart) For example, assume an athlete tests at 180 lbs. and performs 4 repetitions before failing. According to the chart, 4 repetitions give us 90% of athlete’s single repetition maximum. 180 divided by .90 (90%) gives 200, so the athlete’s projected single repetition maximum is 200 lbs. DATA INTERPRETATION • Testing and Aggregate Intensities. While testing procedures typically use low training volumes, intensities are very high. For this reason, they create a significant loading mechanism in the training plan and should be accounted for as such. Testing should not be regarded as easy training, regardless of how little time it takes because of this inherent intensity. Program design should account for testing’s effect on the aggregate intensity of the training program. • Coordination Red Lights. Test results might be misleading if the subjects coordination levels are not adequate. Athletes with high levels of speed and power might test poorly on speed/power tests, if the tests are complex and require high coordinative demand. In these cases the test becomes invalid. For this reason, continual evaluation and comparison of performances on simple and complex neural tests is necessary to accurately assess the athlete’s strengths and weaknesses. • Measuring Training Readiness. In order for speed and power related qualities to be trained effectively, an athlete must be able to express near maximal speed and power levels in the training session. Athletes who are overly fatigued might have difficulty reaching levels of power expression that are needed to produce speed/power gains. Simple, possibly informal neural tests can be used to determine the athlete’s ability to produce maximal power levels and thus, the athlete’s readiness for training of this type. • Expected Expression of Improvement. Complete training adaptations to short term administration of training usually take 21-28 days. Complete adaptations to successive training cycles might take 3-6 months. For this reason, testing the abilities most recently trained seldom shows major improvements. • Delayed Onset of Improvement. As is appropriate, training macrocycles will contain periods of different emphasis and intensities. These directly affect the results

MAKING THE GRADE

of testing and understanding training effects and delayed training effects are important in evaluating your test results. For example, after a heavy aerobic training cycle, absolute speed and strength qualities may not test well. When testing certain speed-power activities immediately after a heavy absolute strength training cycle some speed and elastic strength qualities may not test well. These abilities will typically reemerge and test results improve once the acute, short term effects of the subsequent training disappear. • Improvement Emergence Timeframes. It is also important to understand that some qualities take some time to emerge. Suppressed test results do not necessarily indicate that the previous training cycle did not go well. It may mean that the athlete has not fully adapted yet and the training has not yet had a chance to be expressed. Synthesis, overtraining, and overreaching are important areas to consider when evaluating test results. • Program Specific Interpretations. When examining patterns of suppressed

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

results, delayed onset of improvement, and improvement emergence timeframes, similar training programs will yield similar patterns. Since the training program remains similar from year to year in most cases, these patterns remain similar from year to year. This is a great aid in data interpretation. It also shows why indiscriminate comparisons of raw test results between different programs might not be meaningful. • When Problems Arise. When test results are disappointing, the evaluation process may include the following questions. • Training Design Issues. Was the training designed appropriately? Was there adequate stimulus given? Did the training present a challenge? Was there too much stimulus or hard training given the athlete or group? What was the density of the training and rest or restoration during the last cycles or cycles? Was the administration of training cyclical and was overload supplied in an undulating fashion? • Test Administration Timing. Have similar tests been administered to the athlete or group after similar training cycles in the

past? Were the tests administered specific to recent training cycles? Is there reason to believe the results are suppressed and onset of improvement is delayed? • Sport Health and Lifestyle Management. Is the athlete healthy? Do the test results indicate that they are on the verge of injury or that the athlete has not recovered from past injuries? Is the athlete having lifestyle (rest, sleep, nutrition, etc.) issues?

AN EXCERPT FROM THE USTFCCCA TRACK AND FIELD ACADEMY

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

What runners wear when they aren’t running.

The Original Recovery Footwear™

OOFOS® are built to be the shock absorber. OOfoam™ technology is designed to absorb the impact. Running shoes are designed to propel you forward−making your body the shock absorber. Absorbs

37% more impact.

47%

less energy demand on ankles.

88% lower loading rate.

Than traditional EVA foams.

Ask us about TEAM Pricing - teams@oofos.com

*Research conducted in partnership with Jay Dichary, PT and the Virginia SPEED Clinic. 2018 NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

USTFCCCA Supporters mondoworldwide.com

sportsbyapt.com/sport/track

maurten.com

maxmedals.com vsathletics.com

ucsspirit.com

tencategrass.com

oofos.com

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

gillporter.com

athletic.net

ucsspirit.com

Through their ongoing support of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association, these companies demonstrate their strong commitment to the sports of Track & Field and Cross Country. The USTFCCCA strongly encourages each member to purchase products and services from these supporters.

encoreintl.com

fibersportusa.com

1010recovery.one

getonform.com

trackbossapp.com

mfathletic.com

stride-lane.com

beynonsports.com

gands.com

garmin.com

smartracks.run NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

USTFCCCA Coaches Hall of Fame Class of 2026

TERRY ALDRICH Middlebury

MIKE BARNETT Azusa Pacific

CHRIS BUCKNAM Northern Iowa, Arkansas

No ending could have been more fitting for Terry Aldrich’s coaching career than guiding Middlebury to an NCAA Division III women’s cross country championship in 2010. He then retired after 36 years as the only head women’s cross country coach in program history. Aldrich built the Panther women into a perennial power, winning six NCAA titles, 10 NESCAC championships, and 11 NCAA regional crowns. A sixtime NCAA DIII National Coach of the Year in cross country, Aldrich also led Middlebury’s ski program to back-toback AIAW national titles in 1979 and 1980, and coached seven Olympians.

Mike Barnett’s nearly four decades at Azusa Pacific spanned his time as a student-athlete, coach and administrator. After competing for the Cougars, he returned to lead the women’s track and field program for 13 years, guiding the team to its first NAIA national championship in 2003. Azusa Pacific won six more NAIA titles under his leadership after all of which he was named NAIA National Coach of the Year. Barnett later became the university’s first director of track and field, overseeing both programs through the transition to NCAA Division II.

It’s rarely easy following a legend. Chris Bucknam did just that at Arkansas, winning the award named for Hall of Fame predecessor John McDonnell five times in 17 years leading the Razorback men. Bucknam guided Arkansas to 18 NCAA Division I podium finishes, including indoor team titles in 2013 and 2023, when he was named National Coach of the Year. His teams won 34 SEC titles, accounting for all but one of his 35 SEC Coach of the Year awards. Arkansas athletes earned 384 All-America honors, and Jarrion Lawson and Jaydon Hibbert won The Bowerman. Before Arkansas, Bucknam spent 25 seasons at Northern Iowa, winning 35 Missouri Valley Conference team titles and 33 MVC Coach of the Year awards.

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

SUE PARKS Eastern Michigan, Ball State The Parks name has long been synonymous with Mid-American Conference dominance, especially at Eastern Michigan. Sue Parks returned to that family legacy as a coach, reshaping and extending it across her career. A multi-time MAC champion as an EMU athlete, Parks first led Ball State to eight MAC team titles before returning to Eastern Michigan in 2006. She added 18 conference team championships with the Eagles and earned 16 MAC Coach of the Year honors. In more than 30 years as a head coach in the MAC, Parks won 26 conference team titles and coached athletes to more than 200 individual conference championships.

RUSS ROGERS Essex Community College, Fairleigh Dickinson, Ohio State Russ Rogers was successful at every stop of his collegiate coaching career—much as he was as an athlete at Maryland State. He began coaching at Essex County College, where his teams won eight NJCAA national championships and athletes earned 125 All-America honors. At Fairleigh Dickinson, Rogers coached world record-holder Franklin Jacobs to three NCAA high jump titles, launched the school’s first women’s track & field program and led the Knights to their first NEC indoor title. At Ohio State, he guided the Buckeyes to three men’s Big Ten team titles and two top-three finishes at the NCAA Outdoor Track & Field Championships.

RAY TREACY Providence Arriving from County Waterford, Ireland, Ray Treacy became one of Providence’s finest distance runners, earning three All-America honors and helping the Friars win the first BIG EAST cross country title ever awarded in 1979. He returned to Providence in 1984 as head coach and established the Friars among the nation’s elite in cross country and distance events on the track. Providence won two NCAA titles, in 1995 and 2013, and 18 BIG EAST cross country team championships, while producing 10 additional NCAA podium finishes. Treacy, a two-time National Coach of the Year, oversaw nine individual NCAA champions, including collegiate recordholders Kim Smith and Emily Sisson, and guided the Friars to a worldrecord 4x1500-meter relay in 1991.

NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

The Bowerman Finalists 2026

SAMUEL OGAZI Alabama

HABTOM SAMUEL New Mexico

JA’KOBE THARP Auburn

Samuel Ogazi produced one of the greatest seasons over 400 meters in collegiate history in 2026. Ogazi swept the NCAA DI indoor and outdoor titles, shattering 2018 The Bowerman winner Michael Norman’s collegiate record with a 43.38 at the NCAA DI Outdoor Championships. Indoors, he won the NCAA title in 44.57 and moved into a tie for third on the all-time indoor world list. Ogazi became the only collegian with multiple sub-44-second performances in the event.

Habtom Samuel put together a dominant year in 2026. Samuel won 12 races against collegians and punctuated his year by completing the distance double at the NCAA DI Outdoor Championships with victories in the 5000 and 10,000 meters. Along the way, he lowered his own collegiate record in the outdoor 5000 to 12:57.22 and clocked 27:30.51 in the 10,000, the 12th-fastest time in collegiate history. Indoors, he won the NCAA 5000meter title and shattered a longstanding collegiate record in the 2-mile.

Ja’Kobe Tharp authored one of the greatest hurdling seasons in collegiate history in 2026. He shattered Aries Merritt’s world record in the 110 hurdles with a 12.75 in the semifinals of the NCAA DI Outdoor Championships before returning two days later to capture the NCAA title in 12.90, the ninth-fastest performance in world history. Indoors, Tharp broke 2019 The Bowerman winner Grant Holloway’s collegiate record in the 60 hurdles, winning the NCAA title in 7.32 to move up to No. 3 on the all-time world list.

techniques NOVEMBER 2026

ADAEJAH HODGE Georgia

AXELINA JOHANSSON Nebraska

DEJANEA OAKLEY Georgia

Adaejah Hodge delivered a historic sprint season in 2026. Hodge set collegiate records in both the 100 (10.63) and 200 (21.68) at the NCAA DI Outdoor Championships, becoming the first woman since Dawn Sowell to hold both records simultaneously. She won the NCAA title in the 200, finished runner-up in the 100, and helped Georgia’s 4×100 relay team run 41.89, the fourth-fastest time in collegiate history. Indoors, Hodge won the NCAA 200-meter title and finished runner-up in the 60 after a 7.12 personal best.

Axelina Johansson orchestrated an undefeated shot put season in 2026, sweeping the NCAA DI indoor and outdoor titles. Indoors, she tied or raised the collegiate record four times before ultimately setting the standard at 19.75m (64-9¾) to earn bronze at the World Indoor Championships. Outdoors, Johansson threw 19.97m (656¼) to win the Big Ten title, missing the collegiate record by just four centimeters, and later broke the NCAA DI Outdoor Championships meet record by nearly a foot.

Dejanea Oakley turned heads 400 meters at a time in 2026. Oakley set a collegiate record of 48.79 while winning the NCAA DI Outdoor title, becoming the only collegian with multiple sub-49 performances in history after running 48.92 to win the SEC crown. She went undefeated in 400-meter competition, including an NCAA DI indoor title in 50.47 that moved her to No. 11 all-time collegiately. Oakley anchored Georgia’s 4×400 relay with the fastest collegiate split in history at 48.37 during the SEC Championships.

ALL PHOTOS BY KIRBY LEE

NOVEMBER 2026 techniques

WHAT’S YOUR

? Y WH

Because coaching is your passion. Because coaching changes lives. Because you expect that your athlete will land safely. That’s why Gill athletic equipment is set apart. We understand you need the freedom to focus on your athletes. What’s your why?

QUALITY. COMMITMENT. INNOVATION. Since 1918, Gill Athletics® has been empowering coaches with innovative equipment that helps coaches develop track athletes and elevate the sport across the globe.

GILLATH LETIC S . c o m

OFFICIAL EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER TO THE NCAA TRACK & FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS

TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUMS Presented by

Monday // December 14

6:00pm - 8:15pm

Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday // December 15-17

8:15am - 11:45am

at the USTFCCCA 2026 Convention in Dallas, Texas