Techniques August 2016

contents

Volume 10 Number 1 / August 2016

in every issue

4 A Letter from the President 5 USTFCCCA Presidents

20

FEATURES

8 Collegiate Hammer Throw

Case studies in development

Lynden Reder

20 Strength & Conditioning

Program design fundamentals

By John M. Cissik

34 Group-Centered Coaching

Addressing the whole team

Marshall J. Milbrath, M.Ed., M.Ed.

46 Running Injuries

34

How to fix (prevent) them

Adam Tenforde, MD

AWARDS 55

56

58

60

62

63

64

USTFCCCA National Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division I: USTFCCCA Regional Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division II: USTFCCCA Regional Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division III: USTFCCCA Regional Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year NAIA Regional Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division I: Junior College Regional Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division III: Junior College Regional Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year

COVER

Photograph courtesy of Becky Miller

46

AUGUST 2016 techniques

1

A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT Publisher Sam Seemes Executive Editor Mike Corn Contributing Editor Kristina Taylor

I

truly love and appreciate the excitement generated at the beginning of each school year. The enthusiasm that the freshman, as well as returning student-athletes, bring each fall semester is infectious. They bring such great energy, lofty goals and dreams to be chased. I hope that you enjoyed your summer, and you have rejuvenated in order to aid those student-athletes as they chase those excellent dreams.

As we look back at the 2016 Track and Field season, it was awesome to see so many of our Bowerman Finalist and past winners make the U.S. Olympic team, including 2016 finalist Jarrion Lawson of Arkansas, Raven Saunders of Ole Miss and Keturah Orji of Georgia. Not to be outdone past winners Galen Rupp, Brianna Rollins and Jenny Simpson, as well as past finalist Christian Taylor made the Team USA and will be in Rio as well.

Looking forward, the 2016 USTFCCCA Coaches Hall of Fame class should be announced in August. They will join an esteemed group of Hall of Fame members and will be inducted at the USTFCCCA Convention in Orlando this coming December.

I want to give a big shoutout to the Track & Field Academy as it continues to serve the needs of coaches of all levels. The recently completed Specialist Certification Course in Seattle attracted more than 150 coaches that spent five days immersed in the study of their respective event areas. The Strength & Conditioning Coach Certification program has been designed to meet the requirements set forth by the NCAA and has been attracting scores of coaches at each offering.

The 2016 USTFCCCA Convention will see changes to the schedule maximizing even more time for coaches to meet, attend technical symposiums and socialize. Be sure to look at the new schedule closely to make proper arrangements when planning your convention travel .

Best of luck to everyone as you prepare your teams for the upcoming cross country season. See you out on the course.

Damon Martin President, USTFCCCA Director of Cross Country and Track and Field Adams State University. ddmartin@adams.edu

4

techniques AUGUST 2016

DIRECTOR OF MEDIA, BROADCASTING AND ANALYTICS Tom Lewis DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS

Kyle Terwillegar Membership Services Dave Svoboda communications assistant

Tyler Mayforth Photographer Kirby Lee Editorial Board Tommy Badon, Todd

Lane, Boo Schexnayder, Derek Yush

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 Fax: 504-599-8909 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 2016. 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. If you would like to advertise your business in techniques, please contact Mike Corn at (504) 599-8900 or mike@ustfccca.org.

DIVISION PRESIDENTs DIVISION I DENNIS SHAVER

Dave Smith

Dennis Shaver is the head men’s and women’s track and field coach at Louisiana State University. Dennis can be reached at shaver@lsu.edu

Dave Smith is the director of track & field and cross country at Oklahoma State University. Dave can be reached at dave.smith@okstate.edu

Ryan Dall

Mark Misch

Ryan Dall is the head track and field and cross country coach at Texas A&M Kingsville.

Ryan can be reached at ryan.dall@tamuk. edu

Mark Misch is the head cross country coach at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs.

Mark can be reached at mmisch@uccs.edu

Gary Aldrich

Robert Shankman

Gary is the associate head track and field coach at Carnegie Melon University and can be reached at galdrich@andrew.cmu.edu

Robert is the Head Cross Country and track and field coach at Rhodes College and can be reached at shankman@ rhodes.edu

Jerry Monner

Brad Jenny

Jerry Monner is the head track and field coach at Grand View University. Jerry can be reached at jmonner@grandview.edu

Brad Jenny is the head cross country coach at Doane College. Brad can be reached at brad.jenny@doane.edu

Ted Schmitz

Don Cox

Ted Schmitz is the head track and field coach at Cloud County Community College.

Ted can be reached at tschmitz@cloud.edu

Don Cox is the head track and field and cross country coach at Cuyahoga Community College.

Don can be reached at donald.cox@tri-c.edu

NCAA Division I Track and Field

NCAA Division I Cross Country

DIVISION II NCAA Division II Track and Field

NCAA Division II Cross Country

DIVISION III NCAA Division III Track and Field

NCAA Division III Cross Country

NAIA NAIA Track and Field

NAIA Cross Country

njcaa NJCAA Track and Field

NJCAA Cross Country

AUGUST 2016 techniques

5

8

techniques MAY 2016

Walt Middleton University of Minnesota Athletics photo

Collegiate Hammer Throw Case Studies in Development Lynden Reder

T

he hammer throw ranks among the most technically challenging events within track and field. That is to say, it takes most athletes a substantial amount of time to develop even the most basic of quality techniques, and often 10-15 years until they can master the event.

One major issue this timeline of development poses is the fact that the vast majority of American hammer throwers do not begin participating in the event until college. This puts the athletes and their coaches in a position of having to race against a four to five-year clock to maximize distance with the goal of scoring at the conference and NCAA levels for their teams. Most opt to discontinue post-collegiate throwing due to a lack of funding, facilities and access to travel. Many postcollegiate track athletes find themselves in this same plight, but hammer throwers

also have to overcome our country’s poor international reputation in the event.

Whether the reputation is deserved or not, a perception exists abroad that our NCAA system is detrimental to long-term hammer development.

Many international hammer throwers come to the NCAA with seven to ten years of event experience before ever putting on their collegiate team’s jersey and tend to produce dominant performances. Over the decades a situation evolved where programs either recruit heavily internationally for their hammer throwers or teach the event to U.S. born athletes with no prior background. Some programs do a little of both. Thus, the Division 1 NCAA Championship meet is consistently made up of two distinct groups of throwers: international athletes who often qualify for the championship meet each year they compete in the NCAA, and U.S. athletes

AUGUST 2016 techniques

9

Collegiate Hammer Throw

who qualify as upper-classmen four to five years after first learning the event.

There are occasional American athletes with high school hammer experience who go on to high levels of NCAA and post-collegiate success, but it is safe to say the majority of Americans pick up the event for the first time in college.

The purpose of this article is to examine a small sample size of testing and development data gathered over time from athletes made up of these two groups and to discuss anecdotal observations and tendencies of each group.

College coaches are put in a situation to seek rapid conference or NCAA level results, but not necessarily eventual world-class distance development.

How could coaches not take this road of immediate results as they are ultimately paid by their university to produce points for their team? That said, several prominent NCAA coaches have done an outstanding job in their instruction of U.S. athletes who began in college with little to no background in the event.

Many have shown an ability to develop athletes such as these to performances of 70m and beyond. Recent examples like Coach Dave Astrauskas (Michael Lihrman), Coach Nathan Fanger (Matthias Tayala), Coach Steve Lemke (Jeremy Postin), Coaches Dan Lange and Sean McGinley (Remy Conatser), Coach Brian Bedard (Drew Loftin) and others have shown that there are highly skilled coaches in NCAA system in this event.

With continued development, marks ranging from 70-74m at the age of 22-24 could represent a potential future on the world stage; despite the fact the athlete began the event late in life by international standards. Given, I coach only our

men’s throwers and this article will focus on men, but it is important to mention that in the women’s hammer, coaches like John Smith, Greg Watson and others have also shown an ability to develop female hammer throwers consistently from scratch to international standards within the NCAA system and timeframe.

In my final year at Minnesota, I guided Sean Donnelly to a 10-meter improvement in a single season, moving his personal best mark to 74.35m (243’11), showing that an American collegiate thrower with no high school hammer background can reach world class distances utilizing our model, even in a northern climate.

The data for this article was gathered from four All-American hammer throwers I was fortunate enough to coach at the University of Minnesota during my eight years there. Although a small sample size, I believe the data provides some stark contrasts between the aforementioned groups of typical NCAA qualifying hammer throwers. The four throwers had comparable personal bests, but two were U.S. developmental athletes who had no hammer experience prior to college, and the remaining two throwers were international athletes with substantial training age and experience in the event. This article will highlight and discuss similarities and contrasts in their development, testing, and the varying approaches we took in their training given their differing backgrounds.

ATHLETE SUMMARIES Micah Hegerle - Hammer 66.15m (217’1) Weight Throw 21.95m (72’1) - Dodge Center, Minnesota Micah came to Minnesota from a

small town in southern Minnesota having thrown the high school discus 189’5 and the high school shot put 56’11. Although he had a multi-sport background, he was relatively new to formal training, sprinting and jumping mechanics and intensive weight lifting.

He began to hammer in his initial fall semester at Minnesota while also throwing the discus and shot put. By spring we were focusing primarily on hammer and discus. After a strong redshirt campaign in the hammer and continued improvement, his focus continued more towards hammer with very limited discus work.

During his career, he won two Big Ten titles in the hammer, two Big Ten titles in the weight and earned All-American honors six times between hammer and weight.

Jon Lehman – Hammer 66.40m (217’11) Weight Throw 22.98m (75’4) - Coon Rapids, Minnesota Jon Lehman came to Minnesota from a Twin-Cities suburban high school where he played multiple sports. As a junior in high school his personal best in the discus throw was 150’, which by Big Ten standards is substantially lower than a typical recruit, so he was brought on primarily based on his size, athleticism, reputation from coaches and his academic success. He played football in high school had a solid background in weight training, but not in throwing event specific training. Although he threw the discus in his first year at Minnesota, it was always our belief that if he could develop into a Big Ten/NCAA Championship level competitor that it would be in the hammer and weight throw. Lehman ended his career as our school record holder in the weight throw

Table 1. includes data on training age (i.e. years spent training for the event prior to their personal best), competition personal bests with the 7.26k hammer, the 35lb weight, and training distance ranges in meters for various weighted implements used in a practice setting.

10

techniques AUGUST 2016

Collegiate Hammer Throw

Table 2. includes personal best progressions for each athlete with the 7.26k hammer for the 5 seasons preceding their current personal best.

and an All-American honoree three times between hammer and weight.

Quentin Mege – Hammer 67.49m (221’6) Weight Throw 20.36m (66’10) – Chelles, France Quentin Mege came to Minnesota as a transfer student from a university in France. When he arrived in Minnesota, he already owned a personal best with the 7.26k hammer of 63.05m and had been throwing hammer since he was 12 years old. Having participated in athletics in a club setting from an early age he was very skilled in sprint and jump mechanics and was well versed in many of the activities we test at Minnesota, such as the standing long jump, standing triple jump and overhead back. This made his transition into the system seamless. He would end his carrier with a best of 67.49m, although it should be noted a serious hand injury limited his senior season, where I believe he would have thrown near or above 70m had he remained healthy. Mege graduated from the program with two Big Ten titles in the hammer, two All-American honors and the Gophers school record.

Gian Lorenzo Ferretti – Hammer 69.65m (228’7) Weight Throw 20.96m (68’9) – Caponnoli, Italy Gian joined us in Minnesota in the winter of 2014 and redshirted the indoor 12

techniques AUGUST 2016

and outdoor seasons. He came into the NCAA with a personal best with the 7.26k hammer of 67.39m, so needless to say he also had a quality background in the event having begun at 14 years old.

Interestingly, although Gian and Mege both joined us from Europe, they came with very different training backgrounds.

Mege was versed in more general track activities from a young age such as the sprint drills, jumping and multi-throw activities that we test, whereas Gian spent minimal time on those activities in his training. He was instead focused primarily on Olympic weightlifting and special strength. So, the activities we train and test have been a transition and something we believe he can continue to improve. At the time of this article being written, his personal best is 69.65m with the hammer and 20.96m with the 35lb weight with two NCAA seasons remaining. In his first season competing for the program, he broke Mege’s school record and earned his first All-American honor in the outdoor season.

THROWING DATA See Table 1.

One major difference between the two groups is evident when examining training ranges with varying implements.

Where competition bests range only

3.5m between all the throwers, ranges with training implements both heavier and lighter range as far as 7m. I believe this is where training age and “growing up” with the event is most evident in the data. The first time the international throwers picked up a hammer they were in their early teens and the implement for their age group was quite light. As they learned the event they also gradually added strength through natural maturation and training. The ‘feel’ for the event, a nuanced and complex factor in the throw to describe and develop, started at a young age and had time to evolve gradually. On the other hand, when the U.S. athletes first picked up the hammer they were much older, relatively strong, and didn’t have the luxury of time to develop this nuanced feel for the event to the same degree as their counterparts.

At Minnesota, the training implements chosen for each thrower’s session is determined by two major factors that I’ll call skill acquisition and training phase suitability. We choose what to throw based on what implement the athlete can learn best with (skill acquisition) as well as which implement will most effectively prepare them for the phase of training we are in (training phase suitability). For example, Mege had relative-

ly low numbers in the weight room, so a primary focus was placed on heavier implements to improve his strength.

His training allowed him to perform a high volume of throws with heavy implements and still maintain quality technique. He was already technically efficient, so we felt the most significant improvements would come through a focus on getting both stronger in the weight room, and specifically stronger through throwing heavy hammers.

One might assume that an athlete with above average general strength should focus on lighter implements to gain a feel for the event, but with Jon Lehman, we did not take that approach. Lehman had no background in the hammer and didn’t require additional general strength improvements. Therefore, his primary area of focus was in a skilled acquisition. Lehman still trained hard in the weight room and his particular strength regimen, but we found that throwing heavy hammers was the most effective way for Lehman to develop his technique. His training implements did not dip below a 6.8k hammer very often and went as high as full-length 10k

hammers. Lehman was quite strong, and so he learned better with heavier implements that he could “feel.” For a strong 6’5 270lb athlete who was new to the event, an implement as light as the 5k hammer was nearly impossible to throw in such a way where technique could be maintained. He did throw hammers as light as 6k on occasion, but it is fair to say that he trained primarily in a range between 6.8k and 9k the majority of his career.

Another point to note is the throwers with the lowest hammer competition bests had significantly further marks in the weight throw. The pros and cons of the weight throw and its role in hammer throwing development can be argued in a separate article, but some clear extremes are evident in the personal bests within the group. For example, Lehman had the best 35lb weight throw mark of the group by far, yet he could not throw the 5k hammer in a technically sound way. The international throwers, however, had incredible “feel” for the light implements and could maintain quality technique even at the incredibly fast speeds required

to throw a 5k far. Their technique ruled the day with light implements, but they were unable to throw as effectively with implements as heavy and short as the 35lb weight. Weight performances are impacted by measures like the throwers height, wingspan, body weight and strength arguably more than the hammer, so although the international throwers weight throw marks were solid, they did not reach the same levels as their hammer bests.

Training volume and implement selection are key decisions when laying out a training plan for any collegiate hammer thrower. The event itself arguably allows the athlete to perform more practice attempts per session than any other throwing event. One issue with taking a lot of throws is sessions become long and throwing the same implement 30-40 times with no variety can become boring, both mentally and physically. Utilizing a variety of implements within a session can help keep a practice fresh, but more importantly, it allows the athlete to maximize training phase suitability by giving multiple options for hammer selection.

AUGUST 2016 techniques

13

Collegiate Hammer Throw

Table 3. Includes data on height in feet, body weight ranges, wingspan of the arms, and weight room data.

Table 4. Includes personal bests in various testing exercises performed in fall training.

For our international throwers here at Minnesota we consistently utilized three to four implements per session to keep them engaged over the course of a 30-plus throw session. These hammers would be selected primarily for the purpose of training phase suitability since their skill was already well established.

Having a range of hammers allowed the athlete to build specific strength, but also allow for technical considerations. For example, in a working phase (October-December) their focus would likely be on heavier hammers, but to keep a feel for the competition hammer they may throw something close to or at 7.26k. Closer to the peak phase of the season (May-June) they would spend a higher percentage of the practice with light hammers to develop the speed and feel needed in competition.

In addition to the international throwers’ superior abilities with light hammers, they also found it much easier to switch between different weighted implements within a practice. This is an 14

techniques AUGUST 2016

area of contrast to highlight between the two groups. In general, the international throwers could seamlessly throw as many as four or more different hammers within a practice session with no adaption issues. For example, an international thrower’s practice might include throws of 10x9k, 10x8k, and 10x7.26k.

They could complete this session with few, if any, transition throws (i.e. throws where the thrower struggles to adapt their timing and technique to a different implement). Given the same workout, the U.S. athletes would struggle with switching hammers and would end up spending several throws “finding” their throw on each new implement and would be performing poor technique in the meantime. This wasted time and energy and created frustration for both the athlete and coach. Over time, I found it more effective to limit practice to 1-2 different weighted implements in order to maximize skill acquisition and minimize wasted transition reps.

The ability, or lack thereof, to effectively

transition between training implements resulted in two very different approaches in training. In a given session the international throwers often took approximately 25-35 throws utilizing three different implements. The U.S. athletes took 15-25 and did so spread across only two implements. Training age and established skill in the event allowed the international throwers to maintain their technique as they fatigued late in the practice, and also allowed them to adjust quickly to changes in implement weight. With less established technique, the U.S. athletes were unable to produce quality attempts when fatigued. I believe this approach served both groups well.

Since the U.S. throwers took nearly 30-percent fewer throws in a particular phase, they spent that saved time on additional drills, turns and specific strength in a more productive way than when spending time taking poor quality throws while fatigued.

Finally, it is also important to note that the training ranges indicated in Table #1

Collegiate Hammer Throw

represent the athletes’ bests. With greater training age and a better established technique, the international throwers were more consistent in hitting these ranges, whereas the U.S. athletes were much more sporadic in their training distances.

PERSONAL BEST PROGRESSIONS: See Table 2.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. athletes increased their personal bests much quicker than the international throwers who has improvements which were more incremental. The dramatic increase in personal bests with the U.S. athletes was likely due as much to technical improvements as to general and specific strength improvements.

The slower, more incremental improvement of the international athletes, is more indicative of steady improvements in strength with a relatively consistent technique. As with any personal best progression, especially with young athletes, it is important to consider outside influences on performance such as injuries, academics and broad fluctuating 16

techniques AUGUST 2016

personal circumstances.

WEIGHT ROOM TESTING See table 3

TRACK TESTING: See table 4 The two athletes who best exemplify the differences between international and typical U.S. hammer throwers are Jon Lehman and Quentin Mege. Lehman was 6’5 with a 6’6 wingspan and quite strong. Mege was 6’2 with a 6’2 wingspan and comparatively less strong.

Mege was incredibly technical, smooth and consistent after 12 years training for the event. Lehman was powerful and aggressive, but less technically sound.

If Mege represented an A+ effort in technique, then Lehman represented a B, in large part due to his inexperience.

Although it may seem oversimplified, the fact that they threw comparable distances comes down to anthropometrics and the ability to generate power.

Lehman was bigger and stronger and possessed longer levers than Mege.

Technique and learning the event was

the main focus for Lehman, but in a complex event that must be learned in a short period, there are often limitations.

Lehman was able to overcome his lack of training age with length, power and solid technique given his 5-year timeline.

The main differences between the two groups of throwers are the volume of throws taken and the amount of varying weighted implements used in each session. All the athletes performed what we consider a fairly balanced approach to training, including technical sessions, specific strength, fairly intensive weight training and various types of track activities including the sprints, jumps and multi-throws. The power that the U.S. athletes possessed allowed them to own superior weight throw bests, but limited their feel for the hammer, especially with light training implements.

Conversely, the advanced training age and outstanding technique of the international throwers did not translate to NCAA level weight throw performance and did allow for superior hammer feel.

Although considerable differences existed between these two groups, both were able to continue to improve in a collegiate system here at Minnesota, having maintained a balanced approach across many training activities. The differences in training backgrounds and technical ability led us to focus more on skill acquisition for the U.S. throwers, while athletic and strength development, both general and specific, was the focus for the international throwers.

Lynden Reder has been the Men’s Throws coach at the University of Minnesota for eight years. During that time he’s developed 15 All Americans and multiple Big Ten Champions. Coach Reder can be reached at velaasa@gmail.com.

Becky Miller photo

Strength & Conditioning Program design fundamentals

By John M. Cissik

20

techniques AUGUST 2016

kirby lee photo

AUGUST 2016 techniques

21

strength & conditioning

I

t’s not unusual for a track and field coach to be a little lost and a little frustrated with their strength and conditioning program. Some programs are gifted with access to individuals who really understand the sport and can assist with this aspect. Others have access to individuals who know football better and have challenges with understanding the needs of a track and field athlete.

With that in mind, this article is going to provide some fundamental thoughts to help guide the track and field coach in the design of strength and conditioning programs for their athletes. These fundamentals are: • Apply the principles of training • Prioritize • Keep it in perspective • Link strength and conditioning to track and field training • Periodize

Apply the principles of training The principles of training have to be applied to any training program for it

to be a successful one. Briefly, these principles are: Specificity: Specificity states that the body adapts to exercise according to the manner in which it is exercised. This applies to the muscles, joints and movements that are trained. In addition, it applies to energy systems and even to velocities of movement. This means that training programs have to be intentionally designed to help the athlete accomplish his or her goals.

Overload: The overload principle states that once the body adapts to exercise, we have to find ways to make the exercise more difficult in order to force the body to continue adapting. In other words, to become stronger, you have to lift heavier weights as your strength increases. If you continue to lift the same weights, your gains will plateau and then reverse.

Progression: The principle of progression views an athlete’s career as a series of steps, each of which builds on the one that came before it. This

means building a fitness base at the beginning of the year, learning exercise techniques and mastering fundamental movements before advanced ones, etc.

Prioritize On the surface, strengthening and conditioning has become very complicated and confusing over the last decade. Ten to fifteen years ago the focus was on lifting weights, such as learning the techniques of the foundational movements like the clean, snatch, squat, and bench press.

Nowadays, there is a myriad of tools, and the marketing that accompanies them makes one think that they are all essential to the training of the track and field athlete.

To further complicate matters, track and field athletes don’t just lift weights. In addition to training in the weight room and on their event, they also travel, compete, go to school, work and have personal life interfere with everything. All of this means there is a very limited amount of time

Qualities

Less than 10 seconds All out effort Low volume High intensity

8-20 seconds All out effort Moderate to low volume Moderate to high intensity

Greater than 20 seconds Submaximal effort Moderate to high volume Moderate intensity

Strength

Maximal strength training

Power training

Hypertrophy training Conditioning

Speed

Acceleration

Maximal velocity

Speed endurance

Plyometrics

Single effort jumps

Multiple jumps Single effort jumps with a run-up

Bounds for distances

Throws

Single effort throws, no run-up

Single effort throws with a run-up

Reactive throws

Table 1: Sample showing how different aspects of training can be linked according to physical qualities.

In table 1, you can see that strength training with a maximal strength focus links up well with acceleration work, single effort jumps, and single effort throws. On the other hand, hypertrophy or conditioning-focused strength training links up well with speed endurance work, bounds for distances, and reactive throws (for example, a timed medicine ball chest pass).

An example of this kind of linked training can be seen in table two. This is a program for a sprinter. If it were a different type of athlete (for example, a thrower) then the workouts would be different.

22

techniques AUGUST 2016

that an athlete has for training. This also means the athlete has a limited ability to recover from that training.

If a coach isn’t careful, they can use so many different tools in a strength and conditioning program to where they build an entirely ineffective program. At the end of the day, strength and conditioning exists to help the athlete perform better in his or her event, it’s a means to an end and not the end. Track and field athletes need to be stronger, and they need to be able to express that strength quickly and they need to be able to apply all of that to their event.

If a program focuses on those three things, then it’s going to be a solid program, if it gets off course and loses focus then it’s going to be a waste of the athlete’s time.

keep it in perspective Strength and conditioning is only one tool to help improve a track and field athlete’s performance.

Remember, our focus is on how well the athlete performs in his or her event and not on their weight room numbers. There are a lot of athletes who perform very well in the weight room, but who cannot perform in their events.

Keeping things in perspective becomes imperative as athletes become higher level and start to approach their genetic limits. As athletes become stronger, it becomes more difficult to continue to increase their strength. As athletes approach their limits, it also increases the likelihood of an injury from training. This means

that a coach needs to determine realistically how much strength his or her athletes need, at which point they should carefully weigh whether adding five more pounds to lift is going to be worth the risks to the athlete.

Link the training A track and field athlete uses such a large variety of training tools and approaches that it is tough to balance everything out.

They may sprint, condition, jump, throw, train for mobility, use core training, work on their flexibility, lift weights, etc. The list is very long. Within each training tool, there are different things that can be focused. For example, in sprinting we can focus on acceleration, maximum velocity, speed endurance, resisted sprinting, assisted sprinting, etc.

This makes it very difficult to juggle a training program for a track and field athlete. Ideally, training should be put together so that all of the parts support and complement each other.

If a coach is not careful, though, then it could be put together in such a manner that the parts interfere with each other.

One approach to this is to consider what kinds of qualities we want to train and put the training together in a way that groups them together. The table below shows some examples of doing this.

Periodize Periodization is one of those topics that people overcomplicate. It’s about a long-term approach to program design designed to make sure that the AUGUST 2016 techniques

23

strength & conditioning

Monday (Short duration, all out effort focus)

Tuesday (recovery, mobility and core work only)

Wednesday (Moderate duration, all out effort focus)

Thursday (recovery, mobility and core work only)

Friday (Long duration, submaximal effort focus)

Strength

Back squats, 3x48x85% Romanian deadlifts, 3x4-8 Bench press, 3x48x85% Bent-over rows, 3x4-8 Military press, 3x4-8

N/A

Power snatch, 3x3x70% Power clean, 3x3x70% Kettlebell pulls, 3x6

N/A

Front squats, 3x8-12x70% Partial deadlifts, 3x8-12x80% Lunges, 3x12-15 each leg Good mornings, 3x12-15 Reverse hypers, 3x15-20

Speed

Standing starts, 2x3x20 meters

N/A

Block starts, 2x3x80 meters

N/A

Standing starts, 2x150 meters

Plyometrics

Standing long jump, 10x

N/A

Triple jump, 5 step run-up, 10x Box jumps, 3x10 meters

N/A

Bounds, 2x100 meters

Throws

Behind back medicine ball toss, 10x

N/A

N/A

N/A

Medicine ball chest pass against wall, 3x30�

Table 2: Sample week long program showing how to link the training program for a sprinter.

Period

Time period

Off-season Precompetition Competition #1 Off-season #2 Competition #2 Restoration

August through November December and January February through mid-March Mid-March through mid-April Mid-April through July July

Table 3: Sample organization for a collegiate sprinter’s training year.

24

techniques AUGUST 2016

strength & conditioning

Period

Time period

# Weeks

Mesocycles

Off-season

August through November December and January February through mid-March Mid-March through mid-April Mid-April through July July

16

1, 2, 3, 4

7

5, 6

5

7

Off-season #2

4

8

Competition #2

13

9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Restoration

2

14

Precompetition Competition #1

Table 4: Breaking the training year into manageable blocks of training.

Period

Goals

Off-season #1

Develop strength, hypertrophy, power base Develop technical base for all the exercises Develop acceleration, maximal velocity, and speed endurance base

Precompetition

Peak strength and power Peak speed qualities Race strategies

Competition #1

Maintain strength, power Peak speed

Off-season #2

Correct flaws that were revealed in the indoor season Peak strength, power, speed

Competition #2

Maintain peak

Table 5: Developing goals for each time period of training.

athletes are at their physical best at the right times. While this is being done the training is also balanced so that the athletes don’t become overtrained or burned out. One of the challenges with periodization for the track and field athlete is that it involves every aspect of his or her training, not just lifting weights.

There are several steps to follow when designing a periodized program. These include: Organize the calendar Decide on the goals for each part of the calendar

26

techniques AUGUST 2016

Determine the training means and methods for each part of the calendar Based on #2-#5, write the first four weeks Write the next four weeks as you are halfway through the first four Etc.

Organize the calendar When organizing the calendar, start with when the athlete will be competing. The time around this is your competition period of training.

Usually, four to six weeks before the competition phase is a pre-compe-

tition period. The rest of the year is your offseason. Table three shows an example of this for a collegiate sprinter. Note that there are two competition periods (Indoors and Outdoors).

Once the calendar is organized, I like to organize each of these periods into two to four-week blocks of training. It helps to make things more manageable. Table four shows an example. The classic periodization literature calls these mesocycles, so for the sake of simplicity I’m keeping that terminology here.

strength & conditioning Goal

Tools

Variables

Increase hypertrophy

Free weights Kettlebells Heavy ropes Bodyweight exercises

2x per week, 3 sets of 8-15 repetitions

Increase strength

Free weights Kettlebells

1x per week, 3-5 sets of 4-8 repetitions at 80-90% of 1-RM

Increase power

Free weights Vertical jumps Horizontal jumps Medicine ball throws

2x per week Free weights: 3 sets of 3-6 repetitions at 60-70% of 1-RM Plyometrics: 10-15 foot contacts or throws per exercise

Increase acceleration

Falling starts Standing starts Crouching starts Stride length drills

1x per week 1-3 sets of 2-4 repetitions of up to 20 meters

Increase maximum velocity

Falling starts Standing starts Stride length drills Stride frequency drills Bounds

1x per week 1-3 sets of 40-80 meters

Increase speed endurance

Standing starts

1x per week 1-3 sets of 100-300 meters

Table 6: Selecting the tools for each goal, sample off-season period.

Goals Once you have the big picture of the training program, it’s time to decide on goals for each period.

This is important, and a frequently overlooked, step. If this is done it will save a lot of time later on when it comes to writing the program.

Table five shows an example of goals for each period.

Means and methods Once we know where our training is going, then it’s appropriate to start thinking about how we’re going to get there. This involves everything from thinking through the tools, to looking at programming variables in a very general sense. Table six shows an example of how to do this for the first offseason period.

Writing workouts Once all the above has been done, it’s time to write the workouts while also keeping in mind every-

28

techniques AUGUST 2016

thing that has been covered in this article. Begin with the first four weeks, write this out in detail.

Don’t bother writing the rest of the program because real life is going to interfere with any plan that is longer than four weeks. If you have done all the steps that have been outlined, then you have enough information to be able to effectively write the other parts of this program.

When you get half-way through the first four weeks, then sit down and write the next four weeks.

Remember, test the athlete and assess how they are reacting to the program. Then make adjustments as necessary.

Strength and conditioning can be a tool to help improve a track and field athlete’s performance.

It is also the kind of tool that is subject to misinformation and marketing which can make its effective use challenging for the track and field coach. When using

strength and conditioning, it’s important to apply the principles of exercise, prioritize training, keep it in perspective, link it to the rest of the training program so that all the components support each other, and to organize the program deliberately.

John M. Cissik has been involved in strength and conditioning for more than twenty years, from commercial fitness, corporate fitness, universities, the Olympic level and administration. He has written ten books on strength and conditioning and is a past contributor to techniques.

Group-Centered Coaching Addressing the Whole Team

Marshall J. Milbrath, M.Ed., M.Ed.

34

techniques AUGUST 2016

kirby lee photo

AUGUST 2016 techniques

35

group-centered coaching

W

e live in an era of athletecentered coaching. Athletecentered coaching aims to educate and positively influence the athlete in body, mind and spirit. This practice is rooted in a focus on individuals as they strive for unmet potential in an effort to seek self-fulfillment (Lombardo, 1987).

As coaches, we aim to do this as we plan and conduct our training sessions.

We do this to ensure that our athletes are training appropriately for both the events in which they compete and for their individual developmental states.

However, this coaching of the body is only part of athlete-centered coaching.

Even the most detailed and appropriately derived training programs can fall flat when athletes are not prepared with the knowledge (mind) or the proper attitudes (spirit) for training and competition. Creating an environment where athletes are motivated and believe in their ability to perform is integral in addressing these remaining parts of the athlete-centered coaching approach.

It has been long acknowledged that there is no one “right” way of coaching.

An approach could be wildly successful one year only for it to be rendered ineffective the next (Warhurst, 1984). One reason for this might change in the team environment. Focusing on the training environment requires attention to all of its external influences, including the collective group of athletes involved.

As coaches, we rightfully attune ourselves to the needs of individual athletes. However, these needs can, and are, influenced by the team as a whole.

Group dynamics has been a prominent area of research in the field of social psychology. This article addresses some of the group dynamics that can affect cross-country teams and provides recommendations for how the coach can create a beneficial group dynamic.

Productive, Confident, and Cohesive: The Makings of a Successful Team Productivity and Team Size As coaches, recruitment is a large part of the job. Especially in high school settings, one of the challenges is to recruit interest for cross-country and to build a sizeable roster to increase the

36

techniques AUGUST 2016

chances of finding talent and to also create depth. Indeed, Vigil has stated time and time again in coaching clinics, “The halls of your schools are filled with champions. It’s your job to find them” (Vigil, 2016). As we build our team rosters, we may have thoughts of “the more [athletes], the merrier,” “two heads are better than one,” or “many hands make light work,” (Albert V. Carron & Brawley, 2006). But opposite points of view state “Three is a crowd,” “Too many cooks spoil the broth,” or “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link,” (Steiner, 1972). We know of this idea that more is better, but others suggest that less is more.

So what is a coach to do? Studies in social psychology have examined group size and its effects on sport team dynamics. Steiner’s theory of group productivity (1972) sheds some light on this issue. Steiner suggests that each group setting has an optimal group membership. As a group grows, it increases in productivity until it gets to this optimal number. The reason for this is intuitive; an increased number of people increases the ability to benefit from a wide range of personal abilities. With a crosscountry team, this can be witnessed by teams who cast a wide net. They are more likely to bring in athletes who are predisposed to distance running, as well as athletes who have the physical abilities to withstand the rigors of distance running training. We also see this with teams that have extraordinary depth.

Not only are they more likely to find the athletes who contend for individual championships, but they are also able to place high caliber runners consistently in the fourth and fifth team positions, which is critical for team success.

Some studies in social psychology have given evidence, however, that sometimes a team can be too large.

Once an optimal number has been reached, the productivity experienced by the group begins to level off. There are several reasons for this. First, there is the possibility that the increase in size creates barriers in interaction and communication (Albert V. Carron & Brawley, 2006). Considering this, the planning and coordination of each person’s role becomes more difficult, and senses

of individual purpose may begin to decrease for individual members on the team. This is demonstrated by evidence showing that as a team size increases, perceptions of cohesiveness (which will be addressed further later), feelings of enjoyment, of influence, of responsibility and of organization decrease (A. V. Carron, Brawley, & Windmeyer, 1990).

Steiner’s model suggests that these attitudes result in a drop in overall productivity for each group member.

This largely occurs because group efficiency decreases and, in larger groups, individual members begin to exhibit less effort than they would if they were in a smaller group (Albert V. Carron & Brawley, 2006). This phenomenon is referred to as social loafing. Research on social loafing has suggested that it reliably occurs across a wide range of activities, including sport (Karau & Williams, 1993). Signs that social loafing may occur include: • individuals’ performances cannot be evaluated independently, • tasks are low in meaningfulness, • individuals’ personal involvement is low, • comparison of individuals’ effort against group standards is not possible, • individuals within a group are strangers to each other, • individuals’ teammates are expected to do well • individuals believe that personal efforts are not necessary for the success of the group (Karau & Williams, 1993).

Harkins and colleagues (1980) identified four reasons why this might happen: 1) people save their best efforts for solitary work because it is most beneficial, 2) people are motivated to get by with as little effort as possible, 3) people do not believe their efforts are necessary for success, and 4) people do not want to provide a free ride for others.

This section has identified ways that group size can affect team environments. Indeed, we can likely think of successful teams who are both large and small. The purpose of this section is not to suggest that there is a magic number that will grant our teams success. We understand that for each unique team, a unique approach

group-centered coaching

to match it is necessary. This section intends for the coach to examine her or his environment and think purposefully about the size of the team and how it benefits her or his overall mission and philosophy. The following section will now look at some of the related attitudes that can be affected by group size and who this applies to a coach.

Confident through Collective-Efficacy Efficacy in general is a measure of how confident someone is that an objective can be accomplished, or that the required skills for a goal to be carried out successfully (Albert V. Carron & Brawley, 2006). Collective efficacy, as it implies, is the collective competence shared among individuals in a group that share a common goal (Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995). This sense of collective efficacy positively related to increased performance (Gully, 2002). How does the coach use this to her or his advantage?

Collective efficacy is effected by five 38

techniques AUGUST 2016

main influences: 1) prior performance, 2) vicarious experiences, 3) verbal persuasion, 4) leadership, and 5) cohesion (A. V. Carron & Eys, 2012). A coach can use these influences to increase collective efficacy, which may help foster success on a team.

Prior performance is largely considered one of the most powerful sources of efficacy (A. V. Carron & Eys, 2012).

When a group is successful, it begins to form expectations for future success. A reliable relationship between successful performance and collective efficacy has been well-established. The cross-country coach can make use of this by providing experiences in which she or he is confident the athletes will be successful. This might include creating training sessions that are well within the athletes’ abilities or entering the team in meets where they are likely to finish near the top or even win. As the team’s collective efficacy increases, the level of difficulty that can be used to provide successful experience also increases.

Vicarious experiences are developed by seeing the success of a team that is similar in competence, ability or other important characteristics (McCullagh, 1987). A coach can foster this by having the team compare themselves to successful teams who are similar to themselves. Other methods might include using live or symbolic models as modeling influences (Bandura, 1986).

Live modeling might include watching a comparable team at a meet against an upcoming opponent. This can be accomplished by having athletes demonstrate skill or exercises that are a regular part of the training program. Symbolic modeling might involve watching a training film or even a movie about an influential runner with whom the athletes can relate.

This might also be implemented by using credible instructional videos (Carron & Eys, 2012).

Verbal persuasion, or encouragement and support from others, is effective at developing collective efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Some theories have suggested that kirby lee photo

effective leadership acts as a source of persuasion and develops the beliefs of a group just as much as prior experiences (Zaccaro et al., 1995), but this has not been validated to date. Although, it is still common for coaches to use inspirational messages or speakers to develop team confidence (Carron & Eys, 2012).

The validity of the positive relationship between verbal encouragement and collective efficacy is not strong. On the other hand, this technique’s ability to boost self-efficacy of individual athletes is well demonstrates its usefulness in coaching (Bandura, 1986). This can be accomplished by regularly providing individual positive reinforcement in training and in competition.

Leadership also contributes to collective efficacy (Zaccaro et al., 1995).

Athletes have preferences for specific types of leadership behaviors.

Experiencing these preferred leadership behaviors lends confidence in the leadership and ultimately themselves as a team (Watson, Chemers, & Preiser, 2001). Literature that has examined athletes’ preferred leadership styles has found that, overall, athletes prefer leadership styles that are in some ways democratic (e.g., Cuka & Zhurda, 2006; Hastie, 1993, 1995). However, there is evidence to suggest that these preferences may vary with some athletes preferring a leadership style that is more autocratic (Lindauer, 2000). To best foster collective efficacy, it is advisable that the coach should be aware of the styles of leadership to which her or his team will be most responsive and aim to provide that kind of leadership.

Lastly, group cohesion and collective efficacy appear to be related. Suggesting that using coaching strategies to increase collective efficacy will likely result in a more cohesive team and vice versa (Spink, 1990). As the following section addresses specifically what can affect cohesion on a team, it is important to recognize that the above characteristics may influence cohesion as collectiveefficacy is developed. Likewise, the below characteristics that may affect cohesion may also influence group-efficacy as cohesion on a team increases.

United through Cohesion Cohesion describes the “togetherness” or the unity of a group (Carron & Eys, 2012).

This has been widely studied in the world of social psychology. Cohesiveness can be generally defined as a dynamic process where a group sticks together and remains united in pursuit of its goals and objectives (A. V. Carron, 1982). This bonding comes from two main orientations, a task orientation that relates to the group’s tasks or purpose, and a social aspect that relates to the development of sustained social relationships (Albert V. Carron & Brawley, 2006). Therefore, cohesiveness can be rooted in commitment to do a task well, or in a social commitment to the team itself. Both of these orientations have been shown to contribute to the success of a team, but also have some unique characteristics.

Studies that have measured the prevalence of these two types of cohesiveness have found that, in sport, task orientations of cohesiveness tend to develop early with social orientations developing later (A. V. Carron et al., 1990). These studies point out that in sport, there is usually a strong emphasis on the physical objectives of the group rather than on purposeful development of a social identity. It has been hypothesized purposefully integrating social interaction may allow for accelerated development of social cohesiveness.

So why is this important for the coach?

A review of 46 studies on cohesiveness has shown an association with team success for both men and women, across several types of sports (e.g., independent or dependent), and across levels of competition from elementary through elite (A. V. Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). Additionally, this review also suggests that neither task nor social cohesiveness has yet been found to be more effective than the other in fostering success on the team. This suggests that a coach should develop cohesiveness, either task or social, within her or his team. Understanding what influences cohesiveness can help develop this important part of the team environment.

Situational effects of cohesion A team’s unique situation has effects on cohesion. This includes team culture, group size and purpose (A. V. Carron & Eys, 2012). The following paragraphs address how these factors affect team cohesion.

Cultural considerations are rooted in

the expectations and nature of a team setting. In some settings, expectations are set through the use of contracts. This external factor can keep a team bonded together, though be it by obligation (A. V. Carron & Eys, 2012). While few crosscountry runners find themselves committing to a formal contract, this can still be successfully implemented within a team. Freeman (2009) described the use of a ‘team covenant’ or a document of expectations for team involvement that was developed by the captains of the team and signed by the entire team. For Freeman’s coaching context, this sealed a bond between all members of the group. Practices like this also create normative pressures, or pressures to exhibit the agreed upon appropriate conduct, which also contributes to the team’s culture. These normative pressures keep individuals bonded to the group and the mission of the group, especially considering the cultural expectation of commitment, and breaking that commitment, as either through lack of effort or by quitting, would be looked down upon.

Group size, as mentioned earlier can have effects on the functioning of a group. Part of this is through its effect on cohesion. Windmeyer and colleagues (1990) found that as group size increased, the level of task cohesion decreased. Additionally, it found that as group size increased, social cohesion also increased before decreasing when the group size became presumably too large. This suggests that groups of intermediate sizes may foster the highest levels of social cohesion. As stated earlier, this article does not aim to prescribe the optimal size for a cross-country team as this number likely varies between situations. But as a coach makes judgements on the optimal size for her or his team, it is advisable to consider how cohesion within a group may be affected by the size of the roster.

Lastly, the purpose of the team can have an impact on cohesion as well and can affect task and social cohesions differently. Spink & Carron (1994) found that exercise settings where the group was primarily focused on performance was more task-cohesive in comparison to recreational groups who were more socially-cohesive. Additionally, unifying a group around a common purpose has been shown to resolve a conflict between AUGUST 2016 techniques

39

group-centered coaching groups which could reasonably suggest that it increases cohesion (Sherif, 1956). It is important for the coach to recognize that the environment she or he creates will likely affect the level and type of team cohesion. This also highlights the importance of creating a sense of purpose to unite the team.

Personal effects of cohesion refer to characteristics of the individuals who compose the group. The sharing of these characteristics influences the cohesiveness of the group as a whole. Personal effects addressed here include social cognitions, attitudes, and group behaviors.

Social cognitions refer to psychological traits that characterize a person’s thoughts and expectations (Bandura, 1997). One such cognition is how an athlete attributes success and failure.

Attributions to success and failure refer to whom the team gives credit for team outcomes. A team that has low cohesiveness is more likely to blame teammates for failure while taking disproportionate amounts of credit for successes (Weiner, 1986).

Conversely, cohesive teams are more likely to attribute success to the efforts of the group, while refraining from singling out teammates in the aftermath of failure. Further psychology studies (e.g., Weiner, 1979) have shown that individuals who blame others for failure are poor self-regulators which are associated with poor performance. To foster individual success and develop team cohesion, the coach may benefit from implementing self-regulatory strategies (e.g., Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005) teaching athletes to use training logs may help teach proper attribution skills (e.g., Milbrath & Humble, 2014, 2015).

Shared attitudes that affect cohesion include feelings of satisfaction and anxiety. In general, people feel more satisfied and less anxious when they experience feelings of belongingness (Baumeister, 1995). These attitudes and emotions within sports teams are no exception and are also related to social cohesion within teams. Multiple studies have revealed that satisfaction grows (Williams & Hacker, 1982; Windmeyer & Williams, 1991) and

40

techniques AUGUST 2016

debilitating anxiety is reduced (Eys, Hardy, Carron, & Beauchamp, 2003; Prapavessis & Carron, 1996) when teams are high in social cohesion.

Assessing the satisfaction and anxiety of the athletes, therefore, can be a great way to get a sense of the cohesiveness in a team. Additionally, there is also an emphasis on the importance of creating purposeful and positive social interactions for your team. These interactions foster social cohesion and satisfaction while also helping reduce senses of anxiety.

Lastly, shared group behavior can affect cohesion within a team. Two group behaviors that share a relationship with cohesion are adherence to the team and sacrifice behavior.

Adherence is the tendency for members of a group to stick together and is a sign that a team is highly cohesive (Carron & Eys, 2012). Teams that are high in adherence are less likely to be late or absent for team events (A. V. Carron & Eys, 2012) and are also more likely to give maximal effort during training (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997a).

Additionally, individuals on teams high in adherence are more likely to return for future seasons (Spink, 1995, 1998).

The second behavior, sacrifice, also has a positive relationship with cohesion. In general, a member of a group is more attracted to a group if she or he is asked to sacrifice something to benefit the whole group (Zander, 1982). Research shows that sacrifices by individuals and teammates in practice or competition result in the largest increases in task cohesion (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997b).

While witnessing these characteristics is a sign that a team is cohesive, the coach can also teach these group behaviors to foster an environment of cohesion. Other psychological research demonstrates very reliably that attitudes are affected by actions, even if those actions are out of obligation (Festinger, 1962; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). In other words, people tend to shift their attitudes to be in favor with tasks they are asked to do. While as coaches, we optimally want to foster intrinsically motivated teams, setting and enforcing expectations for timeli-

ness, presence, effort and selflessness carry likelihood of facilitating self-driven behaviors of adherence and sacrifice which can increase social cohesion in your team.

Recomendations for coaching This article has provided a brief overview of the group dynamics that can affect a cross-country team. The recommendations from the research presented in this article uses sources from a vast range of studies across multiple group settings. Like any body of research, while overall effects are witnessed and reported, and also largely explain the majority of social interaction in groups, we recognize that variability between individuals exists. It is important to recognize that as coaches, it is not our responsibility to demand congruence from our athletes with the scientific literature.

Instead, we are to use our understanding of the literature as a starting point by which we direct training taking into account the uniqueness of the group.

This article provides likely explanations for changes in group productivity, collective-efficacy and team cohesion. Knowledge of what affects these group characteristics enables a coach to address them as is appropriate for her or his team.

Acknowledgement The Author would like to thank Dr. William Woody of the University of Northern Colorado for his expertise and feedback in the formation of the article.

References Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hill.

Baumeister, R. F. (1995). Disputing the effects of championship pressures and home audiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 644–648.

Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport

group-centered coaching Psychology, 4, 123–128.

Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2006).

Group dynamics in sport and physical activity. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in Sport Psychology (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Windmeyer, W. N. (1990). The impact of group size on an exercise setting. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 376–387.

Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002).

Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 168–188.

Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. (2012).

Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.).

Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Cuka, A., & Zhurda, Y. (2006). The athletes’ preferences for coaching style.

Journal of Research in International Council for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport, and Dance, 42(2), 22–25.

Eys, M. A., Hardy, J., Carron, A. V., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2003). The relationship between task cohesion and competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 66–76.

Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207, 93–107.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203.

Freeman, W. (2009, January). Why an athlete-centered training model works.

Presented at the 2009 National Distance Summit, Charlotte, NC. Retrieved from http://www.distancesummit.com/NDRS/ Lecture_Staff.html Gully, S. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators or observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819–832.

Harkins, S. G., Latané, B., & Williams, K. (1980). Social loafing: Allocating effort or taking it easy? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 457–465.

Hastie, P. A. (1993). Coaching preferences of high school girl volleyball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77(3f), 1309–1310.

42

techniques AUGUST 2016

Hastie, P. A. (1995). Factors affecting coaching preferences of secondary school volleyball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80(1), 347–350.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993).

Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.

Lindauer, J. (2000). A comparison of preferred coaching leadership behaviors of college athletes in individual and team sports (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of WisconsinLaCrosse, LaCrosse, WI. Lombardo, B. (1987). Coaching in the 21st century: Issues, concerns and solutions. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

McCullagh, P. (1987). Modeling similarity effects on motor performance.

Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 249–260.

Milbrath, M. J., & Humble, K. W. (2014). Using training journals to increase motivation and performance.

Olympic Coach, 25(4), 11–28.

Milbrath, M. J., & Humble, K. W. (2015). Implementation plan for training journals used to increase motivation and performance. Olympic Coach, 26(2), 4–19.

Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1996). The effect of group cohesion on competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 64–74.

Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997a). Cohesion and work output.

Small Group Research, 28, 294–301.

Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997b). The role of sacrifise in the dynamics of sport teams. Group Dynamics, 1, 231–240.

Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Scientific American, 195, 54–58.

Spink, K. S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 301–311.

Spink, K. S. (1995). Cohesion and intention to participate of female sport team athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 416–427.

Spink, K. S. (1998). Mediational effects of social cohesion on the leadership intention to return to sport. Group Dynamics, 2, 92–100.

Spink, K. S., & Carron, A. V. (1994).

Group cohesion effect in exercise groups.

Small Group Research, 25, 26–42.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Vigil, J. I. (2016, January). Crosscountry running and training philosophy. Presented at the 2016 American Distance Project American Distance Summit, Colorado Springs, CO. Warhurst, R. (1984). Training for the mile. Track & Field Quarterly Review, 84(3), 31.

Watson, C. B., Chemers, M., & Preiser, N. (2001). Collective efficacy: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 1057–1068.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3–25.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer Verlag.

Williams, J. M., & Hacker, C. (1982).

Causal relationships among cohesion, satisfaction, and performance in women’s intercollegiate field hockey teams.

Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 324–337.

Windmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1990). The effects of group size in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 177–190.

Windmeyer, W. N., & Williams, J. M. (1991). Predicting cohesion in a coacting sport. Small Group Research, 22, 548–570.

Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy.

In J. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 305–328).

New York: Plenum.

Zander, A. (1982). Making groups effective. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Self-Regulated Learning.

In Handbook of Competence and Motivation (pp. 509–526).

Marshall Milbrath is a PhD student in Sport Pedagogy at the University of Northern Colorado. Milbrath has 7 years of coaching experience at both high school and college levels.

ustfccca supporters

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.

ucsspirit.com connorsports.com

beynonsports.com

hokaoneone.com

rekortanspurtanadvpolytech.com stockmeier-urethanes.com

mccallumplace.com balfour.com gotracktownusa.com

gillathletics.com

richeyathletics.com 44

techniques AUGUST 2016

directathletics.com

active-stretch.com

ucsspirit.com mfathletic.com

asicsamerica.com coachesdirectory.com

trainingpeaks.com vsathletics.com

mondoworldwide.com athleticsuniverse.com

prolam.biz

maxmedals.com

elliptigo.com

AUGUST 2016 techniques

45

46

techniques August 2016

kirby lee photo

Running Injuries how to fix (prevent) them Adam Tenforde, MD

R

unning injuries are quite common. The resulting limitations from injuries on successful participation in running have a negative impact on the overall health and well-being of the runner. As a former All-American runner at Stanford University and professional athlete, I have seen firsthand many runners sustain injuries and the overall negative impact of these injuries.

Following my running career, I completed medical school, residency, and sports fellowship at Stanford Medical Center and have focused my research and clinical interests on evaluation, treatment and prevention of running injuries. This includes research on risk factors and injury prevention strategies in high school, collegiate and post-collegiate runners.

Now in my current role as Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School as a physician at Spaulding National Running Center and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, I have an outpatient sports medicine practice and specialty clinic focused exclusively on runners. My clinical and research interests continue to focus on treatment and prevention of running injuries, given my enjoyment of the sport.

In this article, I offer my perspective on methods to optimize health and reduce the risk for injuries within runners. This is grounded in best research practice but also takes into account the practical experiences I had as a former professional runner. First, I review known risk factors for injury.

Following, I discuss how to manage these injuries with a goal for prevention.

AUGUST 2016 techniques

47

running injuries Risk Factors for Injury Overuse running injuries can include soft tissue conditions including tendon disease, joint pain, patellofemoral pain, and bone stress injuries. The cause of most running injuries is multifactorial.

I classify contributors to overuse running injuries as a combination of factors including biology, biomechanics and anatomy.

The most important biological contributor to overuse injuries in females is the Female Athlete Triad. This is described as the interrelationship of nutrition and menstrual health on bone mineral density (Nattiv 2007). The Triad is common and can affect runners at any age.

The primary cause of the Triad is low energy availability, defined as the difference in energy intake to energy expenditure standardized to metabolically active tissue (Loucks 2007). Although low energy availability can be accompanied by disordered eating or an eating disorder, in many cases the cause of low energy availability is from accidental or unintentional under fueling. For example, an athlete who has a small breakfast, normal lunch and dinner may have times during the day with insufficient calories consumed to maintain the demands of sport and overall metabolic function.

The resulting changes from low energy availability included changes in metabolic and reproductive hormones, including reduced sex hormone estradiol (Ihne and Loucks 2004). Additional changes from low energy availability include reduced sensitivity to growth hormones, suppressed metabolism with reduced thyroid function and elevated stress hormone cortisol. This may manifest as irregular menstrual periods or cessation of menses (amenorrhea) and reduced bone mineral density.

The Triad has been shown to be a risk factor for both musculoskeletal overuse injuries and bone stress injuries (Rauh 2010, Tenforde 2013, Barrack 2014).

Therefore, identifying the Triad in an athlete with running injuries is important to ensure the underlying biology contributing to her injury has been identified and treated.

48

techniques AUGUST 2016

In conjunction, I recently proposed that male athletes may experience a similar process (Tenforde 2016). As with female athletes, male athletes with inadequate nutrition may have lower sex hormones including testosterone and reduced bone mineral density.

While this has been reported in some male athletes, the true prevalence and biological underpinnings have yet to be fully explained. However, this informs my focus on encouraging good nutrition for both female and male runners.

In both male and female runners, nutrition including energy availability, calcium, and vitamin D intake remain critical to optimize bone health and overall recovery from demands of sport and prevent injury.

Sleep quality may also contribute to injury, although these have not been clearly defined within runners. Runners and the military are both populations that are at high-risk for bone stress injuries. One military investigation identified that a subset of 18 year old males who were assigned to sleep deprivation made to sleep in a vertical position over a three-day period had an increase in bone turnover and 5 percent reduction in bone mass over one week (BenSasson 1994). A separate study mandating six hours of sleep in the military along with training modifications reducing cumulative weekly marching during basic military training resulted in 62 percent reduction in developing a stress fracture (Finestone 2008).

Training variables including mileage and running on harder surfaces have been suggested as contributors to overuse injuries. However, a clear threshold of running volume to cause injury has not been fully described. Additionally, increased training volume likely improves performance so a reduction in running volume without clear reason may be met with undesirable consequences of reduced fitness.

The biomechanics of running injury have been explored by many investigators. At Spaulding National Running Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts we have one of only a few centers in the U.S. focused exclusively on treating runners. I have an outpatient running

medicine clinic to evaluate injuries and ensure optimal treatment is provided.

The director of the Spaulding National Running Center is Dr. Irene Davis, who has completed over two decades of research focused on running injuries.

She applies her expertise to evaluation and management of these injuries in each runner.

Our approach to managing runners is to ensure soft and well-aligned landings to reduce the impact on joints, muscles, tendons and other structures. The goal is to address an injury and prevent future overuse injuries from developing.

Dr. Davis has demonstrated that with patellofemoral pain, poor hip strength can contribute to impaired alignment of the hip in relationship to the knee.

When the hip is strengthened in isolation, the running mechanics may not be fixed due to the higher demands of running (Willy and Davis, 2011). Dr. Davis has shown that gait retraining is possible to improve the alignment and function of runners with patellofemoral pain and other overuse injuries in the lower extremity.

Second, higher impact loading (the rate of force delivered to the leg when initially contacting the ground) has been shown to contribute to overuse injuries in runners (Davis 2015). Higher impact loads are typically identified in runners with a heel strike pattern. Heel rear foot strike patterns have been observed in a majority of runners. These impacts can be reduced through changing the way the foot strikes the ground, and running with a more forefoot strike pattern.

The overall anatomy of a runner may contribute to injury. This includes deficits in strength, flexibility, alignment and other considerations. For example, some runners have a leg length discrepancy that may contribute to mechanics of a running injury. The difference in leg length may be the result of a functional or apparent or structural leg length discrepancy. The former difference in leg length may be due to strength or flexibility issue such as poor abdominal or gluteal muscle strength that changes the position of the pelvis and causes one leg to appear a different length than the other. Some runners may have a

running injuries true difference in leg length due to a history of fracture or congenital contributors.

The contributors of anatomy to bone stress injuries have also been described. In females, the presence of reduced calf girth, or leg length discrepancy, may predispose to development of a bone stress injury (Bennell 1996). Bone geometry has also been described as a contributor to bone injury, although this is difficult to evaluate in a clinical setting, it does highlight the importance of optimizing bone density and strength to reduce the risk of injury.

Evaluation and Management of an Injury Effective management and prevention of injuries is critical and runners.

This is especially considering the limitations that running injuries create, there is a high rate of injury and reinjury. Here, I outline my approach and take a management of running injuries. Additionally, the goal of my research is to keep runners healthy, so I also outline my thoughts on injury prevention.

The key to effective management of a running injury is to identify the underlying cause(s) and address each to facilitate a safe and optimal return to play and reduce the risk of reinjury.

When I see a runner, I take a detailed history characterizing running history, including training variables such as mileage, and their competition schedule. I obtain detailed past running and overuse injuries, while also asking about prior orthopedic injuries and medical issues that can contribute to an injury.

On physical exams, I take a comprehensive approach to evaluating each injury. In addition to evaluating static alignment, I will request the patient perform a single leg squat to get a better sense for their overall lumbopelvic strength and mechanics of the kinetic chain. Foot mechanics are also important to evaluate to ensure optimal foot strength and balance. I also will

50

techniques AUGUST 2016

evaluate the anatomy at the site of the primary injury.

Management of the injury depends on the type and location of the injury. An acute ligament injury or bone stress injury may require initial immobilization or non-weight bearing to facilitate healing. In contrast, most tendon and joint conditions may require activity modification to reduce pain. In most cases, physical therapy to restore biomechanics and correct movement patterns is important to facilitate a safe return to running. A short course of anti-inflammatory medications may be reasonable initially, although long-term use is not desirable and does not fix the underlying cause of pain. Addressing the underlying biological, biomechanical, and other considerations is important to facilitate a safe return to sport and reduces the risk of future injuries.

Biology I routinely will screen for the Triad in athletes. For any female athlete who I have concern for a bone stress injury, I will obtain additional information on risk factors including eating habits and behaviors, menstrual history (including the age of menarche and history of irregular menstrual periods), prior bone stress injuries or diagnosis of low bone mineral density.

Any athlete who meets the moderate or high-risk categories for the recently published Female Athlete Triad Coalition statement on return to play (De Souza 2014) is further evaluated by a bone endocrinologist who has expertise in evaluating and managing the Triad. This often includes obtaining blood work, a bone density scan, and visiting with a nutritionist to ensure energy requirements and other important micronutrient needs are being met.

For male athletes, there is limited research on who to screen for impaired bone health. I will consider further workup including obtaining DXA scan for male athletes with a history of recurrent bone stress injuries

or those who sustain a fracture at higher risk sites, including the sacrum or pelvis.

I recommend all athletes meet the Institute of Medicine requirements for calcium and vitamin D. The calcium recommendations for athletes ages 9-18 is 1300 mg of calcium daily. For pre-menopausal females and male athletes under age 70, recommendations for calcium are 1000 mg daily.

Vitamin D requirements are 600 IU daily, although some medical providers will advocate for additional supplementation.

To meet calcium requirements, I recommend obtaining calcium intake from food sources, as foods rich in calcium are often fortified with vitamin D and have other important components to bone health, including providing a source of calories, protein and other micronutrients. For those without dairy or milk allergy, I advocate for obtaining food through milk or dairy products. One study showed that for each additional cup of skim milk consumed reduced fracture risk by 62 percent (Nieves 2010)! In contrast, Vitamin D intake can be difficult to obtain by diet alone and is reasonable to take a supplement to ensure adequate intake.

Biomechanics When a runner has an injury, I evaluate training history. This includes changes in training volume, intensity, running surface or use of new footwear or racing patterns. However, a model of attributing running injuries to training errors is too simplistic and often misses other complex contributors to injury. Additionally, non-specific advice to “run less� without clear evidence or direction is too simplistic and may not allow runners to achieve optimal fitness.

Therefore, my evaluation will consider both the influence of training and evaluate the biomechanics of the joint, tissue or bone that contributed to the injury. This is often achieved through formal physical therapy. For

running injuries

any athlete, it’s always important to consider the full kinetic chain and address all factors that contribute to an injury. For example, when I evaluate knee pain in a runner I also consider the influence of the spine, hip and foot/ankle as each region may result in abnormal mechanics and forces on the knee that contribute to the injury.

Most runners achieve better mechanics and function through formal physical therapy. I choose physical therapy programs with medical providers are accustomed to working with athletes. While the goal of “PRICE� (Protection, Rest, Ice,

52

techniques AUGUST 2016

Compression and Elevation) may be reasonable for initial management of certain injuries, telling the athletes what he or she can do is just as important.

Cross-training is important to maintain aerobic fitness for runners. A runner with access to a pool can typically perform deep water running for most injuries. Land-based cross-training including elliptical trainer or stationary bike can usually be incorporated into treatment once an athlete is without weight bearing restrictions.

Runners can also be predisposed to recurrent injuries. When an athlete has a history of recurrent or multiple

injuries, I often explore further evaluation and treatment including gait evaluation at the Spaulding National Running Center. During our two-hour evaluation, we collect instrumented treadmill values of impact loading.

Our runners are videotaped running in their preferred standard shoes and running mechanics are comprehensively reviewed to understand the cause of their injury. This evaluation includes a physical therapy evaluation of strength and flexibility issues.

Treatment for runners who choose gait retraining is executed in two stages. The first stage is the preparatory phase where the emphasis is address-

kirby lee photo

ing strength and flexibility deficits. Once runners meet criteria to transition to gait retraining, the focus is on improving both alignment and changing foot strike patterns to reduce impacts. Dr. Davis has demonstrated that running with a forefoot strike pattern using minimalist running shoes reduces impact loading. Higher impacts have been shown to contribute to many overuse injuries, including tibia bone stress injuries and other overuse running injuries.

Prevention Much of my research has focused on prevention of running injuries, primarily with a focus on optimizing bone health. My practical recommendations include developing optimal strength, flexibility and mechanics to improve overall running patterns. I am also addressing biological factors including sleep and nutrition.

In all runners, nutrition is important for both health and running performance. Female runners should be aware that changes in menstrual periods, including increased time between periods or cessation of menses during training, is not a normal physiological response to exercise. Changes in menstrual function are concerning for inadequate nutritional intake to meet the demands of sports participation and require further evaluation with a sports medicine provider familiar with runners. Male runners arguably can have similar deficits in their health in the setting of suboptimal nutrition although this can be more challenging to evaluate. I recommend male runners with unexplained recurrent injuries, especially fractures be seen by a sports medical provider that will evaluate nutrition along with other potential causes of injury.

Additionally, calcium and vitamin D intake are both critical to health.

Male and female runners ages 9-18 require 1300 mg of calcium and 600 IU vitamin D. Pre-menopausal females and males under 70 require 1000 mg of calcium and 600 IU vitamin D. Recommendations are 1200 mg of calcium daily for post-menopausal females and male runners over 70 given increased the risk for osteopenia or

osteoporosis. Calcium intake from diet is typically recommended as a primary source of calcium, especially given that foods rich in calcium are often fortified with vitamin D, represent a good source of energy (calories), and have other important macronutrients including protein and phosphorus. Skim milk has been shown to reduce the risk of fracture in young adult females, with each additional cup of skim milk consumed per day reducing the risk for fracture by 62 percent (Nieves 2010). While runners typically get sun exposure from running outside, this is not sufficient to meet vitamin D needs. Dietary supplements are reasonable to ensure adequate vitamin D intake.

Finally, the value of quality sleep cannot be overemphasized. Most Americans do not get adequate sleep, and runners have increased demands to obtain sleep to optimize recovery from both demands of sport and overall life. Impaired sleep has been shown to cause up to 5 percent bone loss within one week, and this could place runners at increased risk for fracture when combining with demands of running (BenSasson 1994).

Biomechanics of runners can affect alignment and impacts encountered during running. An excessive impact has been shown to increase the risk of running injuries (Davis 2015). Abnormal mechanics from poor core strength, along with foot mechanics including excessive pronation, as well as other muscle strength and flexibility deficits may also contribute to injury risk. In general, I advocate for strengthening programs to incorporate both lumbopelvic core strengthening (including abdominal muscles and gluteal muscles) along with the foot core (McKeon, 2014) consisting of foot strengthening exercises (both extrinsic muscles of calf, tibialis anterior and peroneal muscles) along with the smaller muscles that make up four layers of muscle in the foot. While foot orthotics and different types of shoes to provide support are viewed as ways to modify mechanics, I would advocate for ensuring the strength of the foot and overall mechanics are first addressed.

During childhood and adolescence,

peak bone mass is gained (BaxterJones). Across studies in different forms of sports, runners do not see consistent gains in bone mass and strength compared to other athletes (Tenforde and Fredericson, 2011). In contrast, sports involving jumping and multidirectional loading including ball sports may reduce fracture risk when performed at a young age (Fredericson 2005, Tenforde 2013). Therefore, encouraging a variety of sports, including ball sports during childhood and early adolescence may improve bone quality and reduce the risk of fractures, especially if performed for more than two years (Tenforde 2015).

Finally, periodization of training and body awareness (where each athlete is told to “listen to your body�) typically allows for an appropriate increase of training volume while still reducing the risk of injury. Approaching sports medicine care through a multidisciplinary team to ensure the wellbeing of runners may result in greatest long-term success in our sport.

In summary, running injuries are common and occur at a high rate. Best treatment and prevention of injuries includes optimal nutrition, sleep, optimizing bone and muscle strength, and ensuring optimal biomechanics for each runner.

Dr. Adam Tenforde is a physician who specializes in non-surgical sports medicine. He completed his training in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Stanford with training on management of musculoskeletal conditions affecting the spine, joints, and tendons. Additionally, he completed a sports medicine fellowship at Stanford. Prior to becoming a physician, Dr. Tenforde was an All-American long-distance runner and contributor to multiple national championship teams at Stanford and competed as a professional athlete at the Olympic Trials. He provides care as part of the Running Medicine subspecialty clinic at the Spaulding National Running Center.

AUGUST 2016 techniques

53

2016 ustfccca national OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year NCaa Division i

LANCE HARTER ARKANSAS WOMEN’S HEAD COY

MIKE HOLLOWAY FLORIDA MEN’S HEAD COY

CURTIS TAYLOR OREGON WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

KRIS GRIMES TEXAS A&M MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

COURTNEY OKOLO TEXAS WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

JARRION LAWSON ARKANSAS MEN’S TRACK AOY

KETURAH ORJI GEORGIA WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

LINDON VICTOR TEXAS A&M MEN’S FIELD AOY

NCaa Division ii

RUSS JEWETT PITTSBURG STATE WOMEN’S HEAD COY

GEORGE WILLIAMS SAINT AUGUSTINE’S MEN’S HEAD COY

JOE LYNN HILLSDALE WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

BRIAN MANTOOTH PITTSBURG STATE MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

EMILY OREN HILLSDALE WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

BURKHEART ELLIS JR SAINT AUGUSTINE’S MEN’S TRACK AOY

HEAVIN WARNER CENTRAL MISSOURI WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

GARRETT APPIER PITTSBURG STATE MEN’S FIELD AOY

NCaa Division iii

CHRIS SCHUMACHER ILLINOIS WESLEYAN WOMEN’S HEAD COY

JOSH BUCHHOLTZ UW-LA CROSSE MEN’S HEAD COY

MILES KETCHUM WPI WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

TYLER YAMAGUCHI OCCIDENTAL MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

AMY REGAN STEVENS WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

LUKE CAMPBELL SALISBURY MEN’S TRACK AOY

AMELIA CAMPBELL CARLETON WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

LUKE WINDER NORTH CENTRAL MEN’S FIELD AOY

NAIA

KREGG EINSPAHR CONCORDIA WOMEN’S HEAD COY

DOUG EDGAR INDIANA TECH MEN’S HEAD COY

ED MCLAUGHLIN CONCORDIA WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

BRIANNA WOODS INDIANA TECH WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

SAM ATKIN LEWIS-CLARK STATE MEN’S TRACK AOY

LIZ KING CONCORDIA WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

KALE WOLKEN DOANE MEN’S FIELD AOY

njcaa Division i

DENNY MYERS IOWA CENTRAL CC WOMEN’S HEAD COY

CHRIS BEENE SOUTH PLAINS MEN’S HEAD COY

NIGEL BIGBEE IOWA CENTRAL CC WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

WILLIE CALVIN HINDS CC MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

LEANNE POMPEANI IOWA CENTRAL CC WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

FESTUS LAGAT GILLETTE MEN’S TRACK AOY

JANEAH STEWART IOWA CENTRAL CC WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

FABIAN EDOKI SOUTH PLAINS MEN’S FIELD AOY

njcaa Division iii

MATTHEW FRENCH SUFFOLK COUNTY CC WOMEN’S HEAD COY MEN’S HEAD COY

LAUREN BISCARDI SUFFOLK COUNTY CC WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

KENNETH RUDDICK SUFFOLK COUNTY CC MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

ALI GUTT HARPER WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

ADAM BRAUER HARPER MEN’S TRACK AOY

MONYEA EARLY PRINCE GEORGE’S CC WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

LAITH KANAN HARPER MEN’S FIELD AOY

division i 2016 ustfccca regional OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year great lakes region

SUE PARKS EASTERN MICHIGAN WOMEN’S HEAD COY

JERRY CLAYTON MICHIGAN MEN’S COY

MIKE MCGUIRE MICHIGAN WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

TOMASZ SMIALEK AKRON MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

JOE COMPAGNI MONMOUTH MEN’S COY

JULIE CULLEY GEORGETOWN WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

GABRIELLE FARQUHARSON TONY TENISCI RUTGERS PENN WOMEN’S TRACK AOY MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

GARY PEPIN NEBRASKA MEN’S COY

CARJAY LYLES MISSOURI WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

JUSTIN ST. CLAIR NORTH DAKOTA STATE MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

RALPH LINDEMAN AIR FORCE MEN’S COY

CLIFF FELKINS TEXAS TECH WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

GILES MCDONNELL UTAH STATE MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

CINDY OFILI MICHIGAN WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

CLAYTON MURPHY AKRON MEN’S TRACK AOY

KELSEY CARD WISCONSIN WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

CHUKWUEBUKA ENEKWECHI PURDUE MEN’S FIELD AOY

THOMAS AWAD PENN MEN’S TRACK AOY

DANNIELLE GIBSON PENN STATE WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

SAM MATTIS PENN MEN’S FIELD AOY

ERIN TESCHUK KAHMARI MONTGOMERY NORTH DAKOTA STATE MISSOURI WOMEN’S TRACK AOY MEN’S TRACK AOY

AKELA JONES KANSAS STATE WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

NICK MILLER OKLAHOMA STATE MEN’S FIELD AOY

COURTNEY FRERICHS NEW MEXICO WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

HANNAH CARSON TEXAS TECH WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

CHARLES BROWN TEXAS TECH MEN’S FIELD AOY

mid atlantic region

KEVIN DONNER BUCKNELL WOMEN’S HEAD COY

midwest region

MATT BINGLE MINNESOTA WOMEN’S HEAD COY

mountain region

WES KITTLEY TEXAS TECH WOMEN’S HEAD COY

56

techniques AUGUST 2016

JAMIEL TRIMBLE AIR FORCE MEN’S TRACK AOY

NORTHEAST region

JASON SARETSKY HARVARD WOMEN’S HEAD COY

ADRIAN DURANT CORNELL MEN’S COY

KEBBA TOLBERT HARVARD WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

ZEB LANG CORNELL MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

AUTUMNE FRANKLIN HARVARD WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

BRENDON RODNEY LIU BROOKLYN MEN’S TRACK AOY

NIKKI OKWELOGU HARVARD WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

RUDY WINKLER CORNELL MEN’S FIELD AOY

SOUTH region

BOB BRAMAN FLORIDA STATE WOMEN’S HEAD COY

DEAN HAYES MIDDLE TENNESSEE MEN’S COY

STEVE LEMKE FLORIDA WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

TIM HALL TENNESSEE MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

FELICIA BROWN TENNESSEE WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

BRANDON MCBRIDE MISSISSIPPI STATE MEN’S TRACK AOY

KETURAH ORJI GEORGIA WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

MAICEL UIBO GEORGIA MEN’S FIELD AOY

SOUTH CENTRAL region

LANCE HARTER ARKANSAS WOMEN’S HEAD COY

CHRIS BUCKNAM ARKANSAS MEN’S COY

CHRIS JOHNSON ARKANSAS WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

KRIS GRIMES TEXAS A&M MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

COURTNEY OKOLO TEXAS WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

NETHANEEL MITCHELL-BLAKE LSU MEN’S TRACK AOY

LEXI WEEKS ARKANSAS WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

LINDON VICTOR TEXAS A&M MEN’S FIELD AOY

SOUTHEAST region

EDRICK FLOREAL KENTUCKY WOMEN’S HEAD COY

DAVE CIANELLI VIRGINIA TECH MEN’S COY

SHAWN WILBOURN DUKE WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

BOB PHILLIPS VIRGINIA TECH MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

JASMINE CAMACHO-QUINN KENTUCKY WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

TEVIN HESTER CLEMSON MEN’S TRACK AOY

MEGAN CLARK DUKE WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

TREY MCRAE CHARLOTTE MEN’S FIELD AOY

WEST region

ROBERT JOHNSON OREGON WOMEN’S HEAD COY

GREG METCALF WASHINGTON MEN’S COY

CURTIS TAYLOR OREGON WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

JOHN FRAZIER UCLA MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

OLIVIA BAKER STANFORD WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

IZAIC YORKS WASHINGTON MEN’S TRACK AOY

TARASUE BARNETT GRAND CANYON WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

PAU TONNESON ARIZONA MEN’S FIELD AOY

AUGUST 2016 techniques

57

division iI 2016 ustfccca regional OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year atlantic region

LENNOX GRAHAM JOHNSON C. SMITH WOMEN’S HEAD COY

GEORGE WILLIAMS SAINT AUGUSTINE’S MEN’S HEAD COY

AKIL STOKES MILLERSVILLE WOMEN’S ASSISSTANT COY

GLENN THOMPSON SHIPPENSBURG MEN’S ASSISSTANT COY

TIA-ADANA BELLE SAINT AUGUSTINE’S WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

BURKHEART ELLIS JR SAINT AUGUSTINE’S MEN’S TRACK AOY

SHAKINAH BROOKS SAINT AUGUSTINE’S WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

BRYAN PEARSON SHIPPENSBURG MEN’S FIELD AOY

central region

RUSS JEWETT PITTSBURG STATE WOMEN’S HEAD COY

BRYAN SCHIDING KYLE RUTLEDGE BRIAN MANTOOTH MISSOURI SOUTHERN PITTSBURG STATE PITTSBURG STATE MEN’S HEAD COY WOMEN’S ASSISSTANT COY MEN’S ASSISSTANT COY

BREANNA COLBENSON MINNESOTA DULUTH WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

VINCENT KIPROP MISSOURI SOUTHERN MEN’S TRACK AOY

HEAVIN WARNER CENTRAL MISSOURI WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

GARRETT APPIER PITTSBURG STATE MEN’S FIELD AOY

LEO MAYO JOE VAN GILDER JOSEPH NAPOLI AMERICAN INTERNA- SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT GEORGIAN COURT TIONAL WOMEN’S ASSISSTANT COY MEN’S ASSISSTANT COY MEN’S HEAD COY

CARLY MUSCARO MERRIMACK WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

LEAKEY KIPKOSGEI AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL MEN’S TRACK AOY

DESTINEY COWARD SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

MICHAEL BRAZZEL GEORGIAN COURT MEN’S FIELD AOY

JOHNNIE GUY SOUTHERN INDIANA MEN’S TRACK AOY

JAMIE SINDELAR ASHLAND WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

DARIEN THORNTON GRAND VALLEY STATE MEN’S FIELD AOY

east region

KAREN BOEN STONEHILL WOMEN’S HEAD COY

midwest region

JERRY BALTES GRAND VALLEY STATE WOMEN’S HEAD COY MEN’S HEAD COY

58

JOE LYNN GRAY HORN HILLSDALE TIFFIN WOMEN’S ASSISSTANT MEN’S ASSISSTANT COY COY

techniques AUGUST 2016

EMILY OREN HILLSDALE WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

2016 ustfccca regional division iI OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year south region

SCOTT BYRD SHORTER WOMEN’S HEAD COY

LINCOLN LONDON CLAFLIN MEN’S HEAD COY

JESSICA COUSINS AUSTIN WARNER NOVA SOUTHEASTERN NOVA SOUTHEASTERN WOMEN’S ASSISSTANT COY MEN’S ASSISSTANT COY

TRISANA FAIRWEATHER CLAFLIN WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

ALFRED CHELANGA SHORTER MEN’S TRACK AOY

CHRISTINA ALBANA SHORTER WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

KALEB DANIELS BENEDICT MEN’S FIELD AOY

south central region

BRADLEY GAMBLE CHADRON STATE WOMEN’S HEAD COY

ROCK LIGHT ADAMS STATE MEN’S HEAD COY

MATT STEWART CHRIS SIEMERS WEST TEXAS A&M COLORADO MINES WOMEN’S ASSISSTANT COY MEN’S ASSISSTANT COY

GEORGIA PORTER WESTERN STATE WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

LUIS PEREZ ANGELO STATE MEN’S TRACK AOY

NORMA CUNIGAN WEST TEXAS A&M WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

JERON ROBINSON TEXAS A&M-KINGSVILLE MEN’S FIELD AOY

southeast region

JIM VAHRENKAMP QUEENS WOMEN’S HEAD COY

TSEHAYE BANEY MATTHEW VAN LIEROP JACKIE KIRBY QUEENS MOUNT OLIVE MOUNT OLIVE WOMEN’S ASSISSTANT COY MEN’S ASSISSTANT COY MEN’S HEAD COY

NIKIA SQUIRE QUEENS WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

KEVIN SNEAD CARSON-NEWMAN MEN’S TRACK AOY

JAYNELL BROWN UNC PEMBROKE WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

ISAIAH KYLE WINGATE MEN’S FIELD AOY

west region

KARL LERUM SEATTLE PACIFIC WOMEN’S HEAD COY

KEVIN REID AZUSA PACIFIC MEN’S HEAD COY

RYAN VIERRA WERYAN MCWILLIAMS CAL STATE STANISLAUS ALASKA ANCHORAGE WOMEN’S ASSISSTANT MEN’S ASSISSTANT COY COY

JOYCE CHELIMO ALASKA ANCHORAGE WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

KHALLIFAH ROSSER CAL STATE LA MEN’S TRACK AOY

ALLIE UPDIKE AZUSA PACIFIC WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

JUSTIN BALCZAK AZUSA PACIFIC MEN’S FIELD AOY

AUGUST 2016 techniques

59

division iII 2016 ustfccca regional OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year atlantic region

SAM ALBERT ROCHESTER WOMEN’S HEAD COY

DUSTIN DIMIT ROWAN MEN’S HEAD COY

JOHN LYNCH RPI WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

JOE REED SUNY ONEONTA MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

AMY REGAN STEVENS WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

JOE CARR SUNY ONEONTA MEN’S TRACK AOY

BRANDY SMITH ITHACA WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

tyler yeastedt rpi MEN’S FIELD AOY

STEVE MATHRE ST. THOMAS MEN’S HEAD COY

RICH MALENIAK ST. THOMAS WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

JOSH SCHOEN CARLETON MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

EMILY GAPINSKI ST. THOMAS WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

HART HORNOR CARLETON MEN’S TRACK AOY

AMELIA CAMPBELL CARLETON WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

JEREMY PETERSON ST. SCHOLASTICA MEN’S FIELD AOY

KEVIN LUCAS MOUNT UNION MEN’S HEAD COY

CASEY GANTT OHIO NORTHERN WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

CHRISTY SHERMAN ROSE-HULMAN MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

EMILY RICHARDS OHIO NORTHERN WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

MATT MOLINARO OHIO NORTHERN MEN’S TRACK AOY

MELANIE WINTERS BALDWIN WALLACE WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

MARCUS DOZIER DEPAUW MEN’S FIELD AOY

VINCE TOUEY WIDENER MEN’S HEAD COY

KAYLA KREGEL PENN STATE BEHREND WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

KATIE PATTERSON PENN STATE BEHREND MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

KATIE JO MCMENAMIN SWARTHMORE WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

LUKE CAMPBELL SALISBURY MEN’S TRACK AOY

REILLY WAGNER MISERICORDIA WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

MITCHELL OBENRADER PENN STATE BEHREND MEN’S FIELD AOY

central region

DONNA RICKS CARLETON WOMEN’S HEAD COY

GREAT LAKES region

JASON MAUS OHIO NORTHERN WOMEN’S HEAD COY

MIDEAST region

BOBBY VAN ALLEN JOHNS HOPKINS WOMEN’S HEAD COY

60

techniques AUGUST 2016

2016 ustfccca regional division IiI OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year MIDWEST region

JEFF STILES WASHINGTON WOMEN’S HEAD COY

KEVIN PATERSON BENEDICTINE MEN’S HEAD COY

JEFF REBHOLZ CARTHAGE WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

ANDRES YOUNG UW-PLATTEVILLE MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

DAISY OGEDE WASHINGTON WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

IAN LAMERE UW-PLATTEVILLE MEN’S TRACK AOY

AMBER WILLIAMS UW-PLATTEVILLE WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

LUKE WINDER NORTH CENTRAL MEN’S FIELD AOY

NEW ENGLAND region

GEORGE TOWLE SOUTHERN MAINE WOMEN’S HEAD COY

HALSTON TAYLOR MIT MEN’S HEAD COY

MILES KETCHUM WPI WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

NICK DAVIS MIT MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

PEYTON DOSTIE SOUTHERN MAINE WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

MITCHELL BLACK TUFTS MEN’S TRACK AOY

JACKIE VAHEY MIT WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

TRAVON GODETTE WESTFIELD STATE MEN’S FIELD AOY

SOUTH/southeast region

JOHN CURTIN EMORY WOMEN’S HEAD COY

KENNETH COX BIRMINGHAMSOUTHERN MEN’S HEAD COY

DENVER DAVIS BRIDGEWATER WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

LANCE HARDEN HANNAH CHAPPELL DICK JAMAL WATKINS EMORY EASTERN MENNONITE BIRMINGHAM-SOUTHERN MEN’S ASSISTANT COY WOMEN’S TRACK AOY MEN’S TRACK AOY

WHITNEY SIMMONS UT TYLER WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

RENN EASON RHODES MEN’S FIELD AOY

west region

GLENN STEWART CLAREMONT-MUDD-SCRIPPS WOMEN’S HEAD COY

ROB BARTLETT OCCIDENTAL MEN’S HEAD COY

CHRISTA YOUNGERN CLAREMONT-MUDDSCRIPPS WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

TYLER YAMAGUCHI OCCIDENTAL MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

MAYA WEIGEL POMONA-PITZER WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

JAKE MIHELICH LINFIELD MEN’S TRACK AOY

VAIVA PALUNAS CLAREMONT-MUDDSCRIPPS WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

COREY BURT WHITWORTH MEN’S FIELD AOY

AUGUST 2016 techniques

61

NAIA 2016 Regional Outdoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year

great lakes region

DOUG EDGAR INDIANA TECH WOMEN’S HEAD COY MEN’S HEAD COY

QUINN WHITE TAYLOR WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

AUSTIN ROARK INDIANA TECH MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

BRIANNA WOODS INDIANA TECH WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

DESHAWN WOODS INDIANA TECH MEN’S TRACK AOY

ERIN DROUILLARD AQUINAS WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

ALAIN DIXON INDIANA TECH MEN’S FIELD AOY

midwest region

ED FYE DOANE WOMEN’S HEAD COY

KREGG EINSPAHR CONCORDIA MEN’S HEAD COY

ED MCLAUGHLIN CONCORDIA WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

JENNA MOODY ROBERT IRONSHELL LIZ KING ST. FRANCIS BRIAR CLIFF CONCORDIA WOMEN’S TRACK AOY MEN’S TRACK AOY WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

JACOB ARMBURST OLIVET NAZARENE MEN’S FIELD AOY

south region

ANDY CANEGITTA MOBILE WOMEN’S HEAD COY MEN’S HEAD COY

ALEX KLUCHKI SAM ROBERTS ORENTHIA BENNETT TENNESSEE WES- TENNESSEE WESLEYAN SOUTHERN-NEW LEYAN MEN’S ASSISTANT COY ORLEANS WOMEN’S ASSISTANT WOMEN’S TRACK AOY COY

GEOFFREY KIPCHUMBA WILLIAM CAREY MEN’S TRACK AOY

JONINA BRINSON MOBILE WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

DEQUAN HARVIN WEBBER INTERNATIONAL MEN’S FIELD AOY

south central region

COLE DAVIS FRIENDS WOMEN’S HEAD COY

RYAN PITTS BAKER MEN’S HEAD COY

REMURO HENRY WAYLAND BAPTIST WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

NATALI ENGLE FRIENDS WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

TRE HINDS WAYLAND BAPTIST MEN’S TRACK AOY

GRIER GATLIN ANTHONY PIZZO SOUTHERN OREGON BIOLA HEAD MEN’S COY WOMEN’S ASSISTANT COY

DAVID MORRIS CARROLL MEN’S ASSISTANT COY

TIANA THOMAS COLLEGE OF IDAHO WOMEN’S TRACK AOY

CHELSEA BAKER FRIENDS WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

WAYNE NORTHOVER WAYLAND BAPTIST MEN’S FIELD AOY

west region

SEAN HENNING BIOLA HEAD WOMEN’S COY

62

techniques AUGUST 2016

SAMUEL ATKIN LEWIS-CLARK STATE MEN’S TRACK AOY

BECKY COLLIER WESTMONT WOMEN’S FIELD AOY

ERIC ENGLAND EASTERN OREGON MEN’S FIELD AOY

2016 junior college regional division I OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year atlantic region

Lesleigh Hogg Monroe Women’s Head COY

Chris Gafner Vincennes Men’s Head COY

Shirvon Greene Monroe Women’s Assistant COY

Tim Marsee Vincennes Men’s Assistant COY

Susan Ejore Monroe Women’s Track AOY

Mpho Makofane Monroe Men’s Track AOY

Breaisha Morton Monroe Women’s Field AOY

Jared Kern Lincoln College Men’s Field AOY

central region

David Schenek Barton County CC Women’s Head COY

Ryan Turner Butler CC Men’s Head COY

Tony Davis Barton County CC Women’s Assistant COY

Willie Calvin Hinds CC Men’s Assistant COY

Alexis Luckett Hinds CC Women’s Track AOY

Corrieon Mosby Hinds CC Men’s Track AOY

Ayesha Champagnie Barton County CC Women’s Field AOY

Mohammed Abubakar Butler CC Men’s Field AOY

midewestregion

Denny Myers Nigel Bigbee Iowa Central CC Iowa Central CC Women’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Head COY

Brad Foote Iowa Central CC Men’s Assistant COY

Danielle Riggins Iowa Central CC Women’s Track AOY

Sylvester Barus Iowa Western CC Men’s Track AOY

Janeah Stewart Iowa Central CC Women’s Field AOY

Jah-Nhai Perinchief Iowa Central CC Men’s Field AOY

west region

Keith Blackwill New Mexico JC Women’s Head COY

Chris Beene South Plains Men’s Head COY

Trinity Williams Western Texas Women’s Assistant COY

Erik Vance South Plains Men’s Assistant COY

Marleena Eubanks Central Arizona Women’s Track AOY

Reubin Walters Central Arizona Men’s Track AOY

Latavia Coombs New Mexico JC Women’s Field AOY

Fabian Edoki South Plains Men’s Field AOY

division iII 2016 junior college regional OUTDOOR coaches & athletes of the year central region

Renee Zellner Harper Women’s Head COY Men’s Head COY

Jim Macnider Harper Women’s Assistant COY

Dan Lowry Harper Men’s Assistant COY

Ali Gutt Harper Women’s Track AOY

Adam Brauer Harper Men’s Track AOY

Leah Kloss Harper Women’s Field AOY

Laith Kanan Harper Men’s Field AOY

Bryeana Rhodes Montgomery-Rockville CC Women’s Field AOY

Garrett Pynn Bergen CC Men’s Field AOY

east region

Ryan Hughes Rowan-Gloucester CC Women’s Head COY Men’s Head COY

Mark Getsinger Joe Kalnas Rowan-Gloucester Rowan Gloucester CC CC Men’s Assistant COY Women’s Assistant COY

Iyanah Hawley Union CC Women’s Track AOY

Joel Thomas Prince George’s CC Men’s Track AOY

northeast region

Matthew French Suffolk County CC Women’s Head COY Men’s Head COY

Lauren Biscardi Suffolk County CC Women’s Assistant COY

Kenneth Ruddick Suffolk County CC Men’s Assistant COY

Thea General Kingsborough CC Women’s Track AOY

Malik John Kingsborough CC Men’s Track AOY

Ebonie Lewis Suffolk County CC Women’s Field AOY

Connor Langdon Suffolk County CC Men’s Field AOY

UCS